HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2009-00010 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 3/29/2010 March 29, 2010
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2009-00010
Applicant: Rick Buechel (owner)
Parcel No. 32235-31-00170
Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel, who is the property owner
and applicant for the above-referenced Mason County Resource
Ordinance Variance has been granted approval with conditions. The
request with supplemental materials was reviewed on March 9, 2010
by the Mason County Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant to the
Title 17.01 Mason County Resource Ordinance standards, specifically
for the protection of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.
The proposal was not subject to SEPA review due to the proposal
outside of the environmentally sensitive areas per WAC 197-11-800.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency
as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact Allan
Borden, Senior Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community Development at
360-427-9670 x365.
\\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOMEWHB\WORD\Permit Reviews\Decision coversheet.doc
F A
RECEIVED
MAP 2 2010
I MCCD - PLANNING
2
3 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
4 Bio Park, Hearing Examiner pro tem
5
RE: Rick Buechel FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
6 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION'
7 Resource Ordinance Variance
(VAR 2008-00002)
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in
11 order to build a new 2,500-square-foot single-family residence within a Type Np
stream buffer, which requires a 100-foot buffer in addition to a 15-foot building
12 setback. The Hearing Examiner approves the application subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
13
14 ORAL TESTIMONY
15 Mason County Planning Department staff member, Grace Miller, entered the Staff
Report and exhibits 1-I I into the record. She briefly summarized the staff report and
16 answered questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant was not present at
the hearing, and no one else testified. The audio of the hearing was recorded and is
17 part of the record. For more details on oral testimony received, refer to recording.
18 EXHIBITS
19
See Case Index attached to the March 9, 2010 Staff Report for this variance
20 application. All exhibits were entered into the record without objections.
21 FINDINGS OF FACT
22
Procedural:
23
24 1. Applicant. The applicant is Rick Buechel.
25
1 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision
may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
{BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MAR
ae l�
1 MCC D - PLANNING
2
3 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
4 Bio Park, Hearing Examiner pro tem
5
RE: Rick Buechel FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
6 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION'
7 Resource Ordinance Variance
(VAR2009-00010)
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in
11 order to build a new 2,500-square-foot single-family residence within a Type Np
stream buffer, which requires a 100-foot buffer in addition to a 15-foot building
12 setback. The Hearing Examiner approves the application subject to conditions
recommended by staff.
13
14 ORAL TESTIMONY
15 Mason County Planning Department staff member, Grace Miller, entered the Staff
Report and exhibits 1-11 into the record. She briefly summarized the staff report and
- 16 answered questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. The applicant was not present at
the hearing, and no one else testified. The audio of the hearing was recorded and is
1 part of the record. For more details on oral testimony received,refer to recording.
18 EXHIBITS
19
See Case Index attached to the March 9, 2010 Staff Report for this variance
20 application. All exhibits were entered into the record without objections.
21 FINDINGS OF FACT
22
Procedural:
23
24 1. Applicant. The applicant is Rick Buechel.
25
'Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected by this decision
may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of
revaluation.
{BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
1 on March 09, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
2 chambers, Building I.
Substantive:
4 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant requests a variance from the
5 buffer standards to construct a new 2,500 sq. ft. residence with 1,500 sq. ft. area
within a Type Np stream buffer, adjacent to an un-named creek (Exhibit 6). The
6 required Conservation Buffer Area from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of a
Type Np stream is 100 feet, with an additional 15-foot building setback. The Type Np
7 stream buffer and building setback encompasses the eastern half of the subject parcel.
The setback distance proposed by the project is 85 feet from stream OHWM and
8 includes a 5 foot building setback distance. The 2,500 sq. ft. proposed new home will
9 occupy 1,500 sq. ft. of the buffer and building area. As part of this variance review,
the applicant proposes to re-establish 1,500 sq. ft. area of native vegetation along the
10 east side of the subject parcel as a mitigation area for occupying the stream buffer and
setback area with the new residence. The proposed project is described and mitigation
11 offered in the attached Habitat Management Plan (HMP) (Exhibit 11). The parcel is
rectangular in shape with a north to south orientation. It is approximately 1.02 acres
12 in size bisected by State Route 106, with the northern portion of the parcel abutting
13 Hood Canal. The Type Np stream parallels the east property line of the subject parcel.
It runs in a northerly direction through the parcel just to the east, and exits into the
14 saltwater near northern property line of the subject parcel. The topography of the
subject parcel is moderate to steep sloping terrain (Exhibit 5). The proposed site of
15 the residence is on relatively level terrain above the stream. Ascending grade is
16 located to the south and southwest of the planned development.
17 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is east of Union, WA along State
Route 106. Hood Canal borders the highway to the north and moderate to steep
18 slopes are on the landward side of State Route 106. The steep slopes are densely
vegetated. Development in the area to the east and west is comprised of single family
19 residences mainly along Hood Canal, as well as on the upland side south of the state
20 highway.
21 5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse impacts have been identified and
evaluated in the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). According to the HMP, the
22 project will not pose any significant impact to sensitive or threatened species, or
designated critical habitat for salmonids. There will be no native vegetation removed.
23 Noise pollution and light and glare from the project should not be significant enough
24 to disturb habitat. As a condition of approval BMP must be employed to mitigate
temporary increase in sediment and turbidity during construction. In addition, the
25 HMP recommends several mitigation measures, which, combined with additional
conditions recommended by staff, should mitigate significant adverse impacts to the
environment.
I
{BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1
2 Procedural:
3 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
4
5 Substantive:
6 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
7 Residential 5.
8 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The project is categorically
9 exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). According to staff, public notice
of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on February 16, 2010 (Exhibit
10 7) and notice was published in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 28 and
February 4, 2010. An Affidavit of Posting Notice was completed (Exhibit 8). A
1 I habitat management plan was prepared. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
12 and the Squaxin Tribe did not submit any comment.
13 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
100-foot buffer and the 15-foot building setback from the ordinary high-water mark
14 required for a Type Np stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through MCC
17.01.110. MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC
15 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Variance application from
16 Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC
15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit
17 applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the
general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable
18 Conclusions of Law.
19 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
20 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
21
5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of
22 residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to
accommodate them. Without the variance, applicant would be left with insufficient
23 buildable space for a SFR. The buffer and setback encumbers most, if not all, of the
24 northern and eastern portions of the property south of SR 106. Consequently, the
Resource Ordinance precludes the property owner's reasonable use of the property.
