Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Shoreline Advisory Board Variance - SHR Letters / Memos - 8/17/1989
SHORELINE EXEMPTION APPLICATION To: Mason County Planning Department From: Shoreline Exemption Applicant Re: Request for exemption from the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the i4ason County Shoreline Program of 1975, as amended. Owner: C Mailing Address: @S 77;9�� ``vas City and State: ae .— � , W `C� 1 F'u4 l � t, / Phone Number: ��. �/- f/(/7 3 Zip Code: Date: Legal Description: U1, 5-0 0 - E , -?Zp i o 6e d �[o Z j7 - z A) - � � Reason for Exemption Request: Colo Description of Work: C_Q-e-i << �� .. . �-c .ti3e l� St' t e 1 G Contractor: �le-,-S- �A (2&A S�f, Special Conditions (If any) : Class of Work (Check one): New Addition Alteration Repair Move Remove Cater I certify that I am the current owner or lessee of the shoreland or tideland on which the permit is being sought. Please Include: 1. Site Plan 2. Vicinity Map If the proposal is for pier or dock development please fill out the reverse side. PIERS AND DOCKS Please read the Amended Mason County Shoreline Master Plan, Piers and Docks Section .16.200. Where will your pier or dock be located?: Lake Shoreline Mai-:T_ne Shoreline River Shoreline Are there existing docks within 100 feet of your side property lines?: Yes No If yes, please ii)dicate the average length of the existing structure(s). feet. In the space provided please draw a sketch of the proposal. and the existing piers or clocks that are located within 100 feet of your side property lines. Show dimensions on the drawing. Also include a vicinity map. August 17, 1989 To: Mason County Shoreline Advisory Hoard From: Mason County Planning Staff Subject: Variance Permit - Sidney Carstensen ADDENDUM The Planning Staff has further reviewed the Carstensen proposal with the Health Department and Public Works Department. According to Marley Young of the Public Works Department, septic tanks can be installed within 5 feet of the edge of the right-of-way as long as it is below grade. John Dennison of the Health Department concurs with this and has the following comments regarding the proposed retaining walls around the septic tank and the removable metal grate over the septic tank : -The lids to the septic tank and/or removable metal grate should be designed so as not to allow water to enter the septic tank . His suggestions include a culvert opening to the septic tank where the culvert opening would be raised above the water level and/or design the metal grate so no seepage is allowed through to the septic tank lids. His concern is that water could be trapped in this enclosure and inundate the drainfield. It appears that the proposed residence would not set a precedent because the majority of the homes in this area infringe on the shoreline setback . (Please note: in the staff report of July 17, 1989 the variance request was stated as 4' from the bulkhead. The correct distance of the variance request is O' from the bulkhead according to the submitted plans. ) The Public Works Department is checking the width of the right-of-way on this portion of North Shore Road . This information will be available by the time of the meeting . LM/ lm July 17, 19B9 To: Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board From: Mason County Planning Staff Subject: Variance Permit - Sidney Carstensen STAFF REPORT I . INTRODUCTION. This report evaluates a proposal to construct a single family residence further waterward than the shoreline setback . II . APPLICANT. Sidney Carstensen . III . PROPERTY LOCATION. Tract 9 of Gov. Lot 2, Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 2 West, WM. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposal is to construct a 40' by 24 ' two story single family residence with attached garage approximately 4 ' landward of an existing bulkhead . V. EVALUATION. A. Characteristics of the site. The site is a residential lot with an existing cabin , deck , bulkhead and concrete boatramp. The lot is partially wooded and slopes gradually towards the bulkhead . There is a wood fence adjacent to the road . The portion of the lot on the water side of the highway where the construction is being proposed is 75 ' in length by 43' in width: 3,225 square feet total . B. Characteristics of the area. The surrounding lots are primarily residential with single family residences, decks, bulkheads , etc . The majority of these lots on the water side of the highway are proportionate to the proposed building site. Structures in this area are built right up to, if not over the bulkheads in some cases. The buildable area along this portion of North Shore Road is small ; the land slopes steeply towards the highway on the north side and slopes gradually, but quickly towards the water on the south side . C. Shoreline Designation . The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . Hood Canal is a shoreline of statewide significance. VI . SEPA COMPLIANCE. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 15, 19B9. Mason County received no objections to this determination . VII . OTHER PERMITS. This proposal also requires a Mason County Building Permit, a Side Yard Setback Variance and a variance from the Dept. of Public Works. VIII . CONCLUSION. This proposal requires a Variance Permit because the proposed structure is to be located further waterward than the shoreline setback in the Urban Residential designation. Section 7. 16.080 of the Shoreline Master Program guides the development of single family residences and Section 7.28.020 guides the review of Variance Permit requests. Applicable use regulations include the following : -Residential development over the water is prohibited . -No fence or wall shall be erected, placed or altered nearer to the water than the building setback line, unless it is under 30 inches in height. -Construction of new dwellings shall be required to comply with current sewage system setback and design standards per WAC 246-96. -Criteria for residences constructed in the Urban designation is as follows: 1 ) shore setback of 15' , 2) side yard setback of 5' , 3) height limit 0-49 feet from the OHWM is 35' , 4) site coverage shall be no more than 60%, 5) minimum lot size 12, 500 square feet, 6) minimum lot width at the OHWM is 50' . -Variance Permits for proposed development may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: -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. -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. -The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties of the shoreline environment. -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 public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Section 7.24 .010 should also be considered during the review of this Variance permit request because Hood Canal is a shoreline of statewide significance. The proposed single family residence is to be located 4 ' landward of the existing bulkhead ; the minimum shoreline setback in this designation is 15' . The side yard setbacks are a minimum of 5' in this designation and on the east side of the property there will be 15' between the proposed structure and the side property line. On the west side of the property the proposed structure would be located immediately adjacent to the property line; there would be a side yard setback of 1 ' . The applicant has also applied for a side yard setback variance to construct the residence 1 ' from the property line. The Mason County Commissioners conditioned its approval on the Shoreline Variance. The single family residence will be approximately 32' high. It will cover approximately 1% of the total site area and approximately 50% of the site waterward of North Shore Rd . The approximate, total site area is 90,000 square feet and the approximate site area waterward of North Shore Rd . is 1 ,975 square feet. The minimum lot size in this designation is 12, 500 square feet and the minimum lot width at the OHWM is 50' . The width of the proposed construction site is approximately 75 ' . The right-of-way of North Shore Road is 60' in width at this location . Construction being proposed adjacent to this right-of-way must be a minimum of 35'- from the center line. According to the submitted plot plan , the proposed residence will be located partially in the right-of-way. The existing septic system was approved by the Mason County Health Department and a final inspection was done on October 12, 1986. f�' According to the submitted information, only the one sideyard setback is being complied with. There are portions of the Shoreline Master Program that the proposal is consistent with, however, because the majority of the setbacks are not in compliance according to the current proposal , the Planning Staff recommends denial of the Variance Permit request as it has been applied for, based on its inconsistencies with the Shoreline Master Program. IX . CHOICE OF ACTION. 