Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2010-00006 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 5/15/2013 1971031 MASON CO IAA \ 03/04l2011 08:35 AM MISC V I IIII II IIIIII III IIIII IIII Iill II III II IIII III glll IIIII Illilll0l IIIII ICI s20 llll IIII IIII Return To: TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT-P -.. DATE: �_ I OWNER NAME: Y' -o' P MAILING ADDRESS 14036 180r�+ Ave NE Redmond, WA 98052 PARCEL# 0 0 03 0 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Q 1q ,�m4.c �o .T �a!4.e 01 1011 XX (ABBR.FORM: QUARTER/QUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT, LOT&BLOCK NOTICE: The property was the subject of a developmentyroposal within a critical rea or its buffer,for the purpose of - :; ,.�• application number 10 , 6 D 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, mitigati n 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): A r C)60— AST FIRST MI �' Q-4' LAST FIRS MI i SIGNATURE(S): GRANTEE: PUBLIC Psov coot MASON COUNTY � ap Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 7854 FAPP-1sase January 26, 2011 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION i awaZ Lism to F bB: . I Case Number: VAR2010-00006 Applicants: Sandeep and Cindy Arora Notice is hereby given that Sandeep and Cindy Arora, applicants for the above referenced Resource Ordinance Variance, have been granted conditional approval of the project. The Decision was dated 1/25/11. The request for the Resource Ordinance Variance was reviewed pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance and the Mason County Development Regulations specifically for the construction of a residence. If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue please contact Grace Miller, Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360)427-9670, X 360. According to MCC 15.11.030,this land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file a judicial appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Sandeep and Cindy Arora Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and 4 Final Decision 5 Resource Ordinance Variance VAR2010-00006 6 7 INTRODUCTION 8 The applicants request a variance in order to build a 2370 square foot residence that 9 will encroach 15 feet into the 69 foot shoreline and setback buffer of a lagoon of Case Inlet and 20 feet into a 90 foot shoreline plus setback of a Type Ns stream. The 10 variance is approved subject to conditions. 11 ORAL TESTIMONY 12 Grace Miller introduced the staff report and noted that the proposal will be built 13 within an already cleared area. No one else was present to testify. 14 EXHIBITS 15 All documents are admitted in the "List of Exhibits: appended to the December 29, 16 2010 staff report, in addition to the staff report itself. 17 FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 18 1. Applicants. Sandeep and Cindy Arora. 19 20 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on January 11, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners 21 Meeting Chambers. 22 Substantive: 23 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants request a variance in order to 24 build a 2370 square foot residence that will encroach 15 feet into the 69 foot shoreline and setback buffer of a lagoon of Case Inlet and 20 feet into a 90 foot shoreline plus 25 setback of a Type Ns stream. Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision The lot is small,roughly 55'wide by 94'-99' deep and 0.12 acres in size. The majority 1 of the property is comprised of a forested community of Douglas Fir and western red 2 cedar, with a dense understory comprised of salal and evergreen huckleberry. A portion of the property occupying half the area proposed for development has been 3 cleared of vegetation. 4 The staff report notes that in conjunction with the 25 foot front yard setback, there is no space to develop on the property outside a shoreline buffer or setback. The 5 "Figure 2" site map attached to the back page of the staff report does appear to show 6 some developable space on the southwest portion of the lot that is outside buffer areas, but this space is very small and would necessitate an irregular shaped home. 7 The Examiner finds that there is no reasonable developable building space outside buffers and setbacks on the subject property. 8 4. Characteristics of the Area. A residential parcel of similar size and shape 9 borders the property to the east and an undeveloped larger parcel surrounds the 10 property to the north, south and west. An estuarine lagoon associated with Case Inlet is located approximately 50' north of the property. A forested ravine containing a 11 Type Ns stream draining into the lagoon is located west of the property. The surrounding area within the Harstine Point subdivision contains similar single family 12 residential lots with similar sized residences. 13 5. Adverse Impacts. Half of the proposed development area is already 14 cleared. The habitat management plan, Ex. 4, provides a thorough analysis of potential impacts and associated mitigation. As noted in the habitat management plan, 15 the on-site stream is nonfishbearing and provides no habitat for any endangered fish. Puget Sound Chinook may use the saltwater shoreline for migration and foraging, but 16 the vegetation that will remain on-site after construction will provide sufficient protection from the proposed residential development and use. Best management 1 practices are recommended in the habitat management plan to prevent any increase in 18 sediment and turbidity during construction. Monitoring is recommended in the plan to ensure the mitigation is sufficient and to address any unanticipated impacts. The 19 mitigation recommended in the habitat management plan will be made a condition of approval. As conditioned,there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposal. 20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21 Procedural: 22 1. Authority of Hearing_Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(1) provides the Examiner 23 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 24 Substantive: 25 2. Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 3. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County 2 Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type Ns streams and saltwater shorelines. Table 3 of MCC 17.01.110 provides that the buffer to a Type Ns stream is 75 feet 3 with a 15 foot setback and 100 feet with no setback for saltwater shorelines not designated as Conservancy. However, MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1) authorizes the 4 creation of a buffer average from the shoreward points of two adjoining homes when both adjoining homes are within 150 feet of the proposed home and within 200 feet of 5 the shoreline. As discussed in the Site Inspection notes (Ex. 5), MCC 6 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1)was employed to derive a 54 foot shoreline buffer for the project. MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1)(a) also adds a 15 foot setback for averaged 7 shoreline buffers. Consequently, the separation from the saltwater shoreline must be a total of 69 feet(the 54 foot buffer plus 15 foot setback). 8 Since the proposed home encroaches into both the stream buffer/setback and the 9 saltwater shoreline buffer/setback, a variance is required. MCC 17.01.150(B)(1) 10 allows variances to setback and buffer requirements. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall govern the variances authorized by 11 MCC 17.01.150(B)(1). The variance criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 12 MCC 15.09.057(1): That the strict application of the bulb dimensional or 13 performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of 14 the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 15 4. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, reasonable use of a parcel in a residentially zoned area is a single family home and garage for lots large enough to 16 accommodate them. The entire developable area is subject to a shoreline buffer or setback. The only way the applicants can build a reasonably sized home on their 17 property is through acquisition of the requested variances. 18 MCC 15.09.057(2): That the hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of 19 the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 20 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 21 the applicant's own action. 22 6. The hardship is caused by natural features of the site, i.e. the Ns stream and the saltwater shoreline. The criterion is satisfied. 23 MCC 15.09.057(3): That the design of the project will be compatible with other 24 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 25 properties or the environment. Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 7. The property is zoned rural residential 5. A single-family residence with a 1 garage is a permitted use in this zoning. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, 2 surrounding development is similar to that proposed by the Applicant. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant adverse 3 environmental impacts. The criterion quoted above is satisfied. 4 MCC 15.09.057(4): That the variance authorized does not constitute or grant special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the 5 minimum necessary to afford relief 6 8. Single family residence and garage are allowed in RR-5 zone. For these 7 reasons, the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege. MCC 17.01.150(E) sets the minimum single-family building footprint to which a variance 8 applicant is entitled which is the lesser of 40% of the area of the lot or 2 550 feet. eet. The proposed home will be 2370 square feet, which is within the minimum size 9 authorized by MCC 17.01.150(E). For these reasons, the variance requested is 10 deemed the minimum necessary to afford relief. 11 MCC 15.09.057(5): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 12 9. As noted in the Findings of Fact, there are no adverse impacts associated 13 with the proposal and the variance is necessary to develop the parcel. For these 14 reasons, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect by approval of the proposal. 15 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 16 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 17 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only 18 shall notjustify a variance. 19 10. Without the variance, the Applicants would not be able to develop the property with a single family home. The owner lacks reasonable use of their property 20 without approval of the variance. Building permit review will assure compliance with 21 the County's development standards and the proposal is otherwise compliant with all applicable codes. The criterion quoted above is met. 22 MCC 15.09.050(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 23 proposed development according to the following criteria: 24 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 25 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 1 in the public interest. 2 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 3 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 4 11. The project creates no significant adverse impacts and allows economic 5 use of the Applicants' property. Consequently, the project does not impact public 6 health, safety and welfare and it is in the public interest. After building permit review, the project will be consistent with all applicable development standards. The project 7 is only for one home and there is no evidence and as a project of such modest scale it is presumed that it will not lower the level of service for transportation or park 8 facilities. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. The criterion quoted above is satisfied. 9 10 DECISION 11 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. 12 13 Dated this 25`h day of January, 2011. 14 15 P Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 16 17 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices 18 This land use decision is final and subject to appeal to superior court as governed by Chapter 36.70C RCW. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. 19 Anyone wishing to file a judicial appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. 20 21 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 22 23 24 25 Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision December 29,2010 EXHIBIT 1 TO: Phil Olbrechts,Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM:Grace Miller,Senior Planner RE: Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2010-00006 request by Sandeep and Cindy Arora. STAFF REPORT 1. INTRODUCTION.The variance request is for the construction of a single family residence within a regulated rural shoreline buffer and Type Ns stream buffer.Approximately 2370 square feet of building will be constructed 70 feet from the stream and 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point.A Resource Ordinance Variance for a residence on this same parcel was approved by the Hearing Examiner in 2004 for a previous owner.That variance approval had since expired in 2009. The new owners were required to re-submit a new variance application.The Examiner's Decision, dated 8/24/04,Findings and Conclusions and Staff Report from the 2004 case are attached as Exhibit#6. II. APPLICANT. The applicants are Sandeep and Cindy Arora. III. PROPERTY LOCATION.The property is located within the Harstine Pointe development,on the north end of Harstine Island. The address is 789 E Chesapeake Drive, Shelton. Sec 19,Twn 21 N,R 1 W.Parcel No. 12119-57-00030. IV. EVALUATION. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a reduction within the regulated saltwater shoreline buffer and the Ns stream buffer for the construction of an approximately 2,370 square foot residence.The residence is proposed to be constructed 70'from the stream and 54' from the saltwater shoreline at its nearest point. A. Characteristics of the site.The property is 0.12 acres in size and wooded. The saltwater Lagoon is associated with Case Inlet,Puget Sound.The majority of the property is comprised of a forested community of Douglas fir and western red cedar,with a dense understory comprised of salal and evergreen huckleberry.A portion of the property occupying approximately half of the area proposed for development has been cleared of vegetation.Topography throughout the parcel is slightly undulating,given the presence of the moderate slope toward the ravine to the west and the lagoon to the north. B. Characteristics of the area.A residential parcel of similar size and shape border the parcel to the east and an undeveloped larger parcel surrounds the property to the north,south and west.An estuarine lagoon associated with Case Inlet is located approximately 50' north of the property.A forested ravine containing a Type Ns stream draining into the lagoon is located west of the property. The surrounding area within the Harstine Pointe subdivision contains similar single family residential lots with similar sized residences. C. Zoning:The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5. D. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Rural. 1 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROSHRvarstf8.doc.gbm E. Shoreline Environment.The shoreline environment is Rural Residential. F. SEPA Compliance.The proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1),(iii). G. Other Permits.The proposal also requires a Building Permit.The development has a community well and sewer system that the owner will be connected to. H. Habitat Management Plan. A Habitat Management Plan(HMP)was developed by the Wetland Corps,dated September 2010.The HMP addresses potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a new SFR that will occupy 2370 square feet(60 feet by 39.5 feet)within the buffer of a Type Ns stream and rural shoreline. A copy of the Habitat Management Plan was sent to the Squaxin Island Tribe and the Dept of Fish and Wildlife for comment.To date,no comments have been received. The Resource Ordinance requires a 75'buffer with an additional 15'building setback from the type Ns stream.The ordinance requires a 54'building setback. from the OHWM of the saltwater lagoon. The proposed SFR will be located 70 feet from the stream and 54' from the shoreline at its nearest point. Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices have been identified to avoid,minimize and mitigate for impacts associated with the proposed construction.A copy of the HMP was sent to the Squaxin Island Tribe and the Department of Fish&Wildlife for comment.To date,no comments have been received. III. 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 he Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code,especially Title 6, 8 and 16.2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is 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 and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code. B. RESOURCE ORDINANCE REVIEW: The Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110(DX1)of the Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type Ns and Saltwater Shorelines such as this.The setbacks for the proposed structures were determined by Planner, Scott Longanecker for a previous owner during a pre- inspection in 2004.The new owners,current applicants,requested a current evaluation in early 2010 by the Planning Department to determine their setback requirements under the current code. IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA. The Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110 details buffer requirements and the content of the Habitat Management Plan.The Variances from Standards Section 17.01.150(E)and the Mason County Code review standards Section 15.09.057 provide that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 2 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROSHRvarstf8.doc.gbm 1. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional and performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations. Due to the presence of critical areas within the property the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to re u ty q q accommodate residential use of the property. 2. That the hardshipwhich serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the �' g property of the applicant,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape,size or natural features and the application of the County regulations and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size,setback requirements and presence of natural features.The regulated buffer associated with the stream and shoreline,coupled with the front yard setback requirement(25')captures the entire buildable area within the property leaving no space for a house. 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. A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid,minimize and compensate for potential negative effects to the environment.The applicant is seeking compliance with the county regulations,specifically,FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type Ns stream and shoreline buffers.No view corridors will be obstructed or modified.The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur.All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will preserve and enhance the riparian and shoreline buffer area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate a single family residence.The resulting overall footprint has been proposed under the guidance of the reasonable use criteria described in chapter 17.01.150 Section E of the Mason County Resource Ordinance.Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of similar footprints in similar proximity to the saltwater. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences.The application of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project site are preserved or enhanced.There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the proposed project. 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. The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5.Residential development is an allowed use under these regulations and policies.The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent 3 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROSHRvarstf8.doc.gbm with the surrounding area.The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act.It appears that the project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the shoreline. V.CONCLUSION. It appears to staff that if the permit is approved by the Hearings Examiner with the recommended conditions,the proposal meets the County criteria and regulations for approval of a Variance. The conditions require incorporation of the Habitat Management Plan into the site development.The Habitat Management Plan was developed for this proposal by the Wetland Corps and offers mitigation.The mitigation measures are listed within section 7.0 of the HMP. It appears that the only area that the parcel has available for construction of a residence is the building area footprint shown on the site plan. The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur.To date,no comments from the public have been received.If approved,staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the permit. 1) Owner shall be required to control erosion during construction.Any disturbed areas should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.Erosion and best management practices must be incorporated during all development for the residence. 2) Owner shall implement all Mitigation Measures and Buffer Enhancement Recommendations that have been proposed within the Habitat Management Plan prepared by the Wetland Corps dated September 2010. 3) The applicant/owner is to have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan recorded with the Deed to the property in the Mason County Auditor's office.A copy of the HMP Notification Form has been provided by Planning staff. The Title Notification statement indicates that the property is subject to conditions,mitigation and/or conservation measures as contained within the HMP submitted to the MC Dept of Community Development and approved under Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2010-00006. 4) The three-year Monitoring Plan specified in section 8.0(page 10)of the Habitat Management Plan must be implemented.The information gathered by the applicant's biologist must be submitted as an annual report to the Director of Mason County Dept of Community Development for three years following the first fall after plantings are done in enhancement area. CHOICE OF ACTION: 1. Approval of the Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2010-00006. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted.) 4. Remand for further information as authorized by MCC 15.09.090. 4 \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROSHRvarstf8.doc.gbm LIST OF EXHIBITS for Sandeep and Cindy Arora VARIANCE REQUEST,#VAR2010-00006: 1. Staff Report,site plan and vicinity map. 2. Variance Permit Appl ication. 3. Legal Notice of Application. 4. Habitat Management Plan with site plan and vicinity map. 5. Shoreline pre-inspection findings 2004. 6. Decision for RO Variance case#VAR2004-00021. \\CLUSTER HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROSHRvarstf8.doc.gbm This site map was created by TWC by coordinating measurements and information from several sources, including the Mason County Assessor Aerial Photo 2005 and GoogieEarth aerial images and measurements. All locations are approximate. Shoreline 100' buffer Type Ns Stream 75' buffer 15' + 54' building setbac Nurse log placement 100, ♦ 75' Proposed FootprintV 0 100, N FIGURE 2. SITE MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP Location: Hartstene Island, Washington THE WETL-kND CORPS Project: TWCI0-W347 Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora Date: 9/10 r ire ZF3 - >- 11 i �!r Peview LoopRD' q. O Q �I J EAPRILAVE w 7 Approximate Parcel Location + I J J E SUNSET HILL Rb J /+ 0 6765fl FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP Location: Hartstene Island,Washington Project: TWC10-W347 — Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 9/10 FILE/V min {COL P. G G 55A GE A Martstenle 4)ointe � G y / `addition 10 ti ,i, r \ �� ¢� ;y„{' ,_��•;, �._ BEING A REPL.:7 pp ADDITIONS 2,5 AND / y '��v�/�..) s, �.c�'•••r 1:,� CERT/F/c:..'�.� A� .SUR✓EYG4Q 4 � •� / \\�l b !a/"YLY ww •.moo>a•�rdYcr Jp/I ', a , ��wr..re �• 30 ti „qy crwevF aara 40 4 '� ..e....,..v.•..e,,.,..�..,�.._ 36 iu--?O iv—©ci5l VARIANCE APPLICATION MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards As stated in Mason County Code Title 15 VARIANCE CRITERIA Section 15.09.057. A , variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is met. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria listed below. Applicant name: Sandeep and Cindy Arora Telephone No. ff Mailing address: 14036 180t`' Ave NE Redmond Wa 98502 66& `3c�D "72- - 2-4ZI Site address: 789 E CHESAPEAKE DR SHELTON Owner Name: Same as Applicant Owner Address: Same as Applicant Tax Parcel # 121195700030 Legal Description: HARTSTENE POINTE#10 LOT: 30 S 30/82. Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X Mason County Development Regulations Subdivisions and Plats 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. Construction of single family residence within regulated rural shoreline buffer and type N,s stream buffer. 2370 square feet of building will be constructed 70- feet from the stream and 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point. Mason County Variance Application Vl-'Zv i v —cx ,� GXa� 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. The regulated stream and shoreline buffer encompasses the entire ownership. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; Due to the presence of critical areas buffers and front yard setback requirements, the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate residential use of the property. b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size, setback requirements, and presence of natural features. The regulated buffer associated with the stream and shoreline, coupled with the front yard setback requirement captures the entire buildable area within the property leaving no space for a house. c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize and compensate for negative effects to the environment The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations, specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type N 5 stream and shoreline buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will preserve and enhance the riparian and shoreline buffer area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate a single family residence Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of similar footprints. e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Mason County Variance Application Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the proposed protect. f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. The site is within an area zoned for residential use. The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream and shoreline. L� Applicant Signature TDate Owner Sign ture Date FEES: Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520.00 Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00 Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $445.00 NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached). Mason Countv Variance Application P60 coO��p MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1854 NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that applicants, Sandeep and Cindy Arora,have filed an application for: Request for Variance from Setback Requirements within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer specifically for the construction of a 2370 sf single family residence that will be located approximately 70' from the stream and 54' from the shoreline. Project Location: 789 E Chesapeake DR, Shelton.Parcel No. 12119-57-00030 Date of Complete Application:Nov.29,2010. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance FWHCA Chapter 17.01.110 and Title 15,Mason County Development Code. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: Mason County Planning Dept, PO Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 in writing of their interest. A Public Hearing will be held by the Mason County Hearings Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday,January 11,2011 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioner's Chambers of Building I,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton.Please contact Grace Miller of the Mason County Planning Department at(360)427-9670, ext 360 with any questions regarding this Variance request. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby certify that I posted _copies of the attached on Ir day of �x�� � 20 rc in 3 public places as follows: one at 5�,�: ox,�-,,, one at one at ��i1Ff, ;� b In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of c�htltc, , 20 1v By: ti, - Address: bb,?0x _ ! , t e4, ygsgy r STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this / day of _j2 �1Y1 , 20 ! P_ h: •I-10 TARy•.cP . Notary Public for t to of Washi gton N: APR 30, 2011 ; F Residing at Z-- ''� _� Commission Expires ly THE WETLAND COMPS Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation PARCEL 121195700030 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 789 East Chesapeake Drive Shelton,WA Mason County,WA Prepared for: Sandeep and Cindy Arora 14036180th Avenue NE Redmond,WA 98052 Prepared by: Lee Boad and Heather Lane September 2010 PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528 Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421 wetlandcorps@hotmail.com THE WETLAND COMPS 'WI77- Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation PARCEL 121195700030 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION...........................................................................................2 3.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW..........................................................3 4.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..............................................................................................3 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES...............................................3 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS................................................................................................5 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................................................7 8.0 MONITORING ................................................................................................................10 9.0 SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................10 Fiaures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Map Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com THE WETLAND CORPS --�� Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation September, 2010 Page 1 PARCEL 121195700030 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN 789 East Chesapeake Drive Shelton,Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Wetland Corps has been authorized by Sandeep and Cindy Arora to prepare a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) for the construction of a Single-Family Residence (SFR) within the parcel located in Shelton, Mason County, Washington (Parcel number 121195700030). The property is found in the NE'/4 of Section 19, Township 21 North, Range 01 West WM (See Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map). The property is 0.12 acres in size, based on an April 2004 survey, Auditors File # 1827042. This HMP addresses potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of an SFR that will occupy 2370 square feet (60 feet by 39.5 feet) within the buffer of a type Ns stream and rural shoreline. Type Ns streams require a 75-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback, and the shoreline setback is 100 feet. This buffer encompasses the entire property. The overall site plan has been designed to avoid the regulated stream buffer and shoreline buffer to the extent feasible, while meeting all other regulatory and logistical needs of the project. The SFR will be 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point, and 70 feet from the stream at the nearest point. This is the furthest distance from the stream and shoreline given the configuration of the parcel and minimum side yard setbacks. This report has been prepared to fulfill the requirements listed in Section J of Chapter 1701.040 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance. The objectives of this HMP are as follows: ■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife habitat resulting from the construction of an SFR occupying a footprint of approximately 2370 square feet, partially within a stream buffer and shoreline buffer. The development is proposed to begin 70 feet from the stream at the nearest point, and 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be residing in the vicinity of the parcel. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HIvIP September, 2010 Page 2 ■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects resulting from the portion of the proposed project to occur within the stream buffer and shoreline buffer. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The area discussed in this plan is a residential property of 0.12 acres in size. A residential parcel of similar size and shape border the parcel to the east, and an undeveloped larger parcel surrounds the property to the north, south and west. An estuarine lagoon associated with Case Inlet is located approximately 50-feet north of the property. A forested ravine containing a type Ns stream draining into the lagoon is located west of the property. Photo 1. Project Area. The majority of the property is comprised of a forested community of Douglas fir and western red cedar, with a dense understory comprised of salal and evergreen huckleberry. A portion of the property occupying approximately half of the area proposed for development has been cleared of vegetation. Topography throughout PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421.wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HMP September,2010 Page 3 the parcel is slightly undulating, given the presence of the moderate slope down toward the ravine to the west and the lagoon the north. 3.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW The National Wetland Inventory maps no wetlands within or in close proximity to the parcel. The nearest mapped waterbody is the estuarine lagoon located north of the property. The Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map shows the identified stream north of the subject parcel as meeting criteria for a type N (N = nonfishbearing) stream (Figure 5. DNR Stream Map). Based on our observation during the field visit, the stream meets the channel width and gradient criteria for seasonal, nonfishbearing, or type "Ns", stream. According to WAC 16.222.031, type Ns streams are those that have an average width of less than 2 feet, and are located along an average gradient of 16 percent or less. Type Ns streams in Mason County require a 75-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback. "X e sir Photo 2. Type Ns Channel near project area. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195 70003 0 ITAP September,2010 Page 4 4.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.040 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA's) adopted by Mason County. The setbacks applicable to this parcel are as follows: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer Type Ns Stream 75' 15' Rural Shoreline 100, 0' 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES 5.1 Puizet Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999, adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. The type Ns stream does not contain suitable habitat due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. The shoreline in proximity to the project site supports potential migration and forging habitat for juvenile Chinook. The dense forested area to remain between the shoreline and development zone will shield the shoreline area from common impacts associated with residential development and use. This project is not likely to have adverse impacts on Puget Sound Chinook due to the nature of the project and densely vegetated shoreline buffer to remain. No impacts to water quality are predicted with proposed mitigation. 5.2 Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)- Threatened Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel,relatively free of fine sediments. The onsite stream does not contain suitable habitat due to the limited accessibility and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. Given the lack of suitable habitat,the proposed project is not likely to have any adverse impacts on bull trout. 5.3 Puiet Sound Steelhead(Oncorhynchus mykiss)-Threatened Listed as Threatened since May 2007, Puget Sound Steelhead spawn in several streams throughout Puget Sound. Spawning usually occurs in moderate to steep gradient sections of streams, usually in heads of riffles or the tails of pools where hydraulic conditions are conducive to intragravel flow. Side channels and the anterior portions of islands are also used. Spawn timing for summer steelhead runs typically ranges from mid May through October while winter run steelhead are present from December through May. Adequate cover from predation, water PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 H P � `�" J September, 2010 Page 5 temperature, and spawning gravel are important factors for instream habitat, while little is currently known about specific marine habitat requirements. The Type Ns stream does not support suitable steelhead habitat. No impacts to Puget Sound Steelhead are predicted to result from this project.No impacts to water quality are predicted with proposed mitigation. 5.4 Bald Eagle(L aliaeetus leucocephalus)- Sensitive Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed project entails the removal of Western Red Cedar trees of similar age and size within the forested portion of the development zone. The trees to be removed do not contain nesting and roosting features important for the Bald Eagle, such as exposed lateral limbs or dead tops. Mitigation recommendations entail the preservation enhancement of habitat components within the portion of the stream buffer and shoreline buffer outside of the development zone. Given there are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area and no important habitat features are to be removed, this project will have no adverse impacts on bald eagles. 5.5 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)-Threatened Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old- growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5 miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project is not likely to adversely impact Marbled Murrelet, given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the project area. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-wetlandcorps@,hotmaii.com Parcel 121195700030 FINIP ` f� September, 2010 Page 6 5.6 Northern Spotted Owl (&rix occidentalis caurina)- Threatened Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds; pairs may occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes. Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter, multi-layered forest canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large,tall, live trees with cavities,broken tops,mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen decayed trees supporting abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl populations. Currently there are no spotted owl nesting sites documented in proximity to the project site. There are no areas within the ownership suitable for spotted owl use. Currently there are no spotted owls nesting sites documented in proximity to the project site. There are no indicators of current utilization within the parcel. Mitigation measures such as preservation of existing habitat components outside of the development zone and installation of nurse logs are recommended to preserve and enhance habitat components important to prey species often foraged on by Spotted Owl. 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS The proposed project lies partially within the regulated buffer of a type F stream and within the buffer of a shoreline. Project scale in the protected area is as follows: Development Type Habitat Type Project scale SFR Type Ns stream buffer&shoreline buffer 2370 sq. ft. 6.1 Vegetation Disturbance The proposed SFR is located in a portion of the ownership that contains three mature second growth western red cedar trees, each of similar size and age (13017"DBH). The development zone will include a 15' area around the house to facilitate construction access and maintenance. There are four small Douglas firs <6" DBH that will be removed from this area. The associated understory is comprised of salal and evergreen huckleberry with interspersed red alder and pacific rhododendron. The remainder of the vegetation between the development zone and the stream and shoreline will be preserved from any future disturbances. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HNIP September,2010 Page 7 14 t .t 1�. a Photo 3. Three cedars to be removed .r. t •0. s1 ' S,. S i e 's' - � l is" �tf►- .:i w.`, a�.•+,.4j;�� .y' Photo 4. Representative view of remainder of building area. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195 7 0003 011W September, 2010 Page 8 6.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids None of the actions will destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions described in this plan will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. 6.3 Noise Pollution An increase in noise from construction activities is anticipated during operation hours. The project site is not within the radii of concern for any listed species that may be affected by increased noise. Wildlife species in proximity to the project area are likely adapted to noise and activity associated with residential construction and land use. 6.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Operation The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices are recommended to avoid any potential impacts associated with sediment and turbidity that the project may cause. Additionally, the dense forested area between the development zone and regulated waters will provide a natural filter between the project area and aquatic habitat. 6.5 Li t and Glare The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with residential land use. The mature forested area between the proposed development and the stream and shoreline will shield the majority of the critical areas from increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by riparian or shoreline dependent species are expected to result from light and glare associated with this project. 7.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 Preservation Mitigation The remainder of the Type Ns stream buffer and shoreline buffer outside of the proposed development zone,will be preserved and remain in tact. 7.2 Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing between the development zone and the stream and shoreline to prevent erosion and siltation of waters. Silt fencing can be removed following project completion PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HNIP L September, 2010 Page 9 • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances outside overnight within the project area. • Clearly mark grading and excavation limits with orange flagging or construction fencing. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority. 7.3 Avoidance Miti ag tion The proposed project positions development the greatest distance from the type Ns stream and shoreline that is feasible while meeting project objectives. The SFR will be approximately 70 feet from the stream at the nearest point, and 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point. A side yard setback variance will be necessary to reduce the side yard setback down to 5-feet on the eastern side of the property. 7.4 Minimization MitigationL The proposed project minimizes impacts to the stream buffer and shoreline buffer by limiting the square footage of the building footprint of the house to 2370 square feet. The proposed SFR is located 70 feet from the stream at the nearest point and 54 feet from the shoreline. This is the furthest distance from the stream and shoreline that the size and configuration of the lot will allow while meeting project objectives. 7.5 Habitat Enhancement Nurse Log Placement Typically when projects propose the displacement of area within a stream buffer, it is common practice that a portion of the stream buffer outside of the project zone be enhanced using overstory and shrub plantings. However, the portion of the buffer outside of the development zone is already vegetated with a dense, structurally diverse community consisting of an understory, midstory and overstory. Given that plantings within the stream buffer would be unnecessary for this particular site and would likely not survive given the density of existing vegetation, no plantings are recommended. To mitigate for overstory tree removal within buffer zones, it is recommended that overstory trees cut from the project area be utilized as nurse log habitat. The logs are to be situated throughout the portions of the stream buffer outside of the development zone to provide structural nurse log habitat. The logs taken from the trees should be a minimum of twelve feet long and 10 inches diameter at the top. It PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HMP September, 2010 Page 10 is preferred that the bottom section of the tree be used with the root wad attached. A minimum of five logs should be randomly situated between the project area and stream/shoreline buffer zone to provide nurse log habitat. Invasive Species Removal Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may invade the buffers. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the buffers should they invade. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. 8.0 MONITORING Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) installation of nurse logs according to the guidelines listed above; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any unforeseen disturbance caused by the proposed project on associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the buffer zones; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. Two photo points will be established that portray the planting area from each side of the property. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 9.0 SUMMARY This report addresses the establishment of an SFR occupying approximately 2370 square feet to be constructed partially within the regulated buffer of a type Ns stream and rural shoreline. The stream requires a 75-foot buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback; and the shoreline requires a 100-foot buffer. These buffers encompass the majority of the property. The proposed SFR will be 70-feet from the stream at the nearest point and 54 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point. Mitigation recommendations include the placement of nurse logs within the stream buffer and preservation of all portions of the buffers outside of the development zone. Best Management Practices are recommended to insure no negative impacts to the stream or shoreline during construction. No impacts to water quality or stream habitat are predicted. PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Parcel 121195700030 HMP oc. September,2010 Page 11 We trust this information is sufficient for you at this time. Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your habitat consultant. If you have any questions, feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, The Wetland Corps �AZ� 444t Heather Lane Staff Wetland&Natural Re a Specialist Lee Boad Senior Ecologist PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421•wetlandcorps@hotmail.com J REFERENCES Cowardin,L.M.,V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington, D.C. Fuller, T.C. and G.D. Barbe. 1985. The Bradley Method of eliminating exotic plants from natural reserves. Fremontia 13(2):24-26. Hitchcock, L.C. and A. Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press.. 730 pp. Hruby, T., 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington —Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1998. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor,New York. Pojar,J. and A. MacKinnon, 1994.Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone PinePublishing. 528 pp. Vancouver, British Columbia. Speare-Cooke, S., 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 417 pp. US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Mason County Area, Washington. September, 1977. US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997. Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication#96-94,various pagination. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating System, Western Washington Second Edition. 61 pp.Ecology Publication #93- 74. Olympia, Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland Functions for Reverine and Depressional Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western Washington. Ecology Publication#99-115. Olympia, Washington. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993.National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands Region 9—Northwest. Resource Management Group This site map was created by 'TWC by coordinating measurements and information from several sources. including the Mason County Assessor Aerial Photo 2005 and GoogleEarth aerial images and measurements. All locations are approximate. —Shoreline 100' buffer Type Ns Stream 75' buffer 15' + building setbac A Nurse log placement 100, 100 75' Proposed FootprintfO 0 Emu::= 100, N FIGURE 2. SITE MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP Location: Hartstene Island,Washington THE I'VETLAND CORPS Project: TWCI0-W347 Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora Date: 9/10 G A �'�APE�IewLoop RD" N z 0 4v E A PRILAVF Approximate Parcel Location v1%PF E ASH LN 7 F V1 7�i -A E SUNSET HILL Rt) 6765fl FIGURE I VICE'i' M MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 EMP Location: Hartstene Island,Washington Project: TWC10-W347 —7Z 4 Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora 'rwL THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 9/10 1 1 7,,tq, U.S. ish i . Wildlife Service r National Wetlands Inventor Map LegendtL +"• CONUS citie• 0 CONUS Sutus 1OOK Lower 48 Wetland Polygons Womine and Marine Deepwule* Approximate Parcel Location Eatusrine and Marine Welland Freshwater Ern.+gent Welland Freshwater For"tedlShrub Wetland Freshwater Pond r Lake Other RWerine r: Figure adapted Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map g p Section 19 Township 21 North Range 1 West Mapper website FIGURE 3 NWI MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP Location: Hartstene Island, Washington Project: TWC10-W347 Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora THE WETLAND COMPS Date: 9/10 ' Approximate 4._ Parcel Location w . =f f ^._{_ �.,.,fir• _ ' / Onsite Soil Conditions based on Mason County Soil Survey Subject Site Soils: The onsite soil type has been identified as: So- Sinclair Shotty Loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The Sinclair series consists of moderately well drained, brown. shotty soils on uplands. They have developed from very compact Vashon gravelly glacial till in rainfall that ranges from 45 to 55 inches a year-the lowest in Mason County. The vegetation is a forest, mainly excellent Douglas-fir mixed with cedar, maple, and alder. The understory is a luxuriant growth of swordfern, Oregon-grape, vine maple, salal, and huckleberry. Compared to the vegetation on drier adjacent soils,there is very little madrone and manzanita,but there is considerable cedar. Surface drainage is moderately well established. Internal drainage is medium, except that it is restricted by the cemented substratum. Sinclair soils are near Puget Sound on the eastern edge of the county and on the islands of Case Inlet. They are commonly on lower slopes adjacent to the Harstine and Alderwood soils. They are grayer, more finely textured, and more shotty, than either the Alderwood or the Marstine soils. In addition,the underlying till, in mostplaces, is more cemented. FIGURE 4 SOIL SURVEY Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP A6w Location: Hartstene Island, Washington Project: TWC10-W347 THE WETL__'_�IND CORPS Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora Date: 9/10 5u8 t3 r u:3vuu r(JJauz -P ruJtsu4 -P r(MtJuq �k 2+8013 17 +702584 1702586 1702588 1702680 +1702682 1702684 1702686 nw 17024 Approximate 1 Q 1702 170 50&,.1702660 1702662 17026 # 1702666 + parcel + + + location •f 8 Puget Sound ; 40244a 1 Z BW 702540 1702542 +7 5 6 1702548 +702$4&,+1702642 +702644 1702646 1702426 1702428 17 520 17 1. +702526 1702528 1702620 ,A702622 1702624 1702626 --- F— 0 t 7 408 170 F 7 02504 1702506 1702508 .A'702600 1702602 i 702604 +702606 + + <1 + 8Puget•Sound ~N I — 0 488 1580 J 1701582 1701584 t1701586 t 7!6'1588 1701680 t 701682 t 701684 1701686 LL 8 170156 1701562 1701564 1701569 1701508 1701660 1701662 17016641 SOILS STREA_lt� H-do c Soils T LANSPC_1RTATION 4 .11 3tream';ti'ater Type 1-5(Ha::.idE, Hia1l1v i nstaUle ,/%/Paved Road 3trcam Type Unlmo n ;'E:•.st:dE HialAy Erodible ��Uu1)av d Road =_a1v UUn.c.se& 'J �' _ilv Emc iUe Ro, (Slil'f8i'�LTlll�llo�ti'll} f v ]a'EaM%V'3tET I -e - �,'L�E:::id? No D4ta or Gravel Pi-s Abaixlottecl Road Stream Type Uni:nown(:S'e: .ide; 011)haiied Road Trail FIGURE 5 DNR STREAM MAP Project Name: Parcel 121195700030 HMP Location: Hartstene Island, Washington Project: TWC10-W347 r Client: Sandeep & Cindy Arora THE N1 ETL AND CORPS Date: 9/10 �,�6°N cOOtaA MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 29,2010 TO: Margie Schirato, WDFW Gloria Rogers,WDFW John Konovsky, Squaxin Island Tribe FROM: Grace Miller,Planner RE: Habitat Management Plan for Resource Ordinance Variance for your review and comment. The applicants are Sandeep and Cindy Arora. The proposal includes the construction of a 2370 sf single family residence within regulated shoreline buffer and Type Np stream buffer.The residence to be constructed 70' from the stream and 54' from the shoreline at nearest point. NOTE:Please submit comments regarding the enclosed Habitat Management Plan by December 29,2010. Please find the enclosed Habitat Management Plan for your review and comment.The Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish&Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Chapter 17.01.110 provides that management plans and biological evaluations shall be reviewed by local Tribes,Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife and other applicable state/federal agencies.A 28-day comment period is provided for the Biological Evaluation review. Please submit comments regarding the HMP by December 29,2010. APPLICANTS: Sandeep and Cindy Arora. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Harstene Point#10,Lot: 30(S 30/82). Sec 19,Twn 21 N,R 1 W. PARCEL NUMBER: 12119-57-00030 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SF residence.within rural shoreline buffer and Type Np stream buffer. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 427-9670,ext 360.Thank you. P50"-STATE°� MASON COUNTY o A o N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S N Planning Division z� N y P 0 Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 1864 Site Inspection February 25, 2004 0&+W,elf.-5 KIM. SARAH. MD TRUSTEE 1317 MEDICAL DR STE 3 FEYETTEVILLE NC 28304 Case No.: SP12004-00028 Parcel No.: 121195700030 Project Description: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Dear Applicant Pursuant to your application, a site pre-inspection (SPI)was performed on your property. Below you will find comments made regarding the proposed development and its critical values. In some cases, setbacks for development from shorelines, steep slopes, streams, and wetlands must be included in your specific proposal; these setbacks are included as part of the comments listed below. This information is based on County and State regulations as they exist to date. These regulations may change and may affect the requirements for development of the subject property. Please contact me at(360) 427-9670,ext 286 if you have questions. Sincerely, Scott Lo anecker Land Use Planner Mason County Planning Department 2/25/2004 1 of 3 SP12004-00028 Site Inspection 2/25/2004 Case No.: SP12004-00028 Comments: Pre-inspection for the Johnson's: The purposed of the pre-inspection was to evaluate issues related to possible future residential development of a vacant shoreline lot. Rural Residential 5 zoning designation. Standard building setbacks for this zoning are a 25 foot front yard setback, and 20 foot side and rear yard setback. The exception to this is for lots less than one acre and under 100 feet in width. In this case side yard setbacks are equal to 10% of the lot width, but no less than 5 feet. These setbacks are measured from above grade structures such as roof overhangs; and other appurtenances, including heat pumps etc. Front yard setbacks may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet if necessary through an administrative variance process. Other setbacks and buffers can apply when critical areas are present such as streams, wetlands, steep slopes etc. The shoreline designation for the area is Rural. Property description: This small lot, roughly 55-feet wide by 94 - 99 feet deep is well vegetated with mature second growth trees and under canopy vegetation. A green belt surrounds the property on the shore side. There is an existing cleared area near the rear of the property large enough to construct a single-family residence. A small, type 5 stream runs near the West side of the property into Case Inlet. Type 5 streams are defined as seasonal, non-fish bearing streams, although the lower, tidally influenced portion of the stream likely gets some foraging, rearing use by fish, though non were observed during the site visit. The natural portion of the stream has a relatively short run due to the historic development (paving) of the area. Much of the hydrology is supplied by surrounding storm water features, as well as remaining pockets of forested wetlands, which generally drain towards the shoreline and small ravine adjacent to the subject property. Per the Mason County Resource Ordinance, section 17.01.110, type 5 streams require a 75-foot vegetated buffer, plus 15-foot building setback (90-feet total) measured from the ordinary high water mark or channel migration zone, which ever is larger. • Shorelines / streams: Under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), the shoreline setback in this case would be determined by an average setback for the two adjacent homes due to the extreme curvature of the shoreline. The home to the East was measured at 67-feet from the shoreline ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and the home to the West was measured at 41-feet from the OHWM for an average shoreline setback of 2/25/2004 2 of 3 SP12004-00028 Site Inspection 2/25/2004 Case No.: SP12004-00028 54-feet on the subject lot. All above grade structures and appurtenances including roof overhangs, decks, heat pumps etc. would need to be located landward of this shoreline setback. A greater setback is required from the adjacent type 5 stream associated with the small inlet to the West of the subject property. Two measurements were taken to approximate the location of the 90-foot buffer/ setback from the OHWM of the type 5 stream. It appears that the 90-foot buffer/ setback encumber the majority of the subject lot, leaving only approximately 15 - 25 feet in width outside of the buffer/ setback while adjusting for other required side yard setbacks. It appears that it would be difficult to develop the subject lot without necessitating a variance from these stream buffer and setback standards. One of the next steps in evaluating this property, however would be to develop an accurate, to scale site plan of the property with the assistance of a professional surveyor, identifying the location of the stream, shoreline and required buffer and setbacks relative to property lines. Through this process the property could be more accurately evaluated to determine whether there might be sufficient area to construct a home without requiring a variance and/or to determine how much of a variance may be needed. Slopes: Slopes trend down towards the shoreline and stream from the front of the lot. Slopes may exceed 15%, however they are marginal in terms of requiring geological /geotechnical evaluation, because the difference in elevation is slight down to the beach area (8 - 12 feet approx.). It does not appear that any geological work would be necessary, however this may be partially determined by how close to slopes a structure would be proposed. No other critical areas were identified on site. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Thank you. 2/25/2004 3 of 3 SP12004-00028 HARTSTENE POINTE MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION A community on Harstine Island 202 Pointes Drive East ,T Shelton,WA 98584 April 8, 2004 Scott Longanecker Mason County Senior Planner 411 N. 5th St., Bldg I Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mr. Longanecker: Regarding your pre-inspection of Lot 30 addition 10 at 789 E Chesapeake Drive, Hartstene Pointe, and the following information could possibly clarify the property status. A planned storm drain system installed when Hartstene Pointe was developed in the early 1970's, included large culverts designed to carry rain water from Pointes Drive East into the back of the lagoon. This is not a natural stream bead,but was installed by the construction crew to serve the purpose of emptying run off water into Puget Sound. Hoping this will remedy any need for a variance request in order to build on the property. Sincerely, Hartstene Pointe Maintenance Association Robert S. Rabourn Manager c: Jeff Geibel Walt Tupper Andrew Marzahl 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 April p 004 Robert S. Rabourn Harstene Pointe Maintenance Associatio 202 Pointes Dr E Shelton WA 98584 RE: Parcel# 12119-57-00030, 789 E Chesapeake Dr. Dear Mr. Rabourn, I have reviewed your letter dated April 8, 2004 along with other available maps and information. It is clear that this area was altered as a result of the site development which occurred in 1970's,however the overall morphology of the drainage and shoreline and other factors indicate that this drainage would still be regulated at minimum as a type 5 stream by the Mason County Resource Ordinance. The stream contains a natural open channel connected to a higher order surface water body. Although the road ditches were dry at the time of the site visit, the stream was still running,which indicates probable ground water discharge,which would be considered a natural source. An aerial photo from a 1940's soil survey of Mason County seems to indicate very similar morphology as currently exists, including a small channel in the same location. If it were clear that the stream was entirely man made and water supplied to the channel were only from road runoff it may be considered an unregulated drainage, however the information I have reviewed and observed indicates otherwise. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Scott n ecker, Senior Planner Mas n unty DCD Phone 360 427-9670 ext. 286 Cc: Walt Tupper MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Manning 360 Elma Mason County Bldg.1411 N.5th ( )482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 f :7 IFILE August 26,2004 ,fly� s7• 0daj1 To: NOTICE OF DECISION Case:VAR2004-00021 [)ate Serd to fig: 1 Applicant:Sarah and William Kim Notice is hereby given that Sarah and William Kim,who are applicants for the above referenced variance have been granted the variance.The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No.77-93,specifically for the construction of a single family residence within a stream buffer. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800(1),(i). 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: IVlason County Clerk of the Board Attn:Becky Rogers 411 N 5d ST Shelton,WA 98584 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 Per the Mason County Hearing Examiner,Rules of Practice and Procedures,Section 3.13,a motion for reconsideration by the Hearing Examiner may be granted. The applicant must demonstrate one or more of the following criteria: 1.Irregularity in the proceedings by which the moving party was prevented from having a fair hearing; 2.Newly discovered evidence of a material nature that could not,with reasonable diligence,have been produced at the hearing 3.Error in the computation of the amount of damages or other monetary element of the decision; 4.Clear mistake as to a material fact. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the date of this letter.The fee for a motion of reconsideration would include Hearing Examiner cost of$200.00.Please follow the procedures outlined in Section 3.13 to apply for a Motion of Reconsideration.Application for a Motion for Reconsideration should be sent to Mason County Community Development Department and payment should be made out to the Mason County Treasurer's Office. This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact X 3(00 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 3 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 4 RE: Sarah and William RA Kim DECISION ON RECONSIDERATION 5 INTRODUCTION 6 The applicants propose to build a 1900 square foot residence, part of which would fall 7 within the 90' building setback from a Type V stream. The examiner grants the 8 variance subject to conditions recommended by staff. 9 ORAL TESTIMONY 10 See transcript. 11 EXHIBITS 12 See "Case Index" for Sarah and William Kim, VAR 2004-00021. 13 FINDINGS OF FACT 14 Procedural: 15 1. Applicants. Sarah and William Kim. 16 2 Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 17 on August 10, 2004, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners Meeting Chambers. 18 Substantive: 19 20 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants have proposed an approximately 1900 square foot residence. Approximately 600 square feet of the 21 footprint would occur within the 90' building setback from a Type V stream. The residence is proposed 78' from the stream to the closest part of the building. No 22 encroachment into the vegetated 75' buffer is proposed. 23 The lot is small, roughly 55' wide by 94'-99' deep. Site is well vegetated with mature 24 second growth cedar trees and evergreen huckleberry as under canopy vegetation. A green belt surrounds the property on the shore side between the parcel and Case Inlet, 25 Puget Sound. There is an existing cleared area of approximately 1300 square feet located within the northwestern third of the lot. This is the cleared area where the residence is proposed. Kim Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {VE0579368.DOC;1/13009.900000/} i i 1 4. Characteristics of the Area. A small Type V stream runs near the west 2 side of the property into Case Inlet. The Harstine Pointe development contains single family residences amongst greenbelts within a gated community. There are adjacent fate cove area and an area where the community 3 residences located within the immediate parks their boats. 4 5. Adverse Impact. There is no evidence of adverse impacts in the record. 5 6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Procedural: 7 1. Authorily of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(1) provides the Examiner 8 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 9 Substantive: 10 2 Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. 