HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2009-00013 Hearing - SHR Reports - 11/12/2009 P6oN coat 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
1859
November 12, 2009
Notice of Decision
Case: SHR2009-00013
Applicant: Lisa and William Root
Notice is hereby given that Lisa and William Root, who are the
applicants for the above-referenced Mason County Shoreline Substantial
Development Variance, have been granted that Shoreline Permit. The
request was reviewed on October 27, 2009 by the Mason County
Hearing Examiner and approved pursuant to the Mason County Title
17.50 Shoreline Master Program Use Regulations, specifically for
residential development along the North Bay Case Inlet. The proposal
was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800 (1).
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as
regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact Allan
Borden, Senior Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community Development at
360-427-9670 x365.
HAWORD\Permit Reviews\Decision coversheet.doc
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Lisa and William Root
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Shoreline Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
(MCC 17.50.060)
6
SHR2009-00013
7
8 INTRODUCTION
9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Shoreline Master Plan in
order to build a 1,600 square foot single-family residence, which will be partially
10 located within the shoreline setback. The Hearing Examiner approves the project
11 subject to specified conditions.
12 ORAL TESTIMONY
13 Allan Borden—Mason County Staff
14 Mr. Borden began by giving a brief overview of the application. Currently, the
15 applicants cannot meet the setback requirements, and are seeking the variance as
relief. The character of the adjoining uses, include heavily dispersed homes and many
16 large lots in between. Many of those lots are just undeveloped. To the south, there is
a large house with outbuildings, but there is a wetland separating the two properties.
17 This property is on the northern end of the well-developed town of Allyn, and is in the
18 Allyn UGA. 700 feet to the south is a sewer and pump station, to which the project
will connect. The property is very constrained, has the shoreline setback, and has a
19 wetland on portions of the property as well.
20 Lisa Root—Applicant
21 The property was purchased in 2007, as a residential, not recreational property. It is
22 approximately 2 acres, and the applicants plan to build a permanent residence on the
property.
23 EXHIBITS
24 See exhibit list attached to the October 15, 2009 Staff Report, prepared by Allan
25 Borden.
FINDINGS OF FACT
{BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Shoreline Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
Procedural:
2 1. Applicant. The applicant is Timothy Zimny.
3 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on October 27, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
4 chambers, Building I.
5
Substantive:
6
7 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a single family
residence with attached garage and deck. The residence will be 1,600 square feet.
g The construction would occur 25 to 35 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, a
distance that provides for residential development while not interfering with the
9 public's use of the shoreline area. The property is along the west shore of North Bay
Case Inlet, and is approximately 2 acres in size, with about 80% of the area
10 supporting wetland soils and vegetation. The northern portion of the property has
11 been used recreationally and contains a cleared area with a motorhome and portable
storage shed. There is an existing sewer connection that will be used, which is
12 situated in near the driveway.
13 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is along the west shore of North
14 Bay Case Inlet. This area is a valuable shellfish and water recreation area. The
shorelines are generally developed, but the area has been subject to shallow soil
15 inundation and flooding during winter seasons. Because of these problems, a
community sewer system was established over 10 years ago. The general area is the
16 Allyn UGA, and includes a heavily dispersed grouping of homes and large
17 undeveloped residential lots.
18 5. Adverse Impacts. No adverse impacts have been identified in this
proposal. The placement of the home will provide ample room for public use of the
19 shoreline area, while still providing sufficient room for residential development.
20 Additionally, further permits will be required prior to construction, which will
provide further analysis and mitigation measures in order to insure that there are no
21 adverse impacts as a result of this proposal.
22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23 Procedural:
24
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing
25 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
Substantive:
{BFP68883&DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Shoreline Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations.tions. The Mason County
1 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Allyn Urban Growth Area. The parcel
2 is zoned Allyn R-1, for single-family residence. Rural Residential 5 per the Mason
County development Areas Map. The Shoreline environmental designation is Urban.
