Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
VAR2005-00004 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 3/1/2005
CASE INDEX Robert and Kim Christian VAR2005-00004 Index # Date Description 1 April 29, 2005 Exhibit 1: Staff Report March 1, 2005 Attachment 1: Resource Ordinance Application March 1, 2005 Attachment 2: Variance from Standards Information ebruary, 2005 Attachment 3: Habitat Management Plan 5 arch 25,2005 Attachment 4: Affidavit of Posting Notice March 31,2005 Attachment 5: Affidavit of Publication 7 February 24, 2005 Attachment 6: HMP Notification of Review Letter 8 February 24, 2005 Attachment 7: HMP Notification of Review Letter April 18, 2005 Attachment 8: Comments from Jeff Davis 10 Attachment 9: Title Notification of Habitat ana ement Plan 11 Attachment 10: Revised plot map of property lines 12 Attachment 11: Manufactured home floor Plan 13 March 18, 2005 Attachment 12: Robert Carrier—Hearing Examiner Final Decision (VAR2004-00028 14 April 11, 2005 Attachment 13: Site plot map indicating driveway, septic system and stream buffer/setback distances Characteristics of the area. The general area is Belfair. This residential development lies to the west of Belfair and to the north of State Route 300. Several single-family residences occupy the area and most are primary residences. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential -10 (RR-10)per the Mason County Development Areas Map. SEPA Compliance,public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1), (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted onsite on March 25, 2005 (Attachment 4) and notice was published in the Shelton-Mason Journal beginning March 31 and ending April 7, 2005 (i.e. two consecutive weeks) (Attachment 5). The proposal required review and comment by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe. Notification was sent to the Department and Tribe on March 24, 2005 (Attachments 6 and 7,respectively). A 28-day comment period followed. An email was received from Jeff Davis, Regional Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), with recommendations for mitigation(Attachment 8): "I visited the site with the Skokomish tribe and we concluded that the stream is equal to 2-feet at bankf ill width and less than 4% gradient. Thus the stream meets the physical definition of fish habitat (Type 3 or F stream). WDFW has previously observed juvenile coho and cutthroat downstream of the subject property. WDFW does recommend that some form of mitigation occur for the further intrusion into the buffer with an impervious surface. This could take place offsite adjacent to the subject parcel or at another location, if the mitigation cannot be done onsite." Staff would require that a revised Habitat Management Plan(Attachment 3) be submitted for approval to Planning Staff offering a plan for either onsite, or if not possible, offsite mitigation prior to final building permit issuance. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require Mason County Building Permit for the placement of the manufactured home. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor's Office (Attachment 9). Analysis: (All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.) The required buffer for a Type 3 stream is 150 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a total distance of 165 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The proposal is to replace a 396 square foot recreational"park model"trailer with an approximately 1,012 square foot manufactured home sited within the Type 3 stream buffer and setback. The Type 3 stream buffer and setback due to the proximity of the stream to the parcel on both the eastern and southern boundary lines encumber the entire parcel. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110,Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards,which establishes variance procedures and criteria. The location of the proposed manufactured home within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q. states that"except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150. Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)be prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation. Section 17.01.150 (E),Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following circumstances exist: 1. 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; 2. 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; 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; 4. 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; 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; 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. Staff discussion: The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section 17.01.020. A site inspection was conducted on March 2, 2005 in response to a request to replace a 386 square foot recreational 'park model"trailer on a site identified as neighboring a Type 3 stream along two of its property lines (Attachment 10). Based on Mason County Title 14, Section 14.30.010 a "Recreational park trailer means a trailer type unit that is primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, or seasonal use. It is built on a chassis, mounted on wheel, having a gross trailer area not exceeding four hundred square feet."Section 14.30.050(a) requires an installation permit. Given the temporary use of this original park model, the applicant had intended to place a larger, more permanent residence on this site. At the time, given the setbacks, the applicant believed this expansion in the future would be no problem. On December 17, 2004 the applicant submitted a building permit (BLD2004-01905) to remove the temporary 'park model"and replace it with an approximately 23'x 44'manufactured home (Attachment 11). Information from the Jeff Davis, Regional Habitat Biologist for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this stream as fish bearing "downstream of subject property"and therefore has