25
MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
{BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
t
application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
1 the applicant's own action.
2 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the protected stream
3 and its buffer, which encumbers most of the subject lot as noted above. The lot is not
otherwise restricted by deed or applicant's own action.
4
MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
5 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
6 properties or the environment.
7 7. The property is zoned rural residential 5. A single-family residence is a
permitted use in this zoning. The surrounding area is characterized by single-family
8 residential developments, and as mitigated, there appears to be no discernable adverse
impacts to adjacent properties or the environment. The proposed SFR is less than
9 40% of the area of the lot or 2,550 feet as required by Mason County Resource
10 Ordinance 17.01.150. As noted above, possible adverse impacts have been identified
and evaluated in the HMP, and mitigation measures thereto proposed. The proposal
11 also minimizes impacts by locating the improvements in an area affected by past
land-clearing activities. The structures and septic system are proposed to be the
12 greatest possible distance from the stream given the configuration of the lot,
topography, and existing access road. Enhancement of the buffer shall include the
13 replanting of native shrub and tree species on the east side of the property, to provide
14 stabilization, wildlife habitat, and prevent invasive species from becoming established
near the stream and new residence. As part of the mitigation, a three-year monitoring
15 plan shall control the invasion of non-native plant species and maintain the successful
growth of native plantings on the parcel.
16
MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
17 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
18 necessary to afford relief.
19 8. SFR's are allowed in RR-5 zone. For these reasons, the variance does not
constitute a grant of special privilege. The size of the proposed SFR is within the
20 limitations of the Resource Ordinance. According to staff, use on neighboring lots is
21 similar. The proposed placement of the dwelling is the most logical choice in that it
places the structure as far away as possible from the resource. The proposed SFR is
22 much smaller than 40% of the area of the lot or 2,550 feet. For these reasons,
approval of the variance will be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
23
MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
24
25 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and condition of the Type Np
stream, as well as in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property.
As mitigated in the HMP and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the
(BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
project's adverse impact on environmental resources should be minimal; therefore,
I the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
2 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
3 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
4 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
5 shall not justify a variance.
6 10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would not be restricted from
building a SFR on the site meeting the minimum reasonable use for a residence in a
7 residentially zoned area. Without the variance, the applicant will not be able to build
within the resource ordinance buffer. If the applicant cannot build within the resource
8 ordinance buffer, he cannot build a SFR on the site meeting the minimum reasonable
use for a residence in a residentially zoned area. Given that the size of the lot is
9 suitable for a SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate one, and the surrounding
10 neighborhood is characterized by such developments, the property owner would lack
a reasonable use of his land without a variance. The proposal is not inconsistent with
11 any other Mason County Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan,or the GMA.
12 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
proposed development according to the following criteria:
13
14 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
15
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
16 in the public interest.
17 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
18 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
19
11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report,the project is consistent with
20 the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR
21 developments at the subject location. As noted previously, as mitigated the project
should not harm environmental resources. It, therefore, does not adversely affect
22 public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. As further noted in the
Staff Report, the development will not lower the level of service for transportation or
23 neighborhood park facilities. As the project progresses, a geological assessment will
need to be submitted for proposed development per the Mason County Resource
24 Ordinance 17.01.110 Landslide Hazard Areas. Furthermore, the proposal will need to
25 meet the requirements of Title 6 when the proposed septic system is reviewed by the
Environmental Health Department prior to building permit issuance; this will be a
condition of variance approval. Otherwise, the proposed development meets the
remaining requirement and intent of the Mason County Code.
(BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I DECISION
2 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
3 identified and recommended in the Staff Report dated March 9, 2010 for VAR2009-
00010, and, to the extent that they are not in conflict with the foregoing conditions,
4 those in the Habitat Management Plan prepared for this project.
I
5
6 Dated this 23rd day of March, 2010.
7
8 Bio Park
Hearing Examiner pro tem
9 Mason County
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{BFP775560.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I
CASE INDEX
Rick Buechel
Resource Ordinance Variance
VAR2009-000010
Exhibit# Date Description
1 March 9, 2010 Staff Report
2 November 23, 2009 Resource Ordinance Variance Application
3 January 29, 2010 Vicinity Ma
4 January 29, 2010 Site and Stream Location
5 January 29, 2010 Topography
6 November 2009 Proposed Site Plan
7 January 25, 2010 Notice of Application
8 February 25, 2010 Affidavit of Posting
9 July 2009 Mason County Bond Form
10 July 2009 Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan
11 November 2009 Habitat Management Plan for Property
Buechel RO variance case index.doc
I
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584
March 9, 2010
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden, Senior Planner
RE: Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2009-00010 Proposal to construct a new
residence within the vegetation buffer along a Type Np stream through a Mason
County Resource Ordinance Variance(Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas, 17.01.110, Section G.Lc).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction: This report evaluates a request for a variance to buffer standards to
construct a new 2,500 sq. ft. residence with 1,500 sq. ft. area within a Type Np stream
buffer, adjacent to an un-named creek(Exhibit 6). The required Conservation Buffer
Area from the ordinary high water mark(OHWM)of a Type Np stream is 100 feet,with
an additional 15-foot building setback. The Type Np stream buffer and building setback
encompasses the eastern half of the subject parcel. The setback distance proposed by the
project is 85 feet from stream OHWM and includes a 5 feet building setback distance.
The 2,500 sq. ft. proposed new home will occupy 1,500 sq.ft. of the buffer and building
area. As part of this variance review,the applicant proposes to re-establish 1,500 sq. ft.
area of native vegetation along the east side of the subject parcel as a mitigation area for
occupying the stream buffer and setback area with the new residence. The proposed
project is described and mitigation offered in the attached Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) (Exhibit 11). Staff recommends conditional approval of proposed project.
II.Applicant: Rick Buechel.
III.Property Location: site address and project location: 9030 E State Route 106,
Union. Parcel No. 32235-31-00170.
