HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2021-00008 Dock - SHR Letters / Memos - 5/25/2022 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
3
4 RE: Ken Engelbert FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND
S Shoreline Substantial FINAL DECISION
Development Permit and
6 Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit
7
8 (SHR2021-00008)
9
10
INTRODUCTION
11
1 , Ken Engelbert has applied for a shoreline substantial development permit ("SSDP")
and shoreline conditional use (SCUP) permit to construct a dock on he western
13 shoreline of Case Inlet for a parcel located at 370 E Cronquist Road,Allyn,WA 98524.
The applications are approved subject to conditions.
14
This project application is approved as"just one more dock"since on its own the dock
1 does not present any significant adverse impacts to the shoreline. However, the
16 precedent it sets for further overwater development to the south is of concern. There
is no dock construction between the project site and a dock 0.33 miles to the south. The
17 aesthetic, recreational and environmental impacts of the proposed dock are at an
acceptable level because there are already three other docks located to the north. As
18 recognized by the County's shoreline regulations, see Conclusions of Law No. 19 and
19 20 below,docks within developed overwater areas create less impact because they only
add minor incremental impacts to those already created by existing docks. However,
-,0 when existing overwater construction enables construction into undeveloped shoreline
areas,as it does in this case,the stage is set for a succession of docks to encroach further
21 into that undeveloped area. This is why County regulations, specifically MCC
17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.a,require a cumulative impact analysis report to assess whether such
22 a succession of construction could occur. No such report was provided in this case'.
23
24 1 An example of a convincing cumulative impact assessment was presented in the
Rosendahl application, SHR2021-00013. Staff and applicant in that case were able to
ti demonstrate that further development into an undeveloped area was unlikely because
the tidelands were too shallow to accommodate reasonably functional docks.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Should this dock serve as part of the justification for construction of another dock to
I the south, more serious consideration should be given to cumulative impacts.
The staff report also contained an error in applying dock length standards. The
3 County's dock length standards, specifically MCC 17.50.320B2fiv(b), are likely
designed to provide for reasonable boat draft at low tide. The length of a "dock,"
4 therefore, would be the length to the end of the float where boats are moored. The
MCC definition of dock provides that a"dock"is comprised of a pier, ramp and float.
5 The staff report, however, construes a "dock" as just the pier portion of the dock
6 structure, which for this project is 30 feet. The length of the dock, when correctly
including the ramp and float, is roughly 98 feet (depending on ramp elevation). The
7 conditions of approval require correct application of the dock length standards.
8 TESTIMONY
9 A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an
10 overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational
purposes only as Appendix A.
11
EXHIBITS
12
Exhibits 1-8 identified in the May 25, 2022 staff report were admitted during the
13 hearing.
14 FINDINGS OF FACT
15 Procedural:
16 1. Applicant. The Applicant is Ken Engelbert, 370 E Cronquist Road, Allyn,
17 WA 98524.
18 2. Hearing. A virtual Zoom hearing on the permit applications was held on
June 8, 2022 about 1:00 pm. The hearing was left open for written comment through
19 5 pm June 9, 2022 for any persons who were unable to comment due to technical
20 reasons associated with joining the virtual hearing.
21 Substantive:
22 3. Site/Project Description. Ken Engelbert has applied for a shoreline
substantial development permit("SSDP")and shoreline conditional use(SCUP)permit
23 to construct a dock on he western shoreline of Case Inlet for a parcel located at 370 E
24 Cronquist Road,Allyn,WA 98524.
25 The proposed dock will include a pier (4 x 50 feet), an aluminum ramp (4 x 40 feet),
and a floating dock (8 x 30 feet). The proposed decking is a Cali bamboo composite
board, and the floats would be encased Styrofoam billets. Steel piles would be placed
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
by engineer to secure the dock in Case Inlet. According to the staff report, the project
will not be constructed of toxic materials and will follow requirements from WDFW
regarding materials.
3 The project site is developed and has an existing single-family residence on site
including paved parking and gated driveway.
4
4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is located along the western shoreline of Case
5 Inlet of Puget Sound and lies in a rural area just south of Allyn,dominated by residential
6 and undeveloped properties. As shown in Figure 5 of the biological evaluation, Ex. 5,
the land use directly to the north and south is residential. Docks are located 3, 5 and 9
7 lots to the north along the same shoreline. The staff report notes that the closest dock
to the south is located 0.33 miles away.
8
5. Adverse Impacts. The proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts. A
9 Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued May 4, 2022. More specific
10 impacts are discussed below.