been classified it as a Type 3 stream requiring a 165 foot buffer/setback(Attachment 8). The proposed project is entirely within a regulated stream buffer. Although this may appear as expansion of an existing residence within a stream buffer, and according to several decisions by the Hearings Examiner, expansions are not allowed in buffer areas, staff believes that due to the definition of a recreational 'park model"trailer this is not expansion of existing residence. The applicant had intended for temporary living quarters with plans to place a permanent residence on site. The Staff will cite in support of the Applicant's request for a Variance the case of Robert Carrier (VAR2004-00028)heard before the Hearing Examiner granting the replacement of a recreational 'park model"trailer with a manufactured home of comparable size under similar circumstances (i.e. within a Type 3 stream buffer) (Attachment 12). The parcel is zoned as Rural Residential 10 per the Mason County Development Regulations Development Areas Map 1, which allows for one single-family residence per 10 acres. The entire parcel is encumbered by the 165 foot buffer/setback required by the Resource Ordinance. There is no alternate building area outside the buffer. The proposal for a 1,040 square foot manufactured home is an allowable use in Rural Residential 10 zoning, and is therefore consistent with surrounding land uses. The site is highly disturbed, and should be looked at with the view to minimize the impact on the stream's riparian community and restore through mitigation some of the preexisting vegetative buffer(Attachment 8). The Staff has requested that a revised Habitat Management Plan be submitted for Staff approval prior to final building permit issuance. The placement in the preexisting footprint of the recreational 'park model"trailer on the property would, in the view of Staff, be the most logical location for the proposed new manufactured home, if the Hearing Examiner were to grant the variance (Attachment 13). This provides for minimal amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #1, #2 & #3 of Section 17.01.110.A. of the Resource Ordinance. The hardship is a direct result of the shape,size, and location of the parcel. A Type 3 stream buffer and setback encumber the entire parcel. The construction of a single-family residence (i.e. manufactured home) is consistent with surrounding land uses and a permitted us in Rural Residential 10 zoning. The proposed project is not inconsistent with other permitted uses in the area. Factors considered in the placement of the structures include the presence of a Type 3 stream buffer/setback, a highly disturbed site, as well as, the possible restoration of a portion of the riparian community through mitigation. The previous Decision by the Hearing Examiner in the case of Robert Carrier(VAR2004-00028)supports the Applicant's request. The current building location was chosen because the area is already highly disturbed. This provides for minimizing the amount of critical area disturbance. Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter 17.01.110(D)(2). The intended use is compatible and in keeping with the surrounding land use. The size of the proposed structures is consistent with the surrounding single- family residences. The proposed location for the new structure will be in an area that will have the least impact on the critical area. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The proposal is consistent and compatible with the surround land uses. The structures will be built to current Mason County codes. The public interest will be maintained if mitigation is required of the Applicant as a Conditional of Approval of the variance request. The granting of the variance is necessary for the placement of any structure on this lot due to the required buffer/setbacks from the stream. Conclusions. Upon the above discussion the proposal is consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the conditions listed below. 1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during construction. 2. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. 3. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or development activities on the parcel. 4. The provisions and recommendations of the Habitat Management Plan shall be revised and must be approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit issuance. 5. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection(silt fencing or straw matting). 6. A detailed planting plan,with species composition,number, and distribution shall be provided to and approved by Planning Staff prior to final approval of the building permit. 7. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a report detailing the condition of the restoration area. This report shall be due on the anniversary date of the issuance of the building permit and shall be submitted annually for three years. 8. A survival rate of 90%of plantings is required each year during the three-year monitoring period. If survival falls below 90%, the applicant shall replant to restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the necessary period to address the re-plantings. 9. A restoration bond shall be established with Mason County in the amount necessary to perform the restoration. 10. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project. 11. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor's Office. Choices of Action. 1. Approval of the Variance request. 2. Denial of the Variance request. 3. Conditional approval of the Variance request. 