HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2009-00061 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 10/12/2009 PEON copes MASON COUNTY
� rp 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
October 12, 2009
NOTICE OF DECISION
Case # DDR 2009-00061
Parcel # 12232-40-01090
Applicant: Eric & Claudia Hansen
Notice is hereby given that a request for a variance to the Mason County
Development Regulations to subdivide the above referenced parcel by
property owner Eric & Claudia Hansen has been denied by the Mason
County Hearings Examiner.
This is a Final County Decision. An appeal may be made to Superior Court
or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations apply. It is the
applicant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal
process.
(Hearings Examiner's Decision enclosed)
C7
n
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner Z
3 Z c
RE: Eric and Claudia Hansen
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 0
5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
(MCC 17.04.223.A)
6
DDR2009-00061
7
INTRODUCTION
8
9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Development Regulation
17.04.223.A in order to subdivide the parcel into two lots. The subdivision of this
10 3/27 acre parcel is prohibited by section 17.04.223.A of the Development Regulations
without an approved variance. The Hearing Examiner denies the project.
11
1 ORAL TESTIMONY
13 Michael MacSems—Mason County Staff
14 Mr. MacSems began addressing questions from the Hearing Examiner. The
minimum lot size is 2 acres, while the density is one unit per 5 acres. This distinction
15 is often confusing, as a 10-acre parcel could be divided into two lots (meeting the 5-
16 acre density requirement) but one of those lots could be as small as 2 acres (meeting
the 2-acre minimum lot size). As such, the proposal would violate both the density
17 and minimum lot size requirements; the property is just 3.72 acres in size
18 During staff rebuttal, Mr. MacSems stood by the analysis done in the staff report. He
also pointed out that although he appreciates all of the careful consideration the
19 Hansen have undertaken in analyzing the application, the subdivision regulations
20 that the property is subject to have been the same since they bought the property, and
they should have been aware of them at that time. Additionally, granting this
21 variance would open the door for a lot of other similar cases in the future, which does
not appear to be the intent of the Development Regulations.
22
Eric Hansen—Applicant
23
24 Mr. Hansen began by entering Exhibit 9, his brief. His objective for this project is to
divide the 3.72-acre parcel into two lots. The only guidance he could find was not in
25 the Development Regulations, but rather in the Shoreline Management Act. Those
standards stated that Rural Residential could be 100 feet wide, and a minimum of
20,000 square feet, and those are the criteria he worked with in developing his
application. The waterfront parcels near his property, although zoned at 5 acres, are
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
in reality much smaller. He also points out that, although zoned rural residential, the
• I waterfront area is in fact heavily populated and is not a rural area in his opinion.
2 During this process, he could not find any of the Development Regulations that were
specific to development of waterfront parcels. All he did find was the Shoreline
3 Management Act, and he believes that what has been proposed is in compliance with
that Act. In regards to variance criteria, there are six standards that must be met. In
4 regards to criteria A, he believes that requiring the 5-acre density standard does
interfere with the otherwise appropriate use of the property being proposed. In
5 regards to criteria F, which does not permit the variance unless the owner otherwise
6 lacks a reasonable use of the land, the criteria puts forward that the unique
circumstances of the owners should be taken into consideration, not just the unique
7 circumstances of the property itself. Mr. Hansen believes that his family's financial
circumstances, coupled with the effects of failure to split the property, does interfere
8 with his use of the property. Mr. Hansen also referred to the `Real Property
Deskbook to define an unnecessary hardship for this situation, which requires the
9 applicant to show that strict application of the zoning code will deprive the applicant
10 of a valuable property right. Again, he believes that the unique circumstances of the
applicant be considered when determining whether the reasonable use criteria have
11 been met. Additionally, he believes that a reasonable use is impossible to define, as .
every single individual would have a differing opinion to the definition; and as such
12 he believes that his unique circumstances must be taken into consideration. In
regards to criteria B, and the requirement for irregular lot shape or size, his lot is
13 approximately 4 times larger than all of the other lots in the general area, as the
14 average is .79 acres. There are also no deed restrictions on the subject lot. In regards
to criteria C, the project is compatible with permitted uses in the area. As to adverse
15 impacts to neighboring property owners, the applicants are willing to remove the boat
ramp currently on the property, which would likely be beneficial to neighbors and
16 waterway users. Additionally, they would propose decommissioning the septic and
drainfields currently on the property, which would improve the property as well as
17 reduce the effects on neighbors. In regards to criteria D, they do not believe any
18 special privilege will be granted but would actually be the same privilege enjoyed by
all in the neighborhood. Additionally, the applicants would be willing to draw the
19 property line however the County deems appropriate. In regards to criteria E, it is
difficult to conceive the application having any impact on the general public. In
20 regards to criteria F, he believes that the proposal would be consistent with all other
21 regulations and that the rural areas would still be preserved by this proposal, as the
subject area is already densely populated even though zoned rural.
22
During rebuttal, Mr. Hansen responded to the staff comments. In response to this
23 application opening the door to similar applications, he does not believe that it would
necessarily be a bad thing if it did. He purchased the property in November of 2003,
24 since which the regulations have not changed, although he believes the variance
25 criteria have. The purchase price was $365,000, and there was a house, likely built in
the 1930's, and a shop, built in 1974. Currently there is a new shop constructed by
the applicant and the prior shop. The surrounding homes are generally split between
vacation and permanent homes.
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
• I EXHIBITS
2 See the case index provided by Michael MacSems, for a list of exhibits including the
3 revised September 22, 2009, staff report prepared by Michael MacSems; in addition
to:
4
5 Exhibit 9: Overview of Presentation from Applicant
6 FINDINGS OF FACT
7 Procedural:
8 1. Applicant. The applicants are Eric and Claudia Hansen.
9 2. Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
10 on September 22, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
Chambers.
11
Substantive:
12
13 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicants have owned the 3.27-acre
parcel since 2003. There was previously a house on the property, in addition to a
14 shop. The house has since been demolished, and all that remains on the property is
the old shop and a new one built by the applicants. The applicants propose
1 subdividing the property, due to the financial implications of building a waterfront
16 home on a lot of this size.
17 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is located on the shoreline of the
Puget Sound and surrounded by neighboring developed properties. The size of the
18 properties in the surrounding area range from the size of the applicant's property all
the way down to under an acre. The property directly to the north is similarly sized.
19 The homes present on the lots are permanent residences as well as vacation
20 properties.
21 5. Adverse Impacts. The adverse impact associated with this project is the
creation of precedent for further subdivision at densities that are inconsistent with the
22 requirement of the Washington State Growth Management Act ("GMA," Chapter
36.70A RCW). The GMA Hearing Boards have generally ruled that densities less
23 than one unit per five acres in rural areas are necessary to prevent urban sprawl and
24 the inefficient use of infrastructure associated with urban sprawl. Mason County's
zoning regulations are designed to implement this GMA mandate. However, the
25 applicants correctly point out that they are in an area that is already developed at a
high density. The GMA policies encouraging low density development are not as
strong in areas such as those inhabited by the applicant.
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
3
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9)provides the Hearing
4 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
5
Substantive:
6
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning nations. The parcel is zoned Rural
7 Residential 5 (RR-5). The property owner argued that the RR-5 designation does not
apply to the property because it is in a shoreline area. Mason County's Zoning
8 Ordinance applies to shoreline areas along with its SMP.. The Zoning Map for the
9 subject property (attachment D) designates the subject property as RR-5, which in
turn subjects it to the Mason County Zoning Code (Title 17 MCC), including RR-5
10 restrictions.