11 3. Review Criteria and Application. The Mason County Fish and Wildlife 12 Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type V Waters such as this. The required buffer for 13 Type V waters shall be a standard 75'vegetated buffer with a 15' building setback, for 14 a total of 90' from the ordinary high water mark of the stream. 15 Under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program the shoreline setback was determined by using an average setback of the two adjacent homes due to the extreme 16 curvature of the shoreline. The home to the east was measured at 67 feet from the shoreline OHWM and the home to the west was measured at 41 feet from the OHWM 17 for an average setback of 54 feet on the subject lot. All above grade structures and 18 appurtenances including roof overhangs, decks, heat pumps etc would need to be located landward of this shoreline setback. 19 The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110(D)(2)(a) 20 provides that this project undergo the public review process outlined in the 21 Development Review section 17.01.120(L). Section 17.01.10(Q) provides that "except when application from this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the site, 22 an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section. 150." The variance from the Type V stream buffer 23 can be acquired if the applicant meets the review criteria of MCC 17.01.150(E). Those review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. 24 25 MCC 17.01.150(E)(1): The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to insure compatibility with surrounding conforming uses. Kim Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {VE0579368.DOC;1/13009.900000/} 1 4. The purpose and intent of the Chapter is to protect critical areas while 2 allowing property owners a reasonable use of their property. In this case there is no place to build a reasonably sized home without encroaching into the stream buffer. 3 The applicants have constructed as much as they could in the small area available outside the buffer and they are building in an area that will minimize adverse impacts 4 (in an area already cleared). Given these factors the purpose and intent of the ordinance is satisfied. 5 6 MCC 17.01.150(E)(2): The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use which is prohibited by this Chapter. 7 I 5. Buffer reduction is allowed per the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110 8 (D)(2). The proposal is for residential construction, which is an allowable use in the 9 applicable zoning district. 10 MCC 17.01.150(E)(3): The granting of the variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance as granted by the County is 11 the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose. The findings shall fully set forth the circumstances by which this Chapter would deprive the applicant of a 12 reasonable use of his land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. 13 6 The granting of this variance is necessary for the construction of the 14 Proposed residence. The existing building setback would leave a 27' x 63' area within which to construct a residence. The applicants are proposing a structure with 15 reasonable dimensions (39' x 58') that do not fall within the 27' x 63' available area. The residence will be hooked up to the Harstine Pointe sewer system and there should 16 be no water quality issues. 17 MCC 17.01.150(E)(4): The granting of the variance shall not impair or 18 substantially diminish property values of surrounding neighborhood properties. 19 7. The structure will be a single family residence built to current Mason County Codes. This should not have any adverse impact on surrounding property 20 values and as noted by staff may actually serve to increase surrounding property 21 values. (22 MCC 17.01.150(E) 5): The granting of the variance shall not confer on the applicant any special privileges denied by this Chapter to other lands or buildings in 23 the same designation. 24 8. Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the 25 provisions of chapter 17.01.110(D)(2). Similar variances have been granted. The proposed structure is of similar size to other structures on adjacent parcels. The adjacent parcels have encroached within the 90' type 5 stream setback. The structure Kim Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {VE0579368.DOC;1/13009.900000/} is proposed outside the 54' shoreline setback established from the marine shoreline or I cove of Case Inlet. 2 DECISION 3 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 4 recommended in the staff report. 5 Dated this day of August, 2004. 6 7 A'hil Olbrechts 8 Mason County Hearing Examiner 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Kim Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {VE0579368.DOC;1/13009.900000/} XHto�7- July 28,2004 TO:Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM:Planning staff,Grace Miller RE:Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance request by Sarah and William Kim STAFF REPORT I. APPLICANT.The applicants are Sarah and William Kim.Their representatives are their consultant,Lee Boad and their realtor,Jeff Geibel. 11. PROPERTY LOCATION. The property is located on the northeast tip of Harstine Island.Within the Harstine Pointe Subdivision,Lot 30 of Division 10.The address is 789 Chesapeake Drive, Shelton.The parcel number is 12119-57-00030. III. ANALYSIS. Proposal:The applicants have proposed an approximately 1900 square foot residence. Approximately 600 square feet of the footprint would occur within the 90'building setback from a Type 5 stream.The residence is proposed 78' from the stream to the closest part of the building. The bufferyard requirement for the proposed residence was determined by Planning staff during a pre-site inspection.No encroachment into the vegetated 75'buffer is proposed. The Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type 5 Waters such as this.The required buffer for type 5 waters shall be a standard 75'vegetated buffer with a 15'building setback,for a total of 90' from the OHWM of the stream Under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program the shoreline setback was determined by using an average setback of the two adjacent homes due to the extreme curvature of the shoreline. The home to the east was measured at 67 feet from the shoreline OHWM and the home to the west was measured at 41 feet from the OHWM for an average setback of 54 feet on the subject lot.All above grade structures and appurtenances including roof overhangs,decks,heat pumps etc would need to be located landward of this shoreline setback. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)provides that this project undergo the public review process outlined in the Development Review section 17.01.120(L).Section 17.01.10(Q)provides that"except when application from this chapter would deny all reasonable use of the site,an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section.150." Variance review standards Section 17.01.150(E)provides that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that specific circumstances exist.Below are listed the variance criteria followed in each case by staff analysis of the proj ect's consistency: 1. The granting of the variance shall be consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter and conditions shall be imposed to ensure compatibility with surrounding conforming uses. 1 Varstfrpt/GBM Analysis: Conditions have been proposed as recommended by the Habitat Management Plan. The granting of the variance appears to meet the purpose and intent of the Chapter by allowing a single family residence to be constructed on the small lot within an area where e 90 foot buffer from the stream encumbers similar single family homes are constructed.Th the majority of the subject lot,leaving only approximatelyl5-25 feet in width outside the buffer/setback while adjusting for other required side yard setbacks. 2. The granting of the variance shall not permit the establishment of any use which is prohibited by the Chapter. Analysis:Buffer reduction is allowed per the provisions of Chapter 17.0 1.1 10(D)(2). 3. The granting of the variance must be necessary for the reasonable use of the land or building and the variance granted by the County is the minimum variance that shall accomplish this purpose.The findings shall truly set forth the circumstances by which this chapter would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land.Mere loss in value shall not justify a variation. Analysis:The granting of this variance is necessary for the construction of the proposed residence.The existing building setback would leave a 27'X 63'area to construct a residence. The applicants are proposing a structure with dimensions(39'X58')that do not fall within the 27'X 63'available area.The residence will be hooked up to the Harstine Pointe sewer system and there should be no water quality issues. 4. The granting of the variance shall not impair or substantially diminish values of surrounding neighborhood properties. Analysis:The structure will be a single family residence built to current Mason County Codes.It will add value to this and surrounding properties. 5. The granting of the variance shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to other lands or buildings in the same designation. Analysis:Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of chapter 17.01.110(D)(2).Similar variances have been granted.The proposed structure is of similar size to other structures on adjacent parcels.The adjacent parcels have encroached within the 90'type 5 stream setback. The structure is proposed outside the 54'shoreline setback established from the marine shoreline or cove of Case Inlet. EVALUATION. a. Characteristics of the site:The lot is small,roughly 55'wide by 94'-99'deep.Site is well vegetated with mature second growth cedar trees and evergreen huckleberry as under canopy vegetation.A green belt surrounds the property on the shore side between the parcel and Case Inlet,Puget Sound.There is an existing cleared area of approximately 1300 square feet located within the northwestern third of the lot.This is the cleared area where the residence is proposed. b. Characteristics of the surrounding area:A small Type 5 stream runs near the west side of the property into Case Inlet.The Harstine Pointe development contains single family residences amongst greenbelts within a gated community.There are adjacent residences located within the immediate cove area and an area where the community parks their boats. c. Shoreline Master Program Environment:The shoreline designation is Rural. d. Zoning:The zoning is Rural Residential 5.Standard building setbacks for this zoning are a 25 foot frontyard setback and 20 foot side and rearyard setbacks.This lot falls under the exception to this and would be allowed a sideyard setback equal to 5.5'. IV. SEPA COMPLIANCE.The project is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1)(iii). 2 Varstfrpt/GBM I V. OTHER PERMITS.Construction of the residence requires a Mason County Building Permit. VI. The Habitat Management Plan was prepared by Lee Boad.The Plan was sent for review to the Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife and the Squaxin Island Tribe's Habitat Biologists.No comments were received.Preservation measures,Restoration Measures and Best Management Practices have all been identified to avoid,minimize and mitigate for proposed construction. VII. CONCLUSION. Based upon the proposal as presented and discussed herein the proposal is consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.02.150.Staff recommends approval of the proposal with the following conditions: 1) Owner shall be required to control erosion during construction.All native vegetation outside the building zone will be protected to the maximum extent.No vegetation removal will occur in designated buffer zones. 2) As stated in Habitat Management Plan,there shall be limited shrub removal 0((Vaccinium ovatum) will occur in vegetation areas.The vegetation removal in critical areas is limited to 3-5 small alders (4"-6"DBH)and one cedar 17"(DBH)within the 90 foot Type 5 stream building setback(outside the 75'buffer). 3) Any high noise level construction should be minimized between October 31 and March 31 due to possible presence of wintering bald eagles.(Per HMP) 4) Perform work during dry weather.(Per HUT) 5) Install silt fencing around construction zone to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream and marine shoreline.(Per HMP) 6) Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.(Per HMP) 7) Check any equipment daily for leaks.Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur offsite.No fuel,lubricants,chemicals,or hazardous substances should be stored outside within the project area. (Per HMP) 8) Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.(Per HMP) 9) Consideration should be given to incorporating snags into the landscape. Specific densities and sizes are specified in the Habitat Management Plan.Placement of snags anywhere on the site would provide immediate habitat improvement. 10) Monitoring shall occur for three years with specific recommendations stated within the Habitat Management Plan.An annual report must be submitted to the Planning Department. CHOICE OF ACTION: 1. Approve Resource Ordinance Variance request. 2. Deny Resource Ordinance Variance request. 3. Conditionally approve Resource Ordinance Variance request. 4. Postpone for further information. 3 Varstfrpt/GBM �C LIST OF EXHIBITS: 1) Staff report by Grace Miller,dated 7/28/04. 