HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2007-00004 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 1/12/2011 CASE INDEX
Max Walker
VAR2007-00004
Index # Date Description
1 16 April 2007 Exhibit 1: Staff Report
December 2006 Attachment 1: Habitat Management Plan
3A% ttachment 2: Notice of Application of Variance
9 March 2007 Attachment 3: HMP Review Request Letter sent to
Skokomish Tribe
5 28 March 2007 Attachment 4: HMP Review Request Letter sent to
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
4 January 2007 Attachment 5: Variance from Standards Information
7 Attachment 6: Mason County Parcel Information
8 Attachment 7: Title Notification of Habitat
Management Plan Form
Attachment 8: Mason County Bond Form
10 Attachment 9: Mason County GIS Aerial Photograph
f Subject Parcel
11
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
April 16, 2007
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff— Charles Mead McCoy III
RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2007-00004)
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a
single-family residence with attached garage, having a combined footprint of
approximately 2,500 square feet, within the conservation buffer of a Type F
stream. The proposed project is described in detail in the attached Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) (Attachment 1). Staff recommends conditional approval
of the variance request for the proposed project.
II. Applicant. Max Walker.
III. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 356 NE Newkirk Road,
Belfair. Parcel # 12321-32-90062 (Section 21 of Township 23 North, Range 1
West). -
IV. Date of complete application: January 24, 2007.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The site is located in the Belfair Urban Growth
Area. It is an irregularly shaped lot of approximately 1.39 acres. A Type F
stream is located along the east property line. All but a small portion of the
parcel is located within the 150-foot conservation buffer and 15-foot building
setback required under the Mason County Resource Ordinance (17.0 1.110).
The small portion outside the buffer and setback in the northwest corner of the
parcel has been selected as the site for the proposed septic system, requiring
approximately 1,700 square feet in area. Structures do not exist on the parcel.
The remaining vegetation on the parcel is characterized as"comprised of an
overstory of primarily big leaf maple, Douglas fir and red alder. The
understory generally consists of salmonberry, salal and swordfern and with
lesser amounts of Himalayan blackberry." (Attachment 1). The proposed HMP
recommends a coniferous underplanting mitigation zone be established of
approximately 15, 600 square feet(Attachment 1). The proposed placement of
the residence and attached garage footprint will need a reduction in side yard
setback to 5 feet to be placed as far from the resource as is practical, which is
the minimum distance allowed under Mason County's Development
Regulations. Photographs of the proposed building site are included in the
Habitat Management Plan (Attachment 1).
B. Characteristics of the area. The general area is rural family homes of
comparable size in footprint square footage or more than the proposed
residence. Several single-family residences occupy the area.
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Urban Growth Area.
D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Low Density Residential District (R-3). The
district allows for a density of three dwelling units per acre, except where
"critical lands" are present—which reduces the permitted density.
VI. 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 and notice was made in the Shelton-Mason Journal
on (Attachment 2). The proposal required review and comment of a Habitat
Management Plan by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife (Attachments 3 and 4). A 28-day comment period followed. No
comments were received.
VII. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County
Building Permit for the construction of the single-family residence and attached
garage, and a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan. Additionally, an
Administrative Variance requesting a reduction in side-yard setback will be
required.
VIII. Analysis:
(All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.)
The required conservation buffer for a Type F stream is 150-feet plus a 15-foot building
setback for a total distance of 165 feet from the stream. Nearly the entire parcel is within
the 165-foot combined buffer and building setback area. Stream typing is per
Washington Department of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The proposed
construction of a single-family residence with attached garage has a combined footprint
of approximately 2,500 square feet. The proposed dwelling and attached garage have
been sited at a distance and location as to minimize the impact on the resource as
submitted in the attached HMP (Attachment 1). 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 single-family residence
and attached garage negatively impacts the existing buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. states,
"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.
i
Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan 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;
I 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:
I. The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section
17.01.020. The parcel is nearly entirely encumbered by the Type F stream buffer that
runs along the eastern portion of the parcel. The proposal meets the intent of"
reasonable use of the property"in Staff's opinion. The applicant has chosen a
location that is as far away from the resource as is practical and has agreed to a
reduction in side yard setback to the minimum of S feet as is required under Mason
County's Development Regulations. Please see proposed new construction, as
defined in the HMP(Attachment ]). The proposal is for a 2,500 sq.ft. single-family
residence and attached garage which is allowable under the County's Variances from
Standards Section (17.01.150)stating that "the minimum reasonable use for a
residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a) 40% of the
area of the lot, or b) 2,550 square feet". Therefore, it is consistent with surrounding
land uses the parcel having been zoned as Low Density Residential District. The
Applicant has further mitigated adverse environmental impacts by offering to a
coniferous underplanting plan of native riparian vegetation in the stream buffer zone
of approximately 40 feet in width (Attachment ]). The proposal does provide for a
minimal amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #1,
#2 & #3 of Section 17.01.IIO.A. of the Resource Ordinance.