11 In short,the subject property is governed by both the Mason County Shoreline Master
12 Program and its Zoning Code. The differing minimum lot sizes are easily
harmonized by applying the most restrictive minimum lot size. The primary purpose
13 of the SMP is to protect shoreline resources. Requiring compliance with the larger
minimum lot size of applicable Zoning Code requirements furthers this purpose. The
14 larger lot sizes required by the Zoning Code are also consistent with the SMP because
only smaller sizes would be inconsistent. As evidenced in the numerous other
15 Hearing Examiner decisions governing shoreline areas, staff has a long-standing
16 Practice of imposing the more restrictive bulk and dimensional standards of the
Zoning Code when they differ with SMP requirements. The Examiner grants
17 deference to this interpretation and finds that imposing the more restrictive
requirements of the SMP and Zoning Code is consistent with the purpose of both.
18
The applicant's challenge to the application of the Zoning Code in shoreline areas is
19 certainly understandable given the significant confusion exhibited by the Washington
20 State Supreme Court on this very issue. The Court addressed this regulatory overlap
in Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683 (2007). In Biggers a developer
21 challenged the validity of a development moratorium within shoreline areas, arguing
that the City could only adopt shoreline regulations (i.e., its SMP regulations) within
22 shoreline areas. Four justices agreed with this premise and a fifth justice determined
that the moratorium was invalid because it had been in place too long. The end result
23 was that five of the nine justices, a majority, agreed that the moratorium should be
24 invalidated. However, the justice who found the moratorium invalid because it had
been in effect too long otherwise agreed with the four dissenting justices that cities
25 could adopt regulations in shoreline areas outside its SMP. In short, a majority of
justices agreed that cities and counties could adopt regulations (presumably including
zoning regulations) within shoreline areas outside of the SMP. The Biggers decision
supports the practice of Mason County to impose its Zoning Code within shoreline
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
areas, which is consistent with the practice of probably all other cities and counties in
• I Washington State that are confronted with the issue.
2 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt
3 from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i). As noted in the staff
report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings, posted onsite, and by
4 mail to adjacent property owners. One property owner commented and supported the
5 application for variance.
6 4. Review Criteria and Application. Mason County Development
Regulation, section 17.04.223.A, requires a maximum lot density of a subdivision to
7 be five acres, and the minimum lot size requirement is two acres. These two elements
must be used in conjunction with one another. Currently, the existing parcel is
8 considered legal non-conforming in terms of the density requirement and conforming
in terms of the two-acre size requirement. These requirements are imposed through
9 MCC 17.04.223.A. MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Development Regulation
10 variances. Variance application from Development Regulations requires a Type III
review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review
11 criteria for all Type III permit applications. The review standards for variances under'
MCC 15.09.057 and the general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out
12 below with applicable Conclusions of Law.
1' MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance
14 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
15
5. The seminal case addressing what constitutes a reasonable use is Buechel
16 v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), which involves a
weighing of public benefit verses private burden. The Buechel decision employs the
17 balancing factors typically used in a takings and due process analysis, such as
18 investment-backed expectations; size, location and physical attributes of a lot; and the
uses of surrounding lots. Consistent with due process and takings cases, past
19 Examiner decisions have found reasonable use to exist when one home can be built
on a lot that is of sufficient size to accommodate the home. As demonstrated in the
20 Buechel decision, reasonable use may even be limited to recreational use if the size
21 and use of the lot and surrounding lots has been limited or focused upon recreational
use. What is not surprising from the reasonable use case law is that reasonable use is
22 never based upon the financial condition of the property owner; the ephemeral
financial circumstances that a property owner happens to find themselves in does not
2; serve to waive development standards that have permanent impacts upon the
surrounding community. Assessing reasonable use upon such personal circumstances
24 leads to arbitrary and irrational decision-making where development restrictions have
25 little to do with the impacts of development. The furthest the courts have gone in
assessing the personal plight of the property owner, as also discussed in Buechel, is
the expectations of the property owner at purchase, i.e., what did the regulations
allow them to do at the time of purchase? As noted in the Buechel decision, "if
(PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\)
Development Regulation Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
existing land regulations limit the permissible uses of the property at the time of
1 acquisition, a purchaser usually cannot reasonably expect to use the land for
prohibited purposes." 125 Wn.2d at 209.
In this case the applicant purchased the property in 2003. The minimum lot size
requirements have not changed since that date. There are numerous developed lots of
4 the same size or smaller than that proposed by the applicants in the surrounding area.
However, these lots were presumably developed when smaller lots sizes were
5 permitted. Given that the GMA generally requires minimum lot sizes of one unit per
6 five or ten acres in rural areas and the fact that the restrictions at issue were in place
when the applicants purchased their property, it cannot be said that the restrictions
7 deprive the applicants of a reasonable use by prohibiting them from subdividing their
property when they already have the ability to build one home on 3.27 acres.
8
Even if the division of a 3.27-acre parcel in a rural area is considered "a reasonable
use" as required by the above criterion, it could not be concluded that the applicants
10 "otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land" as required by MCC 15.09.057(6) if
the variance is not granted. By any reasonable assessment of reasonable use, the
11 applicants clearly have reasonable use. In this era of GMA regulation, a 3.25-acre lot
is small for a rural lot, and the limitation to one single-family home is entirely
12 consistent with what can be reasonably expected for development in rural areas.
1' MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
14 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
15 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
16
6. The applicants argue that the hardship is related to the irregular size of the
1 lot, and not as a result of deed restrictions or the applicants' own action. They assert
18 that because their parcel is so much larger than others in the area,the financial burden
of building a home would be greater. The smaller lots in the area, however, were all
19 created prior to the imposition of the current RR-5 zoning requirements. Other
hardships raised for application of a variance more often concern the inability to build
20 any home or building on a lot because of irregular shape or size or other lot
21 constraints. The fact that the lot provides an excess of space to locate and build a
home is not a hardship.
22
MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
23 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
24
25 7. Given the surrounding small lots sizes, the proposal would be aesthetically
compatible with surrounding uses. At a general level, setting a precedent in allowing
the type of in-fill development would be environmentally harmful under the goals and
policies supporting the GMA, where in-fill development is only allowed in rural areas
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
under very strict and tightly controlled circumstances, such as Limited Areas of More
1 Rural Development. See RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d).
2 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
3 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
4
8. Given that the applicants already have a reasonable use of their property,
5 there is no hardship to which "relief' is required. A variance would also grant a
6 special privilege, since no other property owners would be allowed to subdivide into
substandard lots when they already enjoy reasonable use of their property.
7
MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
8
9. The applicant argues that as the property is private, the proposal will have
9 no impact on the public. However, as stated previously, the zoning regulations for
10 the subject parcel would have to be directly undermined in order to grant the
application. The goals of the GMA and the standards of the Development
11 Regulations directly oppose the outcome of the requested application. Such direct
conflict with these policies is detrimental to the public interest, as they undermine the
12 reasonable expectations of property owners regarding the permitted rules associated
with property and set a dangerous precedent that zoning regulations can be bypassed
13 solely because of economic concerns not directly related to any characteristic of the
14 property itself. Although it is entirely possible that the tax income generated by one
additional property in the County may be beneficial, as may be the removal of a boat
15 ramp and septic system, they do not compare to the benefit to the residents of the
County in upholding and maintaining a predictable set of zoning and development
16 regulations.
17 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
18 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
19 County ordinances, and with the GMA. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
20
21 10. As previously discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the applicants
already have a reasonable use of their property so they do not "otherwise lack[s] a
22 reasonable use" if the variance is not granted. Also, as previously discussed, the
variance would not be consistent with the GMA.