1 . Approve Variance Permit request. 2. Deny Variance Permit request. 3. Conditionally approve Variance Permit request. 4. Postpone for further information . LM/lm SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING August 22, 1989 MINUTES 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Present- Earl Lincoln Absent - Bill Smith Dave McMillin Cal Poe Harry Martin Jay Hupp Robert Moyer 3. Approval of Minutes. Minutes were approved. Lenore Marken: Listed approvals and provisions of Dale Hoover's Conditional Use Permit. Public Hearings: Sidney Carstensen - Continuation from July 25, 1989 of Variance Permit request to construct a single family residence four feet (4') landward of the existing bulkhead. There was considerable discussion of the Shoreline Master Plan regarding setbacks versus the common line and the County right of way. Public: The commissioners approved the sideyard setback variance to the neighbors of Mr. Carstensen's property. Would it be in order for the board or staff to address a letter to the County Commissioners with whatever determination whether it should be a permit application for process or whether it was exempt from the shorelines permit application process and at least advise the County Commissioners so they will approve the setback variance? More discussion followed among the board whether the right of way boundary has been established. Public: I presented to Lenore Marken a letter by a surveyor who has done considerable surveying in the area. It appears based on the evidence submitted, that the county has no right of way other than what is operated and maintained by the county as far as the street. There is a letter, surveys 'filed for record with that note on the survey. Mr. Nichols, a residence of the area, Mr. Carstensen and Mr Graham, who lives in the area, all have the same notes and statement on their surveys. It is the determination of Mr. Graham's licensed surveyor. Marley Young: The position of the county where we don't have record right of way we indicate the right of way is useage. In many cases useage is from brushline to brushline which would be further back from back ditch to back ditch because of our brushing activities. In many cases in North Shore that has a ditch on the landward side it would be at least to the back of that ditch. Not fog line to fog line. SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page two Marley Young: We are willing to stand on the fact that the county does not have record right of way in this location. We also suspect we may have found some right of way under what was called the Voight road much of what now could be under North Shore. Tonight for your purposes we'll stand on the fact that we have no right of way of record: qualified, deeded or dedicated by board action. As far as the limits from fog line to fog line, I disagree. My definition of what belongs to the county is to maintain furthest to the left, versus maintain furthest to the right. In many cases that includes brushing, mowing, ditch maintenance, etc. The distance can vary depending on what is maintained. The county has not been acquiring strips legally from residences. It has not been a process in twelve years on existing roads. If we rebuild then it's dollar for dollar, today's market, for the rights of way outside the limit we either show documents for or show maintenance of. Lenore Marken: Environmentally isn't that what setback is for? That through new development we want to protect the environment and that's what the 15' is for? Jay Hupp: 'fiat 's the intent. The overriding consideration here is that you can't penalize one property owner, view wise, simply because of the previous location of adjacent houses on either side. The intent is to get all of it as far back off the beach as possible. But you do have to be reasonable. Earl Lincoln: Do we need to do anything further with the sideline? Lenore Marken: I've already talked to Mike Byrne about sideline setback. All we do now is take it before the commissioners for approval next Tuesday. Lenore Marken: I apologize to the applicant for the mis-determination that you needed a Shoreline Variance. I will process your permit as a regular building permit. Public: I apologize the the County Engineer. There was no intent to mislead. the board as far as the right of way. I would like the County Engineer to have a copy of that letter. Open discussion on continuing right of way misunderstanding. Ralph Seabloom - Variance Permit request to build a roof over an existing deck waterward ot the common line. Lenore Marken: Property location is E. 991 Mason Lake Drive East. Sunnyshore Lot 28 Section 5, Township 21 North, Range 2 West. The proposal is to construct a 10' by 16' porch cover over the existing deck waterward of the common line. The existing deck is 5' from the bulkhead and approximately 17' from the ordinary high water mark. (Pictures passed around) The site is a single family residence, garage, bulkhead and boat post. The deck to be covered is on the front of the house facing the water and is greater than 30" in height. The surrounding area is residential with single family homes on the majority of lots. There are residences and bulkheads on both adjacent properties. The residence to the right of the Seabloom's is approximately 41' from the ordinary high water mark and the residence to the left is SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page three approximately 35' back from the ordinary high water mark. The Seabloom residence is approximately 22' back from the ordinary high water mark. The shoreline designation is urban residential. The Determination of Non Significance was issued on July 13, 1989. Mason County received no objection to this determination. This proposal also requires a Mason County Building Permit. It requires a Variance Permit because the proposed construction is greater than 30" in height waterward of the common line setback. Section 7 16 080 guides the development of residential associated structures and Section 7 28 020 guides the review process of the Variance Request. According to the Shoreline Master Program structures should be designed and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences. It does not appear from the submitted plans and site inspections that views would be blocked or altered substantially. Mason County has not received any correspondence regarding the proposed structure from adjacent neighbors. The Planning staff believes the proposal will not set a precedent nor will it have a substantial detrimental effect on the public interest. However the applicant has not shown application of the dimensional standards in the Shoreline Master Program significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property. The Planning staff recommends the Variances be recommended for approval with the following conditions. Porch cover be reduced in size to not protrude further waterward than the deck. Lenore Marken: If they put the roof over this deck it will be further waterward than the other deck. Discussion follows on roof extension. Applicant being asked to cut back roof overhang by three feet. Mr. Seabloom and Lenore Marken discuss revisions. Questions asked regarding drip line. Drawings reviewed. Harry Martin: Moves Mr. Seabloom be able to take staffs ' recommendation and rather than cut back 3', cut back 2' so drip line is not on rail. Cal Poe: Seconded motion. Motion carried. Ernesto Iuliano - Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit requests to fill an approximate y 100' by 100' area for access to oyster beds. Lenore Marken: This is a request for a Substantial Development and Condition Use Permit. The applicant is Ernesto Iuliano. Property location is East 990 Highway 302, Government Lots 1 and 2, of Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 1 West. The project description is to place approximately 300 to 400 cubic yards of gravelly sandy loam around an area approximately 25' by 100' . The site, upon inspection actually measures 75' by 100' by 50' by 75'. His first application said 100' by 100'. The next application was 25' by 100'. I do not believe he understands the shoreline permit process or what it is that's going on. SHORELINE ADVISORY "PD August 22, 1989 Page four Lenore Marken: The fill is access to an oyster operation that was also changed since his previous proposal which was to put in fill for a parking area and a drainfield. He was told it was prohibited accorrding to the Shoreline Master Program. We posted a stop work order. Pictures passed around and discussed. Location discussed as being near Allyn. Lenore Marken: The site is a vacant lot with the exception of a shack located on the southern property line. A large portion of fill has been disbursed across the site with two large piles remaining in the middle. Wetland plants have been identified on the site. The surrounding area is residential with a few developed sites with single family homes but the majority of the area on the water side of Highway 302 is vegetated and mostly in its natural state. The shoreline designation is rural. Determination of Non Significance was issued on June 15, 1989. Mason County received no objections to this determination. This proposal may also require approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fisheries. The Army Corps of Engineers has been notified of the situation. I have not yet received their reply. This proposal requires a Substantial Development Permit because it is valued at more than $2,500 and a Conditional Use Permit because it is landfill on a biological wetland. Section 7, 16-130 of the Shoreline Master Program guides the placement of fill. Section 7 . 