IV. Date of Complete Application: November 23, 2009.
V. Evaluations:
A. Characteristics of the Site: The parcel is rectangular in shape with a north to south
orientation, is approximately 1.02 acres in size, and a shoreline portion along Hood Canal
north of State Route 106 (Exhibit 4). The Type Np parallels the east property line of the
subject parcel,runs in a northerly direction through the parcel just to the east, and exits
into the saltwater near northern property line of the subject parcel.
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 1
I
The topography of the subject parcel is moderate to steep sloping terrain(Exhibit 5). The
proposed site of the residence is on relatively level terrain above the stream. Ascending
grade is located to the south and southwest of the planned development. This slope is
approximately 40 percent and therefore requires a Geologic Assessment.
B. Characteristics of the Area: The area is east of Union,WA along State Route 106.
Hood Canal borders the highway to the north and moderate to steep slopes are on the
landward side of State Route 106. The steep slopes are densely vegetated. Development
in the area to the east and west is comprised of single family residences mainly along
Hood Canal, as well as on the upland side south of the state highway.
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. Zoning: The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR5)per the Mason County
Development Areas Zoning Map.
E. Shoreline Master Program Designation: The shoreline designation is Urban
Shoreline Environment.
VI. SEPA Compliance,Public and Agency Comment: The project is categorically
exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Public notice of the application and
hearing date was posted onsite on February 16, 2010 (Exhibit 7)and notice was
published in the Shelton-Mason Journal on January 28 and February 4,2010. An
Affidavit of Posting Notice was completed(Exhibit 8). The proposal required habitat
management plan review and comment by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
and the Squaxin Tribe, but no comments were received.
VII. Other Permits or Approvals: A Variance from Standards application(VAR2009-
00010)was received November 23,2009 as a request for development(Exhibit 2). The
proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit for the construction of the new
single family residence. The applicant will need to secure a bond with the County prior to
the approval of a building permit to cover the costs of mitigation proposed in the HMP
(Exhibit 9). A three-year plant monitoring program, from the time of issuance of the
building permit,will be required by the County,with annual reports submitted yearly on
the anniversary date of the building permit's issuance. A Title Notification of Habitat
Management Plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor's Office prior to final
approval of the building permit(Exhibit 10).
VIII.Analysis:
The required buffer for a Type Np stream is 100 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a
total distance of 115 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department
of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The proposal is for the construction of a
2,500 square foot residence, with a 1,500 sq. ft. of building within the buffer and building
area, and an area for the septic system outside of the building setback area. This proposal
requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 2
Ordinance Section 17.01.110,Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which
details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards,
which establishes variance procedures and criteria.
The location of the building portion within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer.
Section 17.01.110.G.1.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted
within FWHCA or its buffer,except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use
exception." Staff notes that such variance review shall be as provided in Title 15
Development Code Section 15.09.057.
Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.110.G.1 generally requires that a Habitat Management
Plan(HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development that does not meet
standards. The HUT shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and
shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or
mitigated through habitat mitigation.
Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.150 (E),Review Standards for a variance states that
no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the
following circumstances exist:
l. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations.
Staff Response:Based on the Habitat Management Plan and site plan, the east
one-half to one-third of the parcel is entirely within the stream buffer and
building setback from the Type Np stream. Due to the presence of this critical
area buffer and setbacks within the property, the requirements listed in the Mason
County Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate
residential use of the property without the approval of a variance.
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions.
Staff Response: The burden of hardship is specifically related to the limitations of
the slope and stream critical areas on the property and not from deed restrictions
or the applicant's own actions.
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment.
Staff Response: The property is zoned Rural Residential 5. A single-family
residence is a permitted use in this zone. Per Mason County Resource Ordinance
17.01.150 Variance from Standards Section E "In addition to the review criteria
in Mason County Code 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use for a residence in
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 3
a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a) 40% of the area of
the lot, or b) 2,250 square feet."The applicant more than meets this criterion as
he has requested that only 1,500 square foot building footprint be located within
the stream buffer and building setback.
A Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit 11) has been prepared and submitted which
identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative
effects to the environment. The findings in the HMP conclude that no impacts to
habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to
occur, and critical habitat for salmonid species is not present along this stream.
The proposal minimizes impacts by limiting the square footage for the building
footprint to a 1,500-square foot area of the proposed 2,500 sq.ft. residence and
locating the improvements in an area affected by past land-clearing activities..
The structures and septic system are proposed to be the greatest possible distance
from the stream given the configuration of the lot, topography, and existing
access road. Enhancement of the buffer shall include the replanting of native
shrub and tree species on the east side of the property, to provide stabilization,
wildlife habitat, and prevent invasive species from becoming established near the
stream and new residence. As part of the mitigation, a three-year monitoring
plan shall control the invasion of non-native plant species and maintain the
successful growth of native plantings on the parcel.
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to
afford relief.
Staff Response: The development proposed in the limited area has the features
associated with a single-family residence and septic system. The residences in
proximity to the project site are comprised of similar or greater footprints. The
authorization of this variance request would not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Staff Response: There will be no detrimental effects to the public interest
resulting from the development of a proposed residence. Mitigation measures
and best management practices have been identified in the Habitat Management
Plan to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for potential impacts associated with the
proposed construction.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
Staff Response: The property is zoned for residential development (the Rural
Residential 5 zone). The 1.02-acre lot is of sufficient size to accommodate
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 4
residential development consistent with the surrounding area. The proposed
residence constitutes in fill development in a residentially zoned area, and the
land use is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the
Growth Management Act. The residence and associated habitat management
plan has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with
development near the Type Np stream.
Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a residence on
the parcel due to the critical area vegetation buffer and building setbacks as
required by existing County regulations.
IX. General Review Criteria Mason County Code 15.09.055(C)
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan,and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code,especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
Staff Response: The proposal does not conflict with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan. The planning policies in the Comprehensive Plan
encourage the preservation and protection of water quality, critical areas,
Resource Lands, and open space and the adoption of critical area regulations.
The process for variance to critical area development standards is outlined in the
Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.150. A geological assessment will need to be
submitted for proposed development per the Mason County Resource Ordinance
17.01.110 Landslide Hazard Areas. The proposal will need to meet the
requirements of Title 6, when the proposed septic system is reviewed by the
Environmental Health Department prior to building permit issuance; this will be
a condition of variance approval.