4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification 6 OF S7 PERMIT NO. MASON COUNTY DATE RECEIVED: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE ORDINANCE(Chapter 17,01 MCC) 411 N.5TH Street/P,O.Box 279,Shelton, WA 98584 MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT U CONDITIONAL USE❑ VARIANCE '49V-1 The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason Countys natural resource lands and critical areas RAy ut{do the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A,39.34,68.17,76.09,84.33,84.34 and 90,58 RCW. PLEASE PI21NT_ ©34 r 1. Owner: ,' Owner Mailing Address: Site A eas: City: State: Zip: City: n State L&,!N Zip:( -y LiewTitle Holder: Phone:Da 2.7.5-9u1; Address: Fire Distric : City: State: Z' Signature: CJj/ q'' 2. Parcel Number: I Z 33c -,,SD 12 7 Le 1 description: Parcel 3 Directions to Site: =Uro LG 4. State what sections require a permit In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑ Long-Term Commercial Forest Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑ Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑ Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01.110 5. Identify current use of property with existing improvements: a g' Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach additional sheets if needed): ' 1,t1�7 n_ �, a y�K,I,A 7. Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater ❑ Lake ❑ River ❑ Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Seasonal RunoffI Other 8 Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No 9. If septic is located on project site,include records. Connect to septic? ❑ Community Septic? ❑ Public Water Supply? 0 Well? El 10. Type of Job: Add (E Alt ❑ Repair demolition ❑ Other This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17,01 MCC)and nothing in this permit shall excuse the applicant from compliance with any other federal,state,or local statutes,ordinances,or regulations applicable to this project,but not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance.The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permitbee fails to comply with the conditions of this ordinance. MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT; S510.00IS305.00(with atother pemdt) MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVEL PERMIT: $1,225.00 MASON RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE; $1,22,4,00 HEARINGS BXAMINER; $350.00 S I;\PLANN �INOOPACIHNVIRONMBNTAL PERMIT APPLICATION \"+M P F4t a 31.t7 ` 7A c -Z-el Show the foilowinp on the site plan Lot Dimensions Flood Zones Existing Structures Fences Water Lines Driveways Drainage Plans Shorelines Septic System Topography Indicate Directional by(N,S,E,W,etc.) Proposed Improvements Easements In relation to plot plan Name if Flanking Street APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW: APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW: DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW FOR OFFICE USE ONLY COMMENTS Planning: Environmental Health: Building Plan Review: Occupancy Group: Fire Marshal: Other. Conditions: TOTAL FEES: Accepted by: Date: SRG• THE SHORELINE PEMIT PROCESS Page 5 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. .:2 Z2- o i DATE OWNER APPLICANT THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS Page 6 LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1,Second Floor. �0�6"r K P.(1 -%rt4,A �a �uw� i l N Fr r Revised 1/03 srg c" i Act-I- 2 Mason County Department of Community Development Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01) 411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Variance from Standards Information: * Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. 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. Please state how the variance request satisfies all of the following criteria. 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 41'- 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. r / 42, 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 are met: 1. 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; \\CLUSTERI HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc 2. 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; N tJ 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; 4. 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, 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; \\CLUSTERI_HOME SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My Documents\Fonns and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc 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. Signature Date \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTonns and Templates\Mason Countymep variance.doc f'k�L U F� HECOOTCOMPANYT Wetland and Wildlife Consulting Services 416 S.Washington Olympia,WA 98501 (360)352-9897 FAX(360) 352-9914 HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CHRISTIAN PROPERTY Mason County Tax Parcel No. 123305000057 Mason County Case No. BLD2004-01905 FEBRUARY 2005 Prepared for: Robert and Kim Christian 71 NE Anchor Drive Belfair,WA 98528 o`Wetlatj(f prepared by: too o So :10 i S. Shanewise, PWS O'S�s 000994 Senior Ecologist ��w/O�al Wetla�a�` Chrifb04hMp CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................1 Methods..................................................................................1 Results....................................................................................2 ProposedUse .........................................................................3 Impact Assessment.................................................................3 Recommendations..................................................................3 Figure 1. Schematic Site Map INTRODUCTION This Habitat Management Plan addresses the replacement of a small park model trailer home with a larger manufactured home. The property is a small lot at the bottom of a slope with a Type 4 or 5 stream system flowing past adjacent to the east and south. Virtually all of the lot occurs in an existing, non-conforming condition, containing the trailer home with an attached porch, a septic system, an outbuilding, and a graveled driveway and a yard. This lot is severely space constrained with the drainfield placed furthest away from the stream, and the home next. Because the existing condition represents a functional 100%disturbance of the