HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2005-00004 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 6/14/2005 June 14, 2005
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2005-00004
Applicant: Robert and Kim Christian
Notice is hereby given that Robert and Kim Christian,who are the applicants for
the above-referenced Resource Ordinance Variance has been granted. The
request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance
(Ordinance No. 77-93), specifically for the construction of a single-family residence
in a Type 3 stream buffer and Category III wetland vegetation area.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as
regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of
any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Charles
Mead McCoy III,Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x294.
RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST
Application received and logged: NWT
Notice sent to WDFW/Tribe
Notice of app. & hearing delivered to SMJ:
Notice of app. & hearing posted and mailed: -LS'
Photos? J�5
SEPA?: Q() Circulated on:
Report to HEX by: 7� 7v�--.
HEX hearing date: to -kv
Decision:
Notice of Final Decision sent on:
Notes & Comments:
I:\PLANNING\Checklists&templates\RO VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram
Susie Ellin son - 604879.DOC Pa e 1
•
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Robert Christian FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 MCC 17.01.150E Variance
6 INTRODUCTION
7 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 150-foot buffer along a Type III
8 stream in order to replace a 396 square foot recreational trailer with an approximately
1,012 square foot manufactured home to within approximately 30 feet from a Type III
9 stream. The Examiner grants the variance subject to the conditions recommended by
staff.
10
11 ORAL TESTIMONY
12 See transcript. Charles McCoy, Senior Planner, testified on behalf of staff. Mr.
McCoy stated that coho and trout do spawn down steam and, therefore, a high
13 standard of protection is needed. Mr. McCoy also testified that the impacts of the
proposed development can be sufficiently mitigated without implementing any off-
site mitigation measures.
15
Jack Smith, a representative of the applicant,testified that Chuck Hampton, a wetland
16 biologist,had concluded that the proposed development would have no impact on the
17 Type III stream.
18 Robert Christian, the applicant, testified that his lot boundary falls short five to ten
feet of the Type III stream. He stated that the stream is in an easement owned by a
19 homeowners' association. Mr. Christian also testified that he has been living on the
lot since the 1980's in a recreational vehicle. Mr. Christian stated that the proposed
20 manufactured home would be placed in the same site currently occupied by the RV.
21 Mr. Christian testified that he purchased the property with the intent of installing a
permanent home and that he had always intended the lot to accommodate his
22 permanent residence.
23 EXHIBITS
24 Exhibit 1: Resource Ordinance Application,dated March 1,2005.
25 Exhibit 2: Variance from Standards Information,dated March 1,2005.
Exhibit 3: Habitat Management Plan, dated February,2005.
Exhibit 4: Affidavit of Posting Notice,dated March 25,2005.
Christian Variance P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
(PA0604879.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellin son -604879.DOC
r
Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Publication,dated March 31,2005.
1 Exhibit 6: HMP Notification of Review Letter, dated February 24,2005.
2 Exhibit 7: HMP Notification of Review Letter, dated February 24,2005.
Exhibit 8: Comments from Jeff Davis,dated April 18,2005.
3 Exhibit 9: Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan.
Exhibit 10: Revised plot map of property lines.
4 Exhibit 11: Manufactured home floor plan.
5 Exhibit 12: Robert Carrier - Hearing Examiner Final Decision
(VAR2004-
6 00028), dated March 18,2005.
Exhibit 13: Site plot map indicating driveway,septic system and stream
7 buffer/
setback distances.
8 Exhibit 14: Charles McCoy's Curriculum Vitae
9
FINDINGS OF FACT
10
11 Procedural:
12 1. Applicant. The applicants are Robert and Kim Christian.
13 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
14 on May 10, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
meeting room.