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
StaffResnonse: The proposed single-family residence is a permitted land use in
the Rural Residential 5 zone. Best management practices will be followed based
on the submitted Habitat Management Plan to ensure there is no impact to public
health, safety and we fare.
3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Response: The proposed single-family residence does not lower the level of
service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum
standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residence
will be accessed off of State Highway 106. This project does not lower the level of
service for neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established
within the Comprehensive Plan.
X. Conclusions: Based upon the above discussion,the proposal is consistent with the
Mason County Resource Ordinance, adopted as Title 17.01. Staff recommends approval
of the proposal with its habitat management plan subject to the conditions listed below:
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 5
1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed
should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.
2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any
construction and/or development activities on the parcel.
3. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or
straw matting).
4. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
5. The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications
outlined in the approved geologic assessment.
6. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan
recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate
that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by
Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance
#VAR2009-00010 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared by The
Wetland Corps dated November 2009 contains required mitigation measures for
future development.
7. A restoration bond shall be established with Mason County in the amount necessary
to perform the restoration, and prior to final inspection of the building permit.
8. The applicant shall implement all mitigation measures, native plantings, and
monitoring as proposed by the Habitat Management Plan prepared by The
Wetland Corps dated November 2009.
9. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a
report detailing the condition of the restoration area. Monitoring of the site will
begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal
basis. The information gathered is included in the habitat management plan
prepared by The Wetland Corps dated November 2009. This monitoring will be
in effect for the duration of three years.
10. A survival rate of 80% of plantings is required each year during the three-year
monitoring period. If survival falls below 80%, the applicant shall replant to
restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the
necessary period to address the replanting.
11. Subject to Environmental Health Department approval for the septic system.
XI. Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the Variance request.
2. Denial of the Variance request.
3. Conditional approval of the Variance request.
4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification
Buechel RO variance staff report.doc 6
VARIANCE APPLICATION
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA,
variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the
Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County
must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance
criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is
met.
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a
special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet
the specific variance criteria listed below.
Applicant name: Rick Buechel Telephone No.
Mailing address:_ PO Box 249, Union, WA 98592
Site address: 9030 State Route 106, Union, WA 98592
Owner Name: Rick Buechel
Owner Address: PO Box 249, Union, WA 98592
Tax Parcel # 322353100170
Legal Description: W 100' OF E 200' OF W 660' OF LOT 3 AND TL.
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X
Mason County Development Regulations
Subdivisions and Plats
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
Construction of single family residence within regulated type Np stream buffer.
1,500 square feet of building will be constructed 85-feet from the stream at the
nearest point.
Mason County Variance Application
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
The regulated stream buffer encompasses the entire buildable area within
ownership, given the steep topography and septic requirements.
3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that
certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how
the proposal pertains to these circumstances.
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
Due to the presence of critical areas within the property, the strict
application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate
residential use of the property.
b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size,
septic requirements, steep topography and presence of natural features.
The regulated buffer associated with the stream captures the entire
buildable area within the property leaving no space for a house.
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment;
A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures
necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the
environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations,
specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in
Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type
Np stream buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The
findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat
or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to
occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will
preserve and enhance the riparian area within the property and minimize
potential for long term environmental impacts.
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to
afford relief;
The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate a single family
residence. Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of
similar footprints.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially
effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat
Mason County Variance Application
i
Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project
site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the
public interest resulting from the proposed project.
f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
The site is within an area zoned for residential use. The lot is of sufficient
size to accommodate residential development consistent with the
surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a
residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The project has been
proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development
near the stream.
Applicant Signature Date
Owner Signature Date
FEES:
Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520.00 Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $445.00
NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached).
Mason County Variance Application
VARIANCE REQUEST
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will
not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant.
The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly.
I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment
indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must
submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as
complete.
OWNER: /
APPLICANT:
DATE:
a�
Mason County Variance Application
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS**
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
**Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor.
JuU-�In Sh are l.�n kk
� v .. 12�f 2-y61
TDoUcj 1 ck✓
34111 P r�n 51 c—
�a l f-vv\ v C- cZ
�ec� 1e. w►� 14Lp
�1L�1o.v� 12i � �
cA 3 rnAr,.LI, eS r f
Uk,y-er i(YlarLbory vni7 2o--lq
Mason County Variance Application
F
UHO-
FR :
i
M� 4�a
f
AL �
T21 NR3W
r
w,
1 inch = 2,000 feet
W E
1 inch = 0.38 miles
s . YA�Zooq . �oio(�
322352222222
322353100100
322353100120 322353100110
322353100150 ;Y
322353100160
322353100170
322353100230 322353100020
322353100220 322353100200 322353100210 4
•322353100240 322353100180
322350060000�" r
r ` 322353100100
• 32235S1 001 AOIL322353100130
" 322353100150
322353100160
3223531 _ r•{, � ;
322353100220 322353700020 '`�'
322353100190 322353100210 � �,l�'_• �1 �• 'y
322357500010 322357500020 r 322357500040 322357500050 322357500060
N 5l-
1 inch = 100 feet
W F
1 inch =0.02 miles
Ail
ow
- .. . �•_"
j ,-
0 100'
Highway 106 •
� Existing Access
►` N
►► �' Proposed
Flat area ` ►`; mitigation
► ► zone (1500
► sq.
Proposed: 85'
SFR (50 ..............._.. ._............... ..........._......_...............�
50') i
I
Prop osed%
I
(c I
Septic 30 x
P I
60') t
_ I
f_.....................
100,
4...►1Type Np stream
Flat area 115
I 100' buffer+ 15'
building setback
I /
I 1
I 1
This site map was created by TWC by
coordinating measurements and information
I from several sources, including the Mason
County Assessor Aerial Photo 2005 and
GoogleEarth aerial images and measurements.
I All locations are approximate.
FR��t'e s 51 TE P A&J
Project Name: Buechel HMP
�- Location: Union,Washington
7 �►` Project: TWCO9-W104
THE WETLAND CORPS Client: Rick Beuchel
Date: 11/09
�l (�206� - ( ,�( n
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
VAR2009-00010 Notice of Variance to the Resource Ordinance.