2. The hardship is a direct result of the size and location of the parcel. The parcel is
nearly completely encumbered by a 150 foot Type F stream conservation buffer and
I5 foot building setback requirement. The proposed placement of the dwelling is the
most logical choice in that it places the structures in the northwest corner of the lot at
a reasonable distance from the stream (Attachment 1).
3. The construction of a single-family residence and attached garage are consistent with
surrounding land uses and a permitted use in Low Density Residential District
zoning. The proposed combined footprint of 2,500 square feet is of comparable size
with other dwellings and attached garages in the immediate vicinity of the site.
4. 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 structure 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.
5. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The environmental
impact created as a result of the proposed new construction will be mitigated as
detailed in the Habitat Management Plan (Attachment 1).
6. The Variance should be granted as the owner lacks otherwise reasonable use of the
land. Staff's recommendation is that the variance request be a conditional approval
as proposed and detailed in the Habitat Management Plan (Attachment 1).
IX. Conclusions. Based on the above discussion the proposal is consistent with the
variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends conditional
approval as proposed with the imposition of the conditions listed below.
1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation shall be minimized and any areas
disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental
impacts.
2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any
construction and/or development activities except those absolutely required
for minimal disturbance to construct a single-family residence and attached
garage of no more that 2,500 square feet in total area.
3. The Habitat Management Plan shall be implemented as stated in the submitted
documents.
4. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt
fending or straw matting).
5. A monitoring plan shall be enacted as detailed in the submitted Habitat
Management Plan (HMP). The HMP shall be implemented in its entirety. A
qualified biologist shall submit a report detailing the conditions of the
mitigation plan outlined in the HMP. This report shall be due on the
anniversary date of the issuance of the building permit and shall be submitted
annually for three years.
6. 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
period, as necessary, to address the replantings.
7. A mitigation/performance bond shall be made to cover the expanses as
stipulated in the Habitat Restoration Plan as submitted. The bond shall be
established in the County's name in the amount necessary to perform the
plantings mitigation plan detailed in the submitted HMP; and held by the
County for three years, at which time the County will refund to the
Applicant(s) those funds, if the Applicant(s) have satisfied the requirements
set forth in condition# 5.
8. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
9. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be recorded on the
property deed, subsequent to staff approval.
10. A site inspection by Planning Staff is required prior to final permit approval.
X. 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
A TT-,4c_R"ztxr I AAV
THE WETLAND CORPS -05� ,lf-
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
WALKER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Parcel 123213290064
i
Belfair, Mason County, WA
Prepared for:
Max Walker
356 NE Newkirk Road
Belfair, Washington 98528
Prepared by:
Lee Boad and Heather Lane
December,2006
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
'AV
THE WETLAND CORPS 40j� if
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
WALKER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
i
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................................1
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................1
3.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................2
4.0 STREAM ANALYSIS...........................................................................2
5.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS.........................................................................................3
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES............................................3
7.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS...........................................................................................5
8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................................7
9.0 MONITORING ...........................................................................................................10
10.0 SUMMARY................................................................................................................10
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Map
Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey
Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
Tin WETLAND L CO"S
Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
December,2006 Page 1
WALKER HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Parcel: 123213290064
z Belfair,Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the construction of a single-family residence
(SFR), septic and access road at the parcel located in Mason County, Washington (Parcel
number 123213290064) are discussed in full in this report. The property is found in the SW
'/,of Section 21, Township 23 North, Range 1 West(See Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map).
The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts
resulting from the construction of the SFR, septic and access road within the buffer of a type
F stream. The buffer associated with the stream encompasses the majority of the entire
ownership. The section of the property outside of the buffer within the parcel will be
occupied by a portion of the septic drainfeild. Therefore, a variance is necessary to complete
the proposed project. The objectives of this HMP are as follows:
■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and `
wildlife habitat resulting from the construction of an SFR, access road, and a portion of the
septic drainfeild occupying a total building footprint of 4855 square feet within a type F
stream buffer. The construction zone is proposed to begin 100-feet from the stream at the
nearest point.
■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse
effects resulting from the construction of the SFR, septic, and access road within the stream
buffer.
