HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2005-00020 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 9/14/2005 �I�i 2235 - 52-ot v
TO BE KEPT IN THE
September 14, 2005 PARCEL FILE
Notice of Decision
Wilhelmi
Case: VAR2005-00020
Applicant: Margaret Wilhelmi
Notice is hereby given that Margaret Wilhelmi who is the applicant for the above-
referenced Resource Ordinance Variance Request, have been granted the Variance.
The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance,
specifically for the construction of a 484 square foot detached garage within a type 4
stream buffer.
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. Appeal period ends 21 days after the Notice of Decision
(10/05/05).
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Kell
McAboy, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x363.
I
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Margaret Wilhelmi FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 MCC 17.01.150(E) Variance
6 VAR 2005-00020
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The applicant have applied for a variance from the Mason County Resource
9 Ordinance in order to construct a 484-square-foot detached garage within a Type 4
stream buffer. The examiner approves the request subject to the conditions
10 recommended by staff.
ORAL TESTIMONY
ll
12 See transcript exhibits.
13 EXHIBITS
14 See "Case Index," attached to Staff Report.
15 FINDINGS OF FACT
16 Procedural:
17
1. Applicants. The applicant is Margaret Wilhelmi.
18
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
19 on September 13, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
20 meeting room.
21 Substantive:
22 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposed to build a 484-square-
23 foot detached garage within the AA Type 4 stream buffer. This buffer encumbers the
entire property except, apparent the northwest corner of the lot. The lot already
24 contains an existing single-family residence. There is no garage currently on the lot.
The lot is rectangular in shape and is approximately one third of an acre in size with
25 lot dimensions of approximately 179 feet by 95 feet. The property slopes slightly
from the easement of Merrimount Drive downward toward SR 106. The property has
been terraced and landscaped with native vegetations and is outlined with large trees.
l PA0614530.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Margaret Wilhelmi P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
The location proposed for the garage is already cleared with compacted gravel and is
1 currently being used for parking vehicles. The property is otherwise vegetated with
1) native species and wooded.
3 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is low density residential
development in a forest setting south of SR 106 in the Merrimount neighborhood.
4 Most of the other surrounding homes within the buffer of the stream also have
garages. An adjacent property to the northeast, on the other side of the Type 4 stream
5 has a covered carport approximately twice the size of the proposed garage and is
6 located near to the stream.
7 5. Adverse Impacts. The proposed garage will be placed upon an already
cleared area that is used for parking. The Habitat Management Plan submitted by the
8 applicant fails to identify and assess the adverse impacts of the proposed garage.
Rather, the Habitat Management Plan simply addresses mitigation measures that will
protect the adjoining stream. There is no linkage between the impacts of the proposal
10 and the mitigation suggested in the Habitat Management Plan. In oral testimony,
staff did testify that the adverse impacts upon the adjoining stream by the proposed
1 1 garage would be marginal and that the proposed mitigation would be more than
sufficient to offset these adverse impacts. Given the unrefuted testimony of staff, the
12 Examiner concludes that the proposed garage will have no adverse impacts on the
adjoining stream. There is no other evidence in the record that suggests that the
13 project will have any other adverse impacts.
14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15
Procedural:
16
17 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Examiner
with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
18
Substantive:
19
20 2 Zoning_Designation. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5").
21 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a
100-foot stream buffer and 15-foot building setback from an adjoining Type 4 stream.
22 The buffer is imposed through MCC 17.01.110, Table III. MCC 17.01.150(E)
provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource
23 Ordinance variances. MCC 15.09.050(C) also requires compliance with review
24 criteria for all Type III permit 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
25 below with applicable Conclusions of Law. A detailed legal analysis of how to apply
the variance code criteria is included in the recently issued "RJB
1 PA0614530.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Margaret Wilhelmi p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Telecommunications" decision, which is incorporated by this reference as if set forth
1 in full.
MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
3 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
4
4. As noted in the Noise decision, a reasonable use for a residentially zoned
5 property includes a two-car garage. In some cases, recreational use may be the only
6 reasonable use of such property if factors such as purchase price, historical use, lot
size and investment-backed expectations support such a finding. See the RJB
P PP g
7 Telecommunications decision referenced above as well as Buechel v. Department of
Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994)for a more detailed explanation of the factors used to
8 determine reasonable use.) In this case, the property is of sufficient size to
accommodate a single-family home and a garage. It has historically been used for a
single-family home and is surrounded by permanent single-family homes. For these
10 reasons, a reasonable use of the property is a permanent single-family home, which
includes a two-car garage.
ll
MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
12 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
13 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
14 the applicant's own action.
