HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2004-00003 Hearing Decision - SHR Letters / Memos - 3/2/2005 MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
March2,2005 TO BE KEPT IN THE
NOTICE OF DECISION PARCEL FILE
Case: SHR2004-00003
Applicants:Daniel and Jill Sullivan
Notice is hereby given that Daniel and Jill Sullivan,who are applicants for the above referenced shoreline
permit have been conditionally granted the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.The request was
approved pursuant to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,specifically for the construction of a
pier,ramp and float facility.
If you have any questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Grace Miller,Senior
Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360)427-9670,x 360.
Appeal of this approval may be made to the Mason County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to
Title 15,the Mason County Development Code,specifically section 15.11.020.The fee for the above
referenced appeal is$450.00+cost of transcript and should be made payable to the Mason County
Treasurer.If you wish to appeal please follow the procedures outlined in Section 15.11.020 to create your
own application.The application and payment should be sent to:
Mason County
Clerk of the Board
Attn:Becky Rogers
411N5'hST
Shelton,WA 98584
Please
FILE
�93(0 51 DOC 31&
To:
Date Sem to FW:
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COU
2 ,A S
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Z'9,�
RE: Daniel and Jill Sullivan FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
(SHR2004-00003)
6
7
INTRODUCTION
8
The applicant has requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct a
9 6' X 40' fixed pier, a 4' X 34' aluminum ramp, and two floats (6' X 26' and 6' X 20"
10 forming an "L" shape). The pier/ramp/float structure shall extend 100' beyond the
Ordinary High Water Mark of Hood Canal. The Examiner approves the requested
11 permit subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
12 ORAL TESTIMONY:
13 Grace Miller, Mason County planner, introduced the staff report plus accompanying
14 exhibits.
15 Amy Leitman, representative of the applicant, discussed the environmental impacts of
the project and the Biological Evaluation, which she had prepared.
16
17 EXHIBITS:
18 The Examiner adopts the exhibit list submitted by staff, located at Page 4 of the staff
report dated January 12, 2005.
19
20 FINDINGS OF FACT
21 Procedural:
22
1. A_ p1Q icant. The applicants are Daniel and Jill Sullivan. The applicants'
23 representative is Amy Leitman, of Marine Surveys and Assessments.
24 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
25 application on January 25, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of
{PA0593361.DOC;3/13009.090000/90000}
Sullivan P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
Commissioners Meeting Chambers. No one other than County staff and Ms. Leitman
1 testified at the hearing.
Substantive:
3
3. Site Description/Proposal. The site contains a single-family residence.
4 The applicant proposes to construct a 6' X 40' fixed pier, a 4' X 34' aluminum ramp
5 and two floats (6' X 26' and 6' X 20') forming an "L" shape. The proposed
pier/ramp/float structure will be as depicted in the Biological Evaluation and
6 accompanying diagrams in addition to site plans attached as Exhibit 2 to the staff
report. Approval of this shoreline substantial development permit application is
premised upon conformance to the design criteria identified in the Biological
Evaluation and site plan.
3
9 4. Characteristics of the Area. There are several single-family residences in
the area. The adjacent similar pier, ramp and float facilities are located
1 t) approximately 600' to the east and another located 485' to the west of the site.
11 5. Adverse Impacts. The Biological Evaluation and the testimony of Ms.
Leitman established that the proposed structure, as mitigated by the recommended
staff conditions, will have no significant or material adverse impacts on aquatic
habitat or wildlife. As noted in the Biological Evaluation, there is eel grass 40'
waterward of the float and this eel grass will not be adversely impacted by
construction of the proposed facility or access to it by boats. Pile driving could
adversely impact listed fish during the spawning season and the conservation
measures recommended in the Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 6) and recommended
by staff to avoid these impacts by limiting the pile driving activities from July 16
through September 14, a time period outside the spawning season.
No adverse view impacts are anticipated given that there do not appear to
we any homes in close enough proximity to the proposed facility that will have their
views impaired and also that there are similar facilities in the vicinity. No testimony
was supplied by any neighbors raising a concern about view impacts and there is no
2() evidence in the record to suggest that any views would be impacted.
21
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22
i'r ocedural:
23
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the
24 Examiner with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline
Substantial Development Permits.