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The entire property is 2.42 acres in size, and is comprised of an overstory of primarily big
leaf maple, Douglas fir and red alder. The understory generally consists of salmonberry,
salal and swordfern with lesser amounts of Himalayan blackberry. The stream represents the
eastern property boundary, and flows southerly toward a wetland located several hundred
feet south of the ownership. The ownership is accessed by an easement off Newkirk Road.
The property is bordered to the east and west by occupied residential properties, and to the
north and south by undeveloped parcels. Topography throughout most of the property is
generally flat, with the exception of a small bank down toward the stream. Currently there
are no buildings or structures within the property.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372-2421-boad4.0@peoplepc.com
Walker IMP
December,2006
Page 2
3.0 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Preliminary research of this site included review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetland Inventory (NWI), the Department of Natural Resources Stream Map, and
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Database.
i
The National Wetland Inventory maps no wetlands within or in close proximity to the
parcel.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Map for
Mason County shows no priority habitats for any listed species within the vicinity of the
parcel.
The Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map shows one stream within the
approximate parcel location. The stream is mapped to drain westerly through the parcel to
eventually flow into the Union River. After further observation, the onsite stream does not
appear to be the one mapped on the DNR database as this stream flows southerly to a
wetland area south of the parcel. See Figure 3 for the DNR Water Resource map.
4.0 STREAM ANALYSIS
Mason County has recently changed the water typing system from the original Types 1,2,3,4 ,
& 5 streams to Types S, F, Np & Ns streams. Although the codes are new, similar criteria
are used to define water, types. According to the WAC 222-16-030 Water Typing System,
the stream meets criteria for a type F stream, as it is presumed to have fish use based on a
channel greater than 2 feet wide, year round flow, and slope gradient less than 16 percent.
The water typing system states:
"Type F Water" means segments of natural waters other than Type S Waters,
which are within the bankfull widths of defined channels and periodically
inundated areas of their associated wetlands, or within lakes, ponds, or
impoundments having a surface area of 0.5 acre or greater at seasonal low water
and which in any case contain fish habitat
1
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepe.com
Walker HMP
December, 2006
Page 3
t' oily.>
w, �M
ti-
Type F Stream; parcel is located on right side (west) of stream in photo.
5.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS
The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 '
identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (FWHCA's) adopted by Mason
County.
The FWHCA setbacks applicable to this project are as follows:
Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer
Type F Stream 150' 15'
6.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES
6.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshaw ty sha)Threatened
Listed as threatened since March 24,1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several
rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. This stream does not contain habitat
characteristics typical of chinook systems due to limited size and flow.
The lower union river is known to support small runs of Puget Sound Chinook. These fish
are assumed to be of hatchery origin but have maintained some level of natural production
over the last decade.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December,2006
Page 4
The mainstem of the Union River was listed as a final designation in the NOAA Fisheries
Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in
Washington-August 2005.
Although the on-site stream does not support suitable habitat for Chinook, water quality ,
sediment, and nutrient supply from this stream may affect the mainstem of the Union River.
The project proposal includes mitigation and tactical design intended to protect and maintain
water quality of the stream. Given the absence of spawning habitat, limited scale of the
project, and mitigation proposed,this project is not expected to impact Puget Sound
Chinook.
6.2 Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)- Threatened
Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are
supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear
gravel, relatively free of fine sediments.
Although the substrate may be suitable for Bull Trout spawning, the lower elevation and
temperature of the stream is not suitable habitat for Bull Trout. None have been
documented in the Union River watershed. Given the lack of suitable habitat, the proposed
project is not likely to have any adverse impacts on bull trout.
6.3 Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus)- Endangered
Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some
old-growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken
tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral
limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations.
There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. The
proposed project site will require the removal of a maximum of 20 trees. The trees to be
removed do not contain nesting and roosting features important for the Bald Eagle, such as
exposed lateral limbs or dead tops. Recommended understory plantings recommended in
Section 6.3 are intended to provide a more vertically diverse forested stand and improve the
long term potential for use of the site by Bald Eagle. Given there are no documented Bald
Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area, this project will have no adverse
impacts on bald eagles.
6.4 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)-Threatened
Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth
forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is
roughly 5-miles from n6st to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are
commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618-Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December, 2006
Page 5
mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can
construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor.
Mun eletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a
sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the
project site. No potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project is not likely
to adversely impact Marbled Murrelet, given there are no documented nesting sites or
potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the project area.