11 A. Views and Aesthetics. The proposal will not create any significant shoreline
view and aesthetic impacts.The proposed dock is located near three other docks located
12 to the north and in this regard the addition of the dock will not be a significant aesthetic
change to the shoreline landscape. To the south, there are no existing docks, but no
13 view impacts are anticipated. Upland properties are more likely to have views
14 obstructed by the existing building than the dock.
15 The location of the proposed dock is in a section of shoreline that is lacking in
natural shoreline. Most, if not all, of the properties both north and south of the project
16 property have bulkheads leading to a shoreline that has a heavy influence of man-made
17 alterations. Similarly,the upland areas of these properties are all developed residences
or maintained as landscaping. The proposed dock is not anticipated to have an adverse
18 effect on aesthetics and visual compatibility.
19 B. Ecological Function. The proposal should result in no net loss of ecological
function. A Biological evaluation (BE) has been prepared, Ex. 5. As noted in the
20 evaluation, the project reduces impacts by reducing the auditory impacts from
21 construction activities. According to the staff report no commercial or recreational
shellfish areas,eelgrass beds,or forage fish spawning areas have been identified on site
22 and no eelgrass within 25 feet of the project site. The BE lists best management
practices and conservation measures and concludes no adverse effects are likely to
23 threatened or endangered species or their habitat. Significantly, the project proposes
60%light passage using grating to mitigate against shading impacts. As to cumulative
24 impacts,there is limited ability for future build out of docks in South Puget Sound due
25 to U.S.Army Corps of Engineers strict policies.Additionally,Mason County places an
emphasis on shared docks and new proponents would be required to show that they
have tried a different route prior to requesting to build a new dock.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
I C. Navigation. The proposal will have no significant impact on navigation as
it is does not materially extend further waterward than the docks located to the north.
3 6. Joint Use. According to the staff report,the Applicant reached out to the neighbors
to the north to check the interest level of a joint use dock.Neighbors indicated that they
4 did not have interest in a joint use dock(Exhibit 8), or they were already sharing their
5 dock in a joint use capacity
6 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
7 Procedural:
8 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 17.50.400(C)(2)(b)requires Type III review
for Shoreline Conditional Use permit(SCUP)applications. The same section subjects a
9 Shoreline Substantial Development permit(SSDP)to Type III review if associated with
10 a shoreline conditional use permit. MCC 15.09.050 authorizes the hearing examiner to
hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications.
11
Substantive:
12
13 2. Shoreline Designation. Residential.
14 3. General Review Criteria for Shoreline Substantial Development (SSDP) and
Shoreline Conditional Use Permit. The Applicant is required to obtain a SSDP for any
15 substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction. MCC 17.50.400(A)(2). The
MCC requires a decision on a SSDP application to be based upon the Shoreline Master
16 Program for Mason County("SMP"),and the policies and procedures of Chapter 90.58
17 RCW,the Shoreline Management Act("SMA").MCC 17.50.400(C)(3).A"substantial
development" is any development of which the total cost for market value exceeds
18 $7,047.00 (subject to an inflation factor) or any development that materially interferes
with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. MCC
19 17.50.400(B)(1)(a). This proposal is reviewed under the SMP Section for docks,MCC
17.50.320132, and other pertinent shoreline regulations.
20
21 A shoreline conditional use permit (SCUP) is required for the proposal because Table
17.50.090-A MCC requires a conditional use permit for docks in South Puget Sound
22 for individual single-family homes within the residential shoreline designation.
Shoreline conditional use permit criteria are governed by MCC 17.50.400(C)(3)(b)(ii).
23
Applicable shoreline use regulations and shoreline conditional use criteria are quoted
24 in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. The staff report
25 findings and conclusions pertaining to Shoreline Master Plan policies as opposed to use
regulations are adopted by reference and not further addressed in this Decision.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Shoreline Use Regulations
1
2 MCC 17.50.320.B.1.a: All Overwater Structures.
a. Overwater structures shall be allowed only for water dependent uses or
3 for public access.
4 4. The criterion is met. MCC 17.50.02 defines a water dependent use as a "use or
portion of a use that cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the water and is
5 dependent on the water by reason of the intrinsic nature of its operation." Docks
6 clearly meet this definition.
7 MCC 17.50.320.B.1.b: Overwater structures shall be limited to the minimum size
necessary to meet the needs of the proposed water-dependent use.