15 5. Finding No. 1 in the Staff Report provides that the entire subject property
is encumbered by the 115-foot stream buffer. However, it does appear that the
16 northwest corner of the site is more than 115 feet from the stream, at least as depicted
in Exhibit 3. However, placing the garage in this area would require extension of the
1 driveway to almost the full depth of the lot, requiring the introduction of much more
18 impervious surface than currently exists as well as the clearing of more vegetation
than would be necessary for the proposed location. Given these factors,it is clear that
19 the need for the variance is due to the natural features (the stream) of the property.
20 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
21 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
22
6. As testified by staff, the project will have no adverse impacts to the
23 environment because it is proposed for an area that was already cleared and used for
the parking of vehicles. Mitigation measures recommended by the Habitat
24 Management Plan will offset any potential adverse environmental impacts created by
25 the project. The home also will not create any adverse effects to adjacent properties
since the size of the garage is consistent with the size of garages in other lots in the
vicinity and garages are a fairly common structure in the surrounding landscape.
(PA0614530.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Margaret Wilhelmi p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
3
7. As determined in the Johnson decision (VAR 2004-00016), a reasonable
4 size for a residential garage is 556 square feet. The applicant proposes a smaller
garage at 484 square feet. As noted in the staff report, this is smaller than many of
5 the garages in the vicinity. Consequently, the requested variance is the minimum
6 necessary to afford relief. Since other property owners have garages and garages are
allowed in the RR-5 zoning district, the allowance of a garage in this instance would
7 not constitute a special privilege.
8 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
9 8. As previously noted, the proposed garage will have no adverse
10 environmental impacts or any adverse impacts on adjoining uses. Consequently, the
public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
11
MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
12 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
13 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
14 shall not justify a variance.
15 9. As determined in the Noise decision, a two-car garage is a minimum
reasonable use for a residentially zoned piece of property that should not be limited to
16 recreational use. As noted in the Staff Report,the proposal is consistent with all other
Mason County ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management
17 Act. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the project would violate any of
18 these regulations. The garage will require a building permit, which requires
compliance with all applicable Mason County development regulations. Since the
19 property is zoned for residential use and its zoning designation is presumed to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the addition of a single-family garage,
20 allowed in all residentially zoned districts, is presumed to be consistent with the
21 Mason County Comprehensive Plan.
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
rJ proposed development according to the following criteria:
23
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
24 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
25 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
1 PA0614530.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Margaret Wilhelmi p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 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.
3
10. As noted in the staff report, the project complies with all of the County
4 regulations specified in the criteria above. Since it has no adverse impacts as
mitigated, it does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. Since the project
5 promotes in-fill development and the use of existing infrastructure, it is in the public
6 interest to authorize the development. Also as noted in the staff report, the project
will not lower levels of service standards for transportation or neighborhood park
7 facilities.
8 DECISION
9 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
10 recommended in the staff report.
I 1 Dated this 1 �ay of September, 2005.
12
13
14 Phil Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(PAo614530.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Margaret Wilhelmi p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
a
CASE INDEX
Wilhelmi
VAR2005-00020
Index# Date Description
1 September 1, 2005 Exhibit 1: Staff Report
2 July 28, 2005 Exhibit 2: Completed Variance Application
3 July 28, 2005 Exhibit 3: Site plans
4 July 25, 2005 Exhibit 4: Habitat Management Plan
5 August 16, 2005 Exhibit 5: Photographs of site by County Staff
6 August 16, 2005 Exhibit 6: Notice of Public Hearing for Variance App.
7 1 August 16, 2005 Exhibit 7: Affidavit of Posting Notice
8 Not Yet Received Exhibit 8: Affidavit of Publication
9 N/A Exhibit 9: Title Notification of HMP
i
. VAR2005-000020 - 1 -
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5tn Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
September 1, 2005
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Kell McAboy, 360.427.9670 ext. 363
RE: Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2005-00020).
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County
Resource Ordinance Number 77-93. The request is to build a 484 square foot detached
garage within a Type 4 stream buffer,which requires a 100' buffer plus 15' building
setback. As measured by staff in the field, closest point of the garage to the stream would
be approximately 52'. Staff is recommending approval plus conditions.
II. Applicant: Margaret Wilhelmi
III. Date of Complete Application: August 3, 2005.
IV. Site address and Project Location: 51 E. Merrimount Dr.,Union, WA 98592. Parcel#
32235-52-01901. Lot B of SP #232AF#315600.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The area is low-density residential development in a
forest setting south of SR 106 in the Merrimount neighborhood.