15
Substantive:
16
17 3. Site/Proposal Description. The parcel is rectilinear in shape, less than
10,000 square feet in area. It is currently occupied by a recreational vehicle with a
18 septic system approved by the Mason County Environmental Health Department. The
septic drain field and tank is located on the southeastern portion of the parcel and the
19 currently existing recreational vehicle is located on the northwestern portion of the
20 parcel, closest to the Type III stream. As noted in the Habitat Management Plan, the
parcel is 100% disturbed and given the location of the drain field and the driveway,
21 which is on the western side of the property, the proposed location for the
manufactured home is the only site available on the parcel for the home. The
22 northern boundary of the parcel,which is closest to the Type III stream, falls short of
the stream by five to ten feet. The stream itself is located within an easement owned
23 by a homeowners' association. The stream riparian buffer is highly disturbed as it
24 follows in a curvilinear fashion around the eastern and northern boundaries'. Forbs
25 ' A schematic site plan attached to the Habitat Management Plan identifies the Type III stream as
running along the western and northern property lines of the subject parcel. The staff report in the
narrative identifies the stream as running along the eastern and southern boundaries of the lot. In his
Christian Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0604879.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellingson -604879.DOC
r
and shrubs dominate the vegetative buffer. There are few woody plants present in the
1 riparian zone adjacent to the parcel to contribute to bank stabilization. The stream is
2 well defined within its channel along the western property boundary, but along the
southern property boundary it becomes abraded due to in-channel erosional forces
3 during high discharge, storm events. The stream's ordinary high water mark lies
4 within a couple feet of the fence along the northern boundary.
5 Existing structures include a cyclone-style chain link fence that surrounds the
perimeter of the property and a retaining wall inside the fence along the northern
6 boundary line. The applicant proposes to replace a 396 sq. ft. recreational park model
trailer with an approximately 1,012 sq. ft. manufactured home.
7
8 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is Belfair. The subject lot is
located within a residential development that lies to the west of Belfair and to the
9 north of State Route 300. Several single-family residences occupy the area and most
are primary residences.
10
5. Adverse Impacts. The home is proposed to be constructed on a lot that
11 according to the Habitat Management Plan is already 100% disturbed. The Habitat
12 Management Plan and the Staff Report conclude that since the lot is already disturbed
and improved, the placement of the recreational vehicle with a single-family home
13 would have no adverse impact. No evidence is provided to the contrary. Staff have
also provided recommended mitigation measures to prevent any adverse impacts to
14 riparian habitat created by the close placement of the manufactured home. Given
15 these circumstances,the project will have no adverse impacts on the Type III stream.
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 Procedural:
18
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(1)provides the Examiner
19 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
20 Substantive:
21
2. Zoning Designation.ation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 10.
22
3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a
23 150 foot setback from an adjoining Type III stream. This buffer is imposed through
24 MCC 17.01.110, Table III. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general variance
criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. MCC
25
Decision,the Examiner will be using the site plan attached to the Habitat Management Plan. If the staff
orientation of the lot is indeed correct,this would not change the conclusions reached in this Decision.
Christian Variance p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
(PA0604879.DOC;I/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellin son -604879.DOC Pa e 4
r
15.09.050(C) also requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit
1 applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the
2 general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable
Conclusions of Law.
3
MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
4 standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property
5 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
6 4. Case law and reasonable use, at least in the constitutional context,
generally provides for at least one single family home per parcel that conforms with
7 the minimum lot size requirements. Reasonable use may also be limited to
8 recreational use, if factors such as investment backed expectations, historical uses,
surrounding uses and parcel size are consistent with a recreational use limitation. See
9 Buechel v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), for a good
description of the factors used in a"reasonable use analysis", as the terms used in the
10 Mason County Shoreline Variance criteria.
11 The primary issue in assessing reasonable use in this case is whether the minimum
12 reasonable use for the lot is recreational as opposed to residential. The record is fairly
clear that the investment backed expectations of the applicant were to use the lot for a
13 permanent residence. The lot has been historically used to accommodate a
recreational vehicle, but this recreational vehicle was used as a primary residence,not
14 for recreational use. Staff relied upon the Carrier Decision as a precedent for
15 allowing this Resource Ordinance variance. As noted in the Carrier Decision, more
information about the use of surrounding lots was necessary to assess the reasonable
16 use of the property. In the Carrier Decision, staff provided three examples of nearby
homes and the size of those homes. In the Carrier Decision, the Examiner
17 commented that the size of the lots in addition to the size of the homes would have
18 been helpful. In response to the request for further information in the Carrier
Decision, staff in this Decision actually provided less information and provided no
19 examples of adjoining home sizes or corresponding lot sizes. In this case, staff only
provided conclusory statements that the placement of a single-family home would be
20 consistent with surrounding land uses. Since the staff comments are not challenged in
this case, they are the best evidence available. However, in future applications more
21 specific and concrete information about surrounding land use is highly encouraged to
22 establish a defensible record. Assessor records showing the size of adjoining lots and
homes, along with information on whether the homes are primary residences, would
23 probably be sufficient. Given that the proposed home appears to be similar to
surrounding homes,that the property owner purchased the property for and has used it
24 for a primary residence and that the size of the lot is consistent with single-family
25 dwelling use, the proposed use does qualify as a minimum reasonable use of the
property.
