HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2013-00016 - DDR Letters / Memos - 5/16/2013 RESPONSES TO GARY & CELIA PARROTT LETTER received May 14, 2013.
Prepared by Allan Borden, DCD Planner // May 16, 2013
1) To assess potential site impacts, the Mason County Development Regulations
development standards call for building footprint limits of 3,000 sq. ft. A Special Use
Permit is needed to evaluate a requested building with an area of 3,000 sq. ft. or
greater. the public review process associated with the SUP enables citizen input and
makes modifications to the proposal possible.
2) A freshwater spring as a source for a year-round creek: Staff is not aware of
subsurface springs or an aquifer on the subject property. Is it possible that the
observations were made in the vicinity when surface water is flowing during high rainfall
events or extended periods of high rainfall ? The shoreline management area (SMA) is
along Hood Canal east of the subject parcel.
3) The soils of the property are Indianola loamy sands (identified as Ib on attached
map) that are excessively drained soils, resulting in droughty soils derived from loose
porous sands. These soils are in excess of 30 inches deep. Well construction logs will
characterize the occurrence and depth of any restrictive soil layers. Pre-treatment and
settling areas would be best to include in proposed stormwater and roof runoff
infiltration strategies.
4) A discussion of hazards present at the State Route 300 and Gladwin Rd. intersection:
traffic, volumes, vehicles backed up to turn at the intersection, and encounters with
pedestrians & bicyclists. It describes the worst-case scenario, which would need further
coordination of MC Public Works, WSDOT, and the applicant (see the WSDOT email).
5) Most of what is said in the conclusion points A to E are the beliefs of the writers.
Their input is much appreciated, and their comments are the crux of what needs to be
stated in the Special Use Permit public review process.
J
.� Lim 7
/j�'
EfK
r !v
I
P
23N T23NR1W
�P 9< Tn
2
2 Parma Ee P��\
I
Tn �
N
1 inch = 200 feet
W-.0.E
1 inch = 0 miles
S
Yam,. ` ,`� y��5,.� �3i "�t t �_ J � ••
-n
•Yr
y +r:Jq
4w . .,
♦y`
L Q ,�pt-• ,i!� �G_ f- R 'fir..• � w
iWA
44)
sr
All
`— 'CO »s
AO
AW
IK
AT
011,
- „� ,aj f,�,� `�, a ..,' a �� �,7� .�;,,r;F 'S�"1t�`@�• 4� �%�"r a,s.
.a
T23NR1W
�✓ ,�.yam.,•. ;%�� �� (^�(�� ^"�"..4'w !������� n ,
4*
71,
N
Su�V� 1 inch = 200 feet
1 inch = 0 miles
S tV
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO CONSIDER:
For a non-residential land use such as a proposed church, certain setbacks and buffer
areas are required. These standards are typically more restrictive than the setback
standards of the Rural Residential zone. The Mason County Development Regulations
provided for land use classifications (Sec. 17.03.034; pg. 24) to determine land use
intensities. Using the use intensities for the proposed land use and comparing it to
adjacent land uses, Figure 17.03.036 is used to determine the proper bufferyard; and
the bufferyard standards (Figure 17.03.037 and Figure 17.03.038) are specified for the
proposed building in the development. These four figures are attached.
1
- 30 -
Illustrations of Berms & Fences
Figure 17.03.037
FENCES BERMS
Symbol Height Material Symbol Height Material
Fi 44" Bi 4' Earth
B2 5'
Wood Picket Bs 6'
Fz 4811
Wood Rail
Berm Height
Fs 6'
F4 8' BERM WALLS
Wood Stockade
BW1 4'Berm w/6'Masonry Wall
BW2 5'Berm w/7'Masonry Wall
BWs 6' Berm w/8'Masonry Wall
F5 6'
Less Intensive I More Intensive
F6 8'
Masonry Wall
(Poured Concrete,Cement
Block,Brick,etc) -
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009
- 31
FIG. 17.03.038
BUFFER YARD STANDARDS
Bufferyard A Bufferyard B Bufferyard Bufferyard D Bufferyard E Bufferyard F
C
Buffer Width 5' 10, 15, 20' 25' 50'
STRUCTURE no no No F3 or B 1* F4 or B2* F5 or B3*
REQUIRED
PLANT UNITS/100'
CANOPY TREES 0.6 1 2 3 4 8
DER STORY TREES 1 2 4 6 6 12
SHRUBS 0 3 6 9 24 48
EVERGREENS 0 1 0 0 0 12 1 24
* see FIGURE 17.03.037 for structure details.