B. Characteristic of the site. The rectangular shaped property is approximately one-third
acre in size with lot dimensions approximately 179' X 95'. There is an existing two-
story single family residence with a deck overlooking Hood Canal. The property is
sloped slightly from the easement of Merrimount Drive downward toward S.R. 106.
At the southeast corner of the property, the Type 4 stream enters by way of an 18 inch
concrete pipe under Merrimount Drive, then follows the property line for about 60
feet where it deviates, meandering northerly at about twenty percent gradient. The
property has been terraced and landscaped with native vegetation, and is outlined
with large trees.
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. ZoninQ. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 (RR-5).
VAR2005-000020 -2-
VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements.
The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c)(i). Notice of Public
Hearing for the Application for a Variance was posted in the Mason-Shelton Journal on
08/25/05 and at three public places on 08/16/05 (Exhibit 7). In addition, the Notice of
Application was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the proposal, the
Washington State Department of Fish& Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe on 08/16/05.
A 28-day comment period followed. No comments were received. A Habitat
Management Plan(HMP) accompanies this Variance request(Exhibit 4).
VII. Other Permits.
The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit, if the Variance is approved.
VIII. Analysis.
A Comprehensive Plan Review: Type III review for permit applications require that the
Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development
Code, adopted plans and regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal
according to the following criteria:
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. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and
meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, with the
exception of Title 17, the Resource Ordinance.
2) The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public
health, safety or welfare, but may not be in the public interest.
3) The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within
the Comprehensive Plan. The development proposal will not lower the LOS
for transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
Section 17.01.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses Variances From
Standards, the purpose of which is set forth in Section 17.01.150 A. Applicability in
Section 17.01.150 B. 2. Review Standards Per Title 15,the Mason County Development
Code (15.09.057)Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the
Development Regulations may be allowed as follows. The County must document with
written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria.
Findings.
1. 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;
Type 4 streams require a 100'buffer plus a 15'building setback for a total of 115'
per the Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 D. 1. The Type 4 stream on the
applicant's property completely encumbers the parcel.
VAR2005-000020 -3-
Applicant states: "The proposed building site is as far from the stream as is possible
on the lot while still maintaining set-backs". Staff's field visits confirm this.
2. 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 specifically related to this property is the natural feature of the Type 4
stream.
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;
The proposed stick built, one-story garage will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area. The proposed location is an already cleared are with
compacted gravel that is currently being used for parking vehicles. The property is
otherwise vegetated with native species and wooded.
Applicant states: "Most of the other homes in the buffer area also have garages. The
site is flat and free of natural vegetation. No anticipated adverse effects to adjacent
properties. Fish cannot come up the stream because of the grade and because of a
flow restrictor where the stream goes under SR 106".
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;
The adjacent property to the northeast, on the other side of the Type 4 stream, has a
covered carport approximately twice the size of the proposed garage and is located
nearer to the stream. Other residences in the area have one or two car garages either
attached or detached.
Applicant states: "Most of the other properties contain garages. On Dalby Creek
there are 2 new homes and a garage built within the stream buffer and a waterwheel
on the stream is planned to be re-located. Dalby Creek and Alderbrook Creek were
recently relocated for a resort and a wealthy home-owner".
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The public interest is in the health of the Type 4 stream. The HMP includes mitigation
in order for the proposal to cause no substantial detrimental effect.
VAR2005-000020 -4-
Applicant states: "The proposed structure will be nestled in the trees and hidden from
most neighbors. The stream will not be affected by the project. I will comply with the
recommendations in the HMP".
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.
Although the property already has an existing residence, there is no storage building
of any kind on the property. The proposed footprint of the building is 484 square feet.
This is 92 square feet smaller than a typical two-car garage of 576 square feet.
Applicant states: "My goal is to have a safe place to store my car and my kayak".
The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act.
IX. Conclusion.Based upon the Variance criteria set forth above staff recommends
approval of the Variance with the following conditions:
1. Erosion control and best management practices must be incorporated during all
development for the rBsidmer- rl:k -
2. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
3. Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures and native plantings proposed by
the HMP prepared by Earl Kong dated July 25, 2005.
4. The applicant shall have a statement recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office.
The statement should indicate that development of the property is encumbered by
conditions placed on it by Mason County Department of Community Development
under this Variance#VAR2005-00020. The HMP prepared by Earl Kong dated July
25, 2005 contains required mitigation measures for future development.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approve the Variance request.