PA0593361.DOC;3/13009.090000/90000)
Sullivan p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Substantive:
1
2 2. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline of
3 Statewide Significance; therefore MMC 7.24.010 has application.
4 3. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(a) requires a substantial
5 de'v elopment permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
MCC 15.09.055(f) requires that applications for substantial development
development permits be
r --iib�ect iii ic'vicw liy the Hearing Millininer. MCC 15.09.05J(li(2)iC) provides 'that
the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on
the Shoreline ''faster Program for Mason County ("MCSMP") and the policies and
_ 0iRRC� te �omliw Maria "SN �prl .dlrs ni Chap1 : , � i . TUSC'C
h 7I1v define, n substantial `lavell�. .t n �>{>i -1.»:�1:. owti* f- l c. 1•
"W" tltlllll..] " .)LLIIStttalLll LLLV{..l%JprrlI, L as ally u.v.-10pnient of which total cost liar
lllarkcl v;aFiic exceeds ?+5,i�s`i�i or ;inv dcvclt�pment that materially iniCricres with any
nvrtnaF public use of the hater or shorelines of the state. The stalf repot! states that
l h the proposal will exceed $5.000 in cost and, therefore. requires a shoreline substantial
riPZ;einVnnient permit. the 1'-SMl1 is codified as l tale 7 of the Mason ('ountu, Code.
rt_ �_ t__� _ a s: a
l 1 t Etc applicable -shoreline policies are quote' and a'resse' below.
MCC 7.16.010 (Policy No. 1): Piers and deck; should he designed and located to
rn nin ize Obstruction of views and cot?flicts with recreational boaters cane fisherynen.
4. As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the location of the pier/ramp/float
facility will have tninirnal impacts upon views_ Further, as indicated in the Findings
of Fact. the proposed facility do not have any adverse impacts upon aquatic habitat or
v ildife. There is alsje no evidence in the record or an, suggestion that the
-f' pier/rampifloat structure will conflict w►th recreational boaters and fishernieii.
«C{ 7.111,c ;ac �P::ciz) No. 2). Cooperative uses o 1.Jiers and a: ck.S are favored
1 v 0_i )c?r'ic ll;%la1 ttdcai tit'[atet's-
19 5. From the standpoint of protecting the area shorelines and aquatic
environment, cooperative docks are always a preferred method of accessing the
shorelines over individual docks and piers . However, as noted previously. given the
minimal adverse impacts of the proposed structure in light of the, built nature of the
L l surrounding environment, cooperative use is not necessary in this iilsuaiiCC. As 'IS
22 evident from the language of MCC 7.16.l 0 (Police No. 2), cooperative use is
favored but not mandated.
23
MI C:C: 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and Incrauln of i41i'1s and Piers
24 should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. • Consideration
Should be given to shoreline C'harac!erisiics, tidal ac'tivn, aesthl-tics, ad avlent land
clrid water uses. wCaier qu alhy and the hcabilat Qf.fish cart'vvihfiil e.
PA059336 t.D0CY i 3009-n90000!90000)
Sullivan p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
I
1
6. As noted previously, the proposed pier/ramp/float structure is aesthetically
compatible to surrounding uses since most of the surrounding homes have similar
structures. Also, the floats are to have stops that will prevent the floats from
grounding out and disturbing the beach.
4 MCC 7.16.170(Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife
and water quality.
6 7. As noted previously, impacts will be minimal upon aquatic wildlife and
7 habitat, which includes fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. As further noted
previously, the only vegetation in proximity to the float is eel grass, which is 40'
S away.
`j N1CC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, designed
.nd operued to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
a jac;ent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be iuc°ated at a
minimum g1,flve jeet./rom side property lanes. Community use or.joint use.lacilrties
may he located on the property line.
t1. As indicated in [lit staff'report, the proposed zairucture be 5' fro►n the
dearest side proper- line. it is also indicated previously, given the. built nature of the
environment (;several pier/ramp/float structures in the vicinity), the proposed facility
will not significantly impact or interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners
pia i.E-UJ
Vacciit .—atc --ses. The j'}teI',�raing/filoat stru ture h-as. no ascertainable II;?pac! �,n
dic rip-his of adjacent p1-Gpciiy owners or aulaccrn iiSCs.
tb
_ M('(' 7.16.170 lice Regulation. No, 4)! No nier. dock; or float or .similar device
/ L.t4 t Fl I:t.v�_r!. .F, �; .l 'ft" ,,.tyy.//. •f.yl;t"I;L'/ ,� .+n,. ;�
.--)l ..