Notice is hereby given that Rick Buechel who is the owner of the described property below, has filed
an application for a Variance to the Mason County Resource Ordinance for the development of:
Request of variance to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Area buffer standards to review
proposed residence and portion of septic system in the stream buffer along a type Np stream at
2.5 miles east of Union WA.; proposal includes placement of these improvements and the
enhancement of these buffers by habitat restoration plan. To establish this land use, the
applicant must receive approval through a Variance application, public review, and hearing by
the County Hearing Examiner.
Parcel Number: 32235-31-00170 (1.02 ac.)
Site Address: 9030 E State Route 106, Union WA.
Location of Project: South of State Route 106 and Hood Canal; east of Union; portion of the
southwest 1/4 of Section 35, Township 32 N., Range 3 W. in Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to variance review(M.C.C. 15.09.050, 15.09.057, and 8.52.220)
and associated Mason County Resource Ordinance standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final publication date pursuant to M.C.C. 15.07.030
(public notice). The final date of publication, posting or mailing of notice is February 4, 2010.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
March 9, 2009; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at (360) 427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
The proposal is exempt from environmental review per WAC 197-11-800(1), outside of actual critical
area boundaries.
cxhllbi�- W 9
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
twc,ho
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) VAP- to
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
I, /�( CG% do herebycertify that I posted copies of
/ � / fY p P
the attached `2(C V "(4�L1 in y public places as follows:
one at ttw 6q 0- or, P- (-
one at
one at
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
of P- , 20 fib.
)>01at4—
By: Po
Address: b4A e-- I ' ]6t 1 5 W4- qcg
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this ; _j-)kday of , 20 / O
;�:• �OTARk • :; Notary Public f r the State o Washington
: APR 30, 2011 = Residing at X/( )Z
+'•9�' '•PUBLIC' - A� Commission Expires
MASON COUNTY BOND FORM
Type of Permit:
Name:
Type of Improvement:
Project Location:
Legal Description of Property:
With reference to the above-identified matter, this will certify that this institution has a
savings account(or loan) for the above-referenced owner/developer/contractor for the
project so identified. In consideration of the permitted improvement, and in lieu of a
performance bond, this institution hereby agrees that it will freeze the following sums of
money for the indicated improvement pending written authorization for release of said
funds by in the amount of$ Dollars.
The total sum indicated will be withheld by this institution from any disbursements of
any kind until written authorization has been received by this institution from Mason
County to release the sum of money indicated by the written authorization from the
County.
The design, location,materials and other specifications for the indicated improvement are
those required by Mason County as appears in the above-referenced document/peinut,
and shall be in compliance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance, Chapter 8.52
Mason County Code as amended.
These funds shall be held by the institution for a period of three years. In the event that
(responsible party's name) does not comply with the
aforementioned requirements, Mason County may demand, and the institution shall
make,payment to Mason County of said funds so that the necessary repairs can be
performed immediately to Mason County standards. The institution shall not be liable to
(responsible party's name) for any disbursement of
said funds to Mason County. The conditions in this agreement may only be amended or
revoked by express written condition of Mason County.
Signature of Responsible Party Date
Confidential Page 1 Form Revised:03/25/03
Name of Bank/Phone Number Accepted:
Approved:
Title:
Bank Address
Date
Account Number
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
County of (Individual Acknowledgement)
I, , Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at do hereby certify that
on this day of ,20 , personally appeared
before me to me known to be the individual
described herein and who executed this instrument and acknowledged that
signed and sealed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses
and purposes herein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of
, 20
Notary Public in an for the State of
Washington;residing at
in said
County. My Commission expires
Confidential Page 2 Form Revised:03/25/03
Return To:
TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATE:
OWNER NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS
PARCEL #
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(ABBR.FORM: QUARTER/QUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT,
LOT&BLOCK
NOTICE: The property was the subject of a development proposal within a
critical area or its buffer, for the purpose of
application number
filed on . (date)
This property is subject to the conditions,mitigation and/or
conservation measures as contained within the Habitat Management
Plan submitted to and approved by the Mason County Department
of Community Development. Restrictions on the use or alteration of
the property may exist due to the contents,conditions, mitigation
and/or conservation measures of the Habitat Management Plan
which are to be maintained in perpetuity. A copy of the Habitat
Management Plan is attached hereto.
GRANTOR(S):
LAST FIRST MI
LAST FIRST MI
SIGNATURE(S):
GRANTEE: PUBLIC
THE WETLAND CORPS
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
PARCEL 322353100170 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
9030 East State Route 106
Union, WA 98592
Mason County, Washington
Prepared for:
Rick Buechel
South Shore Enterprises LLC.
Prepared by:
Heather Lane and Lee Boad
November 2009
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
THE WETLAND CORPS
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
PARCEL 322353100170 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1
3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..................................................................................................3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.................................................................3
5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS....................................................................................................5
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................................6
7.0 MONITORING ......................................................................................................................8
8.0 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................9
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Map
Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
THE WETLAND CORPS -�
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
November,2009 Page 1
PARCEL 322353100170 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
9030 East State Route 106
Union, Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the above referenced property (Parcel No.
322353100170) are discussed in full in this report. The site is found in the NW 1/4 of Section 35
Township 22 North, Range 3 West(See Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map).
The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts resulting from
the proposed construction of a 2500 square foot single-family residence (SFR) within an area
partially encompassed by the regulated buffer of a channel meeting criteria for a type Np stream.
Type Np streams in Mason County require an undisturbed buffer of 100 feet of with an additional
15-foot building setback. Given the steep slopes and size and configuration of the parcel, the
available building area is confined to a portion of the property that is partially occupied by the stream
buffer. The proposed SFR will be located approximately 85 feet from the stream at the nearest
point, and the proposed septic will occupy the available building area outside of the stream buffer.
This is the furthest distance from the stream that development of the SFR can occur given the
topography and configuration of the parcel. The total area that the 2500 square foot SFR will occupy
within the stream buffer and building setback is approximately 1500 square feet. The objectives of
this HMP are as follows:
■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife
habitat resulting from the establishment of a portion of the SFR within the Type Np stream
buffer. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be
residing in the vicinity of the parcel.
■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse
effects resulting from the establishment of the SFR within the Type Np stream buffer.