site relative to its value as a stream buffer, it is deemed that almost any action that represents a variation of the built conditions would create no new, additional impacts to the stream. Furthermore, because the property boundaries are defined by a sturdy, 6-foot cyclone fence, a clear demarcation exists that will prevent any intrusion into the stream or buffer habitat outside of this property. It is recommended that the proposed activity be allowed, and without any mitigation compensation, because there will be no new, additional impacts from the proposed activities beyond what already occurs, and,there is little that could be done at this site to make any functional habitat improvements. METHODS Site Inspection Field review was performed on 3 February 2005. All areas of the subject property were reviewed. CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN , THE COOT COMPANY - 1 - RESULTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Impacted Stream System A Type 4 or 5 stream occurs within the landscape adjacent to the subject property. This system is currently highly degraded by vicinity stormwater runoff from an older, existing residential development that causes peak flows during storm events to spike very high. This flashy regime has resulted in a continuously eroding channel that appears to meander around when a large storm event creates a new path due to instream blockages from debris or overbank cutting from the high flows. Bed load within the stream is a fairly even mix of large gravel and sand that appears to get repositioned on a regular basis. Besides the hydraulic impacts to the stream system from surrounding runoff, water quality is also likely poor because of the highly disturbed watershed consisting of older single family homes built without any stormwater management other than directing (piping)runoff towards and into the stream. Existing Home Site The subject property occurs as an existing built home site. It has power, water and an installed septic system,a small mobile home with a deck plus an outbuilding and a small, graveled parking area. These items occupy the"upper"two thirds of this small lot, with the lower portion consisting of lawn and a small cluster of fruit trees. Severely Constrained Lot This lot is severely space constrained. A minimal amount of extra space exists outside of the current development. The lot is also at the lowest point within the vicinity landscape, and has a moderately steep slope ascending towards the flat stream bottom. The trailer home and septic system have already been placed at the furthest property corner away from the stream, but because the entire lot is within the required 150-foot stream setback, doing anything on this property will require a variance to this buffer. Sturdy Property Boundary Fence In addition to the above described features,this property also contains a sturdy, 6-foot cyclone fence extending around the entire perimeter. This fence was constructed to keep two large dogs in the yard and to keep neighborhood kids out. This barrier creates a clearly defined, difficult to infringe upon boundary separating the existing, non- conforming activities of the home site from the adjacent stream system. CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE COOT COMPANY -2- PROPOSED USE Place Larger Mobile Home The home owner wants to replace an existing park model home with a larger manufactured home. The new manufactured home would be positioned within the same location that the existing home and porch occupy. IMPACT ASSESSMENT No Functional Increased Impacts The proposed activities will cause no new functional impacts to the adjacent stream system. The reason for this is that the existing home site is already 100%disturbed by non-conforming activities. Almost any action that represents a variation of the built conditions on this small lot will not cause any new harm to the stream because there is not any functional buffer habitat left to degrade within the confines of the fenced area. Buffer Reduction Required Placement of the larger manufactured home will require a variance to the stream buffer. However,rather than obtain a variance for the specific home placement, it would be better to obtain a variance that conforms to the fenced property line. Reductions in the 150-foot stream buffer of 75%to 80%would be required to achieve this layout. RECOMMENDATIONS Allow New Mobile Home The proposal to install a larger manufactured home unit on site should be authorized. This activity will cause no new stream impacts beyond those that already occur. No vegetation removal will be performed, and the new structure will not alter the existing human presence and use of the site. Do Not Require Mitigation Compensation No mitigation compensation should be required for the proposed activities. Besides the fact that there will be no new functional impacts to the stream,there is really little that could be done with this small, constrained lot to produce any meaningful improvements to the buffer potential of the site short of simply removing everything that currently exists. CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN THE COOT COMPANY -3 - • � 1�eh�z— F�c>�� � • � .. � . 1 1 j I I �I 1 __ .._. - i �=► AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) do hereby certify that I posted 3 copies of the attached Fu&L,1c- n4071 on Z 5 day of M AF-u,-+ 20 oS in -3 public places as follows: one at 5rzt-FA(1?-- FZ S-- c�F--ic— one at C-cfA i rL- one at E7-A 'T:)F-c ur In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this 25 day of M kF-e-4 , 20 c)g-. By: Address: 411 t\( . �:-N 5M-6-C--rm'va \'X4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn to me this 2 g day of M 20 os r�----------------------01 No ary Public fo e S t of Washington BONNIE L CAP �: Residing at NOTARY PUBLIC STATE Or vvASHINUTON Commission Expires My Commission Expires June 6,2006 7e r=z ---Notice of application for Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that Robert and Kim Christian,who are the applicants for the following proposal, have filed an application for a Variance. The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer of 396 square feet with a manufactured home of 1,104 square feet within a type 4 stream buffer of a tributary of Hood Canal. Property location is 71 NE Anchor Drive, Belfair. Section 30 of Township 23 North, Range 1 West. Parcel# 12330-50-00057. Date of complete application: March 1, 2005. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas which detail stream buffer requirements. Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards, establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval. A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday,May 10, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I,411 N. 5th Street, Shelton,WA. Please contact Charles Mead McCoy III of the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360)427-9670, ext. 294,with any questions or comments on this development and variance. HAWord\Christain RO Variance Public Notice.doc.ram i I' �� , �i Affidavit of Publication Esf t cot on for Va, T 1 �1th that oir _t#,;ourca. ati Noticd� giltc tf STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS. Notice is he rey given that � and COUNTY OF MASON Kim Christian,wtio,gre_the appI'i fo`r the ,following proposal, have filed an application for a Variance. Julie G. Orme The request for a variance frorl t}he Ma- being first duly swum ion County Resource Ordinance Yo. �7-93 �e replace an existing,"park !' tfd8l'' re Clerk e ft 141 trat of 396 square foe; jvith a °n oath deposes and says that she is the �AtuPdrnlg,of.1,104 square feet of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news- iKitht�t a 4iTi buffer of a tributary of Paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the Joodfial Pro1YAty lobation is 71 NE An- date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu- cfiot f�rive, Belfd'" Section 30 of Township ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now §Ndttt,Range',1 iN�st.Parcel#12330-50- and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of 00057 publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL Date of complete otion: March 1, was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court �Oos of said Mason County. The proposed d6velopment'is reviewed as a Varfeihce und6e--f a?Mason County Re- That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Application for source,bFdtnanca Iqo ?7-93, specifically Section 17f11.i10tf5h andWildlife Habitat Variance # 77-93 bcMlservation Areas which detail stream D ffe:rrequirements Sectioh17.01.150,Var- Robert and Kim Christian 'f hces from Standards,"establishes Var- iance procedures and C fteda The proposal as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said inquires a'Habitat Yvlan6gemerit Plan and laeanng Ekaminer approval. newspaper once each week for a period of two % A PUBLIC'HEARINOiiilf beheld by the consecutive weeks,commencing on the Mason Coui ty Hearmo &droner on the propogdd,pffo(od#'{rr Tiia'1ojt, 10,2005 31 day of March 20 0 5 and ending on the t 1 00 j.hh`Irr fFleourtt t�fissioners `1 411 V3 'Street, She- April 1 0 5Ghambes §l ton,WA. day of 20 ,both dates inclusive, Please oontkt Charles 04ad McCoy III and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said Of"the Maadh County Q"WhI..0 01"Com- period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the ffiiCti►ity Dai►elopment at��,hhS}427 $�1f1,ext. f3 , tf1 Wlfl t questibrts'tf�t oomments on this foregoing publication is the sum of$ 7 A 7 A i�t#�fopltYla�i;arid;'vanance: °> M1-4/7 2t (\)eIkAic I �t!d Subscribed and sworn to before me 7 th day of A ril 05 \\`` %J1 itttfill,", p 20 ��� pN N Dos /, ,� \fil oti. NotaroNblic in and for the State of Washington Z NOTAFiy Residing at Shelton,Washington My commission expires ( 20 'OUD 4\C rt WAS Vk\ /T t I NG4AA-F_"c T 6 PAC--C- (o F j 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 March 24, 2005 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ATTN: Daria#e Gti�- JP-PF %>AVV_r-, 502 High Street, Suite 108 Port Orchard, WA 98366 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00004, a proposal to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer with a larger manufactured home within a Type 4 stream buffer. Dear Danette: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Robert and Kim Christian, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is to replace an existing 396 square foot "park model" recreational trailer with a 1,104 square foot manufactured home within the buffer of a type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe (or other relevant tribal authority). Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is April 22, 2005. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Charles Mead McCoy III, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development chuckm@co.mason.wa.us ok K -�-Af_ttw4-f4-t CAGE 1oF l 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 March 24, 2005 Skokomish Tribe ATTN: Marty Ereth N. 541 Tribal Center Road Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00004, a proposal to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer with a larger manufactured home within a Type 4 stream buffer. Dear Marty: The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Robert and Kim Christian, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan. The proposed activity is to replace an existing 396 square foot "park model" recreational trailer with a 1,104 square foot manufactured home within the buffer of a type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe (or other relevant tribal authority). Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments, question, or concerns about this plan. I have included my e-mail address if you find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a 28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is April 22, 2005. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Charles Mea McCoy III, Planner Mason County Department of Community Development chuckm@co.mason.wa.us Charles McCoy III - Christian Variance 2005-00004 Pale 1 From: "Jeff Davis" <davisjpd@dfw.wa.gov> To: "Charles McCoy III"<ChuckM@co.mason.wa.us> Date: 4/18/2005 2:13:44 PM Subject: Christian Variance 2005-00004 Chuck, I visited the site with the Skokomish Tribe and we concluded that the stream is equal to 2-feet at bankfull width and less then 4% gradient. Thus the stream meets the physical definition of fish habitat (Type 3 or F stream). WDFW has previously observed juvenile coho and cutthroat downstream of the subject property. WDFW does recommend that some form of mitigation occur for the further intrusion into the buffer with an impervious surface. This could take place offsite adjacent to the subject parcel or at another location, if the mitigation cannot be done onsite. If you have any questions please contact me. Jeff Davis WA. Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist 502 High Ave., Suite 112 Port Orchard, WA 98366 360.895.3965 davisjpd@dfw.wa.gov CC: "Marty Ereth" <mereth@skokomish.org>, "Jeff Heinis" <heinis426@aol.com> oF- Return To: TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN DATE: OWNER NAME: MAILING ADDRESS PARCEL# LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (ABBR.FORM: QUARTER/QUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT, LOT&BLOCK) NOTICE: The property was the subject of a development proposal within a critical area or its buffer, for the purpose of application number 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, mitigation 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): LAST FIRST INII LAST FIRST MI SIGNATURE(S): GRANTEE: PUBLIC { 1 �R\��•tir vaf� 4, OOPt TO C�n�.pn�rGta N . yi it fiIOD / / r 1 �ptt- �a'ce ---- - — ---- - -- ---- - -_ _ __ t23 4 1 !J. �: p,►�c 1��r p�. ' Washington Home Center, Inc. Floor Plan Silvercrest Discovery 5443R-Robert&Kim Christian 44,-OU � 9 3 ENTRY p I ' �El4IS lI o OP1 L�HEN r --- REFER (JTILITY =c=yam SET ____c -. , oPr_Alttrof TUB 7, fl4 KITCHEN 9" ' BATH- � -_ -- P DINING AREA HALL ' x6'-3' wA11"N cEaSn Y C ---------- B SI 3 LIVING POO MASTER BEDROOM 9'-8 xB'-7" 19'-8"x 11'-2' 13'-0"x 11'-2' MIN s VERCREST DISCOVERY 5443R 3 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHS 23'-4"x44'-a" APPROX. 1026 SO. FT. ALL is a/ DIANSIONS ME APPROXIµ4TE AND SUBJECT 10 Nsa, 4 1 Add Kitchen Cabinet Upper Per Plan 9 Additional Passage Door, (Up To 30") 2 Extend Wall In Kitchen Per Plan/Shorten Bar 3 Linen or Pantry Cabinet-(Up to 30"Wide Subject to PI 4 Brace Standard Light For Future Customer Installed Ceil 5 Ceiling Fan Wiring,Bracing&4-Speed Switch,Fan Rea 6 Frost Free Hose Bib (Each) 7 Overhead Bedroom Ceiling Light (Each) (Exchange F< 8 1 Piece Fiberglass Oversize Tub/Shower Exch Std Tub, Specifications subject to change. (c)1996 soltseii, Inc. Dec/14/2004 qA O 1 BEFORE TIE HEARING EXAMINFR FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil 01brechts, Bearing Examiner 3 RE: Robert Carrier FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. 5 MCC 17.01.150(E)Variance 6 INTRODUCTION 7 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 150-foot buffer along a Type DI stream in order to construct a 1,040 square foot home 108 feet from the stream. The 8 Examiner grants the variance subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 9 ORAL TESTIMONY 10 See transcript. Tammi Clark introduced the staff report. Lee Boad and staff 11 answered Examiner questions about the woodpecker habitat and testified that the Resource Ordinance prohibits development in the habitat area. Robert Strickland, a 12 representative of the applicant, identified when the lot was cleared and the impacts to 13 access if the home had to be built outside the buffer. Susan Baker questioned the classification of the stream and the development history of the lot. She also inquired 14 whether it would be possible to permanently prohibit clearing of the woodpecker habitat as a condition of development. 15 16 EXIEIIBITS 17 Exhibit 1: Staff Report. Exhibit 2: Variance application. 18 Exhibit 3: Dearing notice. Exhibit 4: Habitat management plan. 19 Exhibit 5: 115105 Clark letter to Skokomish Tribe. 20 Exhibit 6: 115105 Clark letter to WA Fish and Wildlife. Exhibit 7: MCC Chapter 14.30 21 Exhibit 8: E-mails between Clark and Boad. Exhibit 9: 2/9/05 Revised Site Plan. 22 Exhibit 10: 2/22/05 letter from John Diehl Exhibit 11: Five color photos of woodpecker habitat 23 24 FINDINGS OF FACT 25 Procedural: 1, Annlicant_ The applicants is Robert Carrier. Carver Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision JPA0591701.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 03/18/2005 16: 21 FAX 206 4470215 ( J0003/007. I Ate-2 of{ 1 2. Hearin . The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 2 on February 22, 2005 in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 3 Substantive- 4 3, Site/Pro-posal Description. The parcel is a pie shaped wedge that is 150 5 feet from north to south: The eastern property line is 144 feet, while the western property line extends 50 feet. There is an onsite sewage system that is capable of 6 supporting a two-bedroom home. The Environmental Health Department has approved the septic system. The septic is located on the southeastern quarter of the 7 parcel. Existing structures include two small outbuildings totaling approximately 250 square feet just west of the proposed project. There is a portable shed located 8 approximately 21 feet from the western property line,just north of the driveway. The 9 site has retained a relatively intact riparian zone surrounding the stream with a mature second growth forest up to the proposed building site. Dominant plant species 10 include western red cedar, Douglas fir, Red alder, big leaf maple, sword fern, lady fern, and vine maple. 