16. 020 guides aquaculture and Section 7. 28. 010 sets forth the policies by which to review a Conditional Use Permit. On several occasions staff from the Department of General Services has visited the site and determined that portions of it do support wetland vegetation. On August 1, 1989 Andy McMillin from the D.O.E. Wetlands Section and myself visited the site. Per the site visit and a letter from Andy McMillin dated August 2, 1989 it has been concluded that the site where the landfill has been placed is indeed wetlands. According to the Shoreline Master Program landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands. Two letters from the D.O.E. reiterate this. The clearing and filling were done without benefit of a shoreline permit and was clear from the Mason County Shoreline Master Program that this activity is prohibited. However landfill may be permitted as a Conditional Use-for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. It does not appear that an upland or structural alternative is impossible. On Monday I visited the site and walked around on his adjacent property. He owns both lots where the house is and the lot where the fill is being placed. There's a shack on the lot where the landfill is occuring. There's a path that goes to a huge pile of oyster shells and it looks like that's where they're doing it all. If they're bound to fill through the wetlands to get out to this location they would have to put in at least another load of the fill that's already in there to make the access reasonable all the way to that location. There's quite a bit more area of tidelands that goes out. I do not see anything that would preclude them from coming down that other side of the propoerty where his house is to get to the location. High tides do not come up over the fill, but the water does seep. (Pictures discussed.) Ground wet. Little inlets come in. Vegetation is salt water tolerant. Ground really wet. After digging holes, within minutes even through the fill water was coming up. Wetland plants coming back up through the fill. We recommend alternatives to a landfill be considered. The applicant has not proven I SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page five that there's not an upland structural alternative to what he proposes to do. The fill is for access, including access for a truck. D.O.E. wants area restored to natural state. It 's the sane for shellfish regulations. It has to be shown that there is no upland alternative. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark on biological wetlands. May be permitted for aquacultural practices (unable to hear tape due to more than one person speaking) . Dave McMillin: Apparently he does have the possibility for access on the adjacent property. Discussion of why Mr. Iuliano would have need for access for a truck. Possibly due to weight of oyster shells. Original intent was for parking area, then a house, then a septic system. The people doing the filling are septic installers and should have known better than that. Discussion of the absence of Mr. Iuliano at hearing. He was notified. Harry Martin: Maybe we ought to postpone this until next meeting and try to get Mr. Iuliano to attend. Lenore Marken: It is up to the applicant to came. He cannot be forced. Robert Moyer: What I 'm saying is he should be encouraged to attend. Motion made and seconded and approved to postpone for further information. Discussion of Mr. Iuliano appearance at next meeting. Telling him additional information is needed. Jack's Septic Service was contractor that put in fill. Lenore Marken: I feel that this one was possibly processed the wrong way too. A stop work should have been posted and the applicant told at the time to remove the fill that he was in violation without even asking him what his intentions were. The Shoreline Master Program will permit somebody to fill if the intentions comply with the Shoreline Master Program. How should I handle this kind of situation if it comes up again? Harry Martin: Don't you have to be awfully careful when you're near wetlands? Post a stop work order and make him come back to you. Discussion of possibility of new chairman or assistant for chairman. Next meeting to be held September 26, 1989. Meeting adjourned 8:25 P.M. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg III 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health fire marshall parks & recreation fair/convention center planning November 29, 1990 Sid & Ruth Carstensen NE 22552 Hwy 3 Belfair, WA. 98528 Dear Mr. & firs. Carstensen, Enclosed please find the blueprints which were submitted and approved for your residence and garage. Please change the following information and initial the changes so that we will have a record for our file. 1 ) On overhead site plan, draw in actual distance from overhang of your garage to the side property line. Note: we need the distance from overhang of building and distance from foundation. The overhang can be shown as a dotted line and the foundation drawn as a solid line. 2) We also require a structural drawing of the garage and a side view of the garage showing the height of the residence in relation to the existing grade. Show foundation height and wall height. 3) Please show any additional changes which have been made in the structural drawings as well as the site plan. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES GM/encls. November 26, 1990 FINDINGS ON COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM MR. & Mrs. Whalen EUR-JECT - Construction of residence and attached garage by Sid Carstensen -77�' North Shore Rd. , Belfair. t Stop WOrk Order was removed from Sidney Castensen's property today at 12:00 p. m. by Grace Miller. Staff has reviewed the building permit and shoreline permit from 1989. After discussing the events which have occurred, staff has determined that the building permit which was issued on September 20, 1990 was valid and not issued in error. In August of 1969 the Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board determined that the Variance which Mr. Carstensen had applied for was not necessary and that Mr. Castensen could construct up to the existing bulkhead because the Mason County Shoreline Master states that if the residences within 50' of the proposal are forward of the common line, the setback may be relaxed and the applicant is able construct waterward of the minimum 15' setback. Lenore Marken, the shoreline planner at the time, informed the Board that the proposal would be processed as a building permit. Mr. Carstensen did not submit a building permit at that time. On August 29, 1990, one year later, Mr. Carstensen applied for a building permit to construct an addition to the cabin, new residence and attached garage. Don Brush of the Planning Department read the previous conditions in the building file and checked shoreline permit #89-26 for the findings. The building permit appeared to be consistent with the Shoreline Advisory Board decision for setbacks and therefore was issued on September 20, 1990. On Friday, October 26 1990, Mr. & Mrs. Whalen, who reside in the residence to the east of Mr. Carstensen, came into the Planning office and spoke with Grace Miller and Wayne Krause at the counter. The Whalens pointed out the discrepancy between the 4' setback from the bulkhead which was shown on the building permit plans and that Mr. Carstensen was indeed building closer to the bulkhead and closer to their side property line. The Whalens were also confused as to why Mr. Castensen was allowed to build all the way up to the bulkhead and that there was never a public hearing before the Commissioners