8
5. As conditioned, the criterion is met.
9
There was no direct evidence presented that the length of the dock is the minimum
10 necessary to meet the boating needs of the applicant. Surprisingly, no construction
drawings have been entered into the record and no indication of how far out the dock
11 will extend in relation to water depth. In the absence of any evidence that a shorter
12 distance is adequate, the 120-foot maximum length set by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b
sets the standard as what's necessary for reasonable boat usage. More specifically,
13 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b provides that the maximum length allowed for a PRF is to
be the lesser of 120 feet or the length necessary to reach a mean lower low water
14 (MLLW) depth of eight feet. The proposed length of the dock appears to be about 98
feet as suggested by Figure 5 of the biological evaluation (there is no more detailed
15 diagram provided of the proposed dock dimensions.). With the limited information in
16 the record,the dock length will be conditioned to meet the length requirements of MCC
17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b.
17
18 Page 11 of the staff report asserts that the proposal meets the length requirement of
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b because the pier is only 30 feet long and is not in the water
19 during mean lower low water. This is an incorrect application of MCC
17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b. The staff report construes a"dock" as limited to the pier portion
�� of a pier-ramp-float. This is contrary to the definition of dock in MCC 17.50.020,
21 which provides that"[d]ocks include any combination of pier, ramp and float attached
to the shore." Consequently, the length of the dock is not limited to the 30 feet of the
22 pier,but rather includes the ramp and float as well. Further,the MLLW is not measured
from the end of the pier,but rather from the end of the float. The maximum dock length
23 has presumably been set to provide a reasonable draft for boat hulls. Since boats are
24 moored along the float as opposed to pier, the length of the pier has no relevance to
maximum dock length standards.
25 MCC 17.50.320.B.1.c: Overlapping Jurisdictions.New construction, replacement, and
repair shall comply with all applicable state and federal policies and regulations,
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
including but not limited to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife(Hydraulic
1 Project Approval WAC 220-110), the Washington Department of Natural Resources,
2 and the United States'Army Corps of Engineers. These include functional grating, size
restrictions, and other standards.
3 6. The criterion is met. The project is conditioned for acquiring all necessary permits
4 prior to construction.
5 MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.i: Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation. Overwater
structures shall be designed and constructed to avoid or if that is not possible, to
6 minimize and mitigate unavoidable impacts to ecological functions, critical area
resources such as commercial and recreational shellfish areas; submerged aquatic
7 vegetation such as eelgrass beds and macro-algae;forage fish spawning areas;salmon
8 and other priority species and habitats; riparian vegetation; large woody debris;
associated wetlands; and processes such as littoral drift.
9 i. Applicants for new or expanded overwater structures on all marine shorelines
10 and on lakes with species listed state or federally proposed, threatened, or
endangered shall submit a habitat management plan that identifies measures to
11 protect habitats and mitigate for unavoidable impacts.
12 7. As conditioned,the criterion is met. The Applicant's biological evaluation, Ex. 5,
describes avoidance and minimization measures for the project built into project design
13 and proposed construction measures. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the
Biological evaluation establishes that the proposal will not adversely affect any
14 protected species or habitats, including salmon.
15 MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.ii: Work Windows. In-water construction shall be limited to all
relevant fish work windows (WAC 220-110-271) to avoid impacts to spawning,
16 migration and rearing of salmonids and other critical species.
17 8. The criterion is met. The biological evaluation identifies that work windows will
conform to WDFW requirements,which includes WAC 220-110-271.The HPA permit
18 for the project also requires conformance to applicable work windows.
19 9. MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.iii:Alongshore Sediment Transport. Overwater structures
shall be designed to avoid impediments to alongshore sediment transport. Where they
20 unavoidably adversely affect net sediment transport or other coastal processes to the
21 detriment of nearby beaches or habitats, the County may require periodic
replenishment of substrate to offset adverse impacts.
22
23 10. The criterion is met. As noted in the staff report(Ex. 1,page 6),the project area has
not been identified as a sediment transport zone. A condition of approval recommended
24 in the staff report and adopted by this decision also requires that sediment transport be
25 addressed via WDFW permitting.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.iv: Distance to Eelgrass, Kelp, and Forage Fish Habitat.
I Wherever feasible, overwater structures shall be located a minimum of twenty-five feet
2 (measured horizontally from the edge of the structure) in all directions from eelgrass
and kelp beds and herring spawning areas. Projects with unavoidable impacts shall
3 provide compensatory mitigation.
4 11. As conditioned, the criterion is met. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the
Biological evaluation identifies that there is no eelgrass within 25 feet of the proposed
5 dock. Nothing in the record addresses the presence of kelp. Consequently,a condition
6 of approval prohibits construction of the dock if located within 25 feet of kelp beds.
