Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommissioners' Procedings - PLN General - 10/4/1994 s ! INVESTIGATION REPORT FORM Revised 6/3/93 Part A: Nature of Complaint • Initiator's Name: �,N► ��r42 fG • Address: Sk0 Fc "T12 t3E • Telephone: yZ6 �f�32 • Owner Name: -F0 Zi c2 • Address: (tip 7,2( 6,,,/ a /f 1 • Telephone: > !{26 - y 4/a - �4.2_6 -`` 37 Z� r4 • Department of Concern ❑ Clerical ❑ Building ❑ Health a/comm Development ❑ Fire • Area of Concern: ❑ Process Delay ❑ Personnel ❑ Policy/Fee U7 Code Violation ❑ Other Refer to Director • Location of Concern: l� • Nature of Concern: .ec-� � ^—=j �'`_ Part B: Concern Intake and Referral Received By: Referred To: Response Date: 23 AV — Name Date Name Date Date Part C: Findings Referral Forwarded to: ❑N/A Name Date Findings: / - — /�-�� /,/� — � �9�f o� ,. 2-J Ass-•( i ce --- Part D: Resolution Name Date Intake/File Copy-White Referral Copy-Yellow Referral Copy-Pink Tracking Copy-Gold BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 4, 1111 - PAGE 6 Mr. Martin asked when this would start. The Board replied, November 1st. Cmmr. Porter commented the Public Works Board has allocated over $6,000,000 to the City of Shelton in the last six years. Mason County is now eligible for these funds. She feels it is very important for Mason County to be represented on this board. SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - Art & Evan Tozier Don Brush, Planner, requested the hearing for the SDP be continued for two reasons. The permit request was to line a 692 foot section of the Skokomish River with concrete riprap, riparian vegetation and fencing. He stated a violation currently exists on the site in that the applicant has performed the majority of the work over the past weekend. A stop work order has been issued by the Department of Community Development. It will have to be evaluated to determine its compliance with the submitted plans, applicable regulations and the concerns of other affected agencies. A course of action will need to be determined regarding enforcement. The options include permitting the work after-the-fact, either as built or with further mitigation or modification or possible removal of the rock from the site until the permitting process can be completed. Mr. Brush also stated DCD is concerned that SEPA requirements have not been completely fulfilled. Mr. Brush stated he would like more time to submit the environmental checklist to all affected agencies for a 15 day comment period. This process will allow agencies to submit their comments and concerns as built. Mr. Brush requested the hearing be continued to no sooner than October 25. Cnimr. Faughender asked the applicant if 10-25-94, 11:30 a.m. is agreeable. Evan Tozjer, applicant, stated he is confused with regard to the staff report vs. what Mr. Brush is stating a: this time. Mr. Tozier read excerpts from the staff report. He stated the conditions have been met and in some cases, they have gone above and beyond what was asked. Cmmr. Faughender stated when either party requests a continuance, the policy is usually for the Board to grant the continuance. Cmmr. Porter asked if the applicant understood only the Board can make the ruling that the permit request is consistent with the Master Program and whether those conditions exist. She asked if Mr. Tozier thought the staff report was issuing the permit. Mr. Tozier replied he thought the staff report was in agreement that the project needed to be done in a manner they followed through with. Cmmr. Porter asked Mr. Tozier if he understood that only the Board can make that determination. Mr. Tozier stated he doesn't have a question on that. He is questioning why staff is questioning the project at this point. Everything has been built and the process has been completely done. They followed every step they thought they had to go through. Cmmr. Faughender again asked if the 10/25/94, 11:30 a.m. date is acceptable for a continuance. Mr. Tozier replied that is acceptable. Cmmr. Hunter asked what percentage is complete. Mr. Tozier replied about 75%, all but the willow staking. They cannot obtain the willow staking until mid- October. Mr. Tozier believes they are more in compliance than what was outlined by the Conservation District. They have had several agencies out to view this project. He doesn't believe they have a problem. Art Tozicr stated there was one section completed in the past.This project was done because of the urgency of the matter and as stewards of their land they needed to control the erosion. Mr. Tozier stated the Soil Conservation has had positive commen(s. He doesn't feel a continuation is needed. They have paid for this project with their own money. Ile stated they were asked by the Conservation District to come up with a project in the Skokomish Drainage. They do not feel there is a real issue but they want to settle it. Evan To7jer stated he believes (he urgency of the project warranted the project be completed. This stops the erosion of hundreds of tons of soil into the Skokomish River. Cmmr. Porter/Ilunter moved and seconded to continue the hearing to 10-25-94 at 1130 a.m. Motion carried unanimously. F-aye; If-aye; P-aye. Cmmr. Porter stated the Board has a certain legal role for decisions on permits.Whether or not a good job has been done cannot be considered. The Master Program specifically states the permit has to be considered as if BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 4, 1994 - PAGE 7 no work occurred. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Board to make decisions about any type of enforcement or any actions the staff is taking now,due to the applicants having started the work prior to the permit. The only role the Board has under the Master Program is deciding on the permit itself. If there are appeals to staffs decisions, the Board plays a judicial role. It is not legal for the Board to state an opinion one way or another about either of those possibilities. Evan Tozier asked if it is correct that he didn't have a permit. He pointed out his check was cashed. Cmmr. Porter replied that an application was made for a permit. Only the Board can issue the permit. The staff produced a report that would have been presented today and the Board would have made a ruling as to whether or not the applicant has a permit or not. Mr. Tozier stated he thought he had a green light, the check was cashed and he thought the permit was being processed. Cmmr. Porter stated only the Board can issue a permit. Then the Department of Ecology must concur or disagree with the Board's decision. After that process is complete, there is a permit or a denial of a permit. John Lidington, Soil Conservation, asked if the Board will take testimony at the continuance. Cmmr. Porter answered, yes, as if no work has been done. Cmmr. Hunter interjected testimony can be given today in case someone feels the hearing shouldn't be continued. Cmmr. Porter stated her concerns about taking testimony on the project today. If the proposed project has changed in any way between now and the 25th she wouldn't know what to do with the testimony. Cmmr. Porter asked Don Brush the reasoning for requesting the continuance to 10-25-94. Mr. Brush answered there are concerns with fulfillment of the SEPA process,which requires 15 days minimum. Evan Tozier stated he thought the SEPA checklist was already done. Mr. Brush replied it was issued in May, but apparently not mailed out by county staff. Mr. Tozier stated he has a problem with that error due to the urgency of the project. Cmmr. Porter stated she is uncomfortable with the discussion. The Board sit as quasi-judicial if the staff decisions are appealed. If the Board listens to discussion between the applicant and staff now, and the decision is appealed, the Board would be considered to be prejudice. The Board has to be formal in order to preserve the rights of everyone involved. Art Tozier questioned the right to protect their property. He feels they are victims. Evan Tozier confirmed with Don Brush the compliance list was not sent to all agencies. He asked about the hydraulics permit. Mr. Brush stated that is a separate permit between the applicant and the Department of Fisheries. Cmmr. Hunter asked if the continuance request is because of the checklist not being circulated or the permit is partially completed. Mr.Brush answered his continuance request is for both reasons. He doesn't see a problem with continuing since the project has been partially completed. He would like to view the project from the applicant's property. Art Tozier stated he feels the Conservation District is in agreement on the project and urged the county staff to discuss this with Conservation staff. Cmmr. Hunter pointed out the Conservation District is not a part of the Mason County government. It is a federal agency and is housed in their own office space. RECESS The Board recessed from 10:41 a.m. to 10:45 a.m. BEARING - SOLID WASTE FEE ADJUSTMENTS The Clerk read aloud the hearing notice. BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 25, 1994 - PAGE 7 t s Elden Reed, Public Works, presented the staff report.The recommendation is to establish a peed limit of 25 MPH for the following roads located within Curries Landing: Currie Way, Mya Lane, TA. Fredson Court. Cmmr. Porter asked if Mr. Reed is aware why Mr. Hauth didn't recommend a 20 MPH speed limit. Mr. Reed replied he is not aware of the reason.The technician's report said 20 MPH or 25 MPH. He noted the roads are short so it would be difficult to reach a speed of 25 MPH. By approving one speed limit, it can be posted once for the entire plat. Cmmr. Porter/Hunter moved and seconded to establish the speed limit on Currie Way, Mya Lane and T.A. Fredson Court at 20 MPH and adopt a resolution. Motion carried unanimously. F-aye; H-aye; P-aye. Resolution No. 118-94 (Exhibit G) Cmmr. Porter stated her reason to change the speed limit to 20 MPH is because she has had several requests from residents within plats in her district to reduce the speed limit to 20 MPH. This will avoid the expense of having to change the speed limit in the future. RECESS The Board recessed from 11:25 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CONT. - Art & Evan Tozier Don Brush, Planner, presented a revised staff report and gave copies of letters received from resource agencies to the Board. The proposal is to stabilize 300-400 feet of shoreline using broken concrete rip-rap, riparian vegetation, live willow staking, cabling-in of large woody debris and fencing. The location is on the south bank of the Skokomish River. Staff find this proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Master Program policies and use regulations subject to the following conditions: 1. Re-bar ends projecting from concrete rip-rap shall be cut off prior to placement, as indicated on site plan. 2. Placement of large woody(organic)debris shall conform to WDFW requirements as outlined in the Hydraulic Project Approval and as indicated on the site plan. In general, the wood should be located around the 300-400 foot section. 3. Live willow staking and planting of native vegetation shall be undertaken according to Mason County Conservation District specifications, as indicated on the site plan. 4. Fencing, a minimum of 25 feet from the OHWM of the river shall be installed sufficient in size to prevent livestock access to the river as indicated on the site plan. 5. All exposed slopes shall be stabilized with grass seed and temporary straw matting to prevent erosion. 