where they could have expressed their concern that the garage was going to block their view from the residence. On Monday, October 29, 1990 Grace Miller and Wayne Krause conducted a site inspection to investigate the Whalen's complaint. Mr. Carstensen and Jerry Wright, the contractor were on the site setting the forms for the foundation. Grace pointed out to them that what they were constructing is not what the plans show and Wayne stated that the plans could be changed if it were o. k. with shorelines. Mr. Carstensen said that the Shoreline Advisory Board had given the o. k. and he did not understand why we were on the site. Tuesday or Wensday of that week, Mr. Carstensen called the building department for a footing inspection. Ed Piland did not conduct the inspection and the contractor poured the footings without the inspection. On Thursday, November 4, 1990 at the request of Grace Miller, Ed Piland posted a STOP WORK ORDER on the site. Grace Miller had been doing some further checking into the shoreline Variance file and observed that an access permit was required by the Elden Reed of the Public Works Dept. in 1989 before the Carstensens could obtain a building permit for the garage and that the septic system may be in the County right of way. Grace then informed the Carstensens that they would need to obtain this access permit before any more construction. Grace discussed Carstensen / Whalen complaint with the Commissioners in the briefings on November 19 and 26th. November 26, the Carstensens had a meeting with Mike Byrne. On Monday, November 19, 1990 the Public Works Dept. issued an access permit with conditions to the Carstensens. Mr. & Mrs. Carstensen came into Planning office and spoke with Grace wondering if the STOP WORK ORDER was going to be removed and when. November 29, 1990 Mr. Whalen called and spoke with Grace stating that the stop work was lifted, work is being done and the garage footings are within 4' of the side property line. Grace mailed Mr. Carstensen the blueprints to correct. Grace attempted to contact Ed Piland by radio to have him check the setback but could not reach him. There appears to also be a question as to where the property line is because the Carstensen plans show that the garage will be at least 10' from the side property line and Mr. Whalen is saying that it is only 4' . 141WAY ALP _„ i S. ta i A'X I S rtAlc Ho us e CXISrlAIG CAS/N /9avS e GARAceCi : 0 I RooF I 13 L-K b RAN sire PLAN �A �J fL -3 l'. L' 1u tU 1u r ' • ' ";90 IV01J- 7--7 'oN aN�7 do�d dW,4 eas 77bM,h 77 bM,r � bid sagoH NVW - 5Sa»b 7rh �rxti 15 �dM e „ e , E s � # ' rtry-' : aka DR AIt4 FlF-L1) _l. tl & ° aop 1Ij1 1ltt[ �4ewp Wirx rMST6 GpU£RECS` , i ! �r+GTistc 1f0 5 GARAGE r hi gXftiS2'. n isY ° a S��X • 0 1�DrT�!— RdL Ft T� ��? p jst�r•a t 3�t FROM Rc7? 747 0/-5 tautkre4b ALL CONSTR N MUST MEET OR EXCEED LOM CODES. IF ANY QMTNW:S PLEASE CALL Tws OFFICE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION APPROVED an"rimm WSKCM 4 S-AISI TING CABIN FRUNT ,E�/:VN7/UN 3 , S/O I N G T'PrYG c o.&/w APPROVED ` \ AMOK NNLDM INSPECT TO Arrm d-GRApE' - ReAR FL-,"VAr1oN GAR�AGC g r. '44,111 4 } \ \ . w : . �rzz�&G CABIN _ } :� ��5./�» .� Ffo*/` £(/VA /Z0 . ! m o Ltl a °Sao DZ H rs'USS Z G C, SD. RM. 2 l3D, RM / B.F. 01 B4TA o° yy 2-40 rLI? SOq sq Fr. 4a00,0 Z?eC T -- -,rxls,riNG 0,1', G s° sLLI 1/1• SLIP. oq, s JLQ APPROVED 2X6 2 y, ©.C. MASON MU MIP IM'U'm CiMM yisun=7Qmvmu `�J zx Al le"ac. C ove4 LlK .4M. BRDG• M/,O SPA EXJSrlNG GAG/N ir. ..y c.wG e. scc. tND. OP//R. TNr9r 44W W W oss" t{ CONC. WA LH PORrcA /Sr FLR 3 8 Y S p, FT 011 s. ,, . k coMPO, RooF TRUSS yz C.D?z. z'o.C. ys r.ox R-38 S/8t//f oveR 4suL. 7Yve- z- ;.X8 AS RCQ- R-2! //VSUL. GAR. /tOO F As /-?Lf ZQ.' `,T/B Di41 w STEPS ! Z�t2 j To GA/�. 2XC 3sr, 3/Y- /'a(,P[y CLU.1 NA/L GAR. / ac CONC CpAK. P•7.S/LL yX/1 GIRoeR UNoeR BCAR/N6 WALL `�13DL75 6'D,C YXq posT BAR r'e;a 8'• v/sOUCC�'+7 SeC:T/ON !/z ' _ /'o•' o,grve A y . y f s� e J �.r _ l�y�Sw SHORELINE EXEMPTION APPLICATION To: Mason County Planning Department From: Shoreline Exemption Applicant Re: Request for exemption from the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 and the mason County Shoreline Program of 1975, as amended. Owner: C. r�,;��.,. 5 Mailing Address: y �; •� � 0- City and State: ,� Phone Number: W 7 3 Zip Code: C,;�,yb Date: _ Q 6'- 7 / fl il Legal Description: W , 5-0 ` Q'� E ?ap i v Cy J o �— < , I ? �z 2,L1 R Reason for Exemption Request: �� ��� P ��74- i S Description of Work: / `,�, c..> ` / / ,` e .01 Contractor: � �CS redid `l �ta � .JL� ��?�•t� �7���v0 / Special Conditions (If any) : Class of Work (Check one) : New Addition Alteration Repair Move Remove CZher I certify that I am the current owner or lessee of the shoreland or tideland on which the permit is being sought. Please Include: 1. Site Plan 2. Vicinity Map If the proposal is for pier or dock development please fill out the reverse side. PIERS AND DOCKS Please read the Amended Mason County Shoreline Master Plan, Piers and Docks Section .16.200. Where will your pier or dock be located?: Lake Shoreline Ma--_F.ne Shoreline Ri -er Shoreline Are there existing docks within 100 feet of your side property lines? : Yes No If yes, pleace indica,e the average length of the existing structure(s). feet. In the space provided please draw a sketch of the proposal. and the existing piers or docko that are located within 100 feet of your side property lines. Show dimensions on the drawing. Also include a vicinity map. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES -�"� 6 Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206) 427-9670 building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water March 13, 1989 Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Carstensen NE22552 Highway 3 Belfair, WA 98528 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Carstensen: We do not have a list of residential contractors (just septic installers) . You may want to telephone the Department of Labor and Industries, 754-6807, to see if the contractors you are considering (as listed in the telephone book) are certified. In regards to the garage or residence being within the right-of-way of North Shore Road, you will need to be a minimum of 35 feet from the road centerline. Variances are not being granted by the Engineer's Office for any distance closer than the 35-foot minimum. If you have any questions, please telephone me 427-9670, Extension 360. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES GM/jh Encl. 47�`"(� �l�.C'��-�• /�(�-.�2.c' rJ.a.�:N.,,�-. G�i*u� V•2�;�a.��ct u�e-u� CHAPTER 7.28.020 r VARIANCES ll The purpose of a 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 . 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. 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; a 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 shoreline 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. 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 1-5 above, that: 6. l The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests 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. Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not r requests for variances, but rather requests for conditional uses. i 94 t Sid and Ruth Carstensen N . E . 22552 Hwy 3 Belfair , Washington 98528 PHONE : 275-5013 June 28 , 1989 Mason County Department of General Services Courthouse Annex 1 P . O . Box 186 Shelton , Washington 98584 Subject : Request for Variance in Setbacks - Legal Tract 9 of Gov Lot 2 S .E . Quarter of Section 17 Township 22 N . , Range 2 W . W .M . in Belfair , Mason County Washington PARCEL NO . 