Northern Spotted Owl (Stria occidentalis caurin)- Threatened
Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds; pairs may
occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their
ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes
Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter, multi-layered forest
canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large,
tall, live trees with cavities, broken tops, mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of
holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen
decayed trees supporting abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl
populations. Currently there are no spotted owl nesting sites documented in proximity to the
project site. Given the forested components, the area has the potential to eventually
contribute to spotted owl habitat. However, the potential for usage is largely dependant on
surrounding land-use and the maintenance and preservation of larger forested areas in .
proximity to the property.
As spotted owls are currently not present, and the project is of a scale that has no impact on
forested areas, no impacts to spotted owl or their habitat are expected result from the
proposed project.
7.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
The proposed project lies within the regulated buffer of a type F stream. Project scale in the
protected area is as follows:
Development Type Habitat Type Project scale
SFR Type F stream buffer 2500 sq. ft. (50'x 50')
Access Road Type F stream buffer 1700 sq. ft. (15'x 165')
Septic Type F stream buffer 1800 sq. ft (30 x 90)
(655 sq. ft. within buffer)
Total Type F stream buffer 4855 sq. ft.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December,2006
Page 6
7.1 Vezetation Disturbance
The vegetation disturbance for the construction of a 2500 square foot SFR, septic and a 1700
square foot access road within the type F stream buffer will require the removal of 20 trees
and associated shrub understory. Mitigation described in Section 8.4 recommends
coniferous underplantings within a designated portion of the stream buffer to compensate for
the loss of vegetation. The trees to be removed within the stream buffer are primarily red
alder less than 8 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), with lesser amounts of Douglas
fir and big leaf maple less than 12 inches DBH.
3 yvs
i`
1
0
Approximate building location.
7.27.2 Designated Critical Habitat for SalmonidsCritical Habitat for Salmonids
None of the actions will destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions
described in this plan will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species.
7.3 Noise Pollution
An increase in noise from construction activities is anticipated during operation hours. The
project site is not within the radii of concern for any listed species that may be affected by
increased noise. No impacts from noise are expected to occur.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December, 2006
Page 7
7.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Operation
The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended
sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices are recommended to minimize
any potential impacts from sediment and turbidity that the project may cause.
7.5 Light and Glare
The proposed proJect will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with
residential construction and land use. The vegetative buffer to be enhanced between the
proposed house and stream is expected to shield the majority of the riparian corridor from
increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by riparian dependent species are
expected to result from light and glare associated with this project.
8.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
8.1 Best Management Practices
Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows:
• Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather.
• Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and
siltation of waters(See diagram below).
• Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent
feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment '
should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous
substances outside overnight within the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• No construction debris or supplies should be placed in existing forested areas or
anywhere along the stream bank.
• Clearly mark clearing limits with orange ribbon or construction fencing.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December, 2006
Page 8
6' HIGH
CONSTRUCTION
STEEL POST FENCE
1�
rww
/ r_
io FT VAX SPACM RIIN
WNW SUPPORT FENCE
6 FT MN SPIOlG NRIQUT
HNE SUPPORT FENCE
FILTER FABRIC
PONOINC HT.
FILTER F RIC
STEEL POST UCURFlY
SIOE T.
RUNOFF
T
12�YIN. ��41�w-
vv
WITF1•COMPACTED
TRENCH
a4CKALL
Silt Fence Diagram
8.2 Preservation Mitigation
The remainder of the Type F stream buffer, outside of the proposed SFR, septic, and access
road, will be preserved and remain in tact or enhanced with native vegetation. Footpaths
are permitted within the stream buffer, but must stay outside of the banks and channel of
the stream to avoid damage to vegetation and erosion along the stream channel.
8.3 Minimization Mitigation
The proposed project minimizes impacts to the stream buffer by limiting the square footage
of the building footprint of the SFR to 2500 square feet. The proposed SFR is located 100
feet from the stream at the nearest point, this is the furthest distance from the stream that the
size and configuration of the lot will allow while meeting project objectives.
8.4 Enhancement Recommendations
To mitigate for the displacement of 4855 square feet of riparian habitat associated with this
project, a 40-foot strip of the stream buffer, parallel to the type F stream, has been selected
for vegetative enhancement.
Enhancement Zone
The overstory within the type F stream buffer contains big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum)
red alder (Alnus rubra), and Douglas fir (Psedotsuga menziesii) of similar size and age.
Several migratory species, including Bald Eagles, are more likely to utilize forests with a
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker[IMP
December,2006
Page 9
diverse, unevenly aged overstory. To improve the structural diversity and increase the
potential for wildlife utilization within the stream buffer, it is recommended that the portion
of the type F stream buffer between the proposed SFR be enhanced with coniferous
underplantings to eventually provide a more dense midstory layer resulting in a more
structurally diverse forested community. The area to be enhanced within the stream buffer
will be identified as the Enhancement Zone, and will occupy an area of 15,600 square feet.