23
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
24 proposed development according to the following criteria:
25 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
{PA0744853.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 7 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 o service o transportation and/or
P .f f P li
3 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
4
11. Given that the Mason County Comprehensive Plan is based upon the
5 GMA and the densities requested by the applicant are directly contrary to the GMA,
6 the variance request is inconsistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan. As
contrary to the goals and policies of the GMA, it is also contrary to public health,
7 safety and welfare and the public interest. The proposal would not lower the level of
service of transportation and/or park facilities. Other than the modifications subject
8 to the variance request,the proposal is consistent with the Mason County Code.
9 DECISION
10 The Hearing Examiner denies the requested variance.
11
Dated this 7 h day of October, 2009.
12
13
14
'1 A. Olbrechts
15 Mason County Hearing Examiner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{PA0744853.DOC;1U3009.900000\}
Development Regulation Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
STAFF REPORT
September 22, 2009
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Mason County Planning Department Staff
STAFF: Michael MacSems, Subdivision&Forest Practices Planner
Case Number: DDR2009-00061
Parcel Number: 12232-40-01090
SUBJECT: Request for a variance to the Mason County Development Regulation
17.04.223.A.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents an evaluation and recommendation for denial for this variance
proposal.
APPLICANT
Eric and Claudia Hansen
4804 20th Avenue NW
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
PROPERTY LOCATION
Parcel 2 of BLA# 01-31 located in SE '/4, Section 32, Township 22 North, Range 1 West,
W.M. Located at 284 E Cronquist Road
AREA DISCRIPTION
The property involved is located in a portion of Mason County, which is zoned Rural
Residential 5.
PROJECT DISCRIPTION
The Hansens have owned this 3.27-acre parcel since about 2003. At one time there was a
house on this parcel,but a demolition permit was issued in 2005. In June 2009,the
Hansen's made application for Mason County Development Regulations Variance as the
first step in an effort to subdivide this legal non-conforming parcel into two lots. The
subdivision of this 3.27-acre parcel is prohibited by section 17.04.223.A of the
Development Regulations without an approved variance.
1
PROJECT HISTORY
On June 4, 2009 the Hansen's applied for a Development Regulations Variance as the
first step in subdividing their 3.27-acre parcel,which included a rationale for requesting
the variance(Exhibit 2). In their application,the Hansen's state that the reason for this
request has to do with the financial implications of building a waterfront home on a lot of
this size.
PUBLIC COMMENT
As of 9/9/09 Staff had received one comment in favor of this application(Exhibit 8)
EVALUATION
The desired short subdivision would not conform to the Mason County Development
Regulations, section 17.04.223.A. Currently the existing parcel is considered legal non-
conforming in terms of the 1:5 acre density for this area and legal conforming in terms of
the two-acre minimum lots size requirement of 17.04.223.A. If approved,this property
would create an additional non-conforming lot in terms of density and two non-
conforming lots ins terms lot size(assuming 100' wide lots as proposed by the Hansens).
FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE APPROVAL
Approval of a variance request requires a positive finding on all of the following items
(Dev. Reg. 1.05.035):
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the subject property such as
shape,topography, location or surroundings, which circumstances do not apply
generally to other property in the same Development Area;
B. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity,but because of
special circumstances is denied to the property in question;
C. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity in which the
subject property is located;
D. That the granting of the variance is in substantial harmony with the
Comprehensive Plan.
E That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; and
F. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variances shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
2
county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value
only shall not justify a variance.
STAFF ANALYSIS
CRITERIA "A"
While having no opinion on the applicant's financial calculations, Staff rejects the
argument that the current size of this parcel prohibits the reasonable use of this property.
CRITERIA"B"
The applicants are correct that their parcel is larger than most parcels in the vicinity, the
exception being the parcel immediately north of the subject parcel. However all of the
adjacent parcels were created prior to the imposition of the current RR-5 zoning. The
restriction against the further subdivision of lots less than 10-acres in size, in this
neighborhood applies universally to the RR-5 zoning, so there is no unique hardship for
the applicant. To the extent that a hardship exist, Staff finds it has a consequence of the
applicant's own actions as this property has been limited to a five-acre density since
1996, well before the applicant's purchased this property.
CRITERIA"C"
Large homes, when properly permitted and conditioned are an allowed use in the RR-5.
However what is really being proposed here is two homes (regardless of size) instead of
one. It is hard to assess what additional impacts to adjacent property owners, one
additional home in this neighborhood would create although it could be assumed that
neighbors who have bought property since 1996 have a reasonable expectation that no
additional lots would be created in this area.
CRITERIA "D"
Staff does not share the applicant's opinion that granting this variance does not constitute
a special privilege. As stated above, all lots zoned RR-5,which are under 10-acres in size
are restricted further subdivision. Putting aside the density standards of the Development
Regulation to improve a property owner's financial position is a grant of special
privilege.
CRITERIA "E"
The granting of this variance request will have a corrosive effect on the authority of the
Mason County Development Regulations and undermine the goals of the Growth
Management Act. The fact that this parcel is private property is immaterial.
3
CRITERIA "F"
1. There are no county, state or federal regulations that require a property owner to build
a home of commensurate market value of a given parcel of land. All other things
being equal,the applicant can build as modest of a home as they wish on this parcel.
2. Staff disagrees with the applicant's conclusion. The granting of a variance to double
the density of a given parcel, based on economic considerations would undermine the
Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations and the Growth
Management Act.
3. Staff agrees that the applicant is not basing their variance request on loss of value.
CONCLUSIONS
Department of Community Development Staff has reviewed the materials provided and
can not agree with the applicants that this proposal qualifies for a variance to the Mason
County Development Regulations, section 17.04.223.A. The fact that his property is too
small to divide into two lots is not unique to their parcel. As noted elsewhere,most of the
properties in this area are too small to be further subdivided. When the Hansens bought
this property in 2003,they should have known that it was not dividable under the current
regulations. The applicant has failed to persuade Staff that their request is reasonable in
the eyes of the Development Regulations. Staff must recommend denial of this variance
application.
&kj )14/yo-- (7//L-)
Michael MacSems, enior Planner Date
Exhibits:
1: Application
2: Applicants Rational for Variance
3: Notice of Hearing
4: Mailing List for Hearing
5. Affidavit of Mailing of Notice
6: Affidavit of Posting of Notice
7: Vicinity Maps
8: Comment Note from D.L. Alverson
4
` >"D C act - doc
Ex i
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA,
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. !�•
52
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special LQ
"exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific varianee- Ci
criteria listed below.
Applicant name Eric& Claudia Hansen Telephone #( 253) 853-5344 fr.
S
Mailing address
4804 20`h Avenue NW, Gig Harbor,WA 98335
Site address
284 E Cronquist, Allvn,WA 98524
Tax Parcel# 12232 - 400 - 1090
Legal Description:
TR 9 OF G.L.3 EX&TAX 1127,1137 PCL 2 OF BLA#01-31 S 26/214
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance
Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223A
Subdivisions and Plats
On a separate piece of paper,please state your reasons for requesting a variance. In your responses,be
sure to address all criteria. Your request will be evaluated based on these criteria.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
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;
C:\Documents and Settings\Eric\My Documents\Beach\Sp1it\2009 Mason County Variance app vl .doc
Attachment to Mason County Application for Variance
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
We would like to divide our 3.27 acre parcel into two parcels. Our current lot is nearly rectangular,with
201 feet of waterfront at the narrowest width and nearly 700 feet deep. We would like to divide it"in half'
so that each new lot has 100+feet of waterfront and is approximately 700 feet deep.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
We would like to build a home on our lot and move permanently to Allyn,but the size of our lot
makes this cost prohibitive. The lot currently has an assessed value of$537,465. If we built a
home with a recommended land-value ratio(LVR)of 30%,the home would have a value of
$1,254,085, and the total property value would be$1,791,550($537,465+$1,254,085 =
$1791,550). Even if we built a nice$462,535 home(and building a home on a lot of this quality
for less than this amount would not be financially prudent and would,therefore,not constitute
"reasonable use"),the aggregate value would still be$1,000,000,which is more than we can
afford. It would(a)absorb a disproportionally large share of our estate and(b)on our fixed
income,long term,we couldn't afford the taxes. Splitting our parcel would create necessary
liquidity(we could sell one of the parcels)and reduce the value of our project(smaller parcel and
home)to an affordable level.