6. Some remedial work is required to bring the project into compliance with the submitted plan, the Shoreline Master Program and applicable state regulations. A work corridor shall be retained along the bank top sufficient in width and length to allow access to those areas needing remedial work in the summer of 1995. These areas shall be identified in an on-site meeting to be held within 30 days of permit approval with representatives of the WDFW, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Mason County Conservation District and Mason County Department of Community Development. Remedial work may include removal of portions of concrete and backsloping to achieve a better angle. Vegetation shall then be planted as per the remainder of the site. 7. Annual monitoring of the site for a five year period by Mason County Department of Community Development shall be required. The evaluation will be for the purpose of identifying the success of the project and for identifying areas requiring further vegetation. Cmmr. Porter asked who would define the remedial work that would be required under Condition #6. Mr. Brush replied the identification and outline of any work that would need to be done would be identified by Mason County DCD in conjunction with agency input and agreement with the applicant. It will be a collaborative effort. Mr. Brush presented photos to the board showing the area before and after the project. Cmmr. Porter requested Mr. Brush to address how his review of the project has covered Use Regulation #1. Mr. Brush replied those are issues that are generally considered in their evaluation of any shoreline hardening project,they are considered as an outline for proposals. There is no scientific studies involved,beyond appraisals BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 25, 1994 - PAGE 8 by the U.S.Fish&Wildlife Service and discussions with Toni Malone,the Conservation District and the resource agencies. It is in conjunction with the SEPA review that these items are considered. ' Cmmr.Faughender requested Mr.Brush explain the project using the photos. He questioned the straw matted area and where the willows will be planted. He asked how closely does the work that has been completed conform to the plan as submitted. Mr.Brush replied it is difficult to say.It generally follows the plan as proposed. He noted there is one area that does not project out as far as the plan and some slopes are steeper than proposed. He pointed out it is difficult to precisely lay out on paper this type of project.He stated it does substantially conform to what was presented. He does believe some modifications may be required as noted in the staff report. Particularly, in the upper sections for back sloping to achieve a more moderate angle. Evan Tozier presented to the Board, 1946 and 1989 aerial photos of their ranch that demonstrate the erosion that has taken place along the river. He emphasized something needs to be done to stop the loss of the tree line. He perceives the general attitude of government agencies as not trying to help, but to stop what they are doing. He noted he contacted approximately nine agencies on this project and there were almost 20 different people on site to review the project. He feels they were responsible on this project. They are willing to do what is necessary so everyone involved is happy with the project. However, he doesn't agree with all that is requested from the different letters. Cmmr. Porter asked Mr. Tozier if he has comments with regard to the seven conditions recommended in the staff report. Mr. Tozier stated he doesn't have a problem except with the approval of the WDFW. He stated the letter he received from Jim Frazier is very vague. He is not clear on the requirements from that department. Mr. Brush has recommended an on-site meeting take place which should result in some of these problems being answered. He is not clear where the Skokomish Indian Tribe fits in as a governmental agency. He noted the Skokomish Indian Tribe did a project several years ago very similar in nature to their project. The Skokomish Tribe removed a bridge and dumped several loads of concrete along the riverbanks and the rebar was not required to be removed. He asked why they have to follow these procedures and not the Skokomish Indians. Other than those issues, they have no problems and they do agree they need to be in compliance. He noted they never intended to not be in compliance. Cmmr.Faughender asked if Mr.Tozier is referring to staff Condition #2,regarding the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Mr.Tozier replied he has a letter from Jim Frazier that addresses a setback area between the existing fence and the stream bank in such a size and density that would provide a functional riparian habitat, but there are no specific sizes given. He also takes issue with the 2nd paragraph in the letter, stating it appears the concave portion of the streambank in the project area has been filled into reclaimed shoreline. Mr. Tozier stated it is the contrary, if they had followed through with the original plan, they would like to have reclaimed their entire tree line. They moved it back 35-40 feet from what they had originally planned. They did not back-fill the area, they covered the debris they had placed behind the rip rap so it would not erode. Cmmr. Faughender requested Mr. Tozier explain how the work conformed to the plan submitted and how it differed. Mr. Tozier pointed out the project on the photos. He stated the project stops the loss of the tree line that provided shade for the river system. It eliminates the grazing of cattle along the shoreline, and allows public access to the shoreline. He believes it will improve the water quality. Cmmr. Hunter referred to Condition #6. He asked what part the