Figure 17.03.039
Plant Material Types
Plant Material Type Planting in Buffer Yards All Other Plantings
abutting Vacant Lands
Canopy Tree (Deciduous)
Single Stem 1 'h inch caliper 2 inch caliper
Multi-Stem Clump 6 feet height 8 feet height
Under story Tree (Deciduous) 4 feet height 6 feet height
Evergreen 4 feet height 6 feet height
Shrub
Deciduous 1 gal(15 inches height) 2 gal(24 inches height)
Evergreen 1 gal(12 inches height) 2 gal(18 inches height)
NOTE: These requirements refer to the minimum size of plant materials at the time of planting.
MASON COUNTY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS June 2,2009
NEWLY RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM Washington State Dept. of Transportation
WSDOT suggest a traffic study to help assess potential impacts on traffic by the
proposed church; or an intersection re-alignment of Gladwin Rd. with State Route 300 to
improve sight lines along SR300 and lessen the change in grade along Gladwin Rd. The
comments also state that the access to the property should be moved farther west on
Gladwin Rd., rather than proposing a new access point along State Route 300. The
current intersection alignment does not permit safe left turns from Gladwin Rd. to
SR300. No road or shoulder improvements by WSDOT are anticipated along SR300.
WSDOT suggests an on-site meeting to go over alternatives if the intersection changes
are pursued.
�2r� IN
Ci�d�tct�tillPil g ol0
AD Ir -rI-?T
e
o9 Auo�-roc(
f tZC�2-
a
coif-��f-
2.3A9
��cr a�T
S��b66 AD-r aueezeaW - �
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
From: Allan Borden
To: Phil Olbrechts
Date: 5/21/2013 11:17 AM
Subject: Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
CC: Allan Borden; Celia Parrott; Dave Clevenger; Debbie Johnson; Gary Pa...
Attachments: DDR2013-00016 WSDOT comments.pdf
Phil 01brechts:
Regarding the recent comments submitted to Mason County during the review of the Special
Use Permit DDR2013-00016 and included in my email of May 17, 2013, the agent (Richard
Moore) for the Iglesia Asamblea Church is concerned about the WA Dept. of Transportation
comment email that points out their issue of the Gladwin Rd. intersection with State Route
300, particularly the angles and the change in grade on Gladwin Rd.; or the need for a traffic
study in the vicinity to verify existing patterns and expected traffic with a new church land
use. Either of these comments will take time to pursue; but Dale Severson of WSDOT, who
authored the May 15, 2013 email is not available to discuss until Tuesday May 28th.
Mr. Moore has asked Mason County to request a one-week extension of comment timeline to
June 4, 2013 in order to discuss the traffic and road comments with WA Dept. of
Transportation and / or Mason County Public Works and have the opportunity to arrive at
some solution.
Issues yet to address are:
- the effectiveness of a professional traffic study to note use by vehicles and pedestrians in
the vicinity, state observed problems and present traffic solutions;
- what is potential safe access onto State Route 300 that would help traffic safety with
suitable driveway and shoulders;
- how to address the Gladwin Rd. State Route 300 intersection through realignment or
change in grade, which would be a mostly Mason County Public Works issue.
Due to these concerns, please consider the request of Richard Moore for a one-week
extension of comment timeline to June 4, 2013 in order to discuss the traffic and road
comments and present some solutions to address public / agency comments.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/519B5 7DAMasonmai11001626A681... 5/21/2013
RECEIVED
MAY 2 u 2013
May 20, 2013 MCC D - PLANNING
Mason County Hearings Examiner,Special use permit#DDR 2013-0016, Iglesia Asamblea church
Mr.Olbrechts;
I am in receipt of Mr. Borden's email dated 5-17 AM with the WSDOT comments, Mason County buffer standards
andhis response to Gary and Celia Parrott's comments.As a party of record I would like to offer following
comments.
WSDOT response: I recall that you asked Mr. Borden to also contact Mason County Public Works.WSDOT suggests
a traffic study. I would suggest that this special use permit application be deferred until Mason County public
works comments and applicant completes a traffic study of all Gladwin neighborhood roads in question and that
the existing use of Iglesia Asamblea church at its current location be considered in the study to establish some
baselines. I went by the church,at its current location, Sunday evening and counted 78 vehicles in the parking lot!
WSDOT also suggests a change in grade at the intersection of Gladwin and SR-300! This will be virtually
impossible. I do agree that a site visit would be reasonable if the applicant intends to pursue special use permit
after a traffic study. If this permit were granted I think the existing level of service, (LOS),would be dramatically
reduced and further jeopardize public health and safety. Placing access to the property further to the west on
Gladwin road would require a rather substantial upgrade to road as the unmarked road is currently used by State
Park visitors and bicyclists as a safer alternative to Highway 300. In addition Mason County Transportation
Improvement Program Citizen Advisory Program, (TIP-CAP),does not have Gladwin road improvements on their
annual or 6 year plan.
Buffer standards:These standards are being revamped as part of the Shoreline master program update.