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The ownership is comprised of a moderate to high-gradient landscape (15-45 percent) which
descends north, toward the Hood Canal. A ravine containing the stream drainage enters the subject
parcel from the south, and meanders onto the adjacent parcel to the east.
This stream has been identified as a Type Np Stream because it is a perennial nonfish habitat stream.
The stream does not have contributing streams which are fish-inhabiting streams. The stream has an
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November, 2009
Page 2
average gradient of over 16 percent, and the average channel width is less than 2 feet. Type 4 streams
require 100 feet of undisturbed buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback.
The vegetation theme for subject parcel consists of mature western red cedar and Douglas Fir mixed
with big leaf maple. The shrub layer is dominated by sword fern, salal and sword fern.
The stream is draining northerly, and enters the Hood Canal from the adjacent parcel to the east. The
stream is part of a single network, with no contributing streams. The source of hydrology for the
stream appears to be groundwater seeps from the steep hillside, as well as surface water runoff.
Photo 1. Type Np Stream within project vicinity.
3.0 STREAM ANALYSIS
Methodology
The onsite stream was classified using the Department of Natural Resources Water Typing System,
WAC 222-16-030. Factors that influence stream typing such as channel width, possibility of
intermittent dry periods, and obstructions downstream that would effect fish migration were analyzed
to accurately classify the stream.
Stream Classification
According to the WAC 222-16-030 water typing system, the onsite stream has been classified as a
type "Np" stream, because it is a perennial, nonfish-habitat stream that does not have contributing
streams which are fish-inhabiting streams. The stream is inaccessible to fish due to downstream
obstructions, in addition to its high gradient(greater than 16 percent). The water typing system states:
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November, 2009
Page 3
"Type Np Water" means all segments of natural waters within the bankfull
width of defined channels that are perennial nonfish habitat streams. Perennial
streams are flowing waters that do not go dry any time of a year of normal
rainfall and include the intermittent dry portions of the perennial channel
below the uppermost point of perennial flow.
Type Np streams in Mason County require 100 feet of undisturbed buffer with an additional 15-foot
building setback.
4.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS
The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County.
The applicable setback for this project is as follows:
Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer
Type Np Stream 100, 15'
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES
4.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened
Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and
streams flowing into Puget Sound. The type Np stream does not contain suitable habitat due to the
limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. This project is not likely to have
adverse impacts on Puget Sound Chinook due to the lack of suitable habitat. No impacts to water
quality are predicted with proposed mitigation.
4.2 Bull Trout (Salvelinus malma)-Threatened
Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported
by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel, relatively free of
fine sediments.
The onsite stream does not contain suitable habitat due to the limited accessibility and lack of
sufficient flow during the spawning period. Given the lack of suitable habitat, the proposed project
is not likely to have any adverse impacts on bull trout.
4.3 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)- Threatened
Listed as Threatened since May 2007, Puget Sound Stealhead spawn in several streams throughout
Puget Sound. Spawning usually occurs in moderate to steep gradient sections of streams, usually in
heads of riffles or the tails of pools where hydraulic conditions are conducive to intragravel flow.
Side channels and the anterior portions of islands are also used. Spawn timing for summer steelhead
runs typically ranges from mid May through October while winter run steelhead are present from
December through May. Adequate cover from predation, water temperature, and spawning gravel
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November,2009
Page 4
are important factors for instream habitat, while little is currently known about specific marine
habitat requirements.
The Type Np stream does not support suitable steelhead habitat. No impacts to Puget Sound
Steelhead are predicted to result from this project. No impacts to water quality are predicted with
proposed mitigation.
4.4 Hood Canal Summer Chum (Oncorhynchus keta)- Threatened
Hood Canal Summer Chum spawning areas in proximity to the site include the Union River and the
Tahuya River. Recovery efforts are in place to restore naturally spawning summer chum populations
to the Tahuya system while the Union stock remains healthy. The type Np stream does not support
Hood Canal Summer Chum. Therefore, no impacts to Hood Canal Summer Chum or associated
habitat are predicted with the proposed project. No impacts to aquatic habitat or water quality are
expected to occur.
4.5 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)- Sensative
Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-
growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops
providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead
tops are used as perches and defense stations.
There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed
project site will not require the removal of any trees. Recommended tree and shrub plantings
recommended in Section 6.3 should improve the potential for use of the site by Bald Eagle in the
future. As no important habitat features are to be removed, this project will have no adverse impacts
on bald eagles.
4.6 Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)- Threatened
Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests.
Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5-miles
from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found
inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous
old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters
above the forest floor.
Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on ground habitats only when a sufficient forest
Y g gg rocky
is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential
nesting trees are within the project area. This project will likely have no adverse impact on Marbled
Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the
project area.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November, 2009
Page 5
5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
The project lies within the regulated buffer of a Type Np stream. Project scale in the protected area
is as follows:
Development Type Habitat Type Project scale
2500 sq. ft. Single Family Residence Type Np Stream Buffer 1500 sq. ft.
5.1 Vegetation Disturbance
The building footprint is located in a cleared open area(see photo below). No native vegetation will
need to be removed for the proposed SFR. With recommended planting of native vegetation
described in Section 6.3, the project will likely have a net benefit of vegetation abundance and
diversity within the lot.
ti•I?,�' !..Ny.
1 �
Photo 2. Approximate location of proposed SFR. No native vegetation will need to be removed for the proposed
project.
5.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids
Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids is not within the project area. Therefore, none of the
proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions
described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November, 2009
Page 6
5.3 Noise Pollution
An increase in noise from construction activities will occur during daylight construction hours. No
nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be impacted by noise associated with
the establishment of the SFR. Wildlife species residing in proximity to the project area have likely
become adapted to noise associated with residential land use and Highway 106. The noise associated
with long term residential land use will not be of a magnitude that will affect the existing wildlife
usage of the riparian corridor.
5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction
The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within
the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended in Section 6.2 to minimize the
sediment and turbidity g construction.during adverse effects associated sed
5.5 Light and Glare
The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with
residential construction and land use. The vegetative buffer to be preserved and enhanced between
the proposed project area and the stream is expected to shield the majority of the stream from
increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by wildlife species are likely to result
from light and glare associated with this project.