7 MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.v: Grating to Allow Light Penetration. To minimize adverse
8 effects on habitats and species caused by overwater structures that reduce ambient
light levels, overwater structures shall incorporate functional grating that meets all
9 standards (such as percent functional grating, percent open area, and orientation of
the grating) required by state and federal agencies with jurisdiction.
10 12. The criterion is met. Grating has been integrated into the proposal. The conditions
11 of approval require the applicant to acquire approval of a hydraulic permit from WDFW
pursuant to WAC 220-110 prior to construction. WAC 220-660-140 sets grating
12 standards for PRFs and the 60% grating proposed by the Applicant likely meets those
standards. The criteria will be applied and enforced during hydraulic permit review by
13 the Washington State Department of Ecology.
14 MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.vi: Treated Wood and Toxic Materials. Materials used for
components that may come in contact with water shall be made of non-toxic materials
15 where feasible. Tires and tire by-products shall not be used for construction where they
16 would contact the water (e.g., floatation, fenders, and hinges). Where chemically-
treated materials are the only feasible option, materials shall use the least toxic
17 alternative approved by applicable state agencies for use in water. Treated wood
elements shall incorporate design features (e.g., fenders, bumpers, metal bands) to
18 minimize abrasion by vessels, pilings, floats or other objects. Wood treated with
creosote, chromated copper arsenate and pentachlorophenol is prohibited for use in
19 overwater structures.
20 13. The criterion is met. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 3, the dock components will
be composed of wood, galvanized or stainless steel and fiberglass composite grated
21 decking. A biological evaluation mitigation measure prohibits the use of toxic
22 construction materials (Ex. 5).
MCC 17.50.320.B.1.e: Overwater structures shall be located, designed, and operated
23 to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent
24 property owners, or adjacent water uses including navigation and boat operation.
14. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5C. Further,
25 as shown in Figure 3 of the biological evaluation, the proposed dock will be located
in the center of the project site's water frontage and not in proximity to any
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
neighboring dock, thus mitigating against any potential interference with existing or
1 future dock use on neighboring properties.
2 MCC 17.50.320.B.1.f. Except for community or joint use, structures shall be located
a minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
3 may be located on the property line, where applicable. If the location of side property
4 lines on a cove cannot be officially established without a survey, the administrator may
require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a permit is issued.
5 15. The criterion is met as the project is located more than five feet from the parcel
6 lines based on the project drawings appended to the biological evaluation.
MCC 17.50.320.B.1.g: Artificial lighting on overwater structures shall be the
7 minimum necessary for the proposed use. Lighting shall be designed to minimize glare
8 and shall incorporate cut-off shields.
16. The criterion is met. No artificial lighting is proposed, and any addition of such
9 lighting should be construed as a modification of the proposal.
10 MCC 17.50.320.B.1.h: Overwater structures shall be constructed and maintained in
a safe and sound condition. ...
11 17. The criterion is met. Staff have confirmed in the staff report that the proposal
12 shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and sound condition. The project design
as outlined in the exhibits shows that the Applicant has undertaken considerable effort
13 to comply with the numerous regulations applicable to dock construction.
14 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.a.i: Evaluation of cumulative impacts of docks. When a
15 conditional use permit is required per Table 17.50.110-A and/or this chapter, the
following apply:
16 a. Mason County shall evaluate the cumulative effects on ecological functions,
17 navigation and aesthetics and other water-dependent uses when
determining if a residential dock is allowed.After consideration ofpotential
18 cumulative effects and precedential effects, the county shall deny a new
permit application where there is convincing evidence that impacts would
19 risk harm to shoreline ecological functions, loss of community use, adjacent
water dependent uses or a significant degradation of views and aesthetic
20 values. A balancing of the interests of project proponents, adjacent
21 shoreline property owners (and uses), and those of the public is necessary.
18. The criterion is met. The strict standards applicable to dock construction
22 applicable to the many permits involved assure that dock impacts are minimized to the
23 extent feasible,thus minimizing cumulative impacts as well. A primary area of concern
for this project is that it sets a precedent for further dock construction into the
24 undeveloped shoreline extending to the south of the project site. Page 3 of the staff
report assures that further dock construction in that direction will be mitigated by
25 stringent Army Corp standards. If that proves to not be the case, the further extension
of dock construction to the south will have to be reconsidered in future applications.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP P. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.a: The applicant shall prepare a cumulative impact analysis
1 report that addresses the following within a defined area such as a drift cell or other
2 appropriate shoreline reach:
a. The current build-out of the proposed dock area. The report shall determine
3 whether or not the proposed dock would alter an undeveloped shoreline
4 reach or high-quality habitat area, or compromise development of
recreation opportunities.