2. Approve with conditions the Variance request.
3. Deny the Variance request (reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
i
RECEIVED PERMIT NO.:
JUL 2 � � DATE RECEIVED:
MASON COUNTY
NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
426 W. .CEDAR ST. RESOURCE ORDINANCE (Chapter 17.01 MCC)
411 N.5TH Street/P.O. Box 279,Shelton, WA 98584
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE ❑ VARIANCE
The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical
areas and is under the authority of Chapters 36.32, 36.70A, 39.34, 58.17, 76.09, 84.33, 84.34 and 90.58
RCW.
PLEASE PRINT
Owner:__rkI r�.��(- L 0 1 , y,P �yl/ Owner Mailing Address:
S 9t P
Site Address:� '
n1 ��N Rt-r; kjol. City: —State:—Zip:-
City: Le4 i` (2Z StateWA_Zip5ZWe itle Holde
C'�(�i9.i' 1✓
Phone:Daytimd(�_)FG e
Address:
Fire District#:
City:_ State Zip:
Signature:
2' Parcel Number: ° -� -- 01 in Legal description:,L O T o P fad A fi #-q
Parcel Size: a,7' X /o2( 7 7 t x 40 t
3. Directions to site:
;15+ {ti.Dr Sc Jell .
State what sections require a permit: In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑
4' Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑
Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑
Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑
Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01.110
5.
Identify current use of property with existing improvements:
C�T-i J e t0 '1 nopra 05CJ Jwi ld a��rm.eT-1 y L't,3ed
6.
Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used;construction methods,
principle dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach additional sheets if
needed):- ' X
7' Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No
8. Any water on or adjacent to property:
Saltwater ❑ Lake ❑ River ❑ Pond ❑ Wetland 0 Seasonal Runoff ❑
Other a}YFG_m t-"r Y]5 aAaaCtt jpat!:- 9-: —p►:4_17,-E}')\q cline
9. If septic is located on project site,include records.
Connect to septic? ❑ Community Septic? ❑ Public Water Supply? ❑ Well? 0
10.
Type of Job: New W Add ❑ Alt ❑ Repair ❑ Demolition ❑ Other
This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)and nothing in this permit
shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal, state, or local statutes, ordinances, or
regulations applicable to thisproject, but not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance. Thepermit may be
rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance.
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT: $510.00/$305.00(with another permit)
MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR.PERMIT: $1,225.00
MASON RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE: $1,225,00
HEARINGS EXAMINER: $490.00
I:\PLANNING\R&GPAC\ENVIRONMENTAL REVISED O1-04-05
AJ d e,cl U:�
Mason County RECEIVE
Department of Community Development
Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01) 'JUL 2 8 2005
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 578, Shelton, WA 98584426 W. CEDAR ST.
Variance from Standards Information:
* Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical
standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards
would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property.
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.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. c�
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
7y►R en¢+t-P JAI I :(0)1 TL "A -f-kt- eft OM • S(,r- �1t�f 4-,he
I
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.
1. 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.
' \ s
f
Revised 02-23-05
2. 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.
pro o f e aEL-t>L-��_T e s r ,E-1 tin
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.
S
e � r+ Kbe,W4A5 01 goes and er541010
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.
�{
c . l�swl cid ��// hem-rc- 6a�ilnr '
5. That the public interest will suffer no shbstantial detrimental effect.
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.
dIIX-K,r73KV
TIgnA(urW Date
Revised 02-23-05
1
_ _ I
I' iGh 0 E7 19L) *F-1-M i
51 E. !1�zrr►Vrl o�syt't r. tom—
to �4logk l , Pla#oq rAot►rxowl'( = ltowsE
o� sP*a3A Wlt-Mboo
wnonstl�
i PIlOP05 p
5►�0PE 1 GR A6Ff-- S.2�
6.1
70POC,P, `PI %? Pko)rILE
YK@-rt i�(-Ot,trff'
UO'RT►} F}�
ro�oacd
tI
�e
��Y ►�� -yaw'
0/03 09:14 FAX 360 426 9663 FATCO SHELTON 0 007
SNORT PLAT OF PORTION
' LOT 6, BLOCK 1, PLAT OF MERRI MOUNT
5l:UU AS RECOUP IN VOLUME u OF PLATS) PAGE 59
MASON COUNTY, MASH I NGTON
\-�N
�-�ems• •,..r
\/� \�� ! !V• • ♦ O� SCALtr FEET
p� 0 8a loo
IIt= 50'
ti �*
' !L
�• . . �, �: ��. off,
LEGAL UESCRIPTION;: a}�
i SEE AYTACH-ET) SHEETS c��'Q! ���•
' SELLER: � , • • . ��. o
DEAN A. BIGGS 8 ALICE B. BIGGS
P.O . Box 140, Shn '.