Admittedly these standards are more restrictive however Mason County's ability to enforce any conditions you
might impose are limited.As I testified at the hearing on the 14th Mason County is in the process of updating its
shoreline master program and the map that was entered into the record shows that%the property falls into an
environmental designation of"Consevation".Any new access would result in a conflict with the"no net loss"
policy and would require significant and expensive offsite mitigation.
Parrott's comments:As long time residents of the area their testimony should be given great weight and value
when considering this proposal.They have been humble stewards of their own property as well as the Great
Peninsula Conservancy properties adjacent to Lynch Cove for many years. In 1988 they received the Hood Canal
Environmental Achievement award from the Hood Canal Coordinating Council.
In conclusion given the close proximity to the Hood Canal and the exisiting urbanized character of the neighboring
properties to the South and West, I think the property should be limited to RR-5 with no special use permits issued
for the property. I remain concerned that the applicant would "outgrow"any new church. (As I mentioned earlier I
counted 78 vehicles at their current site).Any further growth or expansion would quite possibly result in another
change in ownership and a potential rezone to more intensive use.
Thank you,
Ken VanBuskirk
61 NE Davis Farm Road
Belfair
Page 1 of 1
Allan Borden - RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
From: celia parrott <prairieowl@hotmail.com>
To: Allan Borden <ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 5/17/2013 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
Mr Borden,
Would you please, cogently, synopsize the buffer zone information sent to all of us, so we truly are
sure which category
and buffer allowments go with churches. Wouldn't the buffer allowment HAVE to be larger for an
8,000 sq ft building?
With appreciation and thanks, beforehand!
Celia Parrott
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:27:05 -0700
From: Ahb@co.mason.wa.us
To: olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
CC: Ahb@co.mason.wa.us; dukeof@hctc.com; prairieowl@hotmail.com; southshore@q.com;
garyparrott@yahoo.com
Subject: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
Phil Olbrechts:
Please find the information in response to the questions that came up in the May
14,2013 public hearing for the DDR2013-00016 Special Use Permit for Iglesia
Asamblea church in Belfair. The information is in attached three PDF documents
regarding the comments of Celia & Gary Parrott, WS Dept. of Transportation,
and buffer standards used for proposed development in Mason County. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide this information for your consideration on this
permit request.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 365
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/519631 ADMasonmaiI l... 6/3/2013
/o/e
Pagel of 3
Allan Borden - RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
From: Gary Parrott <garyparrott@yahoo.com>
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>, celia parrott
<prai ri e owl @h otm a...
Date: 6/3/2013 6:48 PM
Subject: RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
CC: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, Ken Van Buskirk
<dukeof@hctc.com>, Ri...
Dear Allen,
Thank you for your detailed explanation of building setbacks and buffers. I can see you did a lot of work on your
part. I appreciate it.
No mention however is made regarding required setbacks from the intertidal saltmarsh.
Back in September of 1986, Mason County was considering another proposal for this property. You'll find it it in
your files under"Scenic Shores Condominium". At that time, County and Ecology were concerned with
maintaining a 200' setback buffer from the intertidal saltmarsh in accordance with the Shorelines Master Plan. The
applicant submitted a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in connection with his proposal.
Department of ecology made a site visit to determine the margin of the canal. They staked out the high tide limit
based on vegetation and photos of actual high tides. Ecology established that Gladwin Road marks the edge of
the Saltmarsh for setback purposes.
The Scenic Shores Condominium was ultimately denied, but County insisted at that time that any construction
had to be 200 feet back from the SE margin of Gladwin Road. Is that determination still in effect?
The line of high tides has been recently established by the engineering done for the nearby Klingel Wetlands
Restoration. This datum can be used to determine the upward limit of high tides and the extent of the wetlands.
In reviewing the 1986 application, I notice the applicant claims the property is 4.16 acres.
What exactly is the size of this parcel?
Thank you,
Celia and Gary Parrott
--On Mon, 6l3/13, Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>wrote:
From: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
To: "Phil Olbrechts" <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>, "celia parrott" <prairieowl@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Allan Borden" <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, "Ken Van Buskirk" <dukeof@hctc.com>, "Richard Moore"
<southshore@q.com>, "Gary Parrott" <garyparrott@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, June 3, 2013, 3:17 PM
Celia Parrott:
In regard to the Development Regulations standards that include setbacks and buffer areas, a person
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/51 ACE50AMasonmail... 6/4/2013
From: Allan Borden
To: Phil Olbrechts; celia parrott
CC: Allan Borden; Gary Parrott; Richard Moore; dukeof@hctc.com
Date: 6/3/2013 3:17 PM
Subject: RE: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
Attachments: DDR2013-00016 buffer standards.pdf
Celia Parrott:
In regard to the Development Regulations standards that include setbacks and buffer areas, a person
would start with the setbacks called for in the zone designation for the subject property. The proposal of
the subject property is on a parcel zoned Rural Residential 5. Under that zone, a church is a permitted
land use and subject to special permit use review. In addition, the church building(s) are buildings of non-
residential land use. Front yard setback is a distance of 25 feet from the road or easement and applied to
all development proposed (Sec. 17.04.223.C.). Side and rear yard setbacks are distances from the
development to those property lines, and non-residential land use buildings need a 25-foot setback (Sec.
