The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSPI2015-00019 Cancelled - SPI Application - 3/12/2015 SPI,2D I!�2 ACCEPTED BY MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPT. PRE-INSPECTION APPLICATIO (12A PLEASE PRINT $255.00 Fee Required 1. Site Address: Y() F C5t/GA3f U"e'J�l i"C d Owner: Pec::cel11 Wa1� {: L_ Applicant: a Owner Address: l5fCG ;,4Jt Vk S1 '� �' 1 3 1 Applicant Address: 1.5 CC(7 At - V S�' City: b e Ipvf)e St u#'Zip (-Iw' City: &vvf St JAI' -- Zip �� 4 Phone: (uJ-S ) 8`70 Z'75y day Phone: (q,a ) ??c 77§c(day Phone: ( ) evening Phone: ( ) evening Email Address: Email Address: 2. Parcel Ws Legal Description: A 3. Purpose of Pre-Inspection: 64r1 Oi` r K z a t% (zo"I 4. Use of building: d4;,-J0,1 '11, 5. Do any of the following exist on or adjacent to property?: slope ( ) saltwater lake ( ) river ( ) pond ( ) wetland ( ) seasonal runoff( ) other( ) stream ( ) seasonal creek ( ) Directions to Site: / U4,C) kq(4 If the information is incomplete, then Mason County must disclaim any errors resulting from deficiencies in the original application. Pre-inspection reports remain valid only until development changes occur in the vicinity,which affect the lot evaluated in this inspection,or the laws regulating development of the site change after the time of inspection. i / S Applicant Signature: el� Date: If you would like to be on site during inspection,please check here: Return application to: Department of Community Development, Planning Division P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Please include a$255.00 check or money order payable to Mason County Treasurer. MORE ON BACK SIDE 1:\Community Development\PAC\SPI\2012 Pre-Inspection.doc Please illustrate below the proposed building site in relation to critical areas (slopes, streams, lakes, wetlands, etc.) existing improvements, as well as property lines. APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED WITHOUT ADEQUATE ILLUSTRATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AND WILL BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT. ' Departmental Review (For Office Use Only) Planning Department Findings: IACommunity Development\PAC\SPI\2012 Pre-Inspection.doc VV " `— /al ifs /_ _ „ cG47✓p -=- - -- --- - �2z?si- 1.3 �O�s� Page 1 of 4 Allan Borden - RE: beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance From: "Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)" <rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV> To: Rebecca Hersha <RebeccaH@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 2/27/2015 10:47 AM Subject: RE: beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance CC: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, Grace Miller <Gbm@co.mason.wa.us> "revising 'build i ng' to structure" - That seems like a good fix and would address this situation, yes? From: Rebecca Hersha [ma ilto:Rebecca H @co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 10:41 AM To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) Cc: Allan Borden; Grace Miller Subject: RE: beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance Well, that's the problem. The RO does not address maintenance (except maintenance of landscaped areas, utility lines, roads, and farming stuff). The FWHCA chapter does allow for remodel/repair of an existing building. And I was already planning on revising 'building' to structure, so that would probably cover adding gravel for maintenance of a bulkhead. Rebecca Hersha, Planner Mason County DCD 426 W. Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext. 287 On 2/27/2015 at 10:30 AM, "Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)" <rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV> wrote: Ah, sorry. I didn't notice the second question in the "bubble". I think MEPs cannot be required in the shoreline environment, regardless of the work proposed, so "yes"to that. file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54F04B2FMasonmail I... 3/9/2015 Page 2 of 4 I'm unfamiliar with the requirement in the RO for an HMP for maintenance activities. Can you highlight that for me? From: Rebecca Hersha [ma i Ito:Rebecca H(&co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 9:46 AM To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) Cc: Allan Borden; Grace Miller Subject: RE: beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance Ok thank you. So then beach nourishment is not fill because it does not permanently elevate (or create dry) land, and since it's not fill, it's not development, therefore no Shoreline Exemption is required (currently). But I don't think you answered my second question: Second question: Currently, our Resource Ordinance requires an MEP and HMP for 'filling' in FWHCA's, but it doesn't have a definition of fill. So, unlesswe change the RO, after the SMP update is complete, a SHX would be required in place of an MEP whether or not it is considered development. Do you agree with me that we should revise the FWHCA chapter to not require MEP or HMP's for maintenance of shoreline stabilization and for maintenance of aquaculture? Thanks! Rebecca Hersha, Planner Mason County DCD 426 W. Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext. 287 On 2/26/2015 at 10:12 AM, "Mraz, Richard A. (ECY)" <rmra461@ECY.WA.GOV> wrote: Hi Rebecca, To me, it means the latter; the action of beach nourishment could be considered development but would not be reviewed under the Fill chapter. It may qualify for review under the Restoration chapter. It is also (as noted) a common mitigation action associated with bulkhead construction and, sometimes, repair. Beach nourishment does not intend to create dry land or (permanently) raise the elevation of land. Its use is "sacrificial" and its purpose is to mimic and replace the sediments that would normally erode from the armored shoreline. file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54F04B2FMasomnail I... 3/9/2015 Page 3 of 4 Hope this helps. Rick Mraz, PWS Wetlands/Shorelands Specialist Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Southwest Regional Office (360)407-6221 rmra461@ecy.wa.gov From: Rebecca Hersha [mailto:Rebecca H@co.mason.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:05 AM To: Mraz, Richard A. (ECY) Cc: Allan Borden; Grace Miller; Gates,Tim (ECY) Subject: beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance Hi Rick, The Planners have a question regarding gravel enhancement or beach nourishment for bulkhead maintenance. I believe I posed this question to you before, but I'm not sure where it went. The definition of'development' includes 'filling.' However, the revised draft definition (below) of'fill' excludes beach nourishment. Does this mean it is not development, and would not require a Shoreline Exemption? Or does it just imply that the Fill Chapter would not apply? Fill. The addition of soil,sand, rock,gravel,sediment,earth retaining structure,or other material to an area waterward of the OHWM,in wetlands,or on shorelands in a manner that raises the elevation or creates dry land. Depositing topsoil in a dry upland area for normal landscaping purposes is not considered a fill._ Aquaculture gravel enhancement projects, beach nourishment protection projects, and restoration projects are not considered fill. rrhl1 rhl rh1 rh1 Rebecca Hersha, Planner Mason County DCD 426 W. Cedar Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-9670 ext. 287 rhl PAC Decision on 5/20/2013: Amend to clarify the definition of fill. Second question: Currently, our Resource Ordinance requires an MEP and HMP for 'filling' in FWHCA's, but it doesn't have a definition of fill. So, after the SMP update is complete, a SHX would be required in place of an MEP whether or not it is considered development. Do you agree with me that we should revise the FWHCA chapter to not require MEP or HMP's for file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54F04B2FMasonmai 11... 3/9/2015 Page 4 of 4 maintenance of shoreline stabilization and for maintenance of aquaculture? Thank Rick! file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/54F04B2FMasonmai 11... 3/9/2015