UNION, tilA 98592 �0Gtovccl.......6F,-ZIA4 Z...........
.. .. •
.. .M.�..-..• �o�
298--3555 �f ��,♦
MERLE B, LIPIDGREN 877 92G4 BIGGS SHORT PLAT
P fl iln.i Z7� Unnn..r..r-• 1.111 (30cho \.'•4` •.�� IA 107r,
'RECEIVED 06-10-'03 09:20 FROM- 360 426 9663 TO- PRUDENTIAL NWRE BELF P07/08
Forestech LLC
260 Old Fort Townsend Road Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360)271-4779 www.littleforest.org
PLA141411
RECEIVED
JUL 2 8 2005
Habitat Management Plan 426 W. CEDAR ST.
Margaret Wilhelmi
SE1/4-S35-T22N-R3W-WM
Lot 6,Block 1, Plat of Merrimount Lot B of SP#232AF#315600
Mason County, Washington
This report addresses the potential impact a proposed garage on the above-mentioned property
would have on a non-fish bearing stream and a potentially unstable hillside. By enhancing the
habitat for fish, birds, and amphibians, supported by the small stream, the plan is intended to
mitigate the effects that the garage structure may have on the habitat near the project.
The wildlife occurring in the area is typical of those species native to western Washington.
Species monitored for survival or classed as sensitive, threatened, or endangered are found in the
area, although not specifically within the immediate area of this project, include great blue heron,
turkey vulture, osprey, bald eagle, pileated woodpecker, western bluebird, Vaux's swift, and
Pacific water shrew.
Soils
The soil occupying the area on and around the subject site has been determined by the USDA
Natural Resource Conservation Service to be the Alderwood, gravelly sandy loam series. In
undisturbed areas there is one to two inches of acidic organic matter on the surface. Then, for 8
to 24 inches there is a friable, medium acid, highly organic mineral soil. Typically there is a
cemented hardpan starting at depths ranging from 20 to 40 inches. The cemented substratum
restricts the downward movement of water, therefore rainwater that reaches this layer of soil
moves downhill above the pan which varies in depth from place to place. The effective rooting
depth is restricted by the hardpan at a depth of 20 to 40 inches. This puts mature trees at risk to
wind-throw when the soil is saturated and winds are strong. The danger of surface erosion
increases directly as the slope gradient increases. On- and off-site development has changed the
soil alignment with bulkheads, terracing, and artificial stormwater management.
Topography
The elevation at the project site is about .50 feet above sea level. The topography is typical of the
Hood Canal, twenty to thirty percent gradient, sidewall, with non-perennial, non-fish-bearing
stream channels which empty directly into the south shore of the Hood Canal. Generally the
Forestech
slope starts about a half mile upland from the Hood Canal. This project is at the lower slope of
that landform.
The immediate project site is directly below Merrimount Drive, which then immediately drops at
60% gradient for 15 feet. It drops to the site of the proposed garage, where it is level for 34 feet.
The site of the proposed garage is actively being used for parking.
This level area is supported by a four foot bulkhead. At the base of the bulkhead, the topography
drops at an average of 20% gradient until it encounters Highway 106 and the Hood Canal.
The topography slopes away from the stream to the site at the proposed garage. Therefore no
impact to the stream is foreseen from the construction of the structure.
Vegetation
The site under consideration is a developed home site with an existing home. The area has been
terraced and landscaped. However, native species are well represented in the landscaped yard as
well as the immediate surroundings.
The overstory is occupied by Douglas fir, bigleaf maple, madrona, birch, red alder, willow,
Western hemlock, Western red cedar, and hawthorn. The brush species are California hazel,
cascara, evergreen huckleberry, red huckleberry, Western dogwood,vine maple, wild rose,
Indian plum, ocean spray, rhododendron snowberry, salmonberry, trailing blackberry, and salal.
Herbaceous species are represented by foxglove, thimbleberry, bleeding hearts, bracken fern,
sword fern, bear grass, and trillium. Four invasive, exotic species of plants exist at the site; they
are English ivy, periwinkle, Algerian ivy, and wild geranium.
Water
There is a small stream, two to three feet wide, along the southeast property corner. It enters the
property by way of an 18 inch concrete pipe under Merrimount Drive, then follows the property
line for about 60 feet where it deviates, meandering northerly at about twenty percent gradient.