Christian Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0604879.DOC;l/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellin son -604879.DOC Pa e 5
1
MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
1 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
2 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
3 the applicant's own action.
4 5. The need for the variance is created by the natural features on the property
5 and their corresponding development buffers.
6 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
7 properties or the environment.
8 6. As discussed previously, staff testified that the p y, proposed home is
9 consistent with the uses in the vicinity, although specific information in the record is
lacking. As noted in the Habitat Management Plan and as conditioned by staff, the
10 project also does not cause adverse effects to the environment. Although the
necessity for insuring no adverse impacts during construction is manifest, the other
11 staff recommended conditions pertaining to retention of on-site vegetation and the
12 requirements for replanting are not backed by any evidence in the record. In order to
sustain these additional mitigation measures, staff did need to explain why these
13 mitigation measures are necessary and identify the adverse impacts that they mitigate.
Staff also suggests that a Habitat Management Plan should be completed after
14 approval of the project. This is an inappropriate delegation of the Examiner's
15 decision making authority to staff review. If revisions are needed to the Habitat
Management Plan, those need to be made prior to the close of the public hearing on
16 the application so that any additional identified adverse impacts or suggested
mitigation measures can be assessed in light of the permit criteria. The fact that
17 Charles McCoy is imminently qualified to assess adverse stream impacts and mitigate
18 them certainly helps justify his recommendations, but the applicant and the public do
have a right to know why the mitigation measures are necessary. Given that there is
19 no evidence to counter Mr. McCoy's conclusions that his recommended conditions
are necessary, they will be incorporated into this decision. However, for future
20 decisions, staff is strongly encouraged to explain the need for mitigation if any is
21 suggested.
22 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
23 necessary to afford relief.
24 7. The property is located in a Rural Residential-10 zoning district, which
25 permits single family homes outright. The applicant is only requesting the
opportunity to build a home, which is a right that apparently has been exercised by
many properties in the vicinity. Consequently, the granting of a variance application
Christian Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0604879.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellin son -604879.DOC
1 would not constitute a special privilege.
2 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3 8. The building site is on an already cleared area with no discernible adverse
impacts, especially as mitigated as recommended by staff. Consequently, the public
4 interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
5 MCC 6 15.09.057 : No variance shall be( ) granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
6 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
7 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mirror loss in value only
8 shall not justify a variance.
9 9. The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally
sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource
10 Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so
that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property
11 owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The
12 granting of the variance in this particular case will not have any significant adverse
environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of
13 property,thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource Ordinance. The Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Code provide for residential development in the subject area. The
14 lot, which appears to be less than 12,000 sq. ft. in size, is too small for residential
15 development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of the Growth
Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl and encouraging the
16 efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth Management Act also
encourages the protection of private property rights. Authorizing the construction of a
17 single-family home on a grandfathered lot in the circumstances of this application
18 does promote the private property rights of the applicant. For these reasons, the
granting of this variance would also be considered consistent with the intent of the
19 Growth Management Act.
20 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
21 proposed development according to the following criteria:
22 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
23 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
24 in the public interest.
25
3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Christian Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0604879.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Susie Ellin son -604879.DOC Pa e 7
1 Comprehensive Plan.
2 10. Charles McCoy testified that staff has verified that the proposed
development does in fact comply with Mason County Code, including Title 6, 8 and
3 16. As stated by Mr. McCoy, the project has an approved septic system and is
connected to the public water system. The project is also exempt from SEPA and not
4 subject to Title 16, which polonly governs subdivisions. Replacement of the
5 recreational vehicle by a permanent home will not have any impacts on level of
service since the recreational vehicle is already being used as a permanent home. As
6 discussed previously,the project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan and, due to the absence of any adverse impacts, is consistent with the public
7 health,safety and welfare and is in the public interest.
8
9 DECISION
10 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended by staff in the staff report(Exhibit 1).