11 About two-thirds of the site is encumbered by the 165-foot buffer/setback to a Type 12 M stream required by the Resource Ordinance. The remaining portion is comprised 13 of habitat for the pileated woodpecker. Staff and Lee Boad tested that the Resource Ordinance prohibits development in the habitat area and that Mason County has 14 prohibited development in woodpecker habitat in the past. 15 The applicant proposes to replace a trailer with a 1,040 square foot manufactured home 108 feet from the Type III stream. The proposed building site was cleared 11 16 years ago and is currently (at least until recently) occupied by a trailer. 17 IS 4. Characteristics of the Area. There general area is Lake Cushman. Lake Cushman is located in the southeast corner of the Olympic Mountains. Several single 19 family houses occupy the area Some residences are seasonal sue, but many are 20 primary residences. Examples of the size of surrounding residences include the following: 21 a. 71 N. Wigeon Place S. : 1,456 sq. ft. manufactured home. 22 b. 40 N. Wigeon Place S. 924 sq.ft. C. 121 N. Wigeon Place S.: 1,679 square foot garage 23 24 5. Adverse Impacts. The home is proposed to be constructed in an area that is already cleared. No removal of native vegetation will be necessary for construction 25 of the garage. As mitigated by the Habitat Management Plan and staff recommendations, the proposed home will have no adverse impacts of any material Carrier Variance p_ 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision PA0591701.DOC;1/13009,9000001 U3/10/LUUD 10: L1 rAA LU0 44[UL15 W UU4/UU7 significance. If the home is placed outside the buffer, it will damage pileated 1 woodpecker habitat, which also serves a marginal role in protecting the stream 2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 3 procedural: 4 5 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(1) provides the Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 6 Substantive: 7 2_ Zoning Desiwnation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5. 8 9 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a 150 foot setback from an adjoining Type III stream. This buffer is imposed through 10 MMC 17.01.110, Table III. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Those 11 review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law. 12 MCC 15.09.057(1.): The strict application of the bull(, dimensional or performance 13 standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 14 4. Case law and reasonable use, at least in the constitutional context, 15 generally provides for at least one single family home per parcel that conforms with 16 the minimum lot size requirements. Reasonable use may also be limited to recreational use, if factors such as investment backed expectations, historical uses, 17 surrounding uses and parcel size are consistent with a recreational Use limitation. See Buechel v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), for a good 18 description of the factors used in a "reasonable use analysis", as the terms used in the Mason County Shoreline Variance criteria. 19 20 The two primary issues in assessing reasonable use in this case, as accurately identified in the Diehl letter (Exhibit 10) are whether the proposed home can be built 21 in a location without a variance and whether a permanent home, as opposed to a trailer, is necessary for reasonable use. 22 On the issue of whether a home can be built outside the buffer, staff and the 23 applicant's expert (J ee Boad) both testified that development in the area outside the 24 stream buffer is prohibited by the Resource Ordinance due to the presence of pileated woodpecker habitat. The pileated woodpecker list is identified as a species of local 25 importance in MCC 17.01.110, Table 1. MCC 17.01.110(C) does appear to prohibit development in the habitat of"listed" species. Tammi Clarke (County staff) and Lee Boad (applicant widlife expert) both testified that the Resource Ordinance does Carrier Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision (PAOS91701.DOC;1/13009.90000a) 03/18/2005 16: 21 FAX 206 4470215. 005/007• . P�ivgv�G prohibit development in pileated woodpecker habitat, Mr. Boad testified that Mason 1 County has prohibited other clients that he has served from conducting any 2 development activities in pileated woodpecker habitat due to the requirements of the Resource Ordinance. Since the woodpecker habitat essentially takes up all the area in 3 which a home could be built outside the Type III stream buffer, it is concluded that the applicant has met its burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence -- more 4 likely than not) in showing that the proposed site is necessary for the minimum reasonable use of the land, i.e. all developable areas are encroached with Resource 5 Ordinance buffers and the proposed location has the least adverse impact (because it's 6 already cleared). 7 For future reference, however, staff and future applicants should do more than just speculate that the Resource Ordinance would prevent development because of 8 woodpecker habitat or the like. A full Habitat Management Plan and mitigation as required by the Resource Ordinance should be prepared if the proposition is made 9 that an applicant cannot develop in an area because of Resource Ordinance 10 restrictions. Staff may in this case have not felt this was necessary because they were relying more upon the fact that the proposed location is already cleared and 11 development outside the buffer Would involve the removal of vegetation. As mentioned in prior cases, this type of analysis does not meet Resource Ordinance 12 standards because the Resource Ordinance (setting aside the woodpecker issue) doesn't protect vegetation outside the Resource Ordinance buffer. Staff and the 13 applicant both emphasized that you cannot expect that the currently cleared area will 14 be returned to its native state, because the cleared area and corresponding recreational use are grandfathered and likely to be perpetuated in one form or another. This is 15 certainly true, but switching from a trailer to a permanent home within the Resource Ordinance buffer is unquestionably an intensification of use that creates more adverse 16 impact to the buffer. Without the added element of the woodpecker habitat, the 17 requested variance could not have been approved. 