Along the western bank of the stream there is a stone bulkhead about seven to eight feet high
where the topography encounters a driveway. The driveway slopes away from the stream at
three percent gradient for about seventy feet.
During certain times of the day, parts of the stream are exposed to direct sunlight. The water
flowing appears clean and clear.
Recommendations
This site has been disturbed but is now in very stable condition. However, improvements can be
made to the site to increase habitat. The stream should be shaded with native vegetation, and it
should also be protected from the delivery of silt from Merrimount Drive. The exotic, invasive
plant species should be controlled so they do not compete with the native species for space.
There are many benefits to revegetating streams with woody plants. Erosion is prevented by the
plants' root systems, which hold the surface soil and bank in place. The soil's capacity to absorb
Forestpch
water is improved, which helps prevent flooding in winter and low water levels in summer.
Pollution is also reduced because vegetation acts as a filter, reducing contaminants.
Benefits to wildlife include increased food for fish as stream invertebrates feed on leaf litter.
Although there is no evidence of fish at the immediate project site, but the quality of the water
that leaves the site directly impacts habitat downstream. Other animals will find a variety of
food in the vegetation, especially if it is comprised of species of differing heights. Water
temperatures are also moderated, which benefits land and water animals. Finally, protection is
provided by overhead vegetation and fallen residue in the stream.
In summary, the habitat at the site can be improved by:
1. controlling the exotic, invasive species. They should not be allowed to occupy any more
space than they presently do;
2. planting native species along the stream. Four western red cedar, four native willow, and
four red alder trees are recommended. Native shrub species such as huckleberries, salal,
and ocean spray are positive wildlife species and their growth should be encouraged.
The implementation of the above-mentioned recommendations for improvements to the
vegetation area should result in a native area with a desired condition that would 1, increase the
protection and the integrity of the stream, and 2, enhance wildlife by providing "cover,"
including hiding, resting and thermal. Planting a diverse list of brush species would also provide
food for different species and protect the stream from the delivery of sediments.
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on conditions
observed in the field, background research and my best professional judgment.
ke-)vN q
b-7 - Z5-0
Forestech PLC
Name- Wilhelmi
Habitat management plan -----Union
Scientific name of plants mentioned in this report
Trees-
Bigleaf maple—Acer macrophyllum
Birch—Betula
Douglas fir—Pseudotsuga menziesii
Hawthorn—Crotaegus douglassi
Madrona—Arbutus menziesii
Red alder—Alnus rubra Scouler
Willow— Salix scouleriana
Western hemlock—Tsuga heterophylla
Western red cedar—Thuja plicata
Western white pine—Pinus monticola
Shrubs
California hazel—Corylus cornuta californica
Cascara—Rhamnus purshiana
Evergreen huckleberry—Vaccinium ovatum
Indian plum—Oemleria cerasiformis
Ocean spray—Holodiscus discolor
Red huckleberry—Parvifolium
Rhododendron—Rhododendron macrophyllum
Salal—Gaultheria shallon
Salmonberry—Rubus spectabalis
Snowberry— Symphoricarpos albus
Trailing blackberry—Rubus ursinus
Vine maple—Acer circinatum
Western dogwood—Cornus nuttallii
Wild rose—Rosa
Herbs
Bear grass—Xerophyllum Tenax
Bleeding hearts—Dicentra formosa
Foxglove—Digitalis purpurea
Thimbleberry—Rubus parviflorus
Trillium—Trillium ovatum
Forestech LLc
Ferns
Bracken fern-Pteridium aquilinum
Sword fern—Polystichum munitum
Invasives
Algerian ivy—Hedera canariensis
English ivy—
Periwinkle—
Wild geranium—Geranium robertianum
Forwech L c
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN SITE MAP
Margaret Wilhelmi
S35-T22N-R3W-WM
Lot 6, Block 1, Plat of Menimount lot B of SP#232AF#315600
Mason County, Washington.
Scale=l"=20'
North
-o-- MERRIMOUNT DRIVE
1t3"CDNLPIPE— 86.7'y
ACCESS
ROAD
STREAM -�-
5z� - --- PROP05ED
��. STRUCTURE
1
i
I
EXISTI NG
HOUSE
e,-pRO P05E D STRUCTURE
ROCK W ALL--� 05 G R K D I E NT- DOWN-
5TREAM�
DETA, 1 L
Map Output Page 1 of 1
FOREST PRACTICE RESOURCE MAP
TOWNSHIP 0 NORTH HALF undefined, RANGE 0(W.M.) HALF undefined, SECTION 0
Application#:
70 1705106 1705108 1705200
} r U 4- 4- +
s% }
3 Puget Bound
it A
■
301
t rlltiiliil t>; ;t�lii Euu.i�i't•iii{tini3ii n�tiss;;rs=, Y"■
S Puget Sound z " " �• ti
.+s. �.