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;
Strict application of the five acre dimensional standard significantly interferes with our
reasonable use of the property by making our project prohibitively expensive.
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;
Our lot is much larger than most lots in our immediate area and, in general,waterfront lots
between the towns of Grapeview and Allyn. If our lot was an average waterfront lot size,there
wouldn't be a hardship.
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;
Without the variance,someone with a pile of money will end up buying this parcel and
building a"mega-home,"making it less compatible with other permitted activities
(normally sized permanent and vacation homes)in the area. Our design will improve
the compatibility.
�X 2 �ps2
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;
Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other
properties in the area. Granting the variance will provide us with the same privilege
enjoyed by other properties in the area.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Ours is a private,posted lot with no public access and,therefore,granting the variance will
have no impact on the public.
f. (1)No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use
of the land. (2) 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. (3) Mere loss in
value only shall not justify a variance.
This requirement is actually three requirements. Regarding the first,unless you are among
the wealthiest people in the County(i.e.,can afford to own$500,000+properties for
an occasional picnic),the obvious"reasonable use"for this parcel is a home. And
unless you are among this elite class(we're not),building a home that is somewhat
commensurate with the parcel value is too expensive.
Regarding the second,the Growth Management Act,Comprehensive Plan,Development
Regulations and various ordinances were created(or modified)to promote
responsible growth in Mason County. My proposed project is consistent with this
objective.
Regarding the third,if, lacking a reasonable use(construction of an appropriately sized
home on a lot sized more consistently with other lots in the area),we're forced to sell
our parcel,our balance sheet won't change. We will simply convert a real estate
asset into a cash asset,which will have no impact on our balance sheet. We are not
using a loss in value as justification for our request for variance.
�k Z ps 3
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;
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;
c�. 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;
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
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.
r
Signature Date
Development Regulations Variance: $1,135.00 - Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,135.00 -Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520.00 -Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Habitat Management Plan: $445.00
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs. Updated: 12-15-2008
C:\Documents and Settings\Eric\My Documents\Beach\Split\2009 Mason County Variance app vl .doc
�x 3
�pN Cps
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
NOTICE F PUBLIC HEARING C O UB C G
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mason County Hearings Examiner will
hold a public hearing in the Commissioner's Chambers in the Mason County Courthouse
Building I, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, Washington on Tuesday, September 22, 2009
at 1:00 P.M.
The PUBLIC HEARING will be to consider a application(DDR2009-00061)by Eric &
Claudia Hansen for a variance to section 17.04.223 of the Mason County Development
Regulations, in order to further subdivide his 3.87-acre parcel (Parcel numbers 12232-40-
01090)which is zoned Rural Residential 5. The property is owned by the Hansen, who
wishes to subdivide their property into a total of two lots. To do this, it is necessary that
the Hansen convince the Mason County Hearings Examiner of extenuating
circumstances in their favor per section 1.05.030 of the Mason County Development
Regulations. The property is located off of E Cronquist Road near Grapeview, in Section
32, Township 22N., Range 1 W., WM. The Mason County Hearings Examiner will render
a decision within ten working days of the hearing.
For further details please contact Subdivision Planner Michael MacSems at extension
571. Written comments may be submitted to the Hearings Examiner in care the Planning
Department up to 5:00 P.M. September 21".
If special accommodation are needed,contact the Mason County Commissioners'office at
427-9670,ext. 419
Mason County Journal,run two(2)times.
Sept 10& 17
Impression a sechage rapide et antibourrage www.avery.com
Utilisez le gabarit 8160^"c 1-800-GO-AVERY a AVERYU 8160-
ALVERSON TRS, DAYTON L& BARBARA J METCALF BRIAN S CHOPP ET AL ro
RUBY 1521 S DALLAS DR KATHERINE BECK k
17916 BRITTANY DR SW ANAHEIM, CA 92804-6016 10628 NE 53RD ST
SEATTLE, WA 98166-3618 KIRKLAND, WA 98033-7424
Ln
C W SOMERS CHARLES &JANE LONGINO CHARLES M ZUBROD
PO BOX 414 1732 SE 16TH PL 3706 163RD AVE COURT E
GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0414 RENTON, WA 98055-9700 BONNEY LAKE, WA 98391-9543
CLIFFORD,EDWARD A& CULBERSON,JEROME J& INA R D YVONNE MILLER TRUSTEE
PATRICIA A 220 E CRONQUIST RD 17042 24TH AVE SW
11318 2ND AVE NW ALLYN, WA 98524-9724 SEATTLE, WA 98166-3214
SEATTLE, WA 98177-4709
DETROIT WATER SERVICE DORIS OLSON WARBINGTON EDLUND, ROLF &DONNA
ASSOC 912 N 73RD ST APT 404 2205 43RD ST SE
C/O JOHN FETCH SEATTLE, WA 98103-5345 PUYALLUP, WA 98372-4280
1811 LINCOLN CIRCLE SE
RENTON, WA 98055-3737
FAGERING, RUSSELL A& FETCH, JOHN A&DONNA FORREST U&JOAN WALLACE
DARLENE 1933 SE 16TH PLACE 1604 SW 131 ST ST
151 DETROIT DR RENTON, WA 98055-3729 SEATTLE, WA 98146-3002
ALLYN, WA 98524-9700
HANSEN, ERIC M&CLAUDIA H HANSEN, MCCLELLAN, TAFT HASKELL, THEODORE JR&
4804 20TH AVE NW 4804 20TH AVE NW SHIRLEY
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-2424 GIG HARBOR,WA 98335-2424 32206 27TH AVE SW
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2278
HUSA,NILS O &JOYCE D JAMES J DAVIS JOHN E CANOY TRSTE
PO BOX 512 854 STEARMAN ST 140 E DETROIT DR
GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0512 INDEPENDENCE, OR 97351-9414 ALLYN, WA 98524-9700
KENNEDY, THOMAS M& KENNETH ROGER SELF KEVIN J ANDERSON
TERESA L 121 E DETROIT DR 6125 S D ST
221 E DETROIT DR ALLYN, WA 98524-9700 TACOMA, WA 98408-6313
ALLYN, WA 98524-8718
KORDA ETAL, MICHAEL& LINDA E WELDON MCDONALD, GORDON R&
MARJORIE VIOLA M
CHARLES &JANE LONGINO 1813 174TH ST E 231 E CRONQUIST RD
SPANAWAY, WA 98387-7602
1732 SE 16TH PL ALLYN, WA 98524-9724
RENTON, WA 98055-9700
PAULSEN, ROBERT R&JETTE PETER J MCKEOWN RICHARDSON, BERT E&
903 ADA ST LEOLA M
120 E DETROIT DR
PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366- ALLYN, WA 98524-9700 4327 119TH PL SE