11
12 Dated this 9'day of June,2005.
13
14 Phil 01brechts
15 Mason County Hearing Examiner
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Christian Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0604879.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
CASE INDEX
Robert and Kim Christian
VAR2005-00004
Index # Date Description
1 April 29, 2005 Exhibit 1: Staff Report
March 1, 2005 Attachment 1: Resource Ordinance Application
3 March 1, 2005 Attachment 2: Variance from Standards Information
ebruary, 2005 Attachment 3: Habitat Management Plan
5 March 25,2005 Attachment 4: Affidavit of Posting Notice
March 31,2005 Attachment 5: Affidavit of Publication
7 February 24, 2005 Attachment 6: HMP Notification of Review Letter
8 February 24, 2005 Attachment 7: HMP Notification of Review Letter
[April 18, 2005 Attachment 8: Comments from Jeff Davis
10 Attachment 9: Title Notification of Habitat
Management Plan
11 Attachment 10: Revised plot map of property lines
12 Attachment 11: Manufactured home floor Plan
13 March 18, 2005 Attachment 12: Robert Carrier—Hearing Examiner
Final Decision (VAR2004-00028)
14 April 11, 2005 Attachment 13: Site plot map indicating driveway,
septic system and stream buffer/setback distances
15 [Attachment 14: Curriculum Vitae C. M. McCoy III
N(F->r; ?A 6
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
April 29, 2005
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Charles Mead McCoy III
RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance(VAR2005-0004)
STAFF REPORT
Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County
Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the placement of an approximately 23' x
44' manufactured home within a Type 3 stream buffer. The proposed project is described
in the attached Habitat Management Plan(Attachment 3). Staff recommends conditional
approval of proposed project.
Applicant. Kim and Robert Christian
Property Location. Site address and project location: 71 NE Anchor Drive, Belfair.
Parcel# 12330-50-00057.
Date of complete application: March 1, 2005
Evaluations.
Characteristics of the site. The parcel is rectilinear in shape; and is 100 feet in distance
along the south boundary line, 123 feet on the north, 91.55 feet on the east and 88.6 feet
on the west. The Environmental Health Department has approved the septic system. The
septic is located on the northwestern quarter of the parcel. Existing structures include a
"Cyclone-style"chain-link fence that surrounds the perimeter of the property and a
retaining wall inside the fence along the southern boundary line. The driveway access is
along the western boundary line. The stream riparian buffer is highly disturbed as it
follows in a curvilinear fashion around the eastern and southern boundaries. Forbs and
shrubs dominate the vegetative buffer. There are few woody plants present in the riparian
zone adjacent to the parcel to contribute to bank stabilization. The stream is well defined
within its channel along the eastern property boundary,but along the southern property
boundary becomes braided due to in-channel erosional forces during high-discharge,
storm events. The stream's ordinary high water mark lies within a couple feet of the
fence along the southern boundary. The planting of woody vegetation along the stream
bank would perhaps begin to diminish the continued broadening of the channel's width
along this portion of the stream.
CA
Characteristics of the area. The general area is Belfair. This residential development lies
to the west of Belfair and to the north of State Route 300. Several single-family
residences occupy the area and most are primary residences.
Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation
for the site is Rural.
Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential -10 (RR-10)per the Mason County
Development Areas Map.
SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt per
WAC 197-11-800 (1), (iii). Public notice of the application and hearing date was posted
onsite on March 25, 2005 (Attachment 4) and notice was published in the Shelton-Mason
Journal beginning March 31 and ending April 7, 2005 (i.e. two consecutive weeks)
(Attachment 5). The proposal required review and comment by Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe. Notification was sent to the Department
and Tribe on March 24, 2005 (Attachments 6 and 7, respectively). A 28-day comment
period followed. An email was received from Jeff Davis, Regional Habitat Biologist,
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), with recommendations for
mitigation(Attachment 8): "I visited the site with the Skokomish tribe and we concluded
that the stream is equal to 2-feet at bankfull width and less than 4% gradient. Thus the
stream meets the physical definition of fish habitat (Type 3 or F stream). WDFW has
previously observed juvenile coho and cutthroat downstream of the subject property.
WDFW does recommend that some form of mitigation occur for the further intrusion into
the buffer with an impervious surface. This could take place offsite adjacent to the
subject parcel or at another location, if the mitigation cannot be done onsite." Staff
would require that a revised Habitat Management Plan (Attachment 3)be submitted for
approval to Planning Staff offering a plan for either onsite,or if not possible, offsite
mitigation prior to final building permit issuance.
Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require Mason County Building Permit
for the placement of the manufactured home. A Title Notification of Habitat
Management Plan shall be recorded with the County Auditor's Office (Attachment 9).
Analysis:
(All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.)