5
19. The criterion is provisionally met. As noted in Conclusion of Law No. 18, the
6 project does extend the developed shoreline to the north into the undeveloped shoreline
to the south. There are no docks for a least a mile south according to staff testimony.
7 Under prior Hearing Examiner decisions from several years ago,such an encroachment
8 into an undeveloped area likely would not have been permitted due to the cumulative
impact of the precedent set for further dock construction into that undeveloped area.
9 Those hearing examiner decisions were based upon the research and evaluation of
Mason County staff who had significant expertise in management of shoreline
10 resources. The shoreline criteria as quoted above and below for MCC
17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.b incorporates those standards. As identified in Conclusion of Law
11 No. 18, staff have assured that Army Corp standards have significantly slowed dock
12 construction. The effects of Army Corp review on proliferation of docks will have to
be further monitored in future dock applications.
13
It should also be noted that no cumulative impact analysis has been submitted into the
14 record. An analysis of the likelihood of additional dock construction to the south
should have been prepared as required by the criterion to more accurately assess the
15 potential for cumulative impacts. The staff assessment of potential additional dock
16 construction will be found to suffice for this application since one more dock does not
on its own create significant impacts. However, future applications may be denied if a
17 more comprehensive cumulative impact analysis is not provided.
18 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.b: The potential for future build-out of the proposed dock
area. The report shall assess if a shoreline reach area already has a substantial number
19 of docks, and therefore the potential for future build-out of the area is more limited and
20 the risk of significant environmental impacts from additional infilling of docks will
likely be low. This is particularly true if the proposed dock will be sited between
21 existing docks on adjacent properties. However, even if the area has limited build-out
potential, should the specific location, characteristics, and natural functions of the
22 shoreline and the health of the water body be especially susceptible to new dock
23 development, then the report should identify the potential for significant environmental
impacts.
24
20. The criterion is marginally met. Future build-out is not found to be an adverse
25 impact for the reasons identified in Conclusion of Law No. 18 for this dock,but future
applications to the south of the proposal should be evaluated more closely.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
It should also be noted that the staff report appears to have misconstrued the criterion,
I focusing upon the fact that there are not many docks built within the area. The absence
2 of docks under the criterion above is grounds for denying a dock application, not
approving it. Placing docks within a highly developed shoreline only adds marginally
3 to shoreline impacts. In overwater developed shorelines, navigation, shoreline
aesthetics and shoreline ecological function has already been compromised and adding
4 another dock only incrementally adds to those impacts. That is why the criterion above
provides that within developed shorelines, "the risk of significant environmental
5 impacts from additional infilling of docks will likely be low." As previously noted, the
6 proposed dock extends a developed shoreline area into the undeveloped shoreline area
to the south. That impact should have been evaluated in the cumulative impact report
7 required by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.a.
8
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.a.ii.c: Aesthetics and visual compatibility. The report shall
9 evaluate the context of the existing visual characteristics of the upland, shoreline, and
10 overwater development and analyze compatibility with the surrounding area.Although
any dock will have a physical presence and alter the view of a particular shoreline, it
11 is the extent that the man-made alteration constituting a visual presence on the
environment that will be considered by the county as important to the compatibility
12 analysis.
13 21. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5A.
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fi: Joint-use residential docks are preferred over single-use
14 docks.
15 a. Prior to development of a new residential, single use dock, the applicant
shall demonstrate that they have contacted adjacent property owners and
16 none have indicated a willingness to share an existing dock or develop a
17 shared moorage in conjunction with the applicant.
18 22. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
19 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fiii: The portion of a dock that is landward of the OHWM, shall
only be as long as that necessary to adequately anchor the dock.
20 23. The criterion is met. Staff not in the staff report that staff has confirmed that the
21 project is designed with minimal landward intrusion while meeting building and safety
standards.
22 MCC 17.50.320B2fiv(b): Saltwater Dock. The overall length of a marine dock for
23 single use shall be only so long so as to obtain a depth of seven feet of water as
measured at mean lower low water, unless otherwise required by DNR use
24 authorization or hydraulic project approval. The length shall not exceed one hundred
twenty feet from OHWMfor single waterfront lots (single use). The lengths permitted
25 for joint or community use facilities are shown in Table 17.50.320-B. In addition, see
(2)(e) above for length restrictions that protect navigability.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
i
For single use and joint use docks, the administrator may approve a different dock or
1 pier length when needed, to avoid known eelgrass beds,forage fish habitats, or other
2 near shore resources up to a maximum of one hundred fifty feet (as measured from
OHWM), beyond which would require a variance.