It is recommended that the mitigation zone be enhanced using Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii) and western red cedar (Thuja plicata). This is based on light and soil
requirements, versatility, and occurrence in proximity to the site. The trees should be
planted an average of 10-feet on center, from 2-gallon containers, to provide a moderately
dense, structurally diverse plant community within the mitigation zones.
z�
t2 ti'
f�
Representative portion of the stream buffer to be enhanced with conifer plantings.
Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is
during February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner
may call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. No machinery earthwork will
be necessary to implement this restoration plan; planting holes for specified vegetation
installation will be hand dug. No additional clearing or grading should be required for site
restoration. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate
monitoring inspections. The monitoring program is recommended to insure project
effectiveness.
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528-Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepc.com
r
Walker HMP
December,2006
Page 10
Nurse Log Habitat
It is recommended that the trees that are removed for the proposed project are placed within
the riparian corridor of the type F stream as nurse logs. Only trees greater than 4 inches
DBH should be used as nurse logs. Trees should be cut into eight-foot sections and
randomly situated near the stream to mimic natural dispersion.
i
Invasive Species Removal
Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and
English Ivy may invade the enhancement zone. These species are stubborn competitors for
light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed
from the enhancement zone should they invade. Persistent cutting during the growing season
is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem.
9.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following native plantings and maintained on a
seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of
reintroduced plant species; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any unforeseen
disturbance caused by the proposed project and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence
of exotic species within the enhancement zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be
deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. Two photo points will be established that
portray the planting area from each side of the property. This monitoring will be in effect
for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual
report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community
Development.
10.0 SUMMARY
One stream meeting criteria for a type F stream is located on the subject property. Type F
streams are regulated in Mason County, requiring a 150-foot buffer, with an additional 15-
foot building setback. This buffer encompasses the majority of the parcel. The portion of
the parcel outside of the stream buffer will be occupied by a septic drainfeild.
The proposed project involves the construction of a 2500 square foot single-family
residence, 1800 septic and a 1700 square foot access road within the type F stream buffer. A
total of 655 square feet of the septic will be within the stream buffer. Given the intended use,
size, and configuration of the lot, encroachment into a stream buffer is unavoidable. The
proposed project will be 100 feet from the stream at the nearest point.
Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421•boad40@peoplepc.com
Walker HMP
December, 2006
Page I l
Compensatory mitigation is recommended in the form of vegetative enhancement within the
type F stream buffer,which entails coniferous understory plantings within an area occupying
15,600 square feet, and the placement of nurse logs within the riparian zone.
Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices have been identified to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction.
We trust this information is sufficient for you at this time. Thank you for choosing The
Wetland Corps as your habitat consultant. If you have any questions, feel free to call.
Respectfully submitted,
The Wetland Corps
Heather Lane
Staff Wetland&Natural Resource Specialist
Lee Boad
Senior Ecologist
PO Box 2854 Belfair,Washington 98528•Cell Phone 360-620-0618.Office Phone 360-372 2421-boad40@peoplepc.com
REFERENCES
Cowardin,L.M.,V.Carter,F.C.Golet and E.T.LaRoe, 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States.U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service document FWS/OBS-79/31. 84 pp. Washington,D.C.
i •
Fuller,T.C.and G.D.Barbe. 1985.The Bradley Method of eliminating exotic plants
from natural
reserves.Fremontia 13(2):24-26.
Hitchcock,L.C.and A.Cronquist, 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University
of Washington Press.. 730 pp.
Hruby,T.,2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington
—Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025.
Munsell Soil Color Charts, 1998. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor,New York.
Pojar,J.and A.MacKinnon, 1994.Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Lone
PinePublishing.528 pp. Vancouver,British Columbia.
Speare-Cooke,S., 1997. A Field Guide to the Common Wetland Plants of Western
Washington and Northwestern Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society.417 pp.
US Department of Agriculture,Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of Mason
County Area, Washington. September,1977.
US Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory. 1978.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1997. Washington State Wetland
Identification and Delineation Manual. Ecology Publication#96-94,various
pagination.Olympia,Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1993. Washington State Wetlands Rating
System, Western Washington Second Edition. 61 pp.Ecology Publication #93-
74.Olympia,Washington.