The required buffer for a Type 3 stream is 150 feet plus a 15-foot building setback for a
total distance of 165 feet from the stream. Stream typing is per Washington Department
of Natural Resources stream typing criteria. The proposal is to replace a 396 square foot
recreational "park model"trailer with an approximately 1,012 square foot manufactured
home sited within the Type 3 stream buffer and setback. The Type 3 stream buffer and
setback due to the proximity of the stream to the parcel on both the eastern and southern
boundary lines encumber the entire parcel. This proposal requires a variance per the
requirements associated with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically
Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,which details stream
buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes
variance procedures and criteria.
The location of the proposed manufactured home within the buffer effectively reduces
that buffer. Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not
permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or
reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use exception
may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted. Section 17.01.120.Q.
states that "except when application from this Chapter would deny all reasonable use of a
site, an applicant who seeks an exception from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue
a variance as provided in Section 17.01.150.
Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP)be prepared in
association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider measures to
preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the impacts from the
proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through habitat mitigation.
Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance shall be
granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the following
circumstances exist:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes
or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited
by County regulations;
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions
such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County
regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the
area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment;
4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford
relief,
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the
land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive plan,
Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with
the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance.
Staff discussion:
The purposes of the Mason County Resource Ordinance are detailed in Section
17.01.020. A site inspection was conducted on March 2, 2005 in response to a request to
replace a 386 square foot recreational "park model"trailer on a site identified as
neighboring a Type 3 stream along two of its property lines (Attachment 10). Based on
Mason County Title 14, Section 14.30.010 a "Recreational park trailer means a trailer
type unit that is primarily designed to provide temporary living quarters for recreational,
camping, or seasonal use. It is built on a chassis, mounted on wheel, having a gross
trailer area not exceeding four hundred square feet."Section 14.30.050(a) requires an
installation permit. Given the temporary use of this original park model, the applicant
had intended to place a larger, more permanent residence on this site. At the time, given
the setbacks, the applicant believed this expansion in the future would be no problem.
On December 17, 2004 the applicant submitted a building permit (BLD2004-01905)
to remove the temporary 'park model"and replace it with an approximately 23'x
44'manufactured home (Attachment]]). Information from the Jeff Davis, Regional
Habitat Biologist for Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has identified this
stream as fish bearing "downstream of subject property"and therefore has been
classified it as a Type 3 stream requiring a 165 foot buffer/setback(Attachment 8).
The proposed project is entirely within a regulated stream buffer. Although this may
appear as expansion of an existing residence within a stream buffer, and according to
several decisions by the Hearings Examiner, expansions are not allowed in buffer
areas, staff believes that due to the definition of a recreational `park model"trailer
this is not expansion of existing residence. The applicant had intended for temporary
living quarters with plans to place a permanent residence on site. The Staff will cite
in support of the Applicant's request for a Variance the case of Robert Carrier
(VAR2004-00028) heard before the Hearing Examiner granting the replacement of a
recreational 'park model"trailer with a manufactured home of comparable size
under similar circumstances (i.e. within a Type 3 stream buffer) (Attachment 12).
The parcel is zoned as Rural Residential 10 per the Mason County Development
Regulations Development Areas Map 1, which allows for one single-family residence
per 10 acres.
The entire parcel is encumbered by the 165 foot buffer/setback required by the
Resource Ordinance. There is no alternate building area outside the buffer.
The proposal for a 1,040 square foot manufactured home is an allowable use in
Rural Residential 10 zoning, and is therefore consistent with surrounding land uses.
The site is highly disturbed, and should be looked at with the view to minimize the
impact on the stream's riparian community and restore through mitigation some of
the preexisting vegetative buffer(Attachment 8). The Staff has requested that a
revised Habitat Management Plan be submitted for Staff approval prior to final
building permit issuance. The placement in the preexisting footprint of the
recreational `park model"trailer on the property would, in the view of Staff, be the
most logical location for the proposed new manufactured home, if the Hearing
Examiner were to grant the variance (Attachment 13). This provides for minimal
pt-'� SQL
amount of critical area disturbance and thus is consistent with purposes #1, #2 & #3
of Section 17.01.110.A. of the Resource Ordinance.
The hardship is a direct result of the shape,size, and location of the parcel. A Type 3
stream buffer and setback encumber the entire parcel.
The construction of a single-family residence (i.e. manufactured home) is consistent with
surrounding land uses and a permitted us in Rural Residential 10 zoning. The proposed
project is not inconsistent with other permitted uses in the area.