3 24. As conditioned, the criterion is met for the reasons identified in Conclusion of
4 Law No. 5.
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fv: Attachments. Attachments to the mainstem may be
5 incorporated into the design of docks as follows:
6 b... Saltwater Dock. The length measured parallel to the shore of the
7 attachment(excluding the mainstem of the dock)for a single waterfront lot shall
not exceed thirty feet...The maximum area allowed for the dock attachment
8 depends on the number of owners[350 square feet for a single waterfront lot].
9 25. The criterion is met. The float is 30 feet long parallel to the shoreline and 240
square feet in area.
10 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fvi: Piers. The width ofpiers, not including the pilings, lot
l 1 shall not exceed six feet.
Note: The amount of functional grating required by state jurisdictions may
12 increase for piers that are greater than four feet wide.
13 26. The criterion is met. The proposed pier is four feet in width.
14 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fvii: Ramps. The width of ramps shall not exceed five feet.
15 27. The criterion is met. The ramp is four feet wide.
16 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.a: Floats. The width of floats shall not exceed eight feet.
17 Note: The amount of functional grating required by state jurisdictions may
increase for floats that are greater than six feet wide.
18
28. The criterion is met. The proposed float is eight feet wide.
19
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.b: All floating structures shall include float stops to keep
20 structures off the tidelands or lake-bottom or be located at sufficient depth to avoid
grounding during all tidal or lake elevations. In saltwater,floats need to be suspended
21 a minimum of one foot above the tidal substrate, unless otherwise required by DNR use
authorization (when applicable) or by WDFW hydraulic project approval. The
22 preferred and least impacting option is to suspend the float above the substrate by
23 installing float stops on piling anchoring new floats. The stops must be able to fully
support the entire float during all tidal elevations.
24
29. As conditioned. No construction drawings were entered into the record and the
25 staff report doesn't address this design requirement, so the requirement is made a
condition of approval.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP P. 11 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.c: Flotation shall be fully enclosed and contained in a shell
1 that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material into the water and is not readily
2 subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or abrasion caused by rubbing against piling
or waterborne debris.
3 30. As conditioned. No construction drawings were entered into the record and the
4 staff report doesn't address this design requirement, so the requirement is made a
condition of approval.
5
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.d: Flotation components shall not be counted toward
6 functional grating calculation.
7 31. As conditioned. No construction drawings were entered into the record and
the staff report doesn't address this design requirement, so the requirement is made a
condition of approval.
9
MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.e: The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of
10 ten inches above the surface of the water,unless other limitations are set by DNR use
1 1 authorization or WDFW hydraulic project approval standards.
32. As conditioned. No construction drawings were entered into the record and
12 the staff report doesn't address this design requirement, so the requirement is made a
13 condition of approval.
14 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.g.ix.a: Pilings subject to abrasion and subsequent deposition of
15 material into the water shall incorporate design features to minimize contact between
all of the different components of overwater structures during all water elevations.
16
33. The criterion is met. Fasteners to pilings are proposed to be made of galvanized
17 steel to reduce abrasion.
18 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.g.ix.b: Use the minimum number of piling necessary to build a
safe structure. Pile spacing shall be consistent with requirements of DNR use
19 authorization (when applicable) and WDFW hydraulic project approval.
20 34. The criterion is met. Two pilings are proposed to position the dock.
21 MCC 17.50.320.B.2.g.ix.c:Dolphins are not permitted.
22 35. The criterion is met. The project does not propose dolphins.
23 No Net Loss Police
24 MCC 17.50.110.B.1.b: Proponents of new shoreline use and development shall
employ measures to mitigate unavoidable adverse environmental impacts to ensure no
25 net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline resources.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 12 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
36. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5(B), the proposal will result in no net loss
1 of ecological function.
2 Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
3
MCC 17.50.400.C.3.b.ii.a: That the proposed use will be consistent with the policies
4 of RCW 90.58 and the policies of the master program;
5 36. The criterion is met. The proposal is consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58
6 RCW, as specifically enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. As demonstrated by Finding of
Fact No. 5,the project design and conditions of approval comply with RCW 90.58.020
7 by assuring that the proposal will not adversely affect the shoreline environment or
public use of the shorelines while at the same time allowing for the reasonable use of
8 residential land, considered a priority use under RCW 90.58.020. The proposal is
consistent with the policies of the County's shoreline master program for the reasons
9 identified in the preceding conclusions of law.