Washington State Department of Ecology, 1999. Methods for Assessing Wetland
Functions for Reverine and Depression!Wetlands in the Lowlands of Western
Washington. Ecology Publication#99-115.Olympia,Washington.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service,1993.National List of Plant Species that
Occur in Wetlands Region 9—Northwest.Resource Management Group
.14�Iz:,
0 1 mile K
Old Belfair Hwy ; r �y•_•— rJ i
s- A • � r f AP proximate Parcel
f Location
ion
Li
Cy 4
J 'is r i l x .--''• y v�� �� �.-, : �. I �" lr, /�
�i; . ,1•. ..,I,:•-:1� �, r'!G'' . r 1.i1 is 1 nU i�l�'1 ,171 >! �' /!/
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
Project Name:Walker HMP
Location: Mfair,Washington
Project: TWC06-W317
�r Client: Max Walker
THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 12/06
i
(4 L%009`6 1) I i
au°z wneblqlW Id' "sroaajjuo-,)
rl 1
ol
uaear}S �adh1 i _ /
.01
BSIof
AOH p--OdOJJ / J
r
t
�,9006NIZ4Z1# Pled'll1
Wid n5 LEW qwldmwN qeTqeH-191leM
Z ajrh� )PWFM alu
Map Legend Pssc
Xx
coNUa caws N -J
t PEAK S
CONUS sub.1OOK W
Laver b Wetland Pdygo F
' E.wu,n..no MWne DeepwalM A`�?` �::
E.b.r,ne end M&".#W.D.nd
F,e.hw~Em 9-1 W.9-4
F—hwe1M F.,—.dr.hrue W.Umd
F,"h—t.Pond : c !!-
® YNOW
Oth, PEIAF,
g
APproxun8te_ Bet�alr
Parceliocation<; . Digital
Washington
n
�t
A
7�
RG\.'
Figure adapted from NWI Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map -
Mapper website Section 21 Township 23N Range 01 W
FIGURE 3 NWI MAP
Project Name:Walker HMP
Location: Belfair,Washington
Project: TWCO6-W317
1 Client: Max Walker
T CORPS Date: 12/06
� 1
r
x 2
14' Approximate
location of parcel
f
R
28 9�Mga.+.a.ati,u��ws c�r+A+t�l rouxom ssa k. 3a '�'
Onsite Soil Type: (lb)Indianola Loamy Sand
Indianola loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes (lb): This is the dominant soil of the Indianola series. It is
associated with other Indianola soils and the Everett and Alderwood soils.Forested areas have a I-to 2-inch surface
layer of organic litter consisting of partly decomposed needles,leaves,twigs,roots,and moss.The surface soil,to a
depth of 5 inches,is brown,very friable,single-grain loamy sand that contains a few rounded shot and many roots.
The upper 2 or 3 inches of surface soil contains intermittent,firm or slightly hard,irregular aggregates stained with
iron.The surface soil is dark brown when moist.The next 10 inches of soil,a transitional layer,is slightly lighter in
color than the surface layer and contains fewer shot.The subsoil,a pale-brown loamy sand,begins at 15 inches and
continues to depths of 26 to 30 inches. It is dark yellowish brown when moist.This loamy sand is massive but
readily crushes to loose,single grains.Yellow and olivecolored sands are common.The subsoil gradually changes to
the substratum,which is gray and dark-gray sand.The substratum is massive but crumbles readily to single grains
when removed. It contains some light-gray, yellow, and yellowish-brown sand. A few pebbles are scattered
throughout the profile where this soil merges with the Everett or Alderwood soils. The reaction is medium to
strongly acid and is less acid with depth. Use and suitability.-Most areas are covered by second or third-growth
Douglas-fir and hemlock,heavily mixed with alder, willow,and other deciduous trees and shrubs. This soil is so
droughty and low in fertility that, except for hay and pasture, its use for agriculture is limited. The best use is
forestry.In some areas where supplies of moisture are more favorable,raspberries and strawberries grow fairly well
if fertilized.This soil is in capability subclass Vls and in site classes 3 and 4 for Douglas-fir.
For the complete soil text for this Alderwood soils see Appendix B,Mason County Soil Survey.
FIGURE 4 SOIL MAP
Project Name:Walker HMP
Location: Belfair,Washington
The Wetland Corps 7 Project: TWC06-W317
Client: Max Walker
Date: 12/06
170 41 1709606 1709808'IsDO 170970 ci XaKir
04
t + +
f
N
Newkirk
F Road N
1708 T am 1 8 08780 708782 17087
t t t +
F
0 a 1 22
J
t + 0 + Ma 17 0 � 17087 i1708764
J
NH
u
4F—0 F
� Parcel u
F 1 8114E 1 location 708740 1708747 0 i 170 44
+ + IJ + +
2 a J I
..>�� z7 i
I
STRE OIS SOILS
Stream Water T)w 1-5(East side) Hydric Soils
i
Stream T)pe Unknown(East side) Highly Uastable
Stream Water Type 1-5(West side) Highly Erodible
Stream T)ye Unknown(West side) Highly Unstable&
Highly Erodible
Water Type Cbange � No Data or Gravel Pits
FIGURE 5 STREAM MAP
Project Name:
Walker HMP
Location: Belfair,Washington
Project: TWC06-W317
THE WETLAND CORPS Client: Max Walker
Date: 12/06
I
Notice of Application for Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public
Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Max Walker,who is the applicant for the following
proposal, has filed an application for a Variance.