3
3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt
4 from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). As noted on page 2 of the
5 revised Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by
mail. A 28 day waiting period followed, and no comments were received.
6
4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
7 71-foot shoreline setback required by MCC 17.50.060, which states that the setback
8 shall be the average setback of development on adjacent shoreline properties. As
directed by MCC 17.50.090, the review standards of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply.
9 The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the general review
standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable Conclusions of
10 Law.
11 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
12 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
13
5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of
14 residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to
15 accommodate them. Without the variance, the applicant would be left with
insufficient buildable space for a SFR. Based on the size of the lot, and the location
16 of the shoreline setback, the only area suitable for building as far outside of the
shoreline setback is the location proposed. Consequently, the Shoreline setback
17 significantly interferes with the property owner's reasonable use of the property.
18 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
19 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
20 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
21 the applicant's own action.
22 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by a combination of the
presence of wetland soils and vegetation on most of the property, the lack of
23 developed property to the north of subject parcel, and the curving saltwater shoreline
in the vicinity. As such, the hardship is directly related to this parcel's limited area,
24 presence of the shoreline, and the effect of undeveloped properties nearby impacting
25 the average setback for application; and not through any of the applicant's own
actions.
MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
(BFP688838.DOC,1/13009.900000/)
Shoreline Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
I properties or the environment.
2
7. The property is zoned Allyn R-1, and a single family residence is
3 permitted in this zoning, and similar uses are present in the immediate area. Also,
similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be
4 constructed within regulated shoreline buffers. It does not appear that view corridors
5 will be obstructed or modified, and there will be no adverse effects to adjacent
properties or to the environment.
6
MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
7 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
8 necessary to afford relief.
9 8. As noted above, the granting of this variance would not constitute a grant
of special privilege not enjoyed by other property owners in the area. The proposed
10 footprint is designed to all features associated with a single-family residence, and is
similar or smaller in footprint that surrounding homes. Nothing about the project
11 constitutes a grant of special privilege and the proposal is the minimum to afford
12 relief.
13 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
14 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and state of the shoreline, as well
15 as in applicants' opportunity to have reasonable use of their property. With the
conditions of approval, the project's adverse impact on environmental resources
16 should be minimal; therefore, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
17
18 MCC 15.09.057(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
19 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
20 shall not justify a variance.
21 10. But for the variance, the applicant would be severely restricted from
22 building a single family residence on the site. Given that the size of the lot is suitable
for an SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate SFR's, the surrounding
23 neighborhood is characterized by SFR development, and the proposed structure would
only occupy about 10% of the lot, the property owners would lack a reasonable use of
24 their land with anything short of a SFR. The staff report states that the proposal is
25 consistent with all applicable County ordinances. The proposal furthers the objectives
of the Growth Management Act by enabling residential development within an urban
growth area.
{BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Shoreline Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
i
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
1 proposed development according to the following criteria:
2
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
3 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
4 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
5 in the public interest.
6 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
7 Comprehensive Plan.
8 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report,the project is consistent with
9 the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR
developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the
10 Mason County Code. As noted previously, as conditioned the project will not harm
environmental resources;and therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety
1 1 and welfare, and is in the public interest. As further noted in the Staff Report, the
12 development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood
park facilities.
13
DECISION
14
15 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended in the Staff Report(Exhibit 1).
16
17
18 Dated this 6`h day of November, 2009.
19
20 --
hil A.Olbrechts
21 Mason County Hearing Examiner
22
23
24
25
(BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Shoreline Variance P. 5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report
2. Location and Aerial Photo of Parcel.
3. Site Plan
4. Notice of Hearing
5. Affidavit for Posting Notice
6. Variance Application.
SHR2009-00013 10/15/09
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Mason County Department of Community Development
STAFF: Allan Borden- Planner; 360.427.9670 x 365
RE: Mason County Shoreline Variance (SHR2009-00013)
HEARING DATE: October 27, 2009
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates an application for a Shoreline Variance for the
construction of a 1600 square foot single-family residence within the shoreline setback.