2) Site Plan and Vicinity Map. 3) Variance from standards Applications. 4) Habitat Management Plan prepared by Lee Boad and dated May 2004. 6) Legal Notice of Application,Affidavit off publication and Notice of HMP V arstfrpt/GBM iwah aid Ipbi Kim prepared for: aK parcel #121195-700M 5,:ott Luwaerq(prospectwe buyer) Case Inlet A 30 Division 10 Naretene post keltan.WA Ltie of OrdmaN Ni+Water -cc Goad Ha6L-t Management Flamirq 42004 typeV%am 5h' S5' scale, 1 25'-0" 90'fipe V 5bmw 5 15' Vegetation Duffer plus 15' DUMN Setback proposed Type V 5Vew 5eUb Reduction to 98' 10, proposed Deck 51, �J 5 b'51de Yard Setback proposed Dulldhq / 25'prait Yard G` ® 5etback e F/L E NO. IDOL UME � R aPygA ilart nie rJ 6 e` � a y PIG ,o O nte / �;.l� �;,., 4 �. Addition I O / G REPL•' 2.5 AND 6 � r� �� .�l � _ �f _ REIN A :�'OF ADDITIONS 2 /sy + CERT/�/G:., As' S'UR✓EYOI? sz, 3 0 �7 41L� Jam✓ 7a / ���- - � + '� /��• .�,a r.._c. _.. d' _ .cam �+�cvr cv .l ti 4 9 ae ¢� ClwQI�E L1gTA � � �v:� 3ea Z.,I .p"� � � vu...... �.., a.wa�.so -,...v/O mean• e..�a. �v �l�i//ems!!`t'LtMrLLL -0mv- SN=ST 2 9- v 2 Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - RE: Recording fee From: Cindy Arora <cindyarora@msn.com> To: Grace Miller <gbm@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 2/21/2011 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Recording fee Thanks, Grace. I'm putting that in the mail today. Blessings Cindy Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:23:54 -0800 From: Gbm@co.mason.wa.us To: cindyarora@msn.com Subject: Recording fee Hello Cindy, The Auditor's office has requested that you submit a recording fee to their office in order to record the Habitat Management Plan. Please send a check in the amount of$81.00, ($62 recording fee plus $1 a page). Please make the check payable to the Mason County Auditor. Send it to my office and I will walk it upstairs to them for you with your plan. Thank you. Grace Miller Planniing Dept PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 file://C:\Documents and Settings\gbm\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D62661 BMason... 2/22/2011 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE Affidavit of Publication ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that applicants, Sandeep and Cindy Arora, have filed an application for Request for STATE OF WASHINGTON ISS. Variance from Setback Requirements within a Fish and COUNTY OF MASON Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer specifically for the construction of a 2370 sf single family residence that will be located approximately 70'from the stream and 54' Koleen Wood being first duly sworn from the shoreline. Project Location 789 E Chesapeake DR, Shelton. Parcel No. 12119-57-00030 Date of Com- on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk plete Application:Nov.29, 2010,The proposed develop- of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That ment is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six Resource Ordinance FWHCA Chapter 17.01.110 and months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to published in Title 15, Mason County Development Code.Any person p p , desiring to express their view or to be notified of the ac- the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason tion taken on the application should notify:Mason County County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an Planning Dept, PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 in writ- office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That ing of their interest.A Public Hearing will be held by the the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of Mason County Hearings Examiner on the proposed prof- August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said ect on Tuesday,January 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM within the Mason County. Commissioner's Chambers of Building I,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton.Please contact Grace Miller of the Mason County Planning Department at(360)427-9670 ext 360 That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Annlication for Variance with any questions regarding this Variance request 3799 12/9-16 2t Sandeep&Cindy Arora 3799 as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said newspaper once each week for a period of two consecutive weeks,commencing on the 9th day of December .20 10 ,and ending on the 16th day of December .20 10 ,both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of S 119 DONNA KINNAIRU NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGT(`N ; Subscribed and sworn to before me this !(O day of mmission ExpirES Mar.2 i ; (��� -2i� 20 t� I ...........................• Rotary Public in and fo he State of Washington Residing at Shelton,Washington My commission expires 20 . Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - RE: variance application?? From: Cindy Arora <cindyarora@msn.com> To: Grace Miller <gbm@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 1/28/2011 3:40 PM Subject: RE: variance application?? Thank you very much! blessings, Cindy Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:53:24 -0800 From: Gbm@co.mason.wa.us To: cindyarora@msn.com Subject: Re: variance application?? Hello Cindy, I sent the Hearing Examiner's Decision and the permit packet to you yesterday, 1/27/11, in the mail. The Hearing Examiner conditionally approved your Variance application with the conditions in the staff report. You should be getting it in the next day or two. You may apply for your building permits now. Thank you. Grace Miller >>> Cindy Arora <cindyarora@msn.com> 1/28/2011 2:44 PM >>> Dear Grace, I have been waiting to hear about our variance application for 789 E Chesapeake Dr., parcel # 12119-57-00030. I understand the hearing was on Jan. 11th, but have not heard the decision. What is the notification process; will I receive something in the mail? Have a great weekend! Thanks, Cindy file://C:\Documents and Settings\gbm\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4D42E372Mason... 1/28/2011 Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - Re: Question on Arora Variance From: Grace Miller To: Phil Olbrechts Subject: Re: Question on Arora Variance Hi Phil, Yes, the proposed home fails to meet the average buffer plus the 15 foot setback. They are proposing to construct the residence to the 54' saltwater buffer (and shoreline setback) and within the 15' building setback required from it. All of the lots within the Hasrtine Pointe development were subdivided in the 70's. Please see the last page of Exhibit 1, Titled "Harstene Pointe Addition 10". There in the middle of the page, in very small print, it shows that the subdivision, including lot 30, was approved on 17th of June, 1974 by Planning Director, James Connelly. Please let me know if you have any other questions.Thank you. >>> "Phil Olbrechts" <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> 1/19/2011 4:36 PM >>> Hi Grace, Since no one testified at the Arora variance I'm comfortable in asking you a question so long as any response you provide is based on info in the record. I want to confirm that I understand the variance request to the saltwater shoreline buffer. The home will be built 54 feet from the saltwater shoreline. The saltwater shoreline buffer, based on the averaging of the two adjacent homes, is 54 feet. MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)(a) authorizes the buffer averaging, but MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1)(a) adds a fifteen foot setback to the averaged buffer. So is what's going on here is that the proposed home fails to meet the average buffer plus 15 foot setback? Without the setback requirement, it appears that the proposed home complies with the saltwater shoreline buffer. Also, MCC 17.01.110(D)(2) only allows buffer averaging for lots created prior to 1996. Do you recall off the top if any of the exhibits you provided show that the lot at issue was created prior to 1996? It's not in the site inspection notes. about:blank 1/20/2011 1 A variance from standards may be appropriate where a lot is exceptionally narrow or shallow or contains unusual topographic conditions, but only when strict application would result in hardship on the owner of such property. C. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Application requirements shall be the same as for a Mason Environmental Permit in Section 17.01.120, as well as the following.- 1. A description of the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required; and 2. A description of the reasons for the variance. D. REVIEW PROCESS The review process for variances from standards shall be the public review process set forth in Section 17.01.120. E. REVIEW STANDARDS 00 7V fv 3�K:5 _f See Mason County Code 15.09.057 for the review criteria. In addition to the review criteria in Mason County Code 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a)40% of the area of the lot, or b)2,550 square feet. 1. Included in the total allowed area for a residence is a)the area of the first floor of the residence, b)the area of any covered or uncovered decks or patios proposed, except for the area of landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements, c)the area of roof overhangs greater than two feet, and d)the area of any living space or decks on any floor other than the first floor that extend beyond the walls of the first floor unless its area is already included in b) or c) above, and d)the area of any accessory structure.The area should be the same as the area covered by structures as seen in a birds-eye view of the site looking directly down, with the exceptions of not counting the roof overhangs of not more than two feet and of not counting the landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements. 2. This provision does not allow wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers to be converted to lawn or residential landscaping. 17.01.160 TEMPORARY USES The Director shall authorize by administrative decision temporary uses pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section. A. PURPOSE This section provides a process for authorizing certain uses or activities of a non- permanent nature for a limited duration. B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The application shall contain those requirements the Director deems appropriate based on the duration of the use and its potential for environmental impact. Mason County Resource Ordinance 98 Revised June 16,2009 E. RECONSTRUCTION Reconstruction, restoration or repair of a legal nonconforming structure damaged by fire, ( flood, earthquake or other disaster shall be permitted; Provided that such reconstruction shall not result in an expansion of the non-conforming structure. F. EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE No legal nonconforming use or structure may be expanded, enlarged, or extended in any way(including extension of hours of operation), unless such modification is in full compliance with this Chapter or the terms and conditions of approved permits pursuant to this Chapter. G. DISCONTINUANCE OF NONCONFORMING USE All legal nonconforming uses shall be encouraged to convert to a conforming use whenever possible and conformance shall be required when: 1. The use is changed; 2. The structure(s)within which the use is conducted is moved; or 3. The use is terminated or discontinued for more than three (3)years. 17.01.150 VARIANCES FROM STANDARDS A. PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to allow the County to consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of this Chapter where the strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. B. APPLICABILITY The provisions of this Section shall apply to: 1. Setback requirements within designated critical areas and resource lands; except wetland related setbacks. 2. Buffer/vegetation area requirements within designated critical areas; except wetland related vegetation areas. 3. Tract or parcel size requirements of Section 17.01.060, .062 and .066; except that when the following conditions are met, creation of non-conforming lots under the terms of this Chapter are allowed outright; provided that all Mason County Code Title 16 (Subdivisions) requirements are followed: a. The parcel to be divided was legally established prior to the effective date of this Chapter; and b. The parcel contains two(2) dwelling units which were constructed prior to the effective date of this Chapter; and C. No more than two lots are proposed to be created; and d. No lot proposed to be created shall be less than 1 acre (0.405 hectares) in size; and e. Use of the lots to be created shall comply with all terms and conditions of this Chapter, other than lot size, and shall comply with other pertinent l requirements of the Mason County Code. Mason County Resource Ordinance 97 Revised June 16,2009 I 12/29/2010 Case Activity Listing 2:12:19PM Case #: SPI2004-00028 i� Assigned Done Activitv Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 2/25/2004 None DONE SAL 3/l/2004 SAL I Pre-inspection for the Johnson's: i The purposed of the pre-inspection was to evaluate issues related to possible future residential development of a vacant shoreline lot. I Rural Residential 5 zoning designation. Standard building setbacks for this zoning are a 25 foot front yard setback,and 20 foot side and rear yard setback. The exception to this is for lots less than one acre and under 100 feet in width. In this case side yard setbacks are equal to 10%of the lot width,but no less than 5 feet. These setbacks are measured from above grade structures such as roof overhangs,and other appurtenances,including heat pumps etc. Front yard setbacks may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet if necessary through an administrative variance process.Other setbacks and buffers can apply when critical areas are present such as streams,wetlands,steep slopes etc. The shoreline designation for the area is Rural. Property description: This small lot,roughly 55-feet wide by 94-99 feet deep is well vegetated with mature second growth trees and under canopy vegetation. A green belt surrounds the property on the shore side. There is an existing cleared area near the rear of the property large enough to construct a single-family residence. A small,type 5 stream nuns near the West side of the property into Case Inlet. Type 5 streams are defined as seasonal,non-fish bearing streams,although the lower,tidally influenced portion of the stream likely gets some foraging,rearing use by fish,though non were observed during the site visit. The natural portion of the stream has a relatively short run due to the historic development(paving)of the area. Much of the hydrology is supplied by surrounding storm water features,as well as remaining pockets of forested wetlands,which generally drain towards the shoreline and small ravine adjacent to the subject property. Per the Mason County Resource Ordinance,section 17.01.110,type 5 streams require a 75-foot vegetated buffer,plus 15-foot building setback(90-feet total)measured from the ordinary high water mark or channel migration zone,which ever is larger. Shorelines/streams: Under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(SMP),the shoreline setback in this case would be determined by an average setback for the two adjacent homes due to the extreme curvature of the shoreline. The home to the East was measured at 67-feet from the shoreline ordinary high water mark(OHWM),and the home to the West was measured at 41-feet from the OHWM for an average shoreline setback of 54-feet on the subject lot. All above grade structures and appurtenances including roof overhangs,decks,heat pumps etc.would need to be located landward of this shoreline setback. A greater setback is required from the adjacent type 5 stream associated with the small inlet to the West of the subject property. Two measurements were taken to approximate the location of the 90-foot buffer/setback from the OHWM of the type 5 stream. It appears that the 90-foot buffer/setback encumber the majority of the subject lot,leaving only approximately 15-25 feet in width outside of the buffer/setback while adjusting for other required side yard setbacks. It appears that it would be difficult to develop the subject lot without necessitating a variance from these stream buffer and setback standards. One o6he next steps in evaluating this property,however would be to develop an accurate,to scale site plan of the property with the assistance of a professional surveyor,identifying the location III of the stream,shoreline and required buffer and setbacks relative to property lines. Through this process the property could be more accurately evaluated to determine whether there might be sufficient area to construct a home without requiring a variance and/or to determine how much of a variance may be needed. Slopes: Slopes trend down towards the shoreline and stream from the front of the lot. Slopes may exceed 1501a,however they are marginal in terms of requiring geological/geotechnical evaluation,because the difference in elevation is slight down to the beach area(8- 12 feet approx.). It does not appear that any geological work would be necessary,however this may be partially determined by how close to slopes a structure would be proposed. i No other critical areas were identified on site. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Thank you. Page 2 of 2 CaseActivity..rpt 12/29/2010 Case Activity Listing 2:13:21PM Case #: VAR2004-00021 t� Assigned Done Activity Description Date I Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By VARA010 Application Received 6/2/2004 6/2/2004 None DONE KS 6/22/2004 TCS VARB160 Letter of Incompleteness 6/21/2004 None DONE GBM GBM 6/21/2004 GBM The attached signature form must be mailed to the Mason County Journal immedialtly so that the application for your variance can be published in their newspaper as soon as possible.Please send the signed acceptance letter to them directly at: Mason County Journal PO Box 430 Shelton,WA 98584 CC:Mason County Journal Jeff Geibel,Windermere Realty Lee Boad,consultant VARA100 Staff Review 7/13/2004 7/13/2004 None DONE GBM GBM 7/13/2004 GBM sent affidavit of pmt to Journal so they can run legal notice. VARA500 Application APPROVED 8/26/2004 8/24/2004 None DONE GBM GBM 8/26/2004 GBM with conditions in staff report VARA910 Meeting 6/17/2004 8/25/2004 None DONE GBM GBM 8/26/2004 GBM Hrg scheduled for 8/10/04,variance permit approved. VARB015 Planning Review 6/2/2004 8/26/2004 None DONE GBM GBM 8/26/2004 GBM hrg scheuled for 8/10/04.On 6/21/04 sent letter of incompleteness to owner and cc'd Jeff Geibel and Lee Boad. Spoke in person with buyer,Scott Lundberg on same day.LOI explains that the Journal will not publish the legal notice until they receive the signed acceptance form stating they will pay for publication.Asked Kim's to mail signed letter directly to Journal. Spoke with Journal and they said they will hold the notice until they recive the form and then they will publish it. Page 1 of 1 CaseActivity..rpt Case Activityg 2:1 2:1 Listing 22:19PM19PM IP14 Case #: SPI2004-00028 Assigned Done Activity Description Date I Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By SPIA010 Application Received 2/12/2004 2/12/2004 None DONE TW 2/12/2004 NJP SPIA100 Site Inspection 2/12/2004 2/24/2004 None DONE GBM SAL 2/25/2004 SAL Page 1 of 2 CaseActivity..rpt Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - RE: Sandeep and Cindy Arora From: Grace Miller To: Lee Boad Subject: RE: Sandeep and Cindy Arora Thank you. Happy New Year! >>> Lee Boad <wetlandcorps@hotmail.com> 12/29/2010 9:37 AM >>> Ns Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 09:21:00 -0800 From: Gbm@co.mason.wa.us To: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Subject: Sandeep and Cindy Arora Hello Lee and Heather, I am writing the staff report for the Arora's Resource Ordinance Variance. They are located on the north end of Harstine Point. The variance application states that it is a type Np stream and the HMP states that it is a type Ns stream. Can you please tell me which one it actually is? Thanks. Grace about:blank 12/29/2010 Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller - RE: Variance application From: Grace Miller To: Cindy Arora Subject: RE: Variance application Hello Cindy, You are not expected to attend. I am sure it wont be necessary but I thought I would mention it in case you had planned on it. I will let you know the Hearing Examiner's decision after the hearing. You have blessed Christmas season also. Thank you. Grace >>> Cindy Arora <cindyarora@msn.com> 11/30/2010 12:40 PM >>> Hi Grace, What a beautiful name! Since it is the season of"Grace" in the baby Jesus, I am noticing the significance of your name for the first time. I am sure the significance of it has not escaped you! Yes, that date works for me . .. . am I expected to attend? It is quite far for me to "pop" down there for an hour. But I will if I am needed. Have a Blessed Christmas season! Cindy Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:31:01 -0800 From: Gbm@co.mason.wa.us To: cindyarora@msn.com CC: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Subject: Variance application Hello Cindy, I apologize for not getting to you sooner but due to my workload and staffing here, have fallen way behind schedule with all applications. I had just begun process of your variance application yesterday and intend to schedule your hearing for Tuesday, Jan.11th at 1:00. Will that work for you? If not, I can re-schedule it to another date. The Hearing Examiner comes to Shelton on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month. Grace Miller about:blank 11/30/2010 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS" WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST '*Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. �Hdeep l�[ndy�r�� is�i/io ,lfvcl��l•vojr�-foat� oi, /;5f0--,w /yo 3 to l�o.,, ,�wE NE HMP �a?"vi7u r woFIV 404 ql,25-a Po SdX aSs�/ -�v RECEIVE Mason County Variance Application CCP 2 1 20 10 INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd MAYN3350 MAYNARD, JOHN & MISKO 6545 TROON LN SE OLYMPIA, WA 985015189 1 RP 12119 57 00025 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 502, 125 T LOT: 25 1982 2 RP 32003 31 00000 PCL 2 OF BLA #95-89 PTN G.L. 5 & NE SW 167, 005 T 1112 3 RP 32003 31 00090 PCL 3 OF BLA #95-89 PTN G. L. 3 & NE SW 569, 000 T 5361 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed // INQUIRY BY NAME l� Name Cd BENI1800 BENIS , CHRISTOPHER T &PENELOPE 6131 162ND PL SE BELLEVUE , WA 980065651 1 RP 12119 57 00026 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 429, 555 T LOT: 26 S 36/246 1982 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd ST*G1000 ST GEORGE, LAURA M 795 E CHESAPEAKE DR SHELTON, WA 985849411 1 RP 12119 57 00027 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 365, 425 T LOT : 27 1982 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed j INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd TVED0500 TVEDT, RUNE & NANCY 430 SW 335TH ST FEDERAL WAY, WA 980236191 1 RP 12119 57 00028 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 392, 250 T LOT: 28 1983 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel . . . — . . . . . . . . END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed i INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cj HEND0650 HENDERSON, CONNIE M & PAUL S PO BOX 39711 LAKEWOOD, WA 984390711 1 RP 12119 57 00029 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 409, 980 T LOT : 29 1983 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed g INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd ZEIG0100 ZEIGER, KARL & SUZAN 2208 37TH AVE SE PUYALLUP, WA 983741973 1 RP 12119 57 00031 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 S 29/1 345, 960 T LOT: 31 1983 Inquiry Type VL Select Line 00 -or- Search for Parcel q Y YP # . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd VAND4600 VANDVER ET UX, RUSSELL J CATHY J WALCKER 7639 49TH AVE NW OLYMPIA, WA 985029524 1 RP 12119 57 00032 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 LOT: 32 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd BARN4300 BARNES , ROBERT M & ELINOR J 12316 123RD STREET CT E PUYALLUP, WA 983745808 I 1 RP 12119 57 00033 HARTSTENE POINTE #10 43� , cOC LOT. 33 _ 82 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd MILA5050 MILANDER, MARTIN H & VICKI L 12779 VISTA DR NE BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 981104 1 RP 12119 53 00056 HARTSTENE POINTE #4 64, 000 T LOT: 56 S 34/23 9110 2 RP 12119 53 00057 HARTSTENE POINTE #4 286, 325 T LOT: 57 1983 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed IZ INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd SIMP8000 SIMPTON, ROBERT L & JUDITH H 452 POINTES DR EAST SHELTON, WA 985848850 1 RP 12119 53 00058 HARTSTENE POINTE #4 215, 835 T LOT: 58 S 28/140 1112 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed INQUIRY BY NAME Name Cd LELA2000 LELAND TRS , ALLEN 0 & ANNE A LELAND FAMILY TRUST 25106 VILLAGE 25 CAMARILLO, CA 930126912 1 RP 12119 53 00059 HARTSTENE POINTE #4 217, 730 T LOT: 59 1983 Inquiry Type VL Select Line # 00 -or- Search for Parcel END OF DATA CMD 7 for EOJ HELP key Allowed 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 TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON CO. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: /i/3oZi11 Please publish the attached 7' i2esowc._ �Jr�ant � u on the following day(s) �o io 'LA - ice,-7-Oro Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Department of Community Development to pick up from your office and send / copies to the following --5-aA fee p a,,,/ 0,,1'¢r" P/6 3 49 /8o-v, AVE AI -- 1�2�r►�-oNd* (N�1 9805� Please charge 5a,.,,t a for the publication at: t Thank you, � Mason County Planning Staff VARIANCE REQUEST Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. OWNER: APPLICANT: n � Mason County Variance Application I MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAX Phone:(360)427-9670 ext. 3&4) Fax:(360)427-8425 TO: COMPANY NAME: CONTACT NAME: FAX NUMBER: PHONE NUMBER: SENDER: 6—ya-aMale* REGARDING: Number of Pages (Include Cover Sheet): Date Sent: Time Sent: Page 1 of 1 Allan Borden - RE: Variance From: Lee Boad <wetlandcorps@hotmail.com> To: <cindyarora@msn.com> Date: 11/30/2010 10:10 AM Subject: RE: Variance CC: Genie McFarland <gmm@co.mason.wa.us>, Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us> Cindy, You should have been contacted by now regarding a hearing date. I don't have Grace Miller's e-mail and I think she would be the reviewing planner. Genie or Allan, The case number is VAR2010-00006 can one of you forward this e-mail to Grace so Cindy can get an update on the status of this application. Thank you Lee Boad The Wetland Corps From: cindyarora@msn.com To: wetlandcorps@hotmail.com Subject: Variance Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 17:40:47 +0000 Dear Lee, We have not yet heard anything from Mason County regarding our variance. Am I being too impatient? Does it usually take over two months?! Thanks, Cindy file://C:\Documents and Settings\Ahb\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4CF4CD86Masonmai110... 11/30/2010