The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-
93 is for the construction of an approximately 2,500 square foot single family
residence within a Type F stream buffer. Property location is 356 NE Newkirk
Road, Belfair. Parcel No. 12321-32-90064.
Date of complete application: February 7,2007.
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 details stream buffer requirements and
Section 17.01.150,Variances from Standards, which 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,April 24,2007 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.
HAROVMalker notice ofapplication for RO variance.doc.ram
�TI-Ac
29 March 2007
Skokomish+Tribe
ATTN: Marty Ereth
N. 541 Tribal Center Road
Shelton,WA 98584
RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2007-00004, a
proposal to place a new home within a Type F stream buffer at 356 NE
Newkirk Road, Belfair.
Dear Mr. Ereth:
The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP)has been provided by Kevin
Boyd,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 place a new single-family
residence in a Type F stream buffer at 356 NE Newkirk Road, Belfair. The
proposed construction area will not intrude into the buffer any closer than 100
feet of the OHWM. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110A 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 24 April 2007. 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
28 March 2007
Wash ington%Department of Fish and Wildlife
ATTN: Gloria Rogers
Regional Habitat Biologist
48 Devonshire Road
Montesano,WA 98563
RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance,VAR2007-00004, a
proposal to place a new home of approximately 2,500 square feet within a
Type F stream buffer at 356 NE Newkirk Road, Belfair.
Dear Ms Rogers:
The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP)has been provided by Max
Walker,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 place a new single-family
residence within a Type F stream buffer at 356 NE Newkirk Road, Belfair. The
proposed construction area will not intrude closer than 100 feet from the OHWM
of the 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 24 April 2007. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles cCoy III, Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
chuckm@co.mason.wa.us
VARIANCE APPLICATION
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/P.O. Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
d Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057.VARIANCE CRITERIA,
variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the
Development Regulations(zoning regulations)may be allowed as follows. The County
must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance
criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is
met.
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a
special"exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet
the specific variance criteria listed below.
Applicant name: Max Walker Telephone No. 36( 0)_620-2040
Mailing address: 356 NE Newkirk Rd, Belfair,WA 98528
Site address:
Owner Name(If different than applicant): Max and Michelle Walker '
Owner Address(If different than applicant): Same as applicant
Tax Parcel# 123213290064
Legal Description:TR 6-D of NW SW Lot:D SP#2792
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X
Mason County Development Regulations
Subdivisions and Plats
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
Construction of single family residence within regulated type F stream buffer.
2,500 square feet of building will be constructed 100-feet from the stream at the
nearest point.
cAI)ocuments and settings\I.cc\My I)ocuments\jobs\So*cams\Walkcr\Variancc Application 2007 Walkcr.d-
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
The regulated stream buffer encompasses almost the entire ownership. Portions
of the ownership outside the buffer will be occupied by an on-site sewage
system.
3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that
certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how
the proposal pertains to these circumstances.
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
Due to the presence of critical areas within the property, the strict
application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate
residential use of the property.
b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size and
presence of natural features. The regulated buffer associated with the
stream captures nearly the entire property leaving no space for a house.
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment;
A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures
necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the
environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations,
specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar protects have been approved in
Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type F
stream buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The
findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat
or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to
occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will
preserve and enhance the riparian area within the property and minimize
potential for long tern environmental impacts.
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to
afford relief;
The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate both a single family
residence and an attached garage. Residences in proximity to the protect
site are comprised of similar footprints.
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially
effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat
Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project
C:\Documents and SettingsM ee\My Documents\jobs\Streams\Walker\Variance Application 2007 Walker.doc
site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the
public interest resulting from the proposed proiect.
f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
The property is zoned urban growth. The lot is of sufficient size to
accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area.
The proiect constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is
consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth
Management Act. The proiect has been proposed to address all
environmental impacts associated with development near the stream.
Applicant Signature Date
Owner Signature Date
FEES:
Development Regulations Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00
50.00
Resource Ordinance Variance: 00 Hearings Examiner: $ 0
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $ 0 00
NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached).