Staff is recommending approval of this project as currently proposed.
II. Applicant: William and Lisa Root, owner.
III. Authorized Representative: Same.
IV. Date of Complete Application: June 4, 2009.
V. Site address and Project Location: 200 E North Bay Rd., Allyn, WA. Parcel # 12220-
504�7 . 1-70Ip
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The property is along the west shore of North Bay Case
Inlet. (Exhibit#2) This extension of Puget Sound is a valuable shellfish and water
recreation area. The shorelines are generally developed in the past, but this area of
the saltwater shoreline is subject to shallow soil inundation and flooding during
winter seasons. These are the chief reasons why a community sewer system to serve
existing and expanding development was established more than 10 years ago.
B. Characteristic of the site. The site is approximately 2 acre with about 80 percent of
that area supporting wetland soils and vegetation (Exhibit# 1). The far northern
portion between the saltwater and the road has been being used recreationally and
contains primarily a cleared area with a motorhome and a portable storage shed. The
applicant will be using the sewer connection already situated near the driveway. The
proposed single family residence is located 25 to 35 feet from the North Bay Case
Inlet shoreline (Exhibit# 3).
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ng ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Allyn Urban Growth Area.
SHR2009-00013 - i - 10/15/09
D. Shoreline Master Program Desi nab The Shoreline Master Program
environmental designation is Urban.
E. Zoning. Allyn R-1 zone (single-family residence)
VII. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal is SEPA
exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i), as a single-family residential dwelling. A Notice
of Public Hearing (Exhibit#4) for the Application for Variance was posted in the
Mason-Shelton Journal on 9/24/09 and 10/1/09, at the Shelton Post Office and on-site on
10/06/09. In addition, the Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners within
300' of the proposal on 10/08/09. The Affidavit of Posting Notice is enclosed as Exhibit
#5.
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Septic Permit and a Mason County Building
Permit. Since the proposed residence is to be sited in a FEMA mapped 100 year flood
plain, the permit will also be need to meet requirements of the Mason County Flood
Damage Prevention Ordinance.
IX. Analysis.
A. Comprehensive Plan Review
Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate
the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and
regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the
following review criteria:
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8 and 16.
This staff report served to review a variance from the MCC 17.50 Shoreline
Master Program Chapter. The development being reviewed does not conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the MCC,
with the exception of the Shoreline Master Program Chapter 17.50.060
Residential Development standards. This section states that the minimum setback
for structures along Urban shorelines be set back at the average of residential
setbacks on adjacent properties, in this case, 71 feet from the saltwater Ordinary
High Water Mark(OHWM).
The development is proposed at 25 to 35 feet from the OHWM, a distance that
provides for residential development while not interfering with the public's use of
the shoreline management area. The findings required for the approval of a
variance (MCC Section 15.09.057) are addressed below in Part VIII.C.
2. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare
because it is compatible with surrounding residences and does not adversely
effect the natural environment. The request seeks relief in siting the proposed
building closer to the shoreline than the Shoreline Master Program standard and
still proposing a reasonable use of the property.
SHR2009-00013 -2- 10/15/09
I The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposal does not lower the Level of Service for transportation or
neighborhood parkfacilities, as it is a small single-family residence accessory to
the existing larger-sized residence.
If this Variance is approved, the development will meet the applicable criteria and will
not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's Shoreline Management Policies, and will
meet the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code.
B. Mason County Code, Title 17.50 Zoning=Shoreline Master Program
The proposal does not meet the 71 foot shoreline setback requirement set forth in #9b
of the MCC 17.50.060 Residential Use Regulations (average setback of development
on adjacent shoreline properties. Therefore this Shoreline Variance (SHR2009-
00013) has been applied for. (Exhibit 46)
Besides #9b, the proposal does not conflict with the Use Regulations for Residential
Development. The Building Permit will be conditioned so that untreated surface run-
off will not enter the saltwater and erosion will be controlled during construction.