17.04.223.D.). The subject property is a roughly triangular parcel, and front yard setbacks are along
Gladwin Rd. and State Route 300 and a side yard setback is along the west property line.
Buffers are set forth by a review of several tables in the Development Regulations. In Fig. 17.03.034
Classification of Land Uses, find the potential land use and adjacent land uses and note the Category
Number of those land uses. The find Fig. 17.03.036 for the buffer yard requirements between adjacent
land uses and associated land use categories; the require buffer yard is a roman numeral label. For
example, a church is a land use category II, and an adjacent single-family residence on a 0.50 acre
property is category III. Fig. 17.03.036 for the buffer yard requirements shows that a category II crossed
with category I II is a category B buffer yard. Then in Fig. 17.03.038 Buffer Yard Standards, category B
buffer yard has a 10-foot deep vegetation buffer with certain canopy & understory trees and shrubs.
The buffer yard stated above is applied to the required development setback from front yard and side
yard property lines. Our example has a 10-foot deep buffer yard needed along the property line (closest
to the property perimeter) and has the building or buildings setback 25 feet depth from the property line.
When a development is proposed, these standards will be implemented.
Allan Borden
Planner- Long Range & Site Inspection
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360)427-9670 ext. 365
>>> celia parrott<prairieowl(cD_hotmail.com> 5/17/2013 1:33 PM >>>
Mr Borden,
Would you please, cogently, synopsize the buffer zone information sent to all of us, so we truly are sure
which categoryand buffer allowments go with churches. Wouldn't the buffer allowment HAVE to be larger
for an 8,000 sq ft building?
With appreciation and thanks, beforehand!Celia Parrott
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 10:27:05 -0700
From: Ahb(o)-co.mason.wa.us
To: olbrechtslaw(c�gmail.com
CC: Ahb(a--)co.mason.wa.us; dukeof(n�_hctc.com; prairieowl hotmail.com; southshore(o)g.com;
garyparrott(c)yahoo.com
Subject: Additional information for DDR2013-00016 church SUP review
Page 1 of 2
Allan Borden - Re: Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
From: "Ken and Peggy" <dukeof(a,hctc.com>
To: "'Allan Borden"' <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 5/22/2013 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
CC: "'Gary Parrott"' <garyparrott@yahoo.com>, "Celia" <prairieowl@hotmail.com>
Allan we were given a deadline to respond to your comments by the 21st. Has the applicant and Mr. Olbrecht
been given our comments?
When available can all the parties of record recieve a copy of transcript of the discussions between the applicant
and WSDOT and/or Mason County Public Works?
thank you, ken
----Original Message ----
From: Phil Olbrechts
To: 'Allan Borden'
Cc: 'Dave Clevenger' ; 'Ken Van Buskirk' ; 'Celia Parrott' ; 'Richard Moore' ; 'Debbie Johnson' ; 'Gary Parrott'
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
Extension to June 4, 2013 granted. Feel free to request additional time if needed.
From: Allan Borden [ma ilto:Ahb@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:18 AM
To: Phil Olbrechts
Cc: Allan Borden; Dave Clevenger; Ken Van Buskirk; Celia Parrott; Richard Moore; Debbie Johnson; Gary
Parrott
Subject: Request for Additional Review Time for DDR2013-00016 church SUP case
Phil Olbrechts:
Regarding the recent comments submitted to Mason County during the review of the
Special Use Permit DDR2013-00016 and included in my email of May 17, 2013, the agent
(Richard Moore) for the Iglesia Asamblea Church is concerned about the WA Dept. of
Transportation comment email that points out their issue of the Gladwin Rd. intersection
with State Route 300, particularly the angles and the change in grade on Gladwin Rd.; or
the need for a traffic study in the vicinity to verify existing patterns and expected traffic
with a new church land use. Either of these comments will take time to pursue; but Dale
Severson of WSDOT, who authored the May 15, 2013 email is not available to discuss until
Tuesday May 28th.
Mr. Moore has asked Mason County to request a one-week extension of comment timeline
to June 4, 2013 in order to discuss the traffic and road comments with WA Dept. of
Transportation and / or Mason County Public Works and have the opportunity to arrive at
file:///C:/U sers/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/519C6DE7Masonmail 1001626A681... 5/22/2013
Page 1 of 8
Allan Borden - Special use permit#DDR 2013-0016, Iglesia Asamblea church public comments
From: Gary Parrott <garyparrott(a,yahoo.com>
To: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>, Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>
Date: 5/20/2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Special use permit#DDR 2013-0016, Iglesia Asamblea church public comments
CC: Allan Borden <Ahb@co.mason.wa.us>, Ken Van Buskirk<dukeof@hctc.com>, Ce...