22217 12 00090 ATTN : Grace Miller Dear : Ms . Miller : My wife and I have owned this property for45 years . It has always been our intent to build our retirement home at this location . Over the years we have constructed a 161X20 ' cabin at this location . In order to protect the site from erosion by the tide we have also constructed a concrete reinforced bulkhead several years ago . As a result of the bulkhead and North Shore Rd . we have an area of 421X75 ' to construct our home with an attached garage . The site is further restricted in building area because there is an existing boat ramp that I would like to retain on one side of the property . Furthermore I have an existing septic tank and pump on the site that further limits the building area . See attached Plot Plan . The existing cabin on the site is presently on the property line on the west side of the site . The adjacent neighbor has no objections to constructing the proposed new home on the property line . However , our application for the sideyard variance is for one foot off the property line . This is acceptable with the neighbor to the west because their existing residence is 20 ' from this line . As a result of the above , this would leave me 14 ' on the East side of the lot less the boat ramp area of 8 ' which would provide me an area 6 ' wide for greenbelt . Because of the location of the septic system and the design of the home we had to request a variance from the shoreline setback to allow as much room as possible from the North Shore Rd . R .O . W . to allow for the construction of the garage at the site and off road parking . In addition without the side yard variance the site would be unbuildable or so critically restriced that it would be financially unfeasible to build . As you can see from the attached copy of the Mason County Tax Assessment the property is assessed as very valuable property and the taxes are high . Although I have property on the uphill side of North Shore Rd . it is so steep and unstable in certain areas that it is unfeasible to build on . Department of General Services ATTN : Grace Miller page 2 cont . As a result of the above , without the necessary variances to allow the construction of a home at this location I would suffer terrible financial losses because the site would not be buildable and therefore I couldn ' t even sell the property for a fraction of my present investment for improvements such as the well system , septic tank and drainfield system , bulkhead and boat ramp and the present cabin . Sincerely , Sid Carstensen Owner Encl : as stated Y P U bUx 42) � TAX STATEMENT I22217 '12 00090 S10 00N. WA 98584-0429 � 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LAND A.V. IMPA A.V. TOTAL A.V. fk 9 OF GOVTT L07 2 a TAX 1205 65,500 5,200 700700 F.P.ACREAGE 14.bE�185 � • , KEE TAXING DISTRICTS GROSS TAX SR.CITIZENS EXEMPTION r Q��MENT FIRE PATROL 02�- ISM NET TAX • 403 T P3 F2 L 994. 18 _ . "�: 994•�8�, THI USA .41 LOCAL .,r0 93 .61UINt" PORTIO �.35 3 .45 .80 - WHEN PAYING IN PERSA UR TAX DOLLAR IS DISTRIBUTED ON THE ABOVE BASIS Your canceled Check ,,mlf PAYMENTS RECEIVEO WIINOUT INTERESTIINOPENALTY WILL BE RETURNED is your receipt. BRING Ali PART- DELINOUENT TAX INFORMATI0111 SIDNEY D CARSTENSEN CARS4000 YR DELIN OUENT TAX FIRE PATROIL .i..�•''.t T HCR713 — 19 SUNSET BLVD HOOUTAM WA 98550 87 06 85 0, +ER LOAN 04 NUMBER i DELINQUENT AFTER APAiL 30.UNLESS 1ST HALF PAID INTEREST AND PENALTY CHARGED ON DELINO- , i TAXES TNO HALF TAXES DELN,OUEMT AFTER OCT 71 « • • • ' MASON COUNTY TREASURER SECOND HALF MASON COUNTY 7_ESHELTORENE RAE REAL PROPERTY N WA 985 48 a29 989 TAXSTATEMENT 12. 00090 P.O. BOX 429 �.� • E DESCRIPTION LAND A.V. 111IPR A.V. TOTAL A.Y. T'R 9 OF GOVT LOT 2 b TAX 1285 65,500 5,200 70,700 T F.I.ACREAGE LEVY 14*06185 FIRE PATRO 0258 TAXING DISTRICTS GROSS TAX SR.CITIZENS EXEMPTION �gEg { IBM NET TAX ,tt. 403 T F'3• F2 L 994.18 - �� �_ 99r T7— ---Il s; .. TAX FIRE PENJI SHOW AOPRFSS CHAWN BELOW YEAR 'TAX DUE%, PATROL TO: ' �69 TOTAL TAX 2nd HALF TAX. . L39 994.18 .00 994. 18 497,09 313 i 7 NO HALF PAYMENT 36 IF TAX IS LESS JELINOUENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED WITHOUT INTERESTTHAN IIKOO AND PENALTY WILL BE RETURNED • •'<•; S I DNE'Y. D CARSTENSEN CARS4000 for office use only-do nut wrft in f*NW HCR70 - 19, •SUNSET BLVII HOQUTAM WA 98550 S J ., LOAN ♦ h y•� i IER .r' ,` ' ti NUMBER. ) ,: -• � Ry' Alf TAXES DE6NOuEN7 AFTER OCT-31 INTEREST AND PENALTY CHARGED ON DELINQUENT , • PAYABLE TO MASON COUNTY TREASURER. a '• � +I .'!,� MASON COUNTY TREASWIEA FIRST HALF or FULL MASON COUNTY E V , DORENE RAE ' 1989 REAL PROPERTY 7,7 i ` P.O. 8OX 429 SHELTON. WA 985WO429 TAX STATEMENT 12 00090 e REAL PROPERTY DESCRIPTION � 1 'LANDA.V. IMPRA.V. JOTALA.Y. I'R 9 OF GOVT LOT 2 & TAX 1285 65,500 5,200 .70 700 F.P.ACREAGE LEVY 14*06185 -' TAXING DISTRICTS GROSS TAX SR.CITIZENS EXEMPTION r SES PATROL 01258 ISM NET TAX * ' 403 T P3 F2 L 994.18 l • 994.18 t TAX FIRE PENJINT�©9 SHOW ADDRESS CMAN�3E WOW YEAR TAX DUE PATROL TO: A TOTAL TAX 1 st HALF TAX 3y 994.IS .00 994. 18 497,09 13L3 (37 NO HALF PAYMENT � Lab r �• F TAX IS LESS )ELINOUENT PAYMENTS RECEIVED WITHOUT INTEREST AND PENALTY WILL BE RETURNED THAN 13001I S I DNEY U CARSTENSEN CARS40001 for office use only.do not write in WIOw specs I-If1Ik*'7S -- 1.9 SUNSET TII...4viri STRUCTURE PROPERTY SETBACKS Chapter 14.08.180 of Mason County Code Building setback fram property lines, right-of-way, or the closest projection shall be five (5) feet to said line. A variance may be granted to said line if a hardship can be shown and the adjacent property owner has no objection and is willing to incumber the deed to his/her property and to be recorded with the Auditor of Mason County a written statement on his property deed as follows: 1 &C I K P � -.1— yi "7 The property owner described (1 ) Legal Description 2 L r i o and the property adjacent (2) Legal. Description c`R i csi- ✓L' a ;xb� Y s been granted a variance of - _ feet to the Mason County property lin setback regulations. The variance shall be for the life of said structure or structures so located. Dated this f day of h,r , AD. Signed by property owner(s) . ' PROPER c L ADJACENT' PROPERTY OWNER STATE OF WASHINGTON) )SS. COUNTY OF ) On this day personally appeared before me, /OiVC� //��� �/��'5��5/ ir✓ to me known to be the individuals described in and executed a foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and ded, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal thi day of N-1x 19 9� -�-- - SEAL bJ=ARY PUBLIC in and for the Stag of Washsington, residing at Furthermore the variance so granted must be recorded on. the property deed of that parcel of property and a copy of the Auditor's Receipt returned to the Department of General Services. Reviewed by the Director of General Services � J Approved by Mason County Commissioners Director - - ®F 1G60W-1✓"4JC UAO-1 A MIE-, Cl/ 4ct so ,� 'W-k r� f co�- c PR �1 , w`i ............. c�2 ,Dccc�c- ( PI 4tkk, ox ��ncchcc,�+A , a- IiC4- Clk_%4,' V c)-cu, CA C-) w",\ c S Cat` �'�'� ( � - �,� 61-i '� -r- �-- � c,�-� C ? ac A August 17, 1989 To: Mason County Shoreline Advisory Hoard From: Mason County Planning Staff Subject: Variance Permit - Sidney Carstensen ADDENDUM The Planning Staff has further reviewed the Carstensen proposal with the Health Department and Public Works Department. According to Marley Young of the Public Works Department, septic tanks can be installed within 5 feet of the edge of the right-of-way as long as it is below grade. John Dennison of the Health Department concurs with this and has the following comments regarding the proposed retaining walls around the septic tank and the removable metal grate over the septic tank : -The lids to the septic tank and/or removable metal grate should be designed so as not to allow water to enter the septic tank . His suggestions include a culvert opening to the septic tank where the culvert opening would be raised above the water level and/or design the metal grate so no seepage is allowed through to the septic tank lids. His concern is that water could be trapped in this enclosure and inundate the drainfield . It appears that the proposed residence would not set a precedent because the majority of the homes in this area infringe on the shoreline setback . (Please note: in the staff report of July 17, 1989 the variance request was stated as 4' from the bulkhead . The correct distance of the variance request is O' from the bulkhead according to the submitted plans. ) The Public Works Department is checking the width of the right-of-way on this portion of North Shore Road . This information will be available by the time of the meeting . LM/ lm July 17, 1999 To: Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board From: Mason County Planning Staff Subject: Variance Permit - Sidney Carstensen STAFF REPORT I . INTRODUCTION. This report evaluates a proposal to construct a single family residence further waterward than the shoreline setback . II . APPLICANT. Sidney Carstensen . III . PROPERTY LOCATION. Tract 9 of Gov. Lot 2, Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 2 West, WM. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The proposal is to construct a 40' by 24' two story single family residence with attached garage approximately 4' landward of an existing bulkhead . V. EVALUATION. A. Characteristics of the site. The site is a residential lot with an existing cabin , deck , bulkhead and concrete boatramp. The lot is partially wooded and slopes gradually towards the bulkhead . There is a wood fence adjacent to the road. The portion of the lot on the water side of the highway where the construction is being proposed is 75' in length by 43' in width: 3,225 square feet total . B. Characteristics of the area. The surrounding lots are primarily residential with single family residences, decks, bulkheads, etc . The majority of these lots on the water side of the highway are proportionate to the proposed building site. Structures in this area are built right up to, if not over the bulkheads in some cases. The buildable area along this portion of North Shore Road is small ; the land slopes steeply towards the highway on the north side and slopes gradually, but quickly towards the water on the south side. C. Shoreline Designation . The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . Hood Canal is a shoreline of statewide significance. VI . SEPA COMPLIANCE. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on June 15, 1989. Mason County received no objections to this determination . VII . OTHER PERMITS. This proposal also requires a Mason County Building Permit, a Side Yard Setback Variance and a variance from the Dept. of Public Works. VIII . CONCLUSION. This proposal requires a Variance Permit because the proposed structure is to be located further waterward than the shoreline setback in the Urban Residential designation . Section 7. 16.080 of the Shoreline Master Program guides the development of single family residences and Section 7.28.020 guides the review of Variance Permit requests. Applicable use regulations include the following : -Residential development over the water is prohibited . -No fence or wall shall be erected , placed or altered nearer to the water than the building setback line, unless it is under 30 inches in height. -Construction of new dwellings shall be required to comply with current sewage system setback and design standards per WAC 248-96. -Criteria for residences constructed in the Urban designation is as follows: 1 ) shore setback of 15' , 2) side yard setback of 5' , 3) height limit 0-49 feet from the OHWM is 35' , 4) site coverage shall be no more than 60%, 5) minimum lot size 12, 500 square feet, 6) minimum lot width at the OHWM is 50' . -Variance Permits for proposed development may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: -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. -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. -The design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties of the shoreline environment. -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 public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Section 7.24.010 should also be considered during the review of this Variance permit request because Hood Canal is a shoreline of statewide significance. The proposed single family residence is to be located 4' landward of the existing bulkhead ; the minimum shoreline setback in this designation is 15' . The side yard setbacks are a minimum of 5' in this designation and on the east side of the property there will be 15' between the proposed structure and the side property line. On the west side of the property the proposed structure would be located immediately adjacent to the property line; there would be a side yard setback of 1 ' . The applicant has also applied for a side yard setback variance to construct the residence 1 ' from the property line. The Mason County Commissioners conditioned its approval on the Shoreline Variance. The single family residence will be approximately 32' high. It will cover approximately 1% of the total site area and approximately 50% of the site waterward of North Shore Rd . The approximate, total site area is 90,000 square feet and the approximate site area waterward of North Shore Rd . is 1 ,875 square feet. The minimum lot size in this designation is 12, 500 square feet and the minimum lot width at the OHWM is 50' . The width of the proposed construction site is approximately 75' . The right-of-way of North Shore Road is, 60.'` in width at this location . Construction being proposed adjacent to this right-of-way must be a minimum of 35'- ; from the center line. According to the submitted plot plan , the proposed residence will be located partially in the right-of-way. The existing septic system was approved by the Mason County Health Department and a final inspection was done on October 12, 1986. According to the submitted information , only the one sideyard setback is being complied with. There are portions of the Shoreline Master Program that the proposal is consistent with, however, because the majority of the setbacks are not in compliance according to the current proposal , the Planning Staff recommends denial of the Variance Permit request as it has been applied for, based on its inconsistencies with the Shoreline Master Program. IX . CHOICE OF ACTION. 1 . Approve Variance Permit request. 2. Deny Variance Permit request. 3. Conditionally approve Variance Permit request. 4. Postpone for further information . LM/lm SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING August 22, 1989 MINUTES 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. 2. Roll Call: Present- Earl Lincoln Absent - Bill Smith Dave McMillin Cal Poe Harry Martin Jay Hupp Robert Moyer 3. Approval of Minutes. Minutes were approved. Lenore Marken: Listed approvals and provisions of Dale Hoover's Conditional Use Permit. Public Hearings: Sidney Carstensen - Continuation from July 25, 1989 of Variance Permit request to construct a single family residence four feet (4') landward of the existing bulkhead. There was considerable discussion of the Shoreline Master Plan regarding setbacks versus the common line and the County right of way. Public: The commissioners approved the sideyard setback variance to the neighbors of Mr. Carstensen's property. Would it be in order for the board or staff to address a letter to the County Commissioners with whatever determination whether it should be a permit application for process or whether it was exempt from the shorelines permit application process and at least advise the County Commissioners so they will approve the setback variance? More discussion followed among the board whether the right of way boundary has been established. Public: I presented to Lenore Marken a letter by a surveyor who has done considerable surveying in the area. It appears based on the evidence submitted, that the county has no right of way other than what is operated and maintained by the county as far as the street. There is a letter, surveys'filed for record with that note on the survey. Mr. Nichols, a residence of the area, Mr. Carstensen and Mr Graham, who lives in the area, all have the same notes and statement on their surveys. It is the determination of Mr. Graham's licensed surveyor. Marley Young: The position of the county where we don't have record right of way we indicate the right of way is useage. In many cases useage is from brushline to brushline which would be further back from back ditch to back ditch because of our brushing activities. In many cases in North Shore that has a ditch on the landward side it would be at least to the back of that ditch. Not fog line to fog line. SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page two Marley Young: We are willing to stand on the fact that the county does not have record right of way in this location. We also suspect we may have found some right of way under what was called the Voight road much of what now could be under North Shore. Tonight for your purposes we'll stand on the fact that we have no right of way of record: qualified, deeded or dedicated by board action. As far as the limits from fog line to fog line, I disagree. My definition of what belongs to the county is to maintain furthest to the left, versus maintain furthest to the right. In many cases that includes brushing, mowing, ditch maintenance, etc. The distance can vary depending on what is maintained. The county has not been acquiring strips legally from residences. It has not been a process in twelve years on existing roads. If we rebuild then it's dollar for dollar, today's market, for the rights of way outside the limit we either show documents for or show maintenance of. Lenore Marken: Environmentally isn't that what setback is for? That through new development we want to protect the environment and that's what the 15' is for? Jay Hupp: That's the intent. The overriding consideration here is that you can't penalize one property owner, view wise, simply because of the previous location of adjacent houses on either side. The intent is to get all of it as far back off the beach as possible. But you do have to be reasonable. Earl Lincoln: Do we need to do anything further with the sideline? Lenore Marken: I've already talked to Mike Byrne about sideline setback. All we do now is take it before the commissioners for approval next Tuesday. Lenore Marken: I apologize to the applicant for the mis-determination that you needed a Shoreline Variance. I will process your permit as a regular building permit. Public: I apologize the the County Engineer. There was no intent to mislead. the board as far as the right of way. I would like the County Engineer to have a copy of that letter. Open discussion on continuing right of way misunderstanding. Ralph Seabloom - Variance Permit request to build a roof over an existing deck waterwar�CFie common line. Lenore Marken: Property location is E. 991 Mason Lake Drive East. Sunnyshore Lot 28 Section 5, Township 21 North, Range 2 West. The proposal is to construct a 10' by 16' porch cover over the existing deck waterward of the common line. The existing deck is 5' from the bulkhead and approximately 17' from the ordinary high water mark. (Pictures passed around) The site is a single family residence, garage, bulkhead and boat post. The deck to be covered is on the front of the house facing the water and is greater than 30" in height. The surrounding area is residential with single family homes on the majority of lots. There are residences and bulkheads on both adjacent properties. The residence to the right of the Seabloom's is approximately 41' from the ordinary high water mark and the residence to the left is SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page three approximately 35' back from the ordinary high water mark. The Seablocm residence is approximately 22' back from the ordinary high water mark. The shoreline designation is urban residential. The Determination of Non Significance was issued on July 13, 1989. Mason County received no objection to this determination. This proposal also requires a Mason County Building Permit. It requires a Variance Permit because the proposed construction is greater than 30" in height waterward of the common line setback. Section 7 16 080 guides the development of residential associated structures and Section 7 28 020 guides the review process of the Variance Request. According to the Shoreline Master Program structures should be designed and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences. It does not appear frcm the submitted plans and site inspections that views would be blocked or altered substantially. Mason County has not received any correspondence regarding the proposed structure from adjacent neighbors. The Planning staff believes the proposal will not set a precedent nor will it have a substantial detrimental effect on the public interest. However the applicant has not shown application of the dimensional standards in the Shoreline Master Program significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property. The Planning staff recommends the Variances be recommended for approval with the following conditions. Porch cover be reduced in size to not protrude further waterward than the deck. Lenore Marken: If they put the roof over this deck it will be further waterward than the other deck. Discussion follows on roof extension. Applicant being asked to cut back roof overhang by three feet. Mr. Seabloom and Lenore Marken discuss revisions. Questions asked regarding drip line. Drawings reviewed. Harry Martin: Moves Mr. Seabloom be able to take staffs' recommendation and rather than cut back 3', cut back 2' so drip line is not on rail. Cal Poe: Seconded motion. Motion carried. Ernesto Iuliano - Substantial Development and Conditional Use Permit requests to fill an approximately 100' by 100' area for access to oyster beds. Lenore Marken: This is a request for a Substantial Development and Condition Use Permit. The applicant is Ernesto Iuliano. Property location is East 990 Highway 302, Government Lots 1 and 2, of Section 17, Township 22 North, Range 1 West. The project description is to place approximately 300 to 400 cubic yards of gravelly sandy loam around an area approximately 25' by 100' . The site, upon inspection actually measures 75' by 100' by 50' by 75'. His first application said 100' by 100'. The next application was 25' by 100'. I do not believe he understands the shoreline permit process or what it is that's going on. ,' SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page four Lenore Marken: The fill is access to an oyster operation that was also changed since his previous proposal which was to put in fill for a parking area and a drainfield. He was told it was prohibited accorrding to the Shoreline Master Program. We posted a stop work order. Pictures passed around and discussed. Location discussed as being near Allyn. Lenore Marken: The site is a vacant lot with the exception of a shack located on the southern property line. A large portion of fill has been disbursed across the site with two large piles remaining in the middle. Wetland plants have been identified on the site. The surrounding area is residential with a few developed sites with single family homes but the majority of the area on the water side of Highway 302 is vegetated and mostly in its natural state. The shoreline designation is rural. Determination of Non Significance was issued on June 15, 1989. Mason County received no objections to this determination. This proposal may also require approval from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fisheries. The Army Corps of Engineers has been notified of the situation. I have not yet received their reply. This proposal requires a Substantial Development Permit because it is valued at more than $2,500 and a Conditional Use Permit because it is landfill on a biological wetland. Section 7. 16 ..130 of the Shoreline Master Program guides the placement of fill. Section 7 . 16. 020 guides aquaculture and Section 7. 28. 010 sets forth the policies by which to review a Conditional Use Permit. On several occasions staff from the Department of General Services has visited the site and determined that portions of it do support wetland vegetation. On August 1, 1989 Andy McMillin from the D.O.E. Wetlands Section and myself visited the site. Per the site visit and a letter from Andy McMillin dated August 2, 1989 it has been concluded that the site where the landfill has been placed is indeed wetlands. According to the Shoreline Master Program landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark or on biological wetlands. Two letters from the D.O.E. reiterate this. The clearing and filling were done without benefit of a shoreline permit and was clear from the Mason County Shoreline Master Program that this activity is prohibited. However landfill may be permitted as a Conditional Use-for aquacultural practices and water dependent uses where no upland or structural alternative is possible. It does not appear that an upland or structural alternative is impossible. On Monday I visited the site and walked around on his adjacent property. He owns both lots where the house is and the lot where the fill is being placed. There's a shack on the lot where the landfill is occuring. There's a path that goes to a huge pile of oyster shells and it looks like that's where they're doing it all. If they're bound to fill through the wetlands to get out to this location they would have to put in at least another load of the fill that's already in there to make the access reasonable all the way to that location. There's quite a bit more area of tidelands that goes out. I do not see anything that would preclude them frcm coming down that other side of the propoerty where his house is to get to the location. High tides do not come up over the fill, but the water does seep. (Pictures discussed.) Ground wet. Little inlets come in. Vegetation is salt water tolerant. Ground really wet. After digging holes, within minutes even through the fill water was coming up. Wetland plants coming back up through the fill. We recommend alternatives to a landfill be considered. The applicant has not proven SHORELINE ADVISORY BOARD August 22, 1989 Page five that there's not an upland structural alternative to what he proposes to do. The fill is for access, including access for a truck. D.O.E. wants area restored to natural state. It's the same for shellfish regulations. It has to be shown that there is no upland alternative. Landfills are prohibited waterward of the ordinary high water mark on biological wetlands. May be permitted for aquacultural practices (unable to hear tape due to more than one person speaking) . Dave McMillin: Apparently he does have the possibility for access on the adjacent property. Discussion of why Mr. Iuliano would have need for access for a truck. Possibly due to weight of oyster shells. Original intent was for parking area, then a house, then a septic system. The people doing the filling are septic installers and should have known better than that. Discussion of the absence of Mr. Iuliano at hearing. He was notified. Harry Martin: Maybe we ought to postpone this until next meeting and try to get Mr. Iuliano to