1704184 1704186 1 1704188 �D
.. � of � � �•.ti�•
.'
—PROS ECT .;;: • r.- ,..
2rlk4198 17
I
e
1704240
No Issues of Concern Monday,July 25,2005 2:52:25 PM
NAD 83
http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/servlettcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName-fpars&... 7/25/2005
Map Output Page 1 of 1
FOREST PRACTICE ACTIVITY MAP
TOWNSHIP 0 NORTH HALF undefined, RANGE 0 (W.M.) HALF undefined, SECTION 0
Application#:
CIO
'L
2
�T aP■9a ts000d to
G
ti
S Payet�oond z
P Roj r--CT
a �r
o�
¢ z
V
,2
17
i
L
Please use the legend from the FPA Instruction or provide a list of symbols used.
Monday,July 25,2005 2:49:33 PM
NAD 83
Contour Interval:40 Feet
http://www3.wadnr.gov/dnrapp5/servl et/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=fparsact... 7/25/2005
t T Y LL
, t ''.It ��"; � .* '•'!. ., F ,.;� ��' tit l: �.,� ..
t
,
... `y�a`� X''a � a '� t\ _• '� Y. a •..i, t
F r
,fit- _ -' ,• ,+>'� ',p � ,�� � ' . _;� �.<-
r .
'y j ''��y C'•M 1�. r' '� .raj
t��. �
I.��, /f�� "'A'� '6� 'ter #`3�'� y _
x ,: a
�,�,,
`c
� .� � ��
., � � �
a #� � '
Cti t'' P �.
. ]ram = !.,e
i.` � ;r.
�'
�. `' .c
ti
ifs '�,� yyq � t.,r
i� �
X _...
d' ' �..:... ,�1�'�'�,. - �- �
.� T
�N � `�Y�
1 ��
t ( .f _.
f r
. , 't� _ ,t
7.. t:a,�� � f Y�����z sr
► ..�
r ; +r �
�d.. �}
.$
+i �v 5 ,ii n ,,I 9 �•
i
AV
11 Ya N�6 i � + .i �;�tir r" � � A ,�i ���l�����►,�,«; �t � r+• Y, �.
��..�� �. < �, - � � fie, � ,���� z�, • � s � �v*., ' .. , tr.►d,';� �r 'a,
a
�.. .., y '�.,• ... '� � 1 yt4. /. * w.?`Y _ Yys, is v
-.fir i'yy`,y.,'�':` ���,i„� ,..' �•�
'•`' ,+.'t t p•� ��.� • «�-.T'^"�9f j"�'v,i�.•1t airs. v�_ `' �. L ,� ,
�Sh�.'.' '� �� � 't 1 1;1t" �'{�t'l rJ ����bi I � �• • '
RIO
• �;' 'S 't ,rtr
;t.�,•. ;. J r.ts1cV/';"'3y+ '+38f'•' ,y •',�+r .�' t.'.�t��/ np:; '"'�
� }9
Notice of Application for a Variance from the
Mason County Resource Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Margaret Wilhelmi,who is the applicant for the following
proposal,have filed an application for a Variance.
The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for
the construction of a 484 square foot detached garage to be placed 52' from a type 4
stream. Type 4 streams require a 100' buffer plus a 15' building setback per the Mason
County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 Table 3.
Property location is 51 E. Merrimount Dr.Union, Washington in Mason County. Parcel
No. 32235-52-01901
Date of complete application: August 3, 2005.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas,which details type 4 stream buffer requirements and Section
17.01.150,Variances from Standards,which establishes Variance procedures and criteria.
The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan, and Hearing Examiner approval.
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 by Monday, September 12,2005:
KELL MCA.BOY
C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday, September 13,2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County
Commissioners Chambers,Bldg. I, 411 N. 5" Street, Shelton,WA.
Please contact Kell McAboy of the Mason County Department of Community
Development at(360) 427-9670, ext. 363,with any questions or comments on this
development and variance.
A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of
the complete application.
E ka;-�-
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY OF MASON ) ss.
A _.