landowner will play in the final decision of the plan that is agreed upon by the agencies. Mr. Brush replied ideally, a consensus will be reached by all parties. At this point, the only enforcement is asking for mitigation to bring the project into compliance. Cmmr. Porter asked if is there a depth that would be reasonable for vegetation to provide a functional riparian habitat area. The length has been estimated at 300-400 feet. Mr. Brush replied there is a 25 foot setback from the river to the fence. He believes the majority of that area should be planted. The goal is to see 100% of natural vegetation in that 25 foot corridor. Marty Ereth, fish habitat biologist for Skokomish Tribe, clarified that the Tribes riprap project was done in the 1980's. It didn't receive any environmental review. It is not in the Fisheries's best interest. They have applied for funding to have a lot of the concrete removed. He stated that Art Tozier was clear, at the on-site meeting, that he didn't want any government help. Mr. Ereth believes there was help available. Mr. Ereth stated he BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS OCTOBER 25, 1994 - PAGE 9 didn't want as much concrete used for the Tozier project and doesn't believe it is asking too much to have some of it removed. He stated the Tribe also wants the bank stabilized. He explained the Skokomish Tribe has the right to comment on a project when it might affect the fish and wildlife in the Hood Canal area. The Tribe concurs with the staff conditions and the WDFW recommendations. The Tribe does want to work with the Tozier's. He doesn't believe the Tribe or WDFW anticipated the amount of concrete that was used. Sue Hayward,Conservation District,gave thc;history of the Conservation District's involvement with the project. It began with an agreement between the US dish&Wildlife Service and the Mason County Conservation District to locate projects in the Skokomish Watershed that focused on conserving, enhancing and restoring fish and wildlife habitat. One of the three projects selected by Fish & Wildlife is the project for fencing and riparian planting on Tozier's property,based on the Tozier's obtaining a permit for the bank stabilization.She explained that a meeting took place on-site and she and John Lidington encouraged the Toziers to apply for the permit and assisted where appropriate in that process. John Lidington, Conservation District, stated he wanted to confirm what Evan Tozier said about all the government agencies getting involved.All the entities they dealt with agreed there was a problem on site. He referred to the project the Tozier's did in the past where the slopes are at a steeper grade and that has completely revegetated. He estimates that an excess of$30,000 was put in this project and monies that were to come from different agencies,didn't come through. He stated from the southside,the slopes are much less than they appear to be. He believes the slopes are acceptable. He believes this is a huge improvement and believes within a few years there will be an excellent riparian area and everyone will benefit from this project. He encouraged everyone who is involved to assist the Toziers. Mr.Ereth stated he doesn't believe it's fair to blame government for not coming through on assisting the Toziers. He remembers that Art Tozier was explicit that he didn't want government assistance. Mr. Liddington stated he understands the funding would be there for planting and fencing from the Fish & Wildlife Service if there was no mitigation on this project. Jerry Richert stated he is disturbed by the whole process. He believes the project is being nit picked. He asked what law gives authority to the staff. Ile noted that in the Comprehensive Plan there is nothing that states the Tozier's need a 404 permit. Cmmr. Porter interjected the Board is considering a shoreline permit, not a 404 permit. Mr. Richert stated the applicant has received a call from the Corp. The Corp has the power to fine $25,000 a day. Cmmr. Faughender pointed out the Board is considering the shoreline permit, not the 404 permit. Art Tozier pointed out it seems the concrete is the concern. He noted the whole south fork and north fork of the Skokomish River is encased with concrete, Lake Cushman Dam and the power house are also made of concrete. He feels the amount of concrete they have used for this project is insignificant. He believes they have a good project and he is sorry for the land they have lost to the river. Cmmr. Porter/taunter moved and seconded to approve the shoreline permit as conditioned by staff with two changes. To condition #6, at the end of the eighth line, add "The Mason County Department of Community Development Director, or his designee, shall determine the necessary remediatiou for the purposes of this condition." Add condition #8, the riparian corridor depth Is not to exceed 25 feet. Cmmr. Porter stated the conditions are extensive and little bit open ended so she felt it is reasonable,given the testimony, to close the ends of the conditions a little bit.She does appreciate that a ir;etng needs to take place on-site to talk it through. She pointed out it needs to be kept in mind the DCD Director's determinations are appealable to the Board under the SMP so this gives the applicant flexibility. Cmmr. Hunter/Porter moved and seconded to amend condition#6,include the applicant In the meeting with the representatives of the agencies.Amendment carried unanimously. F-aye; H-aye; P-aye. Mr. Liddington questioned if the riparian zone is not to exceed 25%. Cmmr.Porter explained that the required depth of the riparian zone is not to exceed 25 feet. The concern given in the testimony was the Wildlife letter is relatively open ended. Motion carried unanimously. Faye; H-aye; P-aye.