Factors considered in the placement of the structures include the presence of a Type
3 stream buffer/setback, a highly disturbed site, as well as, the possible restoration of
a portion of the riparian community through mitigation. The previous Decision by the
Hearing Examiner in the case of Robert Carrier(VAR2004-00028) supports the
Applicant's request. The current building location was chosen because the area is
already highly disturbed. This provides for minimizing the amount of critical area
disturbance.
Variances are contemplated and procedures are established by the provisions of Chapter
17.01.110 (D)(2). The intended use is compatible and in keeping with the surrounding
land use. The size of the proposed structures is consistent with the surrounding single-
family residences. The proposed location for the new structure will be in an area that will
have the least impact on the critical area.
The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. The proposal is consistent
and compatible with the surround land uses. The structures will be built to current
Mason County codes. The public interest will be maintained if mitigation is required of
the Applicant as a Conditional of Approval of the variance request.
The granting of the variance is necessary for the placement of any structure on this lot
due to the required buffer/setbacks from the stream.
Conclusions. Upon the above discussion the proposal is consistent with the variance
criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject
to the conditions listed below.
1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction.
2. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed should be
restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.
3. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any
construction and/or development activities on the parcel.
4. The provisions and recommendations of the Habitat Management Plan shall be
revised and must be approved by Planning Staff prior to building permit issuance.
nA-6,� bbF�a
5. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing or
straw matting).
6. A detailed planting plan, with species composition,number, and distribution shall
be provided to and approved by Planning Staff prior to final approval of the
building permit.
7. A monitoring plan shall be enacted whereby a qualified biologist shall submit a
report detailing the condition of the restoration area. This report shall be due on
the anniversary date of the issuance of the building permit and shall be submitted
annually for three years.
8. A survival rate of 90% of plantings is required each year during the three-year
monitoring period. If survival falls below 90%, the applicant shall replant to
restore the required survival percentage and shall extend the monitoring report the
necessary period to address the re-plantings.
9. A restoration bond shall be established with Mason County in the amount
necessary to perform the restoration.
10. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
11. A Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan shall be recorded with the
County Auditor's Office.
Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the Variance request.
2. Denial of the Variance request.
3. Conditional approval of the Variance request.
4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification
Al L Fki� L l'
01 PERMIT NO. v '�—a) "Da"
DATE RECEIVED:
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCE ORDINANCE(Chapter 17.01 MCC)
411 N.5TH Street/P.O.Box 279,Shelton, WA 98584
ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT LICATI ,•($'�brev 33 �MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT ❑CONDITIONAL USE VARIANC /A 9z)?
E 0��'�'(Vj)- r
The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect Mason Countys natural resource lands and critical areas 91ttt1y ul{d®
the authority of Chapters 36,32,36.70A,39.34,58,17,76.09,84.33,84.34 and 90.58 RCW.
PLEASE PRINT Q 34 1 1^ju 1. I
Owner: 1-1 -i_ Owner Mailing Address:
Site Address: �— City: State: Zip:
City: State i Al Zip: g Lienrritle Holder:
Phone:Da ' 17�-OJS`H Address:
Fire Distri City: State: Zip:
Signatu xjf �
Ledescription:,-a�v
2. Parcel Number: 12 <Z
Parcel Size:
3 Directions to Site: i4WA oJ -
4. State what sections require a permit In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 n
Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060 ❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070
Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑
Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑
Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.104 ❑ Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01.110 .:W�
5.
Identify current use of property with existing improvements: 7 j
6. Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,principle
dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach additional sheets if needed):7. Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater ❑ Lake ❑ River ❑ Pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Seasonal Runoff
Other
8. Will there be an alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑ No,
9. If septic is located on project site,include records.
Connect to septic? ❑ Community Septic? ❑ Public Water Supply? 0 Well? ❑
10.
Type of Job:• No*-YAdd GirAlt ❑ Repair Ckbemolition ❑ Other
This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)and nothing in this permit shall excuse the
applicant from compliance with any other federal,state,or local statutes,ordinances,or regulations applicable to this project,but
not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance.The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the permittee fails to comply
with the conditions of this ordinance.
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT: $510.001$305.00(with another pen*)
MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR PERMIT: $1,225,00
MASON RBSOURCE ORDINANCB VARIANCB: $1,225,00 REVISED: 12-5-2003
HEARINGS HKAMINE - 5350.00 I:\PLANNING\R&OPACSNVIRONMENTAL PERMrr APPLICATION
AMP Ft). s3�0
I
T7A
Show the following on the site plan
Lot Dimensions Flood Zones
Existing Structures Fences
Water Lines Driveways
Drainage Plans Shorelines
Septic System Topography Indicate Directional by(N,S,E,W,etc.)