Dear Mr. Olbrechts and Mr. Borden,
Please enter this reply to Mr. Borden as my Supplemental Comments of Public Record regarding the application
for the Church SUP review DDR2013-00016.
Dear Mr. Borden,
Thank you for your response to my previous comments.
I wish to respond individually to your 5 answers:
First, however, I want to introduce myself and explain my qualifications to comment knowledgeably about this
property and the adjacent saltmarsh immediately seaward of this property.
In 1980, 1 purchased the adjacent residential property across Gladwin Road from the proposed development. My
10 acre property across Gladwin consists primarily of pristine saltmarsh waterfront including portions of the
freshwater spring I mentioned in my comments.
The previous owner of this property was Elmer Beard whose family owned and farmed this property since the turn
of the century. Before Elmer's death in the late 1980's we were intimate friends. Elmer was born on this property
in 1900 and lived his whole life on this property. He shared his precise recollections of his long residence on this
property. I have added my 33 years living here to form a 130 year history of the saltmarsh. Our combined
knowledge and personal experience form the basis for the biological, hydrological and traffic comments that I
make.
I have a degree in biology and have been a lifelong naturalist. My wife and I bought this property because of our
interest in the saltmarsh and our desire to have a marshland laboratory close at hand. I have been personally out
on that saltmarsh on a daily basis.
Since taking up residence on Gladwin Road, my wife and I have worked to actively preserve the Lynch Cove
estuary and the saltmarsh adjacent to the proposed development parcel. In 1985 we founded the Hood Canal
Land Trust which preserved for perpetuity over 100 acres of this saltmarsh for benefit of the Canal and the
community. The Hood Canal Land Trust later merged with the Great Peninsula Conservancy which now owns and
preserves a large portion of the saltmarsh and shoreline from the Lynch Cove Park to the Union River.
My comments on this development are in keeping with my committment to protect the saltmarsh and shoreline
adjacent to the proposed Church. I have a further motivation to insure the safety of Gladwin Road and it's
intersection with SR 300.
Your Comment:
1) To assess portintial site impacts, the Mason County Development Regulations development standards call for
building footprint limits of 3,000 sq. ft. A special Use Permit is needed to evaluate a requested building with an
area of 3,000 sq. ft. or greater. The public review process associated with the SUP enables citizen input and
makes modification to the proposal possible.
My Comment: I agree.
Your Comment:
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/519A5489Masonmai11001626A681... 5/23/2013
Page 2 of 8
2)A freshwater spring as a source for a year-round creek: Staff is not aware of subsurface springs or an aquifer
on the subject property. Is it possible that the observations were made i the vicinity when surface water is flowing
during high rainfall events or extended periods of high rainfall? The shoreline management area (SMA) is along
Hood Canal east of the subject parcel.
My Comment:
The observation of the spring and the creek were not made during high rainfall events. These observations span
more than a century of direct observation by Elmer Beard and/or myself. John Griffiths homesteaded this property
in 1989. He constructed a dike around this saltmarsh to keep out the Canal tides. However this strong, all-
purpose spring presented an engineering problem. Griffiths knew that without his intervention, the spring's output
would soon fill with freshwater the impoundment he'd created by diking out the tide.
To solve this problem, he laboriously buried a 6"terra cotta pipeline from the spring to the dike which would
discharge the freshwater through a tidegate. Today, only faint remnants of Griffith's dike remain, but his buried
terra cotta pipeline from the spring still carries an impressive flow into the creek.
Your question is a good one, but a direct site visit to the property will provide an indisputable answer. Wear your
hip boots, wade out into the spring and observe the flow. Then find the terra cotta outlet...(It immerges from under
a log)...and witness the flow. Note: there are additional flows from the spring which now bypass the terra cotta and
supplement the stream flow into the canal.
Then, starting at the shoreline, wade up the stream until you reach the terra cotta. The water is deep and the flow
is impressive. It all comes from the spring. Do this at whatever season or in whatever rain cycle you please. A hip-
boot reconnaissance will answer the question you pose.
Your Comment says"Staff is not aware of subsurface springs or an aquifer on the subject property".
I stipulate that the spring is NOT on the subject property. My original comment stated:
"It is rarely mentioned that immediately BELOW the proposed development site there exists a major freshwater
spring...". and "The proposed site sits directly OVER the above spring".
By BELOW and OVER, I'm referring to topographical elevation. The spring's outlet is directly ACROSS Gladwin
Road from the proposed development and at a LOWER elevation.