The proposal meet the 5 conditions of the Shoreline Variances Section 17.50.090 (see
# 1-5 of below).
Findings.
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;
It has been established through previous variance application approvals that
reasonable use of property in Rural Residential zones in Mason County include a
single-family residence and a two-car garage. In this case, there is no potential for
meeting the needed setback established by the Shoreline Master Program, as the
property is no deeper than 130 feet in the northern area where development is
proposed, and the needed setback from the OHWM is 71 feet, and the possible 1600
sq.ft.footprint is 25 feet deep and 62 feet wide.
A variance approval for the residence would vest this footprint for two years per
Mason County Code 15.09.100 C.
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;
The hardship is directly related to the limited area to develop due to the great extent
of wetland soils and vegetation on most of the property, the lack of developed
property to the north of the subject parcel (which increases the shoreline setback
average), and the curving saltwater shoreline in the vicinity.
SHR2009-00013 -3 - 10/15/09
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;
The design of the project will be compatible with the other single-family residences in
the area, and will not cause adverse effects to either adjacent properties or the
environment. The available sewer connection and the already leveled building area
will limit any adverse effects.
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,
An approved variance will grant the same privilege as enjoyed by other properties
along the North Bay Case Inlet area and is the minimum setback distance necessary
to afford relief as proposed.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The public interest is in the health and public use of the shoreline management area.
The proposed setbackfor development will lessen potential impacts to the shoreline
as the development is underway.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
county ordinances,and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value
only shall not justify a variance.
The proposed footprint of the residence is 1,600 square feet, which is allowed under
current regulations. The proposal would occupy only about 10 percent of the lot.
Approval of a variance for the residence will vest the footprint for two years,
therefore eliminating the need for another variance proposal, should the Mason
County regulations change within the next two years.
The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the
Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act.
X. Conclusions. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the Resource
Ordinance, and the Shoreline Master Program Policies and Use Regulations.
As proposed staff recommends approval of the Shoreline Variance Permit
SHR2009-00013 to allow a total of 1600 square feet of development area for a
proposed house along North Bay Case Inlet.
XI Choices of Action.
1. Approve.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny (reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
SHR2009-00013 -4- 10/15/09
-
fi
6
S �
� .
4L ,.
3"4
E �
e` J
t
7
fJ
2NR1�W
p t
Z,
r
At
', t e" B
I*
1 inch = 300 feet ��`�i
W E Boca tm e.4r�
1 inch = 0.06 miles
S
122205020007
122174400020
12217440003E
122205020005 122205019002
122174390030 122205021001
122170060000
122174470610
122170060000
122205091911
122205020001
122174470611
122200060010
122205024009 ,
j ..
122205091912
122200060010
122205020001
:22205023001 122205022008
_ s
122205022004 122205017003 y
122200060000
,* 122201180060
122200060000
122205022001 '
122201180071
122200060010 `' '� 9
Q 122205017002�
` . z-
N
d �
122205041003 a
' 122205017001
122205015003
N 5 Duo �3
1 inch = 100 feet
W E �
1 inch = 0.02 miles a"fa,?
S -2?,o SO 1-7d D 3
—''"'J 1222fb718mtD�-t ..,, 12z�.(Ds�1b�D1m
w
w
CA T-
TIDELA005 . -SEL�f/
1-66
~3'EL I 4
'SEL j / �N51lj� Utik.Ai[_GL7��7��
1255
Lk L
4
i
5' 10a �" '.�°yo. y- -2 c L
Vi
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
SHR2009-00013 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that William and Lisa Root who are owners of the described property
below,have filed an application for a Substantial Development/Variance Permit for the
development of:
New single-family residence located between North Bay Case Inlet and NE
North Bay Road; applicant seeks a variance for the proposed residence location
at 35 feet from ordinary high water mark for the shoreline setback in the Urban
Shoreline Environment, Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
Parcel Number: 12220-50-17003.
Site Address: 200 E North Bay Road, Belfair WA.