Proposed Improvements Easements In relation to plot plan
Name if Flanking Street
APPLICANT TO DRAW SITE PLAN BELOW:
APPLICANT TO DRAW TOPOGRAPHY BELOW:
.. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
COMMENTS
Planning:
Environmental Health:
Building Plan Review:
Occupancy Group:
Fire Marshal:
Other.
Conditions:
TOTAL FEES:
Accepted by: Date:
SRG
THE SHORELINE PEMIT PROCESS
Page 5
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not
occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The
Shelton-Mason County Joumal will bill the applicant directly.
I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment
indicating and that I/WE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. I /WE must
submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as
complete.
DATE
OWNER
SC�me a5 a6ov�
APPLICANT
THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS
Page 6
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1,Second Floor.
gob"-*•r K. N.I I -%r&Ap
&1 Nff- A1,a-6 ,9
Ll k rZ rrP f4
� ur�►or �^
Revised 1/03
srg
A-T' �k&e,,srr- 2 `�AC�fz l oF3
Mason County
Department of Community Development
Resource Ordinance (Chapter 17.01)
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards Information:
* Mason County may consider requests to vary or adapt certain numerical
standards of the Resource Ordinance where strict application of said standards
would deprive property owners of reasonable use of their property. Application for
a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special
exception to the rule. The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the
specific variance criteria listed below. Please state how the variance request satisfies
all of the following criteria.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
�'' ,�. r• f }V sla T
LAB
Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or
the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The
County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the
variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following
criteria are met:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
_ �2/.�-k—
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc
FACE -Z�,F3
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
�1 � Q
- �
3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment;
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;
t
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My Documents\Forms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc
f
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan,Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
A 77-•�
Signature Date
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\MRAZR\My DocumentsTorms and Templates\Mason
Countymep variance.doc
3 rkv-1
THE COOT COMPANY
Mi-Wetland and Wildlife Consulting Services
416 S. Washington
Olympia,WA 98501
(360)352-9897
FAX(360)352-9914
HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR THE
CHRISTIAN PROPERTY
Mason County Tax Parcel No. 123305000057
Mason County Case No. BLD2004-01905
FEBRUARY 2005
Prepared for:
Robert and Kim Christian
71 NE Anchor Drive
Belfair,WA 98528
moo, V4etlanar
prepared by:
9 A s�i�9.0#
S. Shanewise, PWS lISWS
ss/ 000994
Senior Ecologist 1,,ya/Wetla'(\6;0'
Chrifb04hmp
CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................l
Methods..................................................................................I
Results....................................................................................2
ProposedUse .........................................................................3
Impact Assessment.................................................................3
Recommendations..................................................................3
Figure 1. Schematic Site Map
INTRODUCTION
This Habitat Management Plan addresses the replacement of a small park model trailer
home with a larger manufactured home. The property is a small lot at the bottom of a
slope with a Type 4 or 5 stream system flowing past adjacent to the east and south.
Virtually all of the lot occurs in an existing, non-conforming condition, containing the
trailer home with an attached porch, a septic system, an outbuilding, and a graveled
driveway and a yard. This lot is severely space constrained with the drainfield placed
furthest away from the stream, and the home next. Because the existing condition
represents a functional 100% disturbance of the site relative to its value as a stream
buffer, it is deemed that almost any action that represents a variation of the built
conditions would create no new, additional impacts to the stream. Furthermore, because
the property boundaries are defined by a sturdy, 6-foot cyclone fence, a clear demarcation
exists that will prevent any intrusion into the stream or buffer habitat outside of this
property. It is recommended that the proposed activity be allowed, and without any
mitigation compensation,because there will be no new, additional impacts from the
proposed activities beyond what already occurs, and,there is little that could be done at
this site to make any functional habitat improvements.
METHODS
Site Inspection
Field review was performed on 3 February 2005. All areas of the subject property were
reviewed.
CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE COOT COMPANY - I -
�n qw-
RESULTS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Impacted Stream System
A Type 4 or 5 stream occurs within the landscape adjacent to the subject property. This
system is currently highly degraded by vicinity stormwater runoff from an older, existing
residential development that causes peak flows during storm events to spike very high.