C:\Documents and SettingsTeeNy Documents\jobs\Streams\Walker\Variance Application 2007 Walker.doc
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS""
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
"Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessors Office,Bldg. 1,Second Floor.
C�gC�C�-�x1
10
N E,� NEwK��KQo
C 00cuments end SettingsUAcwy Documents\jobs\Streams\Welker\Variance Application 2007 Walker.doc
VARIANCE REQUEST
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will
not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant.
The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly.
I /WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment
indicating and that 11 WE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. I /WE must
submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as
complete.
OWNER: ��, .
APPLICANT:
DATE:
CADocuments and SettingsUcc\My Documents\jobs\Strcams\Walker\Variance Application 2007 Walker.doc
Parcel Information for parcel number: 123213290064 AT Page I of I
: 1MASON COUNTY
Washington
Government • Information Services
DepartmentsMason County Home Employment Forms&Brochures Phone#'s&Addresses Campus Map
Codes&Regulations Community Links Visit Mason County Search our Site
Assessor Parcel number: 123213290064 iew Ma
Treasurer Owner Information
Records 356 NE NEWKIRK RD 1
MAX T&MICHELLE W WALKER BELFAIR WA 98528-9642 J
►New Search ---- ---- - — --- - ------
►Parcel Detail Taxpayer Information
►Parcel Value HOMESTREET BANK 601 UNION ST SUITE 2000
►Site Built Buildings -- —
SEATTLE WA 98101-2326
►MH and Personal Legal Description
Property ITR 6-D OF NW SW LOT: D SP#2792
►Sales Info Site Address
►Taxes Reval Area ?0 Field Sheet 'IFS 05083:13
►Permits Land Size* 1.39 Land Use ? VACANT LAND 5
►Profile(Summary
ACRES& UNDER
View of all items) Tax Code • Tax Code Description 1 403 A P3 F2 L C
' 276 H W1
Census Tract Click Here
*if the value is .00(zero)then the property is most likely in a plat and acreage is not
usually carried on platted lots
Last Updated:4/9/2007
Information may be inaccurate and outdated.
Please refer to the Assessor/Treasurer Offices to verify any information
Assessor Home Treasurer Home Search our Site Disclaimer Directory
�I
http://www.co.mason.wa.us/astr/parcel_detail.php?parcel_number=123213290064 4/16/2007
I
f
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 MI
LAST FIRST MI
SIGNATURE(S):
GRANTEE: PUBLIC
MASON COUNTY BOND FORM
Type of Permit:
Name:
Type of Improvement:
Project Location:
Legal Description of Property:
With reference to the above-identified matter,this will certify that this institution has a
savings account(or loan)for the above-referenced owner/developer/contractor for the
project so identified. In consideration of the permitted improvement,and in lieu of a
performance bond,this institution hereby agrees that it will freeze the following sums of
money for the indicated improvement pending written authorization for release of said
funds by in the amount of$ Dollars.
The total sum indicated will be withheld by this institution from any disbursements of
any kind until written authorization has been received by this institution from Mason
County to release the sum of money indicated by the written authorization from the
County.
The design,location,materials and other specifications for the indicated improvement are
those required by Mason County as appears in the above-referenced document/permit,
and shall be incompliance with the Mason County Resource Ordinance,Chapter 8.52
Mason County Code as amended.
These funds shall be held by the institution for a period of three years. In the event that
(responsible party's name)does not comply with the
aforementioned requirements,Mason County may demand,and the institution shall
make,payment to Mason County of said funds so that the necessary repairs can be
performed immediately to Mason County standards. The institution shall not be liable to
(responsible party's name)for any disbursement of
said funds to Mason County. The conditions in this agreement may only be amended or
revoked by express written condition of Mason County.
Signature of Responsible Party Date
Confidential Page 1 Form Revised:03/25/03
Accepted:
Name of Bank/Phone Number
Approved:
Title:
� I
Bank Address
Date
Account Number
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
County of. (Individual Acknowledgement)
I, Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington,residing at do hereby certify that
on this day of .20_ .personally appeared
before me to me known to be the individual
described herein and who executed this instrument and acknowledged that
signed and sealed the same as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses
and purposes herein mentioned.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL this day of
'20
Notary Public in an for the State of
Washington;residing at
in said
County. My Commission expires
Confidential .Page 2 Fonn Revised:03/25/03
I T
J',+,owl
il
r !tlk
Jl
z �>
it
AA
M r ti �A •I� MF*'
;r T'l A q .� jFF�r E _ •_�A :I i�1�+.� ..r 'may