10
MCC 17.50.400.C.3.b.ii.b: That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal
1 1 public use of the shorelines;
12 37. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the proposal will
13 not interfere with navigation.
14 MCC 17.50.400.C.3.b.ii.c: That the proposed use of the site and design of the project
will be compatible with other permitted uses within the area and with uses planned for
15 the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;
16 38. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
17 MCC 17.50.400.C.3.b.ii.d: That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse
18 effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located;
19 39. The criterion is met for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact 5B.
20 MCC 17.50.400.C.3.b.ii.e: That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental
21 effect.
22 40. The criterion is met because the proposal promotes a priority shoreline use as
identified in Conclusion of Law No. 36 without any associated significant adverse
23 impacts as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. For these reasons the public interest
suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
24
25 MCC.17.50.400.C.3.b.v: In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration
shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the
area. For example, if conditional use permits were granted for other developments in
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 13 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses should
I remain consistent with the policies of the master program and should not produce
2 substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
3 41. The criterion is met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal results
in no net loss of ecological function or any significant adverse impacts so cumulative
4 impacts are unlikely. However, further encroachment into the undeveloped reach of
shoreline to the south is a concern as previously discussed and any additional southern
5 extensions of the developed waterfront(overwater)will have to be closely scrutinized.
6 DECISION
7
The SSDP and shoreline conditional use permit applications are consistent with all
8 applicable review criteria for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law and are
9 approved, subject to the following conditions:
10 1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided, and any areas
1 1 disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental
impacts. Erosion control methods shall be maintained to avoid fish
12 stranding.
2. The provisions and recommendations of the Biological evaluation shall be
13 enacted.
14 3. Sediment transport shall be addressed through WDFW permitting.
4. Debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed
15 from the beach area and project site and shall not be allowed to enter waters
of the State. All removed debris resulting from this project must be disposed
16 of at an approved site.
5. Project must obtain all permits required from WDFW and U.S. Army Corps
1 of Engineers PRIOR to construction and must adhere to all requirements
18 listed therein including work windows.
6. Dock shall only be used for residential use.
19 7. At no point may the dock expand in width beyond the prescriptive standards
in the Mason County Shoreline Master Program currently listed as 6 feet or
20 as amended.
21 8. Dock length shall conform to MMC 17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b and as required by
, ) that code section shall be limited in length to the lesser of 120 feet or the
vv length necessary to reach a mean lower low water (MLLW) depth of eight
23 feet. The "dock" for purposes of applying MMC 17.50.320.B.2.f.iv.b shall
include the entire length of the proposed pier-ramp-float as opposed to just
24 the pier as suggested in the staff report.
25 9. The dock shall be constructed at least 25 feet from any kelp bed as required
by MCC 17.50.320.B.l.d.iv.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 14 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
l
10. As required by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.b, the dock float shall include float
stops to keep structures off the tidelands . or be located at sufficient depth to
3 avoid grounding during all tidal or lake elevations. In saltwater, floats need to
be suspended a minimum of one foot above the tidal substrate, unless
4 otherwise required by DNR use authorization (when applicable) or by
WDFW hydraulic project approval. The preferred and least impacting option
5 is to suspend the float above the substrate by installing float stops on piling
anchoring new floats. The stops must be able to fully support the entire float
6 during all tidal elevations.
7
8 11. As required by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.f.viii.c, flotation shall be fully enclosed
and contained in a shell that prevents breakup or loss of the flotation material
9 into the water and is not readily subject to damage by ultraviolet radiation or
abrasion caused by rubbing against piling or waterborne debris.
10
11 12. As required by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.d,flotation components shall not be
12 counted toward functional grating calculation.
13 13. As required by MCC 17.50.320.B.2.fviii.e,the surface of floating structures
14 shall be a minimum of ten inches above the surface of the water,unless other
limitations are set by DNR use authorization or WDFW hydraulic project
15 approval standards.
16 Dated this 24th day of June 2022.
17
wu a.oi>�nts
1R
19 Mason County Hearing Examiner
20
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
21
2-2 The conditional use permit is subject to approval of the Washington State Department
of Ecology and after that review can be subject to appeal as outlined in Chapter 90.58
23 RCW. The shoreline substantial development permit is subject to appeal to the
Shoreline Management Board pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW.