4548 EVERETT, WA 98208-9150
A83AV-09-008-6 wi0918 31V1dM1 @AAany asn
—0918 PAU3A V o w0:)'AJ@Ae'MMM builuud aaaj wer pue a6pnws
Impression a sechage rapide et antibourrage ® www.avery.com �f/�I AVERY''' 8160
Utilisez le gabarit 81601," 1-800-GO-AVERY
ROGERS, STEVEN T& SCHARIN, MATS &JUDITH U SHANE E FRANCUM
ELIZABETH H PO BOX 3375 130 EAST DETROIT DR
24641 SE 44TH ST RENO, NV 89505-3375 ALLYN, WA 98524-9700
ISSAQUAH, WA 98029-7544
STEWART, MICHAEL L& SWANSON, RICHARD H & TAYLOR, JEFFREY S &JULIE A
DIANE L CYTHNIA A 23759 SE 243RD ST N
404 B ST SW PO BOX 1617 MAPLE VALLEY, WA 98038-
TUMWATER, WA 98512-6531 ALLYN, WA 98524-1617 8237
TERESA K MCCOMBER ET AL WORRELL, MARK S & BETTY E
DANA M WORLEY 100 E DETROIT DR
41 E DETROIT DR ALLYN, WA 98524-9700
ALLYN, WA 98524-9700
A113AV-OD-008-L wi0918 31`dldW31 @Aj@AV ash
vu09&8 OAU3A%f a WOYAJaAe-AAMAA 6uilulad 00a3 wel pue a6pnws
JInu.,9c tl11U Joni riee rnnuny www.avery.com AVERY� 8162T"'
Use AveryO TEMPLATE 8162T- 1-800-GO-AVERY V
HANSEN, MCCLELLAN, TAFT D YVONNE MILLER TRUSTEE
4804 20TH AVE NW 17042 24TH AVE SW
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-2424 SEATTLE, WA 98166-3214
HANSEN, ERIC M &CLAUDIA H LINDA E WELDON
4805 20TH AVE NW 1814 174TH ST E
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-2424 SPANA, WA 98387-7602
SWANSON,RICHARD H&CYTHNIA A SCHARIN, MATS &JUDITH U
PO BOX 1617 PO BOX 3375
ALLYN, WA 98524-1617 RENO,NV 89505-3375
CULBERSON,JEROME J&INA R MCDONALD, GORDON R& VIOLA M
220 E CRONQUIST RD 231 E CRONQUIST RD
ALLYN, WA 98524-9724 ALLYN, WA 98524-9724
FORREST U&JOAN WALLACE ROGERS STEVEN T &ELIZABETH H
1604 SW 131ST ST 24641 SE 44TH ST
SEATTLE, WA 98146-3002 ISSAQUAH, WA 98029-7544
DORIS OLSON WARBINGTON CHARLES &JANE LONGINO
912 N 73RD ST APT 404 1732 SE 16TH PL
SEATTLE, WA 98103-5345 RENTON, WA 98055-9700
,wZ918 ®AH3Ad aAHAV-OD-008-t
,WZ9181!jege6 ai zos!!!ln
wortiane-nnnann a6ejjnoq!1ue 1a ap!dea a6ey�as a uo!ssaidw!
122324001070 122324091210
MCCLELLAN, MCDONALD
ROBERT& SUZANNE GORDON R&VIOLA M
4804 20TH AVE NW 230 E CRONQUIST RD
GIG HARBOR,WA 98335-2424 ALLYN, WA 98524-9724
122324001080 122324091120
YVONNE MILLER U-SCARIN, MATS & JUDITH H
17042 24TH AVE SW PO BOX 3375
SEATTLE, WA 98166-3214 RENO, NV 89505-3375
122324001090 121055101009
HANSENERIC M &CLAUDIA H FORREST U&JOAN WALLACE
4804 20TH AVE NW 1603 SW 131ST ST
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335-2424 SEATTLE, WA 98146-3002
122324001140 121055101010
LINDA E WELDON ROGERS
1813 174TH ST E STEVEN T &ELIZABETH H
SPANAWAY, WA 98387-7602 24640 SE 44TH ST
ISSAQUAH, WA 98029-7544
122324090100
SWANSON 121055101011
RICHARD H & CYTHNIA A DORIS OLSON WARBINGTON
PO BOX 1617 911 N 73RD ST APT 404
ALLYN, WA 98524-1617 SEATTLE, WA 98103-5345
122324090101 121055101012
SWANSON KORDA ETAL
RICHARD H& CYNTHIA A MICHAEL & MARJORIE
PO BOX 1617 1732 SE 16TH PL
ALLYN, WA 98524-1617 RENTON, WA 98055-9700
122324090106 No addresses were found for
SCHARIN, MATS &JUDITH U The following parcels:
PO BOX 3375 122322222222
RENO, NV 89505-3375 121058666666
121058888888
122324090105
CULBERSON,
JEROME J& INA R
220 E CRONQUIST RD
ALLYN, WA 98524-9724
1
Hansen Variance Application
Within 300 Feet(Non-Detroit)
Parcel No. Name1 Street Address City State Zip
122324001070 HANSEN, MCCLELLAN, TAFT 4804 20TH AVE NW GIG HARBOR WA 98335-2424
122324001080 D YVONNE MILLER TRUSTEE 17042 24TH AVE SW SEATTLE WA 98166-3214
122324001090 HANSEN, ERIC M & CLAUDIA H 4805 20TH AVE NW GIG HARBOR WA 98335-2424
122324001140 LINDA E WELDON 1814 174TH ST E SPANA WA 98387-7602
122324090100 SWANSON, RICHARD H &CYTHNIA A PO BOX 1617 ALLYN WA 98524-1617
122324090106 SCHARIN, MATS&JUDITH U PO BOX 3375 RENO NV 89505-3375
122324090105 CULBERSON,JEROME J & INA R 220 E CRONQUIST RD ALLYN WA 98524-9724
122324091210 MCDONALD, GORDON R &VIOLA M 231 E CRONQUIST RD ALLYN WA 98524-9724
121055101009 FORREST U &JOAN WALLACE 1604 SW 131 ST ST SEATTLE WA 98146-3002
121055101010 ROGERS, STEVEN T& ELIZABETH H 24641 SE 44TH ST ISSAQUAH WA 98029-7544
121055101011 DORIS OLSON WARBINGTON 912 N 73RD ST APT 404 SEATTLE WA 98103-5345
121055101012 CHARLES &JANE LONGINO 1732 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055-9700
Hansen Variance Application
Within 300 Feet(Detroit Township Common Ownership)
Parcel No. Name1 Street Address City State Zip
121055101001 TERESA K MCCOMBER ET AL 41 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101002 KEVIN J ANDERSON 6125 S D ST TACOMA WA 98408-6313
121055101003 BARBARA J METCALF 1521 S DALLAS DR ANAHEIM CA 92804-6016
121055101004 KENNEDY, TOM &TRESA 221 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101005 HUSA, NILS 0 &JOYCE D PO BOX 512 GRAPEVIEW WA 98546-0512
121055101006 KENNETH ROGER SELF 121 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101007 PAULSEN, ROBERT R &JETTE 903 ADA ST PORT ORCHARD WA 98366-4548
121055101008 FAGERING, RUSSELL A& DARLENE 151 DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101009 FORREST U &JOAN WALLACE 1603 SW 131 ST ST SEATTLE WA 98146-3002
121055101010 ROGERS, STEVEN T& ELIZABETH H 24640 SE 44TH ST ISSAQUAH WA 98029-7544
121055101011 DORIS OLSON WARBINGTON 911 N 73RD ST APT 404 SEATTLE WA 98103-5345
121055101012 KORDA ETAL, MICHAEL& MARJORIE 1732 SE 16TH PL RENTON WA 98055-9700
121055101013 KENNEDY, THOMAS M &TERESA L 221 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-8718
121055101014 DETROIT WATER SERVICE ASSOC 1811 LINCOLN CIRCLE SE RENTON WA 98055-3737
r �
121055101015 CHARLES M ZUBROD 3706 163RD AVE COURT E BONNEY LAKE WA 98391-9543
121055101016 EDLUND, ROLF & DONNA 2205 43RD ST SE PUYALLUP WA 98372-4280
121055101017 ALVERSON TRS, DAYTON L & RUBY 17916 BRITTANY DR SW SEATTLE WA 98166-3618
121055101018 CLIFFORD,EDWARD A& PATRICIA A 11318 2ND AVE NW SEATTLE WA 98177-4709
121055101019 C W SOMERS PO BOX 414 GRAPEVIEW WA 98546-0414
121055101020 FETCH, JOHN A& DONNA 1933 SE 16TH PLACE RENTON WA 98055-3729
121055101021 RICHARDSON, BERT E & LEOLA M 4327 119TH PL SE EVERETT WA 98208-9150
121055101022 RICHARDSON, BERT E & LEOLA M 4327 119TH PL SE EVERETT WA 98208-9150
121055101023 BRIAN S CHOPP ET AL 10628 NE 53RD ST KIRKLAND WA 98033-7424
121055101024 JOHN E CANOY TRSTE 140 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101025 PETER J MCKEOWN 120 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101026 WORRELL, MARK S & BETTY E 100 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101027 TAYLOR, JEFFREY S &JULIE A 23759 SE 243RD ST MAPLE VALLEY WA 98038-8237
121055101028 KENNEDY, THOMAS M &TERESA L 221 E DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-8718
121055101029 JAMES J DAVIS 854 STEARMAN ST INDEPENDENCE OR 97351-9414
121055101030 SHANE E FRANCUM 130 EAST DETROIT DR ALLYN WA 98524-9700
121055101031 HASKELL, THEODORE JR & SHIRLEY 32206 27TH AVE SW FEDERAL WAY WA 98023-2278
121055101912 STEWART, MICHAEL L& DIANE L 404 B ST SW TUMWATER WA 98512-6531
�x S
File No.