Nobody knows the hydrology of this spring and the source if its flow, but without further investigation, it's
reasonable to surmise that it comes under Gladwin Road from the subject property. My whole point is that UNTIL
we know this hydrology, we should not consider a granting an SUP which could effect this important nearby spring
downslope from the development.
Furthermore the majority of the spring outlet is on property recently purchased by the Dept of Fish and Wildlife.
Certainly WDFW, as property owner and protector of fish resources, should have some input on the wisdom of the
applicant's proposal.
Your Comment:
3) "The soils of the property are Indianola loamy sands (identified as lb on attached map) that are excessively
drained soils, resulting in droughty soils derived from loose porous sands. These soils are in excess of 30 inches
deep. Well construction logs will characterize the occurrence and depth of any restrictive soil layers Pre-treatment
and settling areas would be best to include in proposed stormwater and roof runoff infiltration strategies".
My Comment:
We know from "as-built" logs of wells along Gladwin Road is that borings in this area are inconsistent from well to
well. The soil map you reference is less reliable than actual nearby well logs. The well logs should take
precedence. As you say, the "restrictive soil layer' is of utmost importance. You cite from the Soil Map,
"excessively drained soils, resulting in droughty soils derived from loose porous sands. These soils are in excess
of 30 inches deep".
However, a direct test bore done by Elmer Beard many years ago suggest the subject property is a giant sand hill
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/519A5489Masomnail 1001626A681... 5/23/2013
Page 3 of 8
with porous soils in excess of 30 feet. Elmer was looking for a "Restrictive soil layer" and ran out of drill pipe
before he found one. This is a direct observation, not a soil map supposition. When a direct observation
contradicts a supposition, the discrepancy should be resolved. Before authorizing significant development on this
site, a test well should be drilled to determine without a doubt, the soil composition and the depth of the restrictive
layer. How could a stormwater runoff plan be evaluated without this critical information?
Your Comment:
4)A discussion of hazards present at the State Route 300 and Gladwin Rd. intersection: traffic, volumes, vehicles
backed up to turn at the intersection, and encounters with pedestrians & bicyclists. It describes the worst-case
scenario, which would need further coordination of MC Public Works, WSDOT, and the applicant (see the
WSDOT email).
My Comment:
I don't understand what you mean by "It describes the worst-case scenario)". I don't think I described the"Worst
case scenario". I think I described the day-to-day, hour-to-hour hazard of that intersection as it exists today. There
are presently two private driveways at the acute"Y" between SR 300 and Gladwin Beach road. It is dangerous to
make a sharp right hand turn from Northbound SR 300 onto Gladwin Road, but it is not prohibited. People
routinely make the turn by swerving into the opposite lane on Gladwin.
There are visibility issues to the left when Gladwin traffic pulls out onto SR 300. There are also visibility issues for
Southbound SR 300 drivers entering the dip at Gladwin Road. There is the difficulty of making a Left turn onto
Gladwin Road from SR 300 due to high traffic volume on SR 300. This increases yearly with development.
The applicant suggests on his site drawing that he contemplates adding a church Entrance/Exit directly opposite
the two existing driveways at the "Y". This Church driveway would discharge churchgoers en masse after every
service or function. According to the Applicant's drawing, there would be 3 driveways on Gladwin within several
yards of the "Y". A few yards further north at the "Y", you encounter the Entrance/Exit driveway to Pat's Red Barn
Restaurant, also at the "Y".
That makes 4 driveways at a semi-blind oblique"Y" intersection. DOT needs to visit this location with a tape
measure, speed gun, and time-lapse camera before Staff puts any more time and money into this access
proposal.
I did not describe a worst-case scenario in my original comment. The"Worst Case Scenario" is what the applicant
is suggesting and the county is considering.
I have worked for many years as a safety expert in the offshore oil industry. "Worst Case Scenarios" are the
starting point in safety engineering. We identify the "Worst Case Scenario" and then we implement procedures
and designs to prevent the"Worst Case Scenarios"from happening. When we fail to engineer for"Worst Case
Scenarios"we end up with the BP Oil Blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
Your Comment:
5) Most of what is said in the conclusion points A to E are the beliefs of the writers. Their input is much
appreciated , and their comments are the crux of what needs to be stated in the Special Use Permit public review
process.
My Comment:
In fact ALL of what is said in points A to E are the beliefs of the writers. I tried to be informative by specifically
drawing your attention to the spring of which the county was unaware. I appreciate that the county can't be aware
of all local issues. That's what public comment is for and that's the spirit in which I offered my beliefs and
observations.
I would be surprised if anyone at County would disagree with my beliefs A to E. I simply identified the"Potential
Concerns"to be considered before authorizing this development. Hydrological, Ecological and Safety. If you think
any of these points are not worth considering, please specifically inform me which one you disagree with.