C
k
` . I
l - do herebycertify that
t o
fY posted _ _ ,, copies of
the attached
on 1 day of AVlti �— 20.�S in a public places as follows:
ov-�I'
one at cu - -
C mr
one at W Co,rv�.1/
one at I�oS`� C_P to Jm LALA
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
of I 9L, 1 , 20�
By: lie
Address.- /-w .+.pt, wA �1 5
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this 4Vday of S
, 20�
BONNIE L. CAP
0 NOTARY PUBLIC 1,T Nota Pubf' far he t to of Washington
0 STAII Ur wASHINGTON ry
st
0 My Commission Expires June 6.2006 Reidin g a
0a- Commission Expires -�,
• L x lam; b,'-4-- �
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
Notice of Application for a Variare', Affidavit of Publication
the Mason County Resource,���
Notice of Public HearlkG ?z�
Notice is hereby, given that Q�e STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Wilhelmi,who is the applicant for th\, �e COUNTY OF MASON SS.
ing proposal, has filed an applicatior.Ne�
Variance.
The request for a Variance from the fb�l
son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93i Julie G. Orme being first duly sworn
is for the construction of a 484 square foot
detached garage to be placed 52' from a on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
type 4 stream. Type 4 streams require a of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
buffer plus a building setback per
thehe Mason Countyy Resource Ordinance paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
17.01.110 Table 3. date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
Property location is 51 E. Merrimount Dr. ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
Union,Washington in Mason County. Parcel and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
No.32235-52-01901 publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
Date of complete application: August 3, was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
2005. of said Mason County.
The proposed development is reviewed
as a Variance under the Mason County Re- That the annexed is a true copy of a Nc)t i _e c)f Piihl i Hp;;r i ng
source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically
Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Variance Application - Maggie Wilhelmi
Conservation Areas, which details type 4
stream buffer requirements and Section
17.01.150,Variances from Standards, which
establishes Variance procedures and criter- as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
ia.The proposal requires a Habitat Manage-
ment Plan,and Hearing Examiner approval. newspaper once each week for a period of one
Any person desiring to express their view consecutive weeks,commencing on the
or to be notified of the action taken on the
application should notify in writing of their in- 2 5 th day of August 20 0 5 and ending on the
terest by Monday,September 12,2005:
KELLMCABOY
C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF -
day of Auqus t 20 0 5 ,both dates inclusive,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
PO BOX 279 period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
SHELTON,WA 98584
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the foregoing publication is the sum of$ S 0 A—4
Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday, September • OA"
13, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Com-
missioners Chambers, Bldg. 1, 411 N. 5th
Street,Shelton,WA. Subscribed and swom to before me this 2 5 th da�t t I III,,,
Please contact Kell McAboy of the Ma Nt Ii
son County Department of Community De Augus t ,20 05 ��`�OpNN,DO'rS�''%,
velopment at(360) 427 9670, ext. 363, with
any questions or comments on this develop-
ment and variance. Afi'y t
for a var- Not blic in and for the State of Washington
A decision of this applicationary gt _
n will be made within 120 days of the Residing at Shelton Washington
—�—
ia ce Y 8 gt —_ ._
date of the complete application. :✓ AUBI.\,
My commission expires
8/251t ( 20 Q
i���il��fWASN%�\\N
r
k
Notice of Application for a Variance from the
Mason County Resource Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Margaret Wilhelmi,who is the applicant for the following
proposal,have filed an application for a Variance.
The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for
the construction of a 484 square foot detached garage to be placed 52' from a type 4
stream. Type 4 streams require a 100' buffer plus a 15' building setback per the Mason
County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 Table 3.
Property location is 51 E. Merrimount Dr. Union, Washington in Mason County. Parcel
No. 32235-52-01901
Date of complete application: August 3, 2005.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas,which details type 4 stream buffer requirements and Section
17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria.
The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan, and Hearing Examiner approval.
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 by Monday, September 12, 2005:
KELL MCABOY
C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
project
proposed p � on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County
Commissioners Chambers,Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact
o tact Kell McAbo of the Mas
on son County Department of Community
Development at(360)427-9670, ext. 363, with any questions or comments on this
development and variance.
A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of
the complete application.
MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE July 2003
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor.
` o y q- hl khelay) �c9rreCc,
S 7��Rye
Ta/ S C 3 . �vt err,ncoc�nt� I
e rc+e r l lr�n d 98otto
�1 v'nc� �.-,t.d y l�c�-►i�er r-d
moon
� won
4 a-1 -r Penn 1�
y U neon
Pa to --t-
� e e�t�Yert���.C,pGS ei I
c�a cj �rt c't?et"S s fy Lie .
S-I )a Z h $01 ,
611-fcfi, CS�R 4�0
r