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING OF PUBLIC NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) SS:
1 COUNTY OF MASON )
I, IC�/Y-'o ` G'� S S being first duly sworn, deposes and
says:
On the 4}V"day of S M 6-!� ZOGCI , I deposited in the United
States mail, with sufficient postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the individual
public notice of .f/1 b I,c )iec r vt
P C, (community meeting, traffic
study meeting, application, or public hearing), a copy of which is attached hereto, to the
list(submitted by the Applicant) of real property owners and/or taxpayers who own
property(check one) _within the affected Division/Subdivision or ✓within three
hundred feet of the property that is the subject of the application. The notices were
addressed tom individuals,not including the Applicant.
Si mature Date
Signed and Sworn to before me this _ A� day
of.
,. .•••••.,Gs-, Notary Public in and for fhp State or Washington
• pT AR y �
;' Residing at:
.00
APR 30, 2011 Z My Appointment Expires: /�v��v/( .r
O
,n�y�,•, Pulll.tC'.•�
'/''//1/1111111111` .
�x
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
m
i• + t C r� ��' 1rn S do hereby certify that I posted 3 p
co les of
the attached _ rya t csz �fe�v i vl
on I_day of SC)O�e4A b-1 y- 2009 in public places as follows:
one at Gin S i C z
one at Gin
one at (r-,Cpz:� eo?s� MI LL
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of.Posting NoticL.this 10 day
of e Vv%ber . 20 Oq
By:
Address:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn W Cne this day of J , 20_4
APR 30, 2011 z► Notary Public fort the State of Washington
(P Residing at
�,��.••,p�`t;1-1�'•••�'�,� Commission Expires 3d ao�
%FO•....• �6t,d
s,, F W P'S ` ,.
{ `r� 122324091032
122324001180
122324091031
122324001040
122324001170 --_._--__..._._...—.....
�._—...-..----
122324091051
122324001120 — ------
122324001160 122324091052
122324091062
122324001110 122328888888 122324091061
---E CRONQUIST RD �)
122324091063
122320060000— C
t
122324001070
122324091210 0 (J 1
122324091120
122324001080
ar T22NRI W
CL (1122324001090
122324090106 — - — t
o '5 Puget Sound
122324001140
122324090101 ---- —...—_
122324090100
121055101010
121055101011 121055101012 121058888888 n %t
E DETROIT,DR /
121058888888
122322222222
/• I
121055101031 /•
ti t
i
121058888888 /♦
\J
N4ZN Shelton (360) 427-9670
�.
FY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Elma (360) 482-5269
RECEIVED
DNS J U L 2 3 2009
frinii M Ir"C D - PLANNING
Mason County Development Code 15.07.010.Notice to
:4 rs of record within 300 feet of subject property.
f en
f.0
H
\J
of BLA 0 1-3 1,SE 1/4,Section 32,Township 22N.,Range
< 3.27-acre parcel,which they would like to subdivide to
The current zoning for this are is RR-5.The Mason
Regulations(I 7.04.223.A)does not allow the further
S 1 -1 isn
f ly.However section 17.05.030 allows a property owner to
hen they believe that certain extenuating circumstances
ApprcFv;W,.,KL'T1M
.and Required Studies: This project is subject to the review of the Mason County Planning Department
and the Mason County Hearings Examiner.
Public Comment
Period: Written comments may be directed to the Staff member listed below until 5:00
PM 9/4/09.The public may also comment at a public hearing.
Existing Environmental
Documents: None
County Staff Contact: Michael MacSerns, 360-427-9670 ext 571
Date,Time¢%Place of
Scheduled Public Meeting:Mason County Hearings Examiner,Tuesday, September 8,2009, 1:00 P.M.,
411 N 56 Street,Shelton,Commissioners Chambers.
Timeline for Final
Action: The MAon County Hearings Examiner shall issue a final decision within 10
working days of the hearing.A Notice of Final Decision will be sent to all
PYes of record.
T (
ITk, A AA.K
Signed By: Date:
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application for
VARIANCE FROM STANDARDS
HEARING, September 22,2009
Eric and Claudia Hansen
Parcel No. 122324001090
A. Introduction
1. Objective: Divide 3.27 acre waterfront parcel (200+waterfront feet by approx.
700 feet) into two parcels, each of which would meet the definition of a Rural
Residential lot as defined by the Shoreline Management Act(generally, 100 feet
of waterfront and a minimum area of 20,000 sq ft).
2. Observations
a. Waterfront Parcel Size
i. Waterfront parcels are barely distinguishable on a map (Attachment D).
ii. Other parcels in our area average .79 acres in size, less than one-sixth of
the five acre zoning requirement(see Attachments A and B).
iii. Observation—although zoned Rural Residential five acres(RRS),
waterfront in our area isn't rural at all. The waterfront between
Grapeview and Allyn is densely populated.
b. Development Regulations silent on waterfront parcels
i. With 90 miles of marine shoreline and nearly 100 lakes in Mason County,
Development Regulations are silent on waterfront parcel development.
ii. Shoreline Management Act
(a) The only place waterfront parcel development is addressed is in the
Shoreline Management Act(see Attachment C and the definition of
Rural Residential).
(b) Observation—Our proposal complies with the Shoreline
Management Act.
3. Conclusions
a. Square peg, round hole (the waterfront in our area is not rural yet we've been
lumped into RR5 zoning).
b. There is a disconnect between the Development Regulations and the Shoreline
Management Act as they relate to waterfront parcels.