>. No residential structure is proposed upon the proposed pier iacility.
MCC' 7, 7 IRegulation 7 Orr i+++�sr+ orern l l a n a re f o r onrrl
11�.>! ,0 Rise �40. ?: _4....r..:.._..t :l: er..vf: -. c.•_c.ti_..._._
r t �.... r_..ir;, F �. r.._,.. ..r_. r t r.. . r.. T y v_L �.._� +. �f r::.
uvtli�tt: ttfS f.fttl£[lii:o fcztct,.; rtel t €iFir; sv FuF"c� ii li ultitia CZ :e�E Ire o 1:.
jeer q uialel' as Fne"SureCt a[ )i eall I!()-K; l ii er I.o- ' wwer on a Saliwal—Cir Ui" li uelit
l
tive leer as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. Phe length of any pier or
dirck facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetr•h or 100 ,feet froal
-- a{�;' /y ;r. t r ,L 7>, ,t' CI71C1 S!1 . .r„ . f..-sh- ,`.r� ;•�, „ 1;, ,..
�a v h._ h ,i/U t t 1tf1/l RII! TL.}:!trn l.t _!.f •1- ti ��
yy 10. J 1 tie pier/rail 11 iioat are proposed at a total length ui WO', which is the
24 maximum allowed length of the pier, i•he terminus of the pier (a float) is above the
Off of mean lower low'wf ter.
,n nc[?i ic,e.(Sfl�•_�/t;non{�nn�.�n/anrr!?i
1 1 1_., ram._ _
:�ullik'arz P. -> c l;ui??g�, •,�=I?i=liisi,�:i5 :i.::t T�ci:is:. ..
• I
1
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot.
1 ?. 11his Nvould be the only pier on the lot.
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
shall not exceed eight feet.
1
12. The proposed width is a 6' pier, 4' rump and 6' float, all below the 8'
5
maximum.
6 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end nfa dock or pier. afloat may he
attached. These floats ma3, either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" o.-
"L." In tidal water, the flout shall not exceed 600 gross square feet with the boa!
is slip.
9 13. The float surface area is 276 square feet.
10 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
1 f than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
an eight,font snan between pilings.
114. Pier height is 2' above rnean higher high water. The piers are not
proposed to be any closer together than approximately 11.5' as shown in Figure 4 of
14 the Biological Evaluation.
15 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures shall be
a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
10
15. The Biological Evaluation states that float stops and two step pilings will
1 be installed to suspend the float at least 12"above the sea bed during low tides.
1�s
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall include
1 Ej intermittent supports to keep structures off the lidelands at low tide.
16. The Biological Evaluation states that the floats will be supported by float
1 stops..
22 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the.state-wide interest over local interest.
17. The proposal avoids the shading of eel grass beds and minimizes beach
impacts through its design and material configuration. As detailed in the SCUBA
survey results of the Biological Evaluation (Exhibit 6). eel grass was found during the
SCUBA sunley, but the horizontal distance between the water ward extent of the
JJ::t ii:! .1 tTIL vt sJ 10'.; UI 0- ._ SICItt d tlFi';\L :lLi l Ii?dI1._J JL t dt:. �"-."�::d
S�illl�ar P. Findin-s. and JC:;_-IsI0-L1
l
t
some minor propeller scour that does not create any significant adverse impacts, the.
1 nroject, as configured and mitigated, will have no significant impact upon the aquatic
environment and thus protects the statewide interest over local interest.
RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
1 18. As mentioned previously, the adverse effects of the adverse development,
impacts on views aund aquatic res-ources,axe m1rumal.
R
R(—iv 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-rerm benefit.
9. The proposal will facilitate access to shoreline without any cognizable
si nilicaiit adverse Impact, Creating more long terin than short terin benefit.
RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology o
y f the shoreline.
10 20. As addressed several times before, as mitigated the proposed development
will have no significant adverse impacts upon the resources and ecology to shoreline.
li
RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase Public access to Publicly owned areas of the
2I. The pier/ramp/t7oat facility has no ascertainable impact upon access to
publicly owned areas of the shoreline.
F= RCW 9058.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities (bl- /lie public and t17-,
shoreline.