This flashy regime has resulted in a continuously eroding channel that appears to meander
around when a large storm event creates a new path due to instream blockages from
debris or overbank cutting from the high flows. Bed load within the stream is a fairly
even mix of large gravel and sand that appears to get repositioned on a regular basis.
Besides the hydraulic impacts to the stream system from surrounding runoff, water
quality is also likely poor because of the highly disturbed watershed consisting of older
single family homes built without any stormwater management other than directing
(piping) runoff towards and into the stream.
Existing Home Site
The subject property occurs as an existing built home site. It has power, water and an
installed septic system, a small mobile home with a deck plus an outbuilding and a small,
graveled parking area. These items occupy the "upper"two thirds of this small lot, with
the lower portion consisting of lawn and a small cluster of fruit trees.
Severely Constrained Lot
This lot is severely space constrained. A minimal amount of extra space exists outside of
the current development. The lot is also at the lowest point within the vicinity landscape,
and has a moderately steep slope ascending towards the flat stream bottom. The trailer
home and septic system have already been placed at the furthest property corner away
from the stream, but because the entire lot is within the required 150-foot stream setback,
doing anything on this property will require a variance to this buffer.
Sturdy Property Boundary Fence
In addition to the above described features, this property also contains a sturdy, 6-foot
cyclone fence extending around the entire perimeter. This fence was constructed to keep
two large dogs in the yard and to keep neighborhood kids out. This barrier creates a
clearly defined, difficult to infringe upon boundary separating the existing, non-
conforming activities of the home site from the adjacent stream system.
CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE COOT COMPANY -2-
P oF4=,
PROPOSED USE
Place Larger Mobile Home
The home owner wants to replace an existing park model home with a larger
manufactured home. The new manufactured home would be positioned within the same
location that the existing home and porch occupy.
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
No Functional Increased Impacts
The proposed activities will cause no new functional impacts to the adjacent stream
system. The reason for this is that the existing home site is already 100%disturbed by
non-conforming activities. Almost any action that represents a variation of the built
conditions on this small lot will not cause any new harm to the stream because there is
not any functional buffer habitat left to degrade within the confines of the fenced area.
Buffer Reduction Required
Placement of the larger manufactured home will require a variance to the stream buffer.
However, rather than obtain a variance for the specific home placement, it would be
better to obtain a variance that conforms to the fenced property line. Reductions in the
150-foot stream buffer of 75%to 80%would be required to achieve this layout.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Allow New Mobile Home
The proposal to install a larger manufactured home unit on site should be authorized.
This activity will cause no new stream impacts beyond those that already occur. No
vegetation removal will be performed, and the new structure will not alter the existing
human presence and use of the site.
Do Not Require Mitigation Compensation
No mitigation compensation should be required for the proposed activities. Besides the
fact that there will be no new functional impacts to the stream,there is really little that
could be done with this small, constrained lot to produce any meaningful improvements
to the buffer potential of the site short of simply removing everything that currently
exists.
CHRISTIAN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
THE COOT COMPANY -3 -
IV
'Ile
Retaining Wall
Proposed Unit
Existing Unit
TQ
I .
KCKDrainfield TukdmwO.W"ih.6@6&
r -
1, — 22' N
SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN
KIM I. CHRISTIAN
6-Foot Perimeter Cyclone Fence � Mason County Tax Parcel
123305000057
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
I, C0Agt0-r M- nh L6'0:� 1(f do hereby certify that I posted 3 copies of
the attached Pu6t,I t4C)-Rc.C_
on Z S day of M AF-cA+ 20 o5 in 3 public places as follows:
one at 5fzt-FA (TL Pvs�- cat—etc
one at \AJFrz-
one at A
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this ZS day
of M k F-e-tA , 20 �.
By:
Address: Stts V-4
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2 Er day of M f-v-r� 20 os
r�--- " i, No ary Public fo e S t of Washington
'0 BONNIE L CAP Residing at
� NOTARY PUBLIC
0 STATE )t WJASHINGTON � Commission Expires
MY Commission Expires June 6,2006
i
---Notice of application for Variance from the Mason County
Resource Ordinance and Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Robert and Kim Christian,who are the applicants for
the following proposal, have filed an application for a Variance.
The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is
to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer of 396 square feet with a
manufactured home of 1,104 square feet within a type 4 stream buffer of a tributary
of Hood Canal. Property location is 71 NE Anchor Drive, Belfair. Section 30 of
Township 23 North, Range 1 West. Parcel# 12330-50-00057.
Date of complete application: March 1, 2