There a few other concerns I have regarding the issuance of an SUP to the Applicant.
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwi se/519A5489Masonmai 11001626A681... 5/23/2013
Page 4 of 8
1. WDFW recently purchased the Saltmarsh property directly across Gladwin Road from the proposed
development. They did this to preserve habitat and to provide a public waterfowl hunting site to local shooters.
Public Shooting is a fast dwindling recreational resource to a growing local population. The applicant is now
proposing building a church on the property adjacent to this hunting property. Church services are held on
Sunday Mornings. Duck hunters choose Sunday mornings to shoot. Will there a potential conflict looming
between silent prayer and booming 12 gauges on Sunday mornings? Has the congregation even considered this?
Will this raise an issue in the future which could result in the reduction of hunting opportunities? Certainly WDFW
should have a comment on this issue.
2. County is now considering granting an SUP to create a church and a parking lot on the site. I question what will
happen in the future should this go forth. Churches come and go. Will this church and parking lot be saleable to
another church when this one moves on or goes out of business? If no other church wants to purchase the
property will the County be forced to grant yet another SUP in order for the church to be sold as some kind of
commercial entity. Failure to move the ownership of the church from one church to another would present the
County with a dilemma. Without someone using the 8,000 sq ft building and huge parking lot, it would become a
White Elephant and a law enforcement problem in this isolated area.
If a church buyer couldn't be found, what kind of enterprise would buy the property? County would be facing a
new rezoning applicant and a new lawyer. On the other hand, if a variance were granted for a single family home
on the property, no such problem would exist. It would be a single family residence for generations.
Since the failure to sell this property from one church to another would result in a local White Elephant on a hill,
some County consideration should be given to the saleabilty of this property from one Church to another, or for it's
conversion to another entity. Once the church project is completed, going back to a single-family residence would
be impractical.
Negatives for selling the property to another church: Residents (ourselves included), have found the traffic noise
from SR 300 to be nearly intolerable. Screaming sirens, rolling thunders of Harleys, Jake Brakes on trucks coming
down the grade are a constant din. Shotgun blasts during duck season add to the noise. It gets progressively
worse. Will another church put up with this?Will this church put up with it for long? Have they even considered it?
Having lived 33 years at this location, I should mention that crime has risen alarmingly in this community. I have
had one car stolen from my driveway. And another one broken into in an attempt to steal it. At the proposed outlet
for the Church, several stolen cars have been abandoned. Closely up Gladwin Road there's an isolated house in
the woods. Whenever it has been occasionally unoccupied, it gets broken into repeatedly. Would a church and
parking lot largely hidden from public view become a policing problem for our law enforcement or become a
magnet for local trouble-makers?
3. Local residents have felt protected by the RR 5 designation. Some have bought homes here relying on the
County's consistency in enforcing the RR5 restrictions. County's granting an SUP on both lot size and intensive
use will set a precedent sure to be noticed by investors and developers.
4. Has the applicant made a plausible case that the variance he seeks will benefit the surrounding community
more than a single family residence would? The applicant invested in this property after the RR 5 went into effect.
Is there any case for"Hardship" here? If the answer to both of those questions is "NO", then why is the County
considering this variance from RR 5?
5. Currently Gladwin road acts as an added resource to the Belfair State Park. It enhances the State Park
experience. It is a natural, scenic walk of a mile distance from the Park to a pleasant destination, Pat's Red Barn
Restaurant and to the Great Peninsula Conservancy's Klingel Weltlands Wildlife Refuge. It's a route constantly
enjoyed by many park visitors, with their toddlers and dogs in tow.
A plan for the preservation of this quiet, walking, biking trail for State Park Visitors should be included County's
consideration of this SUP.
Thank you for receiving our public comment on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Gary and Celia Parrott
file:///C:/Users/ahb/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/519A5489Masomnai11001626A 681... 5/2 3/2013
May 20,2013
Mason County Hearings Examiner,Special use permit#DDR 2013-0016, Iglesia Asamblea church
Mr. Olbrechts;
I am in receipt of Mr. Borden's email dated 5-17 AM with the WSDOT comments, Mason County buffer standards
andhis response to Gary and Celia Parrott's comments.As a party of record I would like to offer following
comments.
WSDOT response: I recall that you asked Mr. Borden to also contact Mason County Public Works.WSDOT suggests
a traffic study. I would suggest that this special use permit application be deferred until Mason County public
works comments and applicant completes a traffic study of all Gladwin neighborhood roads in question and that
the existing use of Iglesia Asamblea church at its current location be considered in the study to establish some
baselines. I went by the church,at its current location,Sunday evening and counted 78 vehicles in the parking lot!
WSDOT also suggests a change in grade at the intersection of Gladwin and SR-300! This will be virtually impossible.