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants
The remainder of the Type Np stream buffer, outside of the proposed SFR, will be preserved and
remain in tact or enhanced with native vegetation. The proposed SFR is located approximately 85
feet from the stream at the nearest point, this is the furthest distance from the stream feasibly given
the size and topography constraints of the parcel.
6.2 Best Management Practices
Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows:
• Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather.
• Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of
waters.
• Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off
site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances outside overnight
within the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 RMP
November,2009
Page 7
6.3 Enhancement Recommendations
To mitigate for the partial displacement of stream buffer necessary for this project, it is
recommended that a portion of the stream buffer between the proposed SFR and the stream be
planted with native vegetation. The enhancement zone is located on the slope located between the
SFR and the existing paved driveway. The enhancement zone is currently devoid of native
vegetation. The total area within the buffer that is recommended for native plant enhancement
occupies approximately 1,500 square feet.
� 1
'w 1
,4•w
Photo 3. Proposed Enhancement Zone(circled in red).
The following species and potting sizes are recommended:
Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata)- 2 gallon
Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)-2 gallon
Shrubs: Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)- 1 gallon
salal (Gaultheria shallon)— 1 gallon
evergreen huckleberry (Vaccinium ovatum) -gallon
nootka rose (Rosa nutkana)— 1 gallon
salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis)— 1 gallon
Pacific Willow(Salix lusida)— 1 gallon
Hooker willow(Salix hookeriana)— 1 gallon
Scouler willow(Salix scouleriana)— 1 gallon
Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis)— 1 gallon
beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta)— 1 gallon
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November,2009
Page 8
Indian plum (Oemleria cerasiformis)— 1 gallon
oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor)— 1 gallon
Pacific ninebark (Physocarpus capitatus)— 1 gallon
California black currant(Ribes bracteosum)— 1 gallon
western thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus)—1 gallon
red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa)— 1 gallon
Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum)— 1 gallon
Native Planting Guidelines
It is recommended that native plantings be installed within 10 foot wide restoration zones in linear
strips extending across the site parallel to the edge of the buffer to achieve the following densities:
trees- 10' on center
shrubs-5' on center
ferns-4' on center
These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the
mitigation zone. To fulfill the recommended density, the enhancement zone will be planted with 15
trees, 45 shrubs, and 33 ferns.
Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during
February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may call for
planting to occur outside optimum time periods. No machinery earthwork will be necessary to
implement this mitigation plan; planting holes for specified vegetation installation will be hand dug.
No additional clearing or grading should be necessary for site enhancement. All installed vegetation
shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate monitoring inspections. The monitoring program
is recommended to insure project effectiveness.
Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English
Ivy may invade the mitigation zone. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients
and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the mitigation zone
should they invade. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the
stream. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive
species if they become a problem.
7.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following native species plantings and maintained on a
seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced
plant species; 2)the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development
and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic
species within the mitigation zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to
provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetiandcorps@hotmail.com
Parcel 322353100170 HMP
November,2009
Page 9
information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason
County Department of Community Development.
8.0 SUMMARY
This report addresses a portion of a 2500 square foot SFR to be constructed partially within the
regulated buffer of a Type Np stream. The SFR will occupy an area of 1500 square feet within the
stream buffer. Best Management Practices are recommended to insure no negative impacts to the
stream. Mitigation recommendations entail native vegetation plantings throughout an area of 1500
square feet within the stream buffer. No impacts to water quality or stream habitat are predicted.
Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize, and
mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction.
We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The
Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Boad
Senior Ecologist
Heather Lane
Staff Wetland&Natural Resource Specialist
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
REFERENCES
Audobon WatchList. http;//audobon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.
Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for
Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181
pp-
Native Plants for Kitsap County. ftp://kewppub3.co.kitsap.wa.us/pw;!s�,N-iNative
Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington
Treaty Tribes Concerning Wild Salmonids. Adopted by Washington Fish and Wildlife
Commission,1997.
Washington State Department of Ecology; William Symington Lake Habitat Analysis. 1998.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com
,•u,ry , 999YJG3 Mop**•aria tt: 19
r _
ty
(Z�.1�^ �1�'i S t''� ���l� r....., r.,. l �t r ,r 1`t�'�-a�t�1�• �P4 ,. - _ -
� 1
He
- ------,---.—_. � as
,lam.
AL
State Route 106
r
14
J/J /
17
N
r� f711
' Approximate Parcel
Location
« _ tom,•. � �
WK � iA
/
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Beuchel HMP
Location: Union,Washington
Project: TWC09-W104
� Client: Rick Beuchel
'T FH wEETLA1�1Lm CO"S Date: 11/09
0 100'
Highway 106
Existing Access
�► N
►
► ►:;:
► �.
► ► '''`'''''`''''''' ' Proposed
Flat area ► ►`; mitigation
► ► zone (1500
�' ► sq.
� I -
I
Proposed: 1 I 85'
I
501)
I
1 I
Proposed-...
Septic
f0' �.......................
►
I ►
► ..............._............ .................................................................
.............
► / 100,
►� Type Np stream
/Flat area ►15,/ 100' buffer+ 15'
► ► building setback
This site map was created by TWC by
► / coordinating measurements and information
► / from several sources, including the Mason
► ► County Assessor Aerial Photo 2005 and
► ► GoogleEarth aerial images and measurements.
► ► All locations are approximate.
FIGURE 2. SITE MAP
Project Name: Buechel HMP
— � Location: Union,Washington
Project: TWCO9-W104
T IE WETL_--AND CORPS Client: Rick Beuchell
Date: 11/09
- I
h
+��{.•+.,��5 � � V' 7 h��i{ {V�r{i{'} 5�•'+8�rr fil rh''',$'+ 1�f,15� ! #S 5 t�+p 1 1„
Map Legend y?rr #i h S.f 5} r^' '!�4 1 ti �• 5 ! ! W' w ht
N
f t5 r '+5•' h ! f E1UBL
• CONUSCities S h v �,,51f? r {5tt� ,l+i nC�+'{r{ {r}•ti •n ,h`f?}Y�
CONUS States t00K
C
Lower 48 Welland Polygons
+E2AB:U5h
Estuarine and Marine Doopwater 1 h}, ........ ..... rrtbt'�
Estuarine and Marine Welland St r #tr
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater F orested'SArub wetland +
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Rlverine
Union
Dkksl
Wa tan
P551C
,r Approximate
Parcel Location
Figure adapted from NWI Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map
Mapper website Section 35 Township 22N Range 03W
FIGURE 3 NWI MAP
Project Name: Beuchel HMP
Location: Union,Washington
Project: TWC09-W104
77 Client: Rick Beuchel
THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 11/09
Approximate
Parcel Location
64 i��,r ~ j� ♦ it+� e : fir,. { .. � • ' � }F�j}r.' y.