Location of Project: Along North Bay Case Inlet and North Bay Rd.. county road; within the
northeast '/a of Section 20, Township 22 N., Range 1 W. in Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline management permit review(M.C.C. 17.50) and
associated Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their
view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 30 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-
14-020. The final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is October 1, 2009.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
October 27, 2009; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at(360) 427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
This request is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act environmental review.
6��kt' 01'� #- 5
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
-j0-k7-eV ct- W6(3
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
I, P'II, (A avvdiv�- do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached n Z public places as follows:
one at "yL �d �
z
one at — 2e7d �
one at
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
of V , 20C.
By:
Address: 006)rz �� y4g 995-6 7
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this day of 09w, tc , 20 0'7
• ` Notary Public f r the State of Washington
='�'•APR 30 2011
011 '2 Residin at
%��`•' pL'13LIC ;`mac g
O �P� /o2�
Commission Expires
5+A 112-00Gf- 000I 3
MASON COUNTY Xt P 9
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Building III—426 west Cedar Street
P.O. Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670—Ext. 352
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE —X
DATE RECEIVED '1 1 SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within
designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures(WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the
Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the
state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total
cost or fair market value exceeds $5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals, polices, and performance standards established in the Master
Program.
Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed
development. Incomplete applications will be returned.
APPLICANT: t2,k � t --' I Jscu !ZX&
ADDRESS: V0 X 1 159
4��, (
l vQ do lie, street)WIN,
9aaa—+
(city) 1 (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE: � I e21A
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: SL4
ADDRESS:
(street)
(city) (state) (zip)
TELEPHONE:
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
General location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands—identify the name of the
shoreline): V _ , _ `,
Legal description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude
location)—include all parcel numbers:
�" - 17--
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner: b 1` U Ep�+
Vo P—�Oy. t l t:)q -
I' l V9'YYJ ULY-P, 1,(tt r)(n ,�
(city) (state) "�`� (zip)
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON
Development(identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
Use(identify/current use of property with exist improvements:
tr
Reason for requesting development:
who Cc,, s -9- K i�S
ACKO WLEDGEMENT
I hereby declare,to the best of my knowledge and belief, the forgoing information and all attached information is
true and correct.
(applicant or authorized representative) (date)
I:TLANNINGICHARELL&RENEE/SHORELINEPERMIT.APP REVISED: 01-05-2005
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VA IAJ�WCA
The purpose of the Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific
bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program,
where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property
such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose
unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW
90.58.020.
Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM), except those areas designated as marshes, bogs, or
swamps, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the
following:
1. Show that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance
standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly
interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by
the Master Program.
2. Show 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 Master Program, and not, for example
from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions.
C� v
c � S
3. Show 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 shoreline environment.
6k C Ne-_
fit/Lt
Revised 1/95
$horeline Variance
Page 2
` 4. Show that the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area, and will be the
minimum necessary to afford relief.
E�
5. Show that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
d � �
-e
Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the
ordinary high water mark or within marshes, bogs, or swamps, may be authorized
provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1 through 5 above,
that:
6. Show that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not
be adversely affected by the granting of the variance.
In granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
impact of additional request for like actions in the area. For example, if variances
were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist,
the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW
90.58.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline
environment.