22. The proposed project may not increase recreational opporhinities for the
public, but it also does not in any significantly decrease those opportunities.
S
I)EC S]ION
19
The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development subject to
- the mitigation m_a5uxc5___om_Tncnded by staff in. he .:tiff rcpc,r..
21 Dated this 21 st day February, 2005.
11
23 -
/2 Phil
Mason County I learing Examiner
i�
rn0503361.1xV 3/13oon.on0moor00000;
Sullivan p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
i .
January 12,2005 TO BE KEPT IN THE EXHIBIT 1
PARCEL FILE
TO:Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Planning staff,Grace Miller
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit#SHR2004-00003 request by Daniel and Jill Sullivan.
STAFF REPORT
I. APPLICANT.The applicants are Daniel and Jill Sullivan.Their representative is Amy Leitman.
II. PROPERTY LOCATION.The property is located at 9960 SR 106,Belfair,on Hood Canal.
III. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. Pebble Beach Park TR 34-36&TL EX 34-35&TL NWLY of RW.
Sec 36,Twn 22 N,R 3 W.Parcel No.32236-51-00036.
IV. EVALUATION.
PROPOSAL:The proposal is to construct a recreational use pier,ramp and float facility extending
100'beyond the OHWM.The facility consists of a 6'x40' fixed pier,a 4'X 34'aluminum ramp
to two floats(6'X 26' and 6'X 20')forming an"L"shape and consisting of fully enclosed in
extruded polyethylene,polystyrene floatation, 10 piles and two stub piles(ACZA).Pier and floats
have 2' wide grating.
A.Characteristics of the site:The pier ramp and float facility will extend from a narrow strip of
land,approximately 46' in width and 130' long on the north side of State Route 106.There is an
existing 15' wide boat ramp located 5' from the east property line.The owner's single family
residence and garage are on the south side of the highway across from the facility.
B. Characteristics of the area:There are several single family residences in the area.The adjacent
similar pier,ramp and float facilities are located approximately 600'to the east and another
located 485'to the west of this site.
C. Shoreline designation.The shoreline designation of the site is Urban Residential.Hood Canal is
a shoreline of statewide significance.
D.Comprehensive Plan.The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural.
E. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5.
V. SEPA Compliance:A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on October 28,
2004.Comments were received from the State Department of Ecology and added as recommended
conditions of this permit.
Vl. Other Permits:The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit and a Mason
Environmental Permit. The Washington State Dept of Fish&Wildlife will require Hydraulic
Project Approval,Washington Dept of Ecology Water Quality Protection Concurrence,and US
Army Corps of Engineers approval.The Habitat Management Plan was sent to the Dept of Fish
and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe for comment.No comments were received.
1
\\CLUSTER 1_HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstaff.doc
I
VII. ANALYSIS.Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,this proposal requires a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit due to the cost exceeding
Per Section 7.13.010.The
$5 000
P g
proposal is for a pier on an Urban designated shoreline.
Applicable Piers and Docks Policies and Use Regulations follow:
POLICIES:
1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and
conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
3. The type,design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the shoreline area
where they are located.Consideration should be given to shoreline characteristics,tidal
action,aesthetics,adjacent land and water uses.
USE REGULATIONS:
1. The location and design of docks and piers,as well as the subsequent use,shall minimize
adverse effects on fish, shellfish,wildlife and water quality.
2. Docks and piers shall be located,designed and operated to not significantly impact or
unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent water uses.Structures shall be located a
minimum of five feet from side property lines.
7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float shall be only as
long so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water
on salt water.The length of any pier or dock facility shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent
of the fetch or 100 feet from OHWM on salt water.
8. Only one dock is allowed per lot.
9. The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
10. At the end of a pier or dock a float may be attached.These floats may either be parallel to the
dock or pier,or form a"T"or an"L". In tidal water,the float shall not exceed 400 gross
square feet without as boat slip or 600 gross square feet with a boat slip.
13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water.Piers and
docks shall have at least an 8'span between pilings.
14. The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the
water.
15. All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep the structures off the
tidelands at low tide.
16. All structures shall be constructed in a safe and sound condition.Abandoned or unsafe docks
and piers shall be removed or repaired promptly by the owner.