attend. Lenore Marken: It is up to the applicant to come. He cannot be forced. Robert Moyer: What I 'm saying is he should be encouraged to attend. Motion made and seconded and approved to postpone for further information. Discussion of Mr. Iuliano appearance at next meeting. Telling him additional information is needed. Jack's Septic Service was contractor that put in fill. Lenore Marken: I feel that this one was possibly processed the wrong way too. A stop work should have been posted and the applicant told at the time to remove the fill that he was in violation without even asking him what his intentions were. The Shoreline Master Program will permit somebody to fill if the intentions comply with the Shoreline Master Program. How should I handle this kind of situation if it comes up again? Harry Martin: Don't you have to be awfully careful when you're near wetlands? Post a stop work order and make him come back to you. Discussion of possibility of new chairman or assistant for chairman. Next meeting to be held September 26, 1989. Meeting adjourned 8:25 P.M. MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES Mason County Bldg 111 426 W.Cedar P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584 (206)427-9670 building environmental health fire marshall parks & recreation fair/convention center planning November 29, 1990 Sid & Ruth Carstensen HE 22552 Hwy 3 Belfair, WA. 98528 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Carstensen, Enclosed please find the blueprints which were submitted and approved for your residence and garage. Please change the following information and initial the changes so that we will have a record for our file. 1 ) On overhead site plan, draw in actual distance from overhang of your garage to the side property line. Note: we need the distance from overhang of building and distance from foundation. The overhang can be shown as a dotted line and the foundation drawn as a solid line. 2) We also require a structural drawing of the garage and a side view of the garage showing the height of the residence in relation to the existing grade. Show foundation height and wall height. 3) Please show any additional changes which have been made in the structural drawings as well as the site plan. We look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES GM/encls. November 26, 1990 FINDINGS ON COMPLAINT RECEIVED FROM MR. & Mrs. Whalen F4UB ECT - Conatruction of residence and attached garage by Sid Carstensen -77A" North Shore Rd. , Belfair. i /-/.1+t Stop WOrk Order was removed from Sidney Castensen's property today at 12:00 p. m. by Grace Miller. Staff has reviewed the building permit and shoreline permit from 1989. After discussing the events which have occurred, staff has determined that the building permit which was issued on September 20, 1990 was valid and not issued in error. In August of 1969 the Mason County Shoreline Advisory Board determined that the Variance which Mr. Carstensen had applied for was not necessary and that Mr. Castensen could construct up to the existing bulkhead because the Mason County Shoreline Master states that if the residences within 50' of the proposal are forward of the common line, the setback may be relaxed and the applicant is able construct waterward of the minimum 15' setback. Lenore Marken, the shoreline planner at the time, informed the Board that the proposal would be processed as a building permit. Mr. Carstensen did not submit a building permit at that time. On August 29, 1990, one year later, Mr. Carstensen applied for a building permit to construct an addition to the cabin, new residence and attached garage. Don Brush of the Planning Department read the previous conditions in the building file and checked shoreline permit #89-26 for the findings. The building permit appeared to be consistent with the Shoreline Advisory Board decision for setbacks and therefore was issued on September 20, 1990. On Friday, October 26 1990, Mr. & Mrs. Whalen, who reside in the residence to the east of Mr. Carstensen, came into the Planning office and spoke with Grace Miller and Wayne Krause at the counter. The Whalens pointed out the discrepancy between the 4' setback from the bulkhead which was shown on the building permit plans and that Mr. Carstensen was indeed building closer to the bulkhead and closer to their side property line. The Whalens were also confused as to why Mr. Castensen was allowed to build all the way up to the bulkhead and that there was never a public hearing before the Commissioners where they could have expressed their concern that the garage was going to block their view from the residence. On Monday, October 29, 1990 Grace Miller and Wayne Krause conducted a site inspection to investigate the Whalen's complaint. Mr. Carstensen and Jerry Wright, the contractor were on the site setting the forms for the foundation. Grace pointed out to them that what they were constructing is not what the plans show and Wayne stated that the plans could be changed if it were o. k. with shorelines. Mr. Carstensen said that the Shoreline Advisory Board had given the o. k. and he did not understand why we were on the site. Tuesday or Wensday of that week, Mr. Carstensen called the building department for a footing inspection. Ed Piland did not conduct the inspection and the contractor poured the footings without the inspection. On Thursday, November 4, 1990 at the request of Grace Miller, Ed Piland posted a STOP WORK ORDER on the site. Grace Miller had been doing some further checking into the shoreline Variance file and observed that an access permit was required by the Elden Reed of the Public Works Dept. in 1989 before the Carstensens could obtain a building permit for the garage and that the septic system may be in the County right of way. Grace then informed the Carstensens that they would need to obtain this access permit before any more construction. Grace discussed Carstensen / Whalen complaint with the Commissioners in the briefings on November 19 and 26th. November 26, the Carstensens had a meeting with Mike Byrne. On Monday, November 19, 1990 the Public Works Dept. issued an access permit with conditions to the Carstensens. Mr. & Mrs. Carstensen came into Planning office and spoke with Grace wondering if the STOP WORK ORDER was going to be removed and when. November 29, 1990 Mr. Whalen called and spoke with Grace stating that the stop work was lifted, work is being done and the garage footings are within 4' of the side property line. Grace mailed Mr. Carstensen the blueprints to correct. Grace attempted to contact Ed Piland by radio to have him check the setback but could not reach him. There appears to also be a question as to where the property line is because the Carstensen plans show that the garage will be at least 10' from the side property line and Mr. Whalen is saying that it is only 4' . o ,. NH 06 N / I I.0 • z ^y - III I y ' _I i � r I � IT IA i r� � t Lol I t k { !ten r - O N V z V � Z:kc C4 U I I � I J vl ve lk � I � I 13 Z M N I // Z le `�(} .,• '�• ����,� `�p��Y��7�'.�r ,fit r�""�'�,1. �� IV - yLt :� ! 1�. P`�•'�����4-�:Nrt'��,}'-�" �i,Y�,1�y��Tl�L S�?' `i ►r4.i . 4 _.2 rT rIrk � 0 -71 rc .�W 4, r FROM Rop 0/.S auLkH'r.IA ALL CONSTRI JCTION MUST MEET OR EXCEED LOCAL CODES. IF ANY QUESTIORS PLEASE CALL THIS OFFICE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION APPROVED as" Bu l.m WSPECroR MNS SUBJECT APlROIIAI. � -1 1 � nip Y, �{F 'J���P ,• �� � �' ' +a � a fj,•1 bf�5�w r.:8,�'�r,' & DRfAIN FIELD HoRTH s Hw" 'i OP n ' z 4 c I pump wtrw flllll �. Ex56 I C.771W pAa 74 ' F b `Nc M GA RAG F- P. N , v i DE•G K c. - • ►---� C- . '-ire• t---- t - • �1 Z ' { 3 *¢A����'-fit' •! ��€•'� � ~��: ;,jg � ;�„ �_' .. .. / ',: k y . Gl n a z c� n ' a z. / / i Z /* or xlm,� 't � � k Z c� n J I 4 1 6y 0 o L!jnwN H /3U. R O s0a.F. 40 g.F. fL05, �� ' 2c 26 P.► S � y �.Acts3 J i CLO S, Pis _ n � o 1 � LNO. -- „ BATH N o . s . S.H. S. H. n -- _ y• o., 140 ALA soy sq. Fr. RAiI woo'o DCCK �-- ,tXISr/NG 0/( i ( o so .SLQ o 0 0 G SLD. D.Q. G S SLD. PLR, zXG s.y" O.C. MASON BUILDING INSPECTOR GMN F,S SUBECT TO APM"OYAL pate "/�1 C o ve,q ) A � EX/Sl'/NG CAL/N 3' , ' sec. f?Q &. //45 LNO. up // R, v, B.a,1., W.. 98528 c/-os COIVC. WA L/f pORTG/, /ST F1R, 3 8 'f Sq. FT, COMPO, Rocr TRUSS yZ`C.O.X. 21O. C. s/8�`//I /-2"C dl R 38 oyeR (NSUL, ryvey z- axe 145 /?eq 2%s" INS UL. �• 2 X d 2' O.C. -1/ /NSUL. %.2" ,ogy►NALL J GA fi, ROOF 1 .2- 2X/o ,4s 17of S/8 OR1 I I 2X12 2XG 3sT ro - 3/11" r46 PL y GL U.1 NA/,tL- GA 13. T11 N /mac. CONC y YS/LZ yX/.2 G/90(f UNUef? Bf1iRwcWALcrs e 'o.C. Wq Posr y BAR �eiA 8" V/SOUeCN /G., sec r/o/v d 44 -�- ,aw Ir 04, Ow gi F ��� a — - � �` '� � � �� - I• -_ - I,, � •.-.�h �-L ]L?may~ `- _ ^F _ r• - �~ - ~�. � . -" '� v • - MOM gall _ Y Jill to- Nn;