Revised 1/95
LARMAR INC BRYON M LOOMIS
3210 E BAY DR NW P O BOX 2202
GIG HARBOR WA 98335-6583 BELFAIR WA 98528-2202
WILLIAM & LISA ROOT DREW DAVIES
P.O. BOX 1959 P.O. BOX 1095
SILVERDALE WA 98384 ALLYN WA 98524
DANIEL ORCHARD KEITH CHAMBERLAIN
P.O. BOX 316 P.O. BOX 641
ALLYN WA 98524 ALLYN WA 98524
LARRY ROSS JOSEPH GIORDANO
430 E TAMARACK CT. 7430 CLOVER VALLEY
HERMISTON OR 97838 PORT ORCHARD WA 98367
-Aywr- OYs-PeRLw;25 M:'Sor l &PY iI�E >
���� 1222Cb�98mm�i ._,� �� 12221DGtD16�1m
TlDELAPJ0s
—5Ec
w
?( I I Ir 1`. r Ir N, A "VCR/. 1 .wry UWS 4 t7i TNZ (t`�JS
r - ► r\S REME'GNTED 6Y OW)195, Tucw pCCN IS,
�-�-- � /' s� � ,���,,� � t;,-r IAr'T�t o>(1NUa�i� �.� U•1 P�Cu t�'4PJl��`� 511"�
I 1 r ► it II A`.iu4.E um_M6 Uq:$SaE LOL BIOLDCAST VA(PZO
—3fe
1
yE,r l 1
— -� Al 1 4 RCZC:� 2 ,- WSI3
-2�eL 1 i ACnURY) ►J z aO (ajsT_)LUla*l AM41-ri
Rw K IIUA r.Jb_w !urray f ALL
XYK ivy. sty R.1)
SE�n TAIL 10 __ 1222m5Q�t vxD3 1� ry
a C' .
Q�c.i WILLI.Q&1 4 Liza Q[XI�T �
N1 FV7 ,____-- •._.��..__.n�,,. o-_.__.�v. Wiltermood
Associates, Inc•
1015 S W Harper Road
Port or,,6 WA 98367-9306
0 0)876-2403 Faz(360)876-2053
Q
�� \ � �
.`��\ �''
� � �`,
�' � ,�
� � �
L,�..�
.,,
��_
r\�
�.
�:
Jf �:
PUBLIC NOTICE MASON COUNTY Affidavit of Publication
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584 STATE OF WASHINGTON I SS.
(360)427-6970 COUNTY OF MASON
SHR2009-00013 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that William and Lisa Root who are Margot Brand
owners of the descibed property below, have filed an ap- being first duly sworn
plication for a Substantial Development/Variance Permit
for the development of: on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
New Single-Family residence located between North Bay Case Inlet and NE North Bay Road;appli-
of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That
cant seeks a variance for the shoreline setback in the said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six
Urban Shoreline Environment,Mason County Shore- months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in
line Master Program. the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason
Parcel dr s: 20 E 17003 County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an
Site Address:200 E North Bay Road,Betfair WA ty� b't g
Location of Project:Along North Bay Case Inlet and office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That
North Bay Rd.. county road;within the northeast 1/4 of the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of
Section 20,Township 22N., Range 1 W.In Mason County August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said
Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to shoreline Mason County.
management permit review (M.C.C. 17.50) and associ-
ated Mason County Development Regulations standards.That the annexed is a true co of a PUBLIC NOTICE
Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified copy
of the action taken on the application should notify in writ-
ing of their interest to MASON rQt��'" io U6np1ut SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT-WILLIAM R00i
DEPARTMENTe ko jO�ue�CJ Oql au1 a^Pdapfue 1e anp i 2650-
ue a!1!11U6i�na4�llpue 1o1Ue�011°!16 aW!1 ale}set!
ui.P oy ou�v asoo ayltttn ales auajO}!!e to 1uaMo!aq u!J� ,l as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said
Isod
a eps!au1 yo 1°a ue slsoo a�1M01 ap!�O1dlteultt�e ar,0 'newspaper once each week for a period of TWO
saa}s aalsna o�ue o1 6u!1!�asoUM aal at}1 P
bu!laaenbsa}PPe po uo ssassodveltaeain91A U°a°?Id 1 consecutive weeks,commencing on the
1as' as Uons} 1ST day of OCTOBER 20 09 and ending on the
8TH day of OCTOBER ,20 09 both dates inclusive,
and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of
the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
��..y!1tl�tlp►y�
A 0/~��''��i foregoing publication is the sum of$ 250.00
Vor,� }
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
Z.
20
W..IdL."; N1N`���
1111111t�` Notary Pu in and for the State of Washington
Residing at Shelton,Washington
My commission expires ,20