24
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
25 notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Shoreline SSDP and CUP p. 15 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Publication Cost Agreement
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.
Billing Address:
Ken Engelbert Email: ken.englebert@homestreet.com
PO Box 1317
Allyn, WA 98524
Phone: 253-405-3090
1 / 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.
Sigpdure of Pro y Owner Date Print Name
OR
Signature of Applicant Date Print Name
MASON COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Building,Planning,Environmenta3 Health,Community Health
615 W.Alder St.—Bldg.8,Shelton,Wa 98584
Phone:(360)427-9670 ext,352♦ Fax:(360)427-7798
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Submit these two pages with the JARPA (if the proposal is 'overwater' -at or
waterward of the ordinary high water mark) or with the Mason County Shoreline
Application (if proposal is upland of the ordinary high water mark).
PUBLICATION COST AGREEMENT
(for public hearings or commercial SEPA's)
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.
Sig ure of Pro Owner Date Print Name
OR
Signature of Applicant Date Print Name
i
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg.1,Second Floor. Orsubmit
mailing labels with the property owners' mailing addresses on them(preferred).
UNDERHILL,FRANK T&FRANCES C MCCLELLAN ETAL, ROBERT&SUZANNE
16014-120TH AVE NE CRAIG&PAMELA TAFT
BOTHELL WA 98011-9513 3217 N 31ST
TACOMA WA 98407
SEYCHELLE CANNES TRUST, LUND,MICHAEL&MELISSA
SEYCHELLE CANNES TRUSTEE 332 E CRONQUIST RD
2985 ELM AVE
MORRO BAY CA 93442 ALLYN WA 98524
i
i
RIGGLEMAN,HOWARD&BRENDA J NUTTMAN FAMILY TRUST,
400 E CRONQUIST RD 411 E CRONQUIST RD
ALLYN WA 985249763 ALLYN WA 98524
BRUNO LIVING TRUST ET At,DAVID&PENNIE LINDSEY,JENNIFER M&DAVID L
D R BRUNO&P M BRUNO CO-TRS;J&J KECKEMET
237 SPRECKELS DR 391 E CRONQUIST RD
APTOS CA 95003 ALLYN WA 98524
SASTEN,DWIGHT H&ELLEN TANZER,LEROY F&ALINA F
1827 ROLLING HILLS AVE SE 371 E CRONQUIST RD
RENTON WA 980553719 ALLYN WA 98524
(ARSON,STACY D
321 E CRONQUIST RD
r
ALLYN WA 98524
r
i
I
Page 2 of 2
r9b) MASON COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES
lqwBuilding,Planning,Environmental Health,Community Health
Notice of Application and Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Ken Engelbert,who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an
application for Shoreline Conditional Use(SHR2021-00024)to develop a single-family use dock on Case Inlet
(Puget Sound).
Location: 370 E Cronquist Rd,Shelton, WA 98584
Parcel Number(s): 12232-40-91052
Date of complete Application:4/7/2022
The proposed development is reviewed under the applicable chapters of the Shoreline Master Program,
Resource Ordinance,Title 15, and Shorelines of Statewide Significance Regulations.The proposal requires
Hearing Examiner approval, with final approval with the Department of Ecology.
This project is not exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). A SEPA permit (SEP2021-00090)was
applied for and received by the County on 3/25/2022.
Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should join the
virtual Public Hearing via Zoom on Wednesday June 8, 2022, at 1:00 pm or mail comments or questions to:
Mail Email
Malissa Paulsen, Planner Malissa Paulsen, Planner
Mason County Department of Community Services mpaulsen@masoncountywa.gov
61S W.Alder St.
Shelton WA 98584
A Public Hearing will be held on Wednesday June 8, 2022, at 1:00 pm by the Mason County Hearing Examiner
on the proposed project via Zoom. Directions on how to access the hearing will be located on the Mason County
website at https://www.masoncountywa.gov/hearings-examiner/index.php under the appropriately dated
agenda, or you can call the Hearing Examiner Clerk at (360)427-9670 Ext. 365 for assistance. Written or oral
testimony will be accepted up to the close of the hearing.
A decision on these applications will be made within 120 days of the date of the complete application.
Public Health Community Development
(Community Health/Environmental Health) (Permit Assistance Center/Building/Planning)
415 N.6`h Street—Shelton,WA 98584 615 W.Alder Street—Shelton,WA 98584
Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.400 Shelton:360-427-9670,Ext.352
Belfair:360-275-4467,Ext.400 Belfair:360-275-4467,Ext.352
Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.400 Elma:360-482-5269,Ext.352