18 The other issue appropriately raised by Mr. Diehl was whether the applicant in fact already has a reasonable use of the property. As noted in the Buechel decision, 19 recreational use of property can constitute all the reasonable use to which a property owner is entitled. This is another area where it would have helped to have more 20 information. However, given the "more likely than not" standard, the fact that several 21 lots in the vicinity have permanent homes is marginally enough to show that the proposed home is necessary for a reasonable use of the property. The subject lot, 22 however, is relatively small. It would have helped to know if the permanent homes in the vicinity were on lots of similar size. The value of the property (and its 23 relationship to recreational as opposed to single-family home lots) and the investment backed expectations of the owner are also highly relevant. In future variance requests 24 to convert a lot from recreational use to single-family home use, more information of 25 this type should be provided to explain why recreational use does not already qualify a minimum reasonable use of the property. Carrier Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision )PA0591701,DOC;1/13009.900000/) vV/ tv/ LvvV 1V.L1 t'LS� LVV 441 ULIJ _ LQ.JUUtf/UU7 OPb Given the conclusion that a single-family home is a minimum reasonable use and that 1 all developable portions of the subject lot are prohibited from development under the 2 Resource Ordinance, the Resource Ordinance restrictions do significantly interfere with the reasonable use of the subject property within the meaning of the variance 3 criteria quoted above. 4 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 5 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 6 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the applicant's own action. 7 5. The need for the variance is created by the natural features on the property 8 and their corresponding development buffers. 9 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 10 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment. 11 6. As discussed in the findings of fact, the proposed home is of a size 12 consistent with the sizes of garages in the vicinity. The use proposed is also residential, which is also consistent with surrounding uses and the zoning designation 13 for the site,RR-5. 14 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 15 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. 16 1,� 7. The property is located in a Rural Residential-5 zoning district, which permits single family garages outright. The applicant is only requesting the 18 opportunity to build a home, which is a right afforded to most other properties in the vicinity. Consequently, the granting of a variance application would not constitute a 19 special privilege. The size of the home is also consistent with the size of adjoining homes, making it the minimum variance necessary to afford relief. 20 21 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Z2 8. The building site is on an already cleared area with no discernible adverse impacts, especially as mitigated as recommended by staff and Habitat Management 23 Plan. Consequently,the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 24 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 25 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other Carrier Variance P. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {P AO 5 91701.DOC;1/13009.900000/) 03/18/2005 16:22 FAX 206 4470215 007/007. County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act, Mirror loss in value only 1 shall not justify a variance. 2 9, The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally 3 sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so 4 that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The 5 granting of the variance in this particular case will not have any significant adverse 6 environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of property,thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource Ordinance. The Comprehensive 7 plan and Zoning Code provide for residential development in the subject area. The lot, which appears to be less than an acre in size, is too small for residential 8 development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of the Growth Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl aiid encouraging the 9 efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth Management Act also 10 encourages the protection of private property rights. Authorizing the construction of a garage on a grandfathered lot in the circumstances of this application does promote 11 the private property rights of the applicant. For these reasons, the granting of this variance would also be considered consistent with the intent of the Growth 12 Management Act. 13 14 DECISION 15 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions recommended by staff in the staff report (Exhibit 1). In addition, the applicant shall 16 record a covenant or easement that permanently prohibits development in the woodpecker habitat area. The covenant or easement shall be subject to the prior 17 approval of the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney. 18 Dated this 18th day of March, 2005. 19 20 Phi Olbrechts 21 Mason County Hearing Examiner 22 23 24 25 Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision {PA0591701.DOC;l/13009.90000011 00 0t 1S 21 (13J 5ooz T T 8dd a3AI33�d 1 ' 1 , ' C � w ¢3 °` �DJ2A/q��lEtO SFPTt r- i-37 87' v RECEIVED APR 112005 426 W• CEDAR ST.