I do agree that a site visit would be reasonable if the applicant intends to pursue special use permit after a traffic
study. If this permit were granted I think the existing level of service, (LOS),would be dramatically reduced and
further jeopardize public health and safety. Placing access to the property further to the west on Gladwin road
would require a rather substantial upgrade to road as the unmarked road is currently used by State Park visitors
and bicyclists as a safer alternative to Highway 300. In addition Mason County Transportation Improvement
Program Citizen Advisory Program,(TIP-CAP), does not have Gladwin road improvements on their annual or 6 year
plan.
Buffer standards:These standards are being revamped as part of the Shoreline master program update.
Admittedly these standards are more restrictive however Mason County's ability to enforce any conditions you
might impose are limited.As I testified at the hearing on the 14`h Mason County is in the process of updating its
shoreline master program and the map that was entered into the record shows that%the property falls into an
environmental designation of"Consevation".Any new access would result in a conflict with the "no net loss"
policy and would require significant and expensive offsite mitigation.
Parrott's comments:As long time residents of the area their testimony should be given great weight and value
when considering this proposal.They have been humble stewards of their own property as well as the Great
Peninsula Conservancy properties adjacent to Lynch Cove for many years. In 1988 they received the Hood Canal
Environmental Achievement award from the Hood Canal Coordinating Council.
In conclusion given the close proximity to the Hood Canal and the exisiting urbanized character of the neighboring
properties to the South and West, I think the property should be limited to RR-5 with no special use permits issued
for the property. I remain concerned that the applicant would "outgrow"any new church.(As I mentioned earlier I
counted 78 vehicles at their current site).Any further growth or expansion would quite possibly result in another
change in ownership and a potential rezone to more intensive use.
Thank you,
Ken VanBuskirk
61 NE Davis Farm Road
Belfair
Y-Fx t3
�Lu,� lbw ion
be� Fe,�oai�cPo a�+eC rne2es �,Cecv
- - Gaxq�`.�ud�W A.ai� �Ktvr/*ed f� a r�ec✓//cr�c,
.. _ LCIA Pxgits�G�vc, hNe,t�(5f m�.e � /v �%i
--- 6fez�n� wQ/vi pa>�
_ Wady �ccr�
PaMo�jF2r�l ded�rs*'-d foCa�iu��e<<e�,
o,a. sk3av �
Aw ' GtmnOf G�w`�Cl
Lp �16t //Lu�e( �2acw�rz.
uAe / ✓yur�l 6,�� BIA 4&-jke"
i�nu��s�r✓/c
a.
/wr
CAf-rcA
----- 3b0v_lw� 46-
?Cad
Pec�-
G—I�..duun VkQ co {LA 4a dslcoe ufB. t
51t1 BpGYt Ae�cnQ�+�tev Sfv� fn
� Parafil�/
et �gs
/�/e vrM.f�at f FE €,� Tcad ewe — C
. Z
231 N E Bryan Lane
Belfair,Wash 98528
Mason County
Dept. Of Community Development
Planning Division PO Box279 Shelton Wash 98584
Mr.Alan Borden
I recently spoke to you about a Special Use Permit DDR2013-00016 that had been
sent to the Lynch Cove Community. Because I did not receive a notice of this, I have some concerns.
On the first page of the Notice Of Special Use permit it says construction of a 8,000 sq.ft. building.
Then it says"to construct a building OVER 3,000 sq.ft. In size. How much OVER? Confusion
continues,as,on the second page of the application,the Applicant Joaquin R(?) quotes the building as
only 8,000 sq ft. Could you please clarify?
• In your Permit request you ask the Applicant to provide a site plan,including location
of drinking water supply.The Applicant supplied you with a map where it notes a tiny square,well past
491 Gladwyn Beach Drive where it is written"public water connection".What is the source for the
water? Is this a private well?How deep is it?Is it enough to supply two buildings,one 8,000 sq.ft.And
another 3,000 or OVER sq.ft.?Will it affect our water table at our Lynch Cove Community well source on
Bryan Lane? I am VERY confused when the Applicant states that"this property is served by adequate
public facilities that are PRESENTLY in place". If this is true, can you please send me that information?
If,in fact,the well must be drilled,will it pass County Code.15? Please send me any and All information
and sources for this so-called water supply. Please refer to the County's Capitol Facilities Plan and to the
impact this will have on the Lynch Cove Salt March Restoration.
Lynch Cove Community Park belongs to the Lynch Cove Community. It is a Private
park on the cove. A concern has been noted that with a large input of people coming into the
community,it will force us to hire a full-time Attendant to keep control. Even then, it will affect the
members safety as non-members seek access.
Please clarify to me where the actual site is for the retaining pond. As it looks on the
map presented,it looks like a drainage straight down to the canal. Is it the required 200 ft away?
Thank You
Lesley Kabelac
1//3
r I RECEIVED
F F