` � � �t:Ft. ���d�{�'r��•� :btu �. � �.`� ��. �. � ry .»':
.. fly. r {+,.�! • r �'�a. v .r�
Onsite Soil Conditions based on Mason County Soil Survey
Subject Site Soils:
The onsite soil type has been identified as: Ad- Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 30 to 45 percent
slopes. The Alderwood series consists of brown, well-drained, upland soils. They have developed from
mixed gravelly glacial till dominated by acid igneous rock. The imbedded gravel is mainly granite and
quartzite. Rainfall is 45 to 60 inches a year. The native vegetation is a dense forest consisting almost
entirely of Douglas-fir and a dense understory of salal, Oregon-grape, vine maple, and huckleberry.
Northeast of the Hood Canal the understory is mainly rhododendron. Alderwood soils occupy the
extensive rolling glacial moraines, and they are the dominant soils in the eastern part of the county. The
Alderwood soils are associated with the somewhat excessively drained Everett and Indianola soils and
with the moderately well drained Kitsap soils. Shelton and Hoodsport soils differ from the Alder-wood
soils in that they have developed under high rainfall and from glacial till having a much higher content of
basic igneous rock. The Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Ab) is the most
extensive, soil of the Alderwood series. It occupies undulating to rolling moraines.
A more detailed description of this soil can be found in the Mason County Soil Survey Text (1951).
FIGURE 4 SOIL SURVEY
Project Name: Beuchel HMP
Location: Union,Washington
Project: TWC09-W104
THE7 Client: Rick Beuchel
1 E �V FTL A N D CORPS Date: 11/09
170500 170 00 . 510 ` 70510 +705100 1705108
f
1704088 +704180 �1704182 +704.)84 +7041815 e 70 188
.�, 9 Pug-at ,Sound
-S Pug$t ,Svu nd
1704068 1704160 +1704162 041 D418
t✓- C
+ Parcel + 0 4$ 17
location #
AN
LO
J7Qd028 1704120 + 2 412+ 0 4128
i _f� 1 L Rnnn .3
STREAMS SOILS
r Stream Water Type 1-5(East side)
Hydric Soils
Stream Type Unknown(East side) Highly Unstable
�✓ Stream Cj:ater Type 1-5(West side} Highly Erodible
i� Stream T--pe L;nknoav(Wes-side} H gh y Unstable&
Highh,Erodible
04 Water T%. e Change No Data or Gravel Pits
FIGURE 5 DNR STREAM MAP
Project Name: Beuchel HW
Location: Union,Washington
Project: TWC09-W104
THE WETLAND CORPS Client: Rick Beuchel
Date: 11/09
t
MASON COUNTY
j IDEPAR"T MEN T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 985"
(360) 427-9670 Belfair(360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
DATE: JfJAAjjj44j i 1'
Please publish the attached
On the following day(s)
It lO
Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to
pick up from your office and send copies to the following:
�z b
Please send a bill for publication costs to:
Thank you,
Mason County Planning Staff r
Affidavit of Publication
STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 SS.
PUBLIC NOTICE COUNTY OF MASON f
VAR2009-00010 Notice of Variance to the Margot Brand being first duly sworn
Resource Ordinance
Notice
of the descrribed property below, has I
who is the
ownergiven that Rick filed an ap- P Y
on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
plication for a Variance to the Mason County Resource of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That
Ordinance for the Development of:
said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six
Request of variance to the Fish and Wildlife Con-
servation Area buffer standards to review proposed months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in
residence and portion of septic system in the stream the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason
buffer along a type Np stream at 2.5 miles east of
County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an
Union WA.; proposal includes placement of these
improvements and the enhancement of these buffers office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That
by habitat restoration plan.To establish this land use, the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of
the applicant must receive approval through a Vari- August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said
ance application, public review, and hearing by the
County Hearing Examiner. Mason County.
Parcel Number:32235-31-00 170(1.02 ac.)
Site Address:9030 E State Route 106,Union WA. That the annexed is a true copy of a NOTICE OF VARIANCE
Location of Project: South of State Route 106 and
Hood Canal;east of Union;portion of the southwest 1/4 of
Section 35,Township 32N., Range 3W.in Mason County TO THE RESOURCE ORDINANCE: DFW CONSERVATION AREA
Washington.
Said pproposed development is subject to variance BUFFER STANDARDS 2953
review(N C.C.15.09.050, 15.09.057, and 8.52.220)and
associated Mason County Resource Ordinance stan- as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said
dards.Any person desiring to express their view or to be
notified of the action taken on the application should no- newspaper once each week for a period of TWO
tify in writing of their interest to:
consecutive weeks,commencing on the
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279 28TH day of JANUARY 2010 and ending on the
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final
publication date pursuant to M.C.C.15.07.030(public no- 4TH day of FEBRUARY 20 10 both dates inclusive,
tice).The final date of publication, posting or mailing of and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of
notice is February 4,2010.
the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
Written comments will be accepted up to the date ofthe
2010,•1a00 PM.Contact t Examiner his lic oll office at hearing360)27 670,ext March .
foregoingpublication is the sum of$ 275.00
365 for further information.
The proposal {81a/exempt from en��R9i�1 iew Viz.
per WAC 197 11-800(1), outside �i
boundaries. e��Q►� �,,..«�.,� ,���
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
� o
120
NotarkPublic in and for the State of Washington
irk,�� !�'t?;-- Residing at Shelton,Washington
......... My commission expires 20
��c� ��r�c h t✓/
$ve c 4eA 9-0 V&r-
PLANNING FEES
Zoned:
Planner, Ilan Grace Tammi Pam Michael Rebecca Chrissy
Fee Type: Fee Amount:
var - [ 15ay.Co
PEX Q00s. od
PLANNING FEE TOTAL: $