23. Covered moorage and over the water boat houses are prohibited except in marinas.
Based upon these policies and use regulations,the project conforms to the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program. The location and design of the pier facility does not appear to impact
adjacent residences views of the shoreline.As detailed in the biological evaluation,the shoreline
environmental impacts of this structure are minimal.The float and ramp have been configured to
pose little or no threat to natural resources.No eelgrass will be impacted by the structure.The
biological evaluation identifies no significant environmental threat from this proposal. Sideyard
setbacks are 5'and are met because the pier is 5' from the west property line and 119' from the
east property line. The pier,ramp and float are proposed at a total length of 100'which is the
maximum allowed length. MLLW is indicated further waterward(distance not indicated in feet)
than the end of the pier.This is the only pier on the lot.The proposed width is 6'pier,4'ramp and
6' floats.The float surface forms an"L"shape as allowed and the area is 156' sf on first float and
120 sf on second float,for a total 246 sf.The pier is no higher than I V above MHHW and over an
8' span between the piling.
2
\\CLUSTER 1_HOME_SERV ER\HOME\GBM\sdpstaff.doc
Applicable guidelines for Shorelines of statewide Significance:
#1-Recognize and protect statewide interest over local interest;
The proposal avoids shading of eelgrass beds and minimizes beach impacts through its design and
material configuration.
#2-Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
The float will not damage and/or destroy any eelgrass beds.The nearest eelgrass is 40'waterward
of the floats at a depth of—3.5' MLLW.When the landward end of the float begins to rest on its
float stops at a tidal elevation of approximately+5.0',the waterward end of the float will be
approximately 5.0'above the seabed and small boats could still come and go from that float At
this TE(=5.0%the eelgrass area will be approximately 8.5'below the water's surface and it
seems unlikely that boat traffic over the eelgrass bed at this TE will cause any scouring impacts.
This conforms to the guidelines to preserve the natural character of the shoreline.The float stops
will prevent grounding of the float that would otherwise disturb nearshore substrate and
potentially harm midlittoral invertebrates and spawning beds for sand lance and surf smelt.
#4-Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
The float size and configuration will not harm the ecology and resources of the shoreline except as
follows:
- Undefined,undocumented ways a single dock may alter fish behavior.
- As one of a number of docks having an undefined,undocumented cumulative impact.
- However,as noted in the biological evaluation,there are no definitive data to suggest
significant adverse environmental impacts from dock construction.
VIII. Conclusion. No public comments regarding the proposal were received to date.Based upon these
policies and regulations,the project is consistent with the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program Piers and Docks chapter.Planning staff is satisfied with the survey and its purported
impacts.Field inspections conducted by staff confirm this view.The project also complies with
the guidelines that instruct development along shorelines of statewide significance.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following conditions:
1. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach
area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters of the state.(Use Reg#22,Res
Ch.of SMP)
2. Water quality is not to be degraded to the detriment of the aquatic environment as a result of
this project. (Use Reg.#21 of Res Ch of SMP)
3. Floatation for the structure shall be entirely enclosed and contained to permanently prevent the
breakup or loss of the floatation material into the water.
4. Pressure treated wood must be completely dry prior to placement in water.Use of creosote or
pentachlorophenol is prohibited.
5. Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation
of Chapter 90.48,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for
Surface Waters of the State of Washington and is subject to enforcement action.(per DOE
SEPA comments)
6. Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading or construction.These
control measures must be effective to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying soil and other
pollutants into surface water or storm drains that lead to waters of the state. Sand,silt,clay
particles and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered to be pollutants.(per DOE
SEPA comments)
3
\\CLUSTER 1_HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstaff.doc
7. During construction,all release of oils,hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products,
paints,solvents,and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner
that will prevent their discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should
take precedence over other work on the site.(per DOE SEPA comments)
8. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas disturbed should be restored to
prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.(Use Reg.#21 of Res. Ch. of SMP)
9. Planting Plan on page 28 of Biological Evaluation prepared by Marine Surveys and
Assessments dated July 26,2004 must be implemented within two years of issuance of
shoreline permit.Plantings to be maintained in a healthy condition.
10. The project shall be consistent with the Biological Evaluation and/or Habitat Management
Plan and Best Management Practices as conditioned and approved.
11. All other necessary permits from Mason County,Washington state and Federal Agencies that
are required for this proposal must be obtained prior to same development and construction
and adhered to upon completion of the development.