B. Variance Criteria Requirements
Following are the six variance requirements included in Title 15.09.057 of the Mason
County Code with an explanation of how our proposed project complies with each of
these requirements.
1. Criteria 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."
I.e., does the five acre dimensional standard preclude or sienifcantly
in ere with a "reasonable use" of the property?
a. Staff Interpretation
i. "Narrow"
ii. For example, the five acre minimum doesn't interfere with the
construction of a home per se.
b. But looking a little deeper...
Criteria F, Part 1... "No variance shall be granted unless the owner
otherwise lacks a reasonable use..."
i.e., this criteria suggests the circumstances of the owner must be considered
when determining reasonable use.
Given our financial circumstances, the five acre minimum does create a
hardship. With a home, it would simply absorb too much of our net worth,
and no one would suggest that is "reasonable."
c. Unnecessary Hardship
The idea that circumstances of the owner must be considered when
determining reasonable use is supported elsewhere. According to the Real
Property Deskbook, an"unnecessary hardship"(i.e., significant interference
with reasonable use) "requires that the applicant show that the strict application of
the zoning code will deprive the applicant of a valuable property right..."
Again,according to the Real Property Deskbook,when determining"reasonable use"
(or unnecessary hardship),the unique circumstances of the owner must be
considered.
2
d. Summary
There is no absolute,"correct"definition of reasonable use. The question isn't
whether the Hansens have meet the Staff s interpretation of the reasonable use
requirement. The question is have the Hansens meet a reasonable interpretation of
the reasonable use standard. Both variance Criteria F(1)and the Real Property
Deskbook suggest,when considering the reasonable use standard,it is appropriate to
take the unique circumstances of the owner into consideration. Given our financial
circumstances,the five acre minimum significantly interferes with our reasonable use
of the property.
3
2. Criteria 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 ar 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."
Le.,is the hardship specifically related to irregular lot shape, size or natural
features?
ASOLUTELY!
Question: Is one of the parcels below an irregular size?
A B C D E F
Yes,parcel "B" is an irregular size. Our lot is 4.12 times larger than the average
size of other waterfront lots in our vicinity. Our hardship is specifically related to
its irregular size.
Note—Unlike the other relatively large parcel in our area(12232-40-01080),our
parcel is not encumbered with deed restrictions.
4
3. Criteria 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."
This is a two part requirement:
(a) Will the project be compatible with other permitted activities in the area?
Yes—granting the variance will actually improve the compatibility of our
project with other permitted activities in the area(i.e., reasonable homes on
reasonable lots).
(b)Will the project cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment?
Not the way we have it planned
This challenging variance requirement includes difficult issues such as runoff,
septic discharge and the health and well being of aquatic life. Let's address each
of these issues separately.
a. Runoff. Currently, the natural terrain routes all upland runoff in our area to
the parcel to our north and the two parcels to our south. This could be
confirmed by a site visit. Consequently, our project will have no impact on
runoff.
b. Aquatic Life. Current"improvements"on our parcel include an eight-foot
high, one-foot thick concrete bulkhead with a concrete boat ramp which
extends perpendicularly 30 feet onto the beach.
As apart of our project, we propose removing the boat ramp and creating a
beach access that would be more environmentally friendly.
c. Septic Discharge. An auxiliary building(garage, storage,bathroom)with a
septic drain field was constructed on our property in 1974 by the prior owners.
The drain field is located immediately behind the bulkhead. Again, a site visit
might be in order.
As apart of our project, we propose decommissioning the bathroom in the
auxiliary building and the associated drain field
In short,by removing the boat ramp and decommissioning the septic drain
field, our project will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties or
the environment. Instead,these improvements will produce a positive impact
on adjacent properties and the environment.
5
4. Criteria D: "That the variance authorized(1) does not constitute a grant of
special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and(2) will be
the minimum necessary to afford relief."
The other properties in the area are reasonably sized parcels with reasonably
sized homes!
Granting the variance would not provide us with a special privilege not enjoyed
by other properties in the area. It would provide us with the same privilege! (A
reasonable home on a reasonably sized parcel.)
Regarding the second issue, we also believe our proposal is the minimum
necessary to afford relief. For example,we would prefer three parcels—two
waterfront parcels and one upland parcel.
Our Preferred
Proposal approach
Preferences aside, we believe our proposal (two parcels) is consistent with the
requirement that our proposal is the minimum necessary to afford relief.
5. Criteria E: "That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect."
Our property is private and posted with"no trespassing"signs. As such, it is
inaccessible to the public and our proposal will have no direct impact on the
public. However, the improvements we've included in our proposal (boat ramp
removal and decommissioning of the auxiliary bathroom and septic drain field)
will improve the environment and, therefore, indirectly, have a positive impact on
the public.
Also,by creating two tax parcels, the aggregate assessed value will increase
which, again, indirectly,will benefit the public by increasing tax revenue.
6
6. Criteria 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. (Ord. 32-04 Attach. B (part), 2004)."
Again,this is a two part requirement.
a. "No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable
use of the land."
This was established in the first variance requirement.
b. "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. (Ord. 32-04 Attach. B (part), 2004)."
We believe our project meets all of these requirements—and more. In broad
terms,the primary intent of the Growth Management Act(and supporting
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, etc.) is to manage growth in
a way that preserves the character of rural Mason County by promoting
growth in our more densely populated areas. While not yet recognized as
such by the County, the waterfront between Grapeview and Allyn is not
"rural." It is densely populated(see statistics) and promoting growth in this
densely populated area is consistent with the Growth Management Act.
Furthermore, our project is consistent with the only residential development
provisions in the Mason County Code that address waterfront parcels—those
contained in the Shoreline Management Act. The Shoreline Management Act
requires rural residential lots to be(a)a minimum width of 100 feet and(b) a
minimum area of 20,000 square feet, and our proposed development meets
these requirements.
C. Closing Comments
As mentioned in our opening comments,there are no absolute, "correct" definitions
for terms used in the variance requirements such as "reasonable use" and"special
privilege."These terms are subject to broad interpretation. And we don't claim our
variance application complies in all respects with the narrowest, most strict
interpretations of these requirements. But we do believe, without exception, we've
demonstrated compliance with a reasonable interpretation of all of the variance
requirements.
7
Attachment A
Statistics for 16 Waterfront Parcels
(near Hansen property)
Waterfront Size
Parcel No. Owner (Feet) Acres
122324090100 Swanson 63 0.54
122324001140 Weldon 63 0.5
122324001090 Hansen 201 3.27
122324001080 Miller 205 3.37
122324001070 McClellan 118 0.88
122324091063 Venture(Hoff) 80 0.6
122324091062 Venture(Hoff) 82 0.6
122324091052 Schafer 75 0.84
122324091051 Sasten 75 0.85
122324001040 Vanhorn 50 0.23
122324091031 Riggleman 50 0.55
122324091032 Fetch 50 0.55
122324091190 Underhill 60 0.43
122324091020 Raskin 80 0.52
122324001010 Flynn 60 0.75
122321002090 HC Property 62 0.69
Average: 85.9 0.95
Average Excluding Hansen Parcel 78.2 0.79
8
Attachment B
Local Area Map
I122321002070
122321002090
122324001150 122324001010
122324091200 122324091020
122324001130
122324091190
122324091032
122324001180
122324091031
122324001040
122324801170 122320060000
122324091051
122324001160 122324091052
122324091062
122324001110 122324091061
122328888888
122324091063
122324001070
20
122324001080
122324001090 Hansen
Parcel
)6
122324090101 122324001140
122324090100
101011 122322222222
121055101012
a p
East end of Detroit Township (23
homes with common, shared
waterfront)
9
Attachment C
Residential Development
Shoreline Designation (X=Prohibited)
Regulation Urban Rural Conservancy Natural
1. Shore setbacks, in feet(From
OHWM or front of bulkhead. Side
yard setbacks shall apply to
sides.)
a. Single family, duplex 15 25 50 X
b. Multi-family structures less than 30 50 NA X
35' high
c. Multi-family structures over 35' 50 100 NA X
high
2. Side yard setbacks (in feet)
a. Single family, duplex 5 10 25 X
b. Multi-family structures less than 20 20 X X
35' high
c. Multi-family structures more 30 30 X X
than 35' high
3. Height limits in feet
a. 0--49 feet from OHWM 35 30 25 X
b. 50--100 feet from OHWM 45 40 30 X.
4. Site coverage--for:"
a. Single family, duplex 60% 50% 15% X
b. Multi-family structures 40% 40% 15% X
5. Minimum lot size (per 12,500 square 20,000 square 5 acres" X
residential unit) feet feet
Primary residence and accessory 18,750 square 20,000 square 5 acres" X
structure (one per lot maximum) feet feet
Duplex 1,570 gallons 785 gallons 5 acres' X
sewage per sewage per
acre per day acre per day
maximum maximum
Multi-family 1,570 gallons 785 gallons NA NA
sewage per sewage per
acre per day acre per day
maximum
6. Minimum lot width measures at 50' 100, 200'
OHWM and at building setback
10
f
1
� r1
S
i
i
/1
Mason County e _ A—of u
Development Areas Map w�e °
Panel 6 of 10
Vim,,.•,.
--
��+a�.oYwo
bow
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA,
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. �•
0LLJ
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special Q
"exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific vananee in
criteria listed below. Uj
U u
Applicant name Eric& Claudia Hansen Telephone#( 253) 853-5344
r4
Mailing address a
4804 20"' Avenue NW, Gig Harbor,WA 98335
Site address
284 E Cronguist,Allyn,WA 98524
Tax Parcel# 12232 - 400 - 1090
Legal Description:
TR 9 OF G.L.3 EX&TAX 1127,1137 PCL 2 OF BLA#01-31 S 26/214
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance
Mason County Development Regulations 17.04.223A
Subdivisions and Plats
On a separate piece of paper,please state your reasons for requesting a variance. In your responses,be
sure to address all criteria. Your request will be evaluated based on these criteria. •
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
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;
C:\Documents and Settings\Eric\My Documents\Beach\Split\2009 Mason County Variance app vl .doc
Attachment to Mason County Application for Variance
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
We would like to divide our 3.27 acre parcel into two parcels. Our current lot is nearly rectangular,with
201 feet of waterfront at the narrowest width and nearly 700 feet deep. We would like to divide it"in half'
so that each new lot has 100+feet of waterfront and is approximately 700 feet deep.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
We would like to build a home on our lot and move permanently to Allyn,but the size of our lot
makes this cost prohibitive. The lot currently has an assessed value of$537,465. If we built a
home with a recommended land-value ratio(LVR)of 30%,the home would have a value of
$1,254,085,and the total property value would be$1,791,550 ($537,465 +$1,254,085 =
$1791,550). Even if we built a nice$462,535 home(and building a home on a lot of this quality
for less than this amount would not be financially prudent and would,therefore,not constitute
"reasonable use"),the aggregate value would still be $1,000,000,which is more than we can
afford. It would(a)absorb a disproportionally large share of our estate and(b)on our fixed
income,long term,we couldn't afford the taxes. Splitting our parcel would create necessary
liquidity(we could sell one of the parcels)and reduce the value of our project(smaller parcel and
home)to an affordable level.
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;
Strict application of the five acre dimensional standard significantly interferes with our
reasonable use of the property by making our project prohibitively expensive.
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;
Our lot is much larger than most lots in our immediate area and, in general,waterfront lots
between the towns of Grapeview and Allyn. If our lot was an average waterfront lot size,there
wouldn't be a hardship.
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;
Without the variance,someone with a pile of money will end up buying this parcel and
building a"mega-home,"making it less compatible with other permitted activities
(normally sized permanent and vacation homes) in the area. Our design will improve
the compatibility.
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;
Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other
properties in the area. Granting the variance will provide us with the same privilege
enjoyed by other properties in the area.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Ours is a private,posted lot with no public access and,therefore,granting the variance will
have no impact on the public.
f. (1)No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use
of the land. (2)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. (3)Mere loss in
value only shall not justify a variance.
This requirement is actually three requirements. Regarding the first,unless you are among
the wealthiest people in the County(i.e.,can afford to own$500,000+properties for
an occasional picnic),the obvious"reasonable use"for this parcel is a home. And
unless you are among this elite class(we're not),building a home that is somewhat
commensurate with the parcel value is too expensive.
Regarding the second,the Growth Management Act,Comprehensive Plan, Development
Regulations and various ordinances were created(or modified)to promote
responsible growth in Mason County. My proposed project is consistent with this
objective.
Regarding the third, if, lacking a reasonable use(construction of an appropriately sized
home on a lot sized more consistently with other lots in the area),we're forced to sell
our parcel,our balance sheet won't change. We will simply convert a real estate
asset into a cash asset,which will have no impact on our balance sheet. We are not
using a loss in value as justification for our request for variance.
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;
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;
c. 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;
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
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.
� 2-
2,5 Jcl)
Signature Date
Development Regulations Variance: $1,135.00 - Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,135.00 -Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,520.00 -Hearings Examiner: $2,005.00
Habitat Management Plan: $445.00
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs. Updated: 12-15-2008
C:\Documents and Settings\Eric\My Documents\Beach\Split\2009 Mason County Variance app vl .doc
Pg0N coal 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
Sf
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mason County Hearings Examiner will
hold a public hearing in the Commissioner's Chambers in the Mason County Courthouse
Building 1,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton, Washington on Tuesday, September 22, 2009
at 1:00 P.M.
The PUBLIC HEARING will be to consider a application(DDR2009-00061)by Eric &
Claudia Hansen for a variance to section 17.04.223 of the Mason County Development
Regulations, in order to further subdivide his 3.87-acre parcel(Parcel numbers 12232-40-
01090)which is zoned Rural Residential 5. The property is owned by the Hansen,who
wishes to subdivide their property into a total of two lots. To do this, it is necessary that
the Hansen convince the Mason County Hearings Examiner of extenuating
circumstances in their favor per section 1.05.030 of the Mason County Development
Regulations. The property is located off of E Cronquist Road near Grapeview, in Section
32,Township 22N., Range 1 W., WM. The Mason County Hearings Examiner will render
a decision within ten working days of the hearing.
For further details please contact Subdivision Planner Michael MacSems at extension
571. Written comments may be submitted to the Hearings Examiner in care the Planning
Department up to 5:00 P.M. September 21St
If special accommodations are needed,contact the Mason County Commissioners'office at
427-9670,ext.419
Mason County Journal,run two(2)times.
Sept 10& 17
122324091032
122324001180
122324091031
122324001040
122324001170
122324091051
122324001120
122324001160 122324091052
122324091062
122324001110
122328888888 12232409106
E CRONQUIST RD-------
122324091063
122320060000-1
122324001070
122324091210
122324091120
122324001080
T22NRlW
122324001090
122324090106
Puget Sciwrd
122324001140
122324090101
122324090100
-T-T
121055101010
121055101611 121055101012
121058888888 f
EPETROIT DR
121058888888
122322222222
121055101031
121058888888