IX. Choice of Action.
1. Approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit#SHR2004-00003.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny permit(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted)
4. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section
15.09.090 of Title 15.
EXHIBITS:
1. Staff Report.
2. Site plans,drawings and vicinity map(5)
3. Shoreline Permit Application(2),MEP(1),JARPA(4)
4. Public Notice(3)
5. SEPA MDNS(2)&comments(1)
6. Biological Evaluation(38)
4
\\CLUSTER 1_HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\sdpstaff.doc
i
Figure 2. Site plan Ta
TOPER, HOOD CANAL i5 TOPER,
RAMP Proposed B RAMP
AND FLOAT 6 structure 0 I AND FLOAT
10011
from MHHWL
T
--- —— —-- MHHW— — — ` R 11'
A
M
p
46 �
N
130' I
SR 106
I
20' I
48' i
D
� R i
I .
R E PI
O W R0,
P A P
iE Y E
R R
y SULLIVAN T�
RESIDENCE Y
� �
I L N IN
E E �
t
5'
GARAGE t
J
130'
Sullivan Pier,Ramp and Float Project-20
EkZ�p< 2
Figure 3. Elevation view
=OR 31
~4
a
0
4-
S b g'
4- -0
N -�
�O
N
O O V1
H;z 21
O n
_ C
U- O
L
b
C
e-�
LC')
01 ii
a
i
3�
�l
Sullivan Pier,Ramp and Float Project•21
Figure 4. Plan view i I'
bLU
-�
� QQ
N z
m w
QO
H 0
(V
O(
Z
CY'
M
b
0
� Q
Zw
eQ
Z
w
a
00
�t' N
�O
Sullivan Pier,Ramp and Float Project•12
Figure 10. Planting plan
o �
N
LO
r. o kv) CO0QH" CLQ CL
\ rn
o }�
; y
X.!:
` N W 4-
3 1 �
c
^ L N >
c � E
t ESQ r V 0
c � r .0 ' V
�
u u m
bV .a U do ' °C Ch
.. u ih .o wit; 9 oti -Ze
C .L V Y
0 In d '
4- u n
A p%
d
fL d GC L% >
I g
E+-
a
HL, O ' w w
L
CL
01
t(
1
1
Sullivan Pier,Ramp and Float Project•28
' ,i/ ����,_ f!f � ! f .'� `*,..• .� ��� � '�r.� i(fl I(�/� •.r/i f'#,Y� rr %�},- '• ',.
f s E`,,, ifi = i'✓ 4✓ f A 'f`a,q r ,� \ 24
�-�'�;. t •� �� , � ,,F �?� ,,1" r {fir}.�� '• �!% ,•
s +
—141
. f
J�f'/ 1'l}' -i c ' ,prn'..tl r,t � '•l 'i % r j� r � .'•' O t Y�x •a+.
4^ 3 Shady Beach
1 �..
C-,
�• -
�!,, •` Tahuya R(vtr
:7•�,(,S V T5 C / 2el
13
'` �\ � o. �u � t yi� '� � � �>...„Pi.2 k u`{,U .itl4 .� r w• 1 1'. G � !� �
��,/ n 0.. .. ••.,' a N: o
A/ - ,„r•M..•.. �' 1•" i d ""iy�'8 rs ;. ,;� •>l � ��\ (r ..c.
-� y --
� f / � r fFY n !- n �k�'l��" j:`; 1 i /` ✓'%/'%`�/ll f� �
J 7
� j
Project Site a}Y�f� ' t.< </, �,y lj�i i ` - v 1; ' •
+ ," ,, ,�r•SfBS _ yr; ,•+.�frl,1/ ii*,,.� -�/'�(���,Jr1 �4� C: `� � v ( j �� � .
Points A
>
Reference:Sullivan,Daniel&Jill
• I y. ..I L l s -�` i Sullivan Project Location: App:Marine Surveys and Assessments
' In:Hood Canal near Union
Section 36 Township 22N,Range 03W Purpose: Recreational use of pier,ramp& 4�y
Y 9960 SR 106 Union,WA float
Lat:N 47*21.49 Long:W 123*00.83 Datum:MLLW
r
is r.............___ Adjacent Property Owners: ,
1) Provident Funding
2) George&Erna Brucker
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet Sheet I of Date:7 January 2004
Copyright(C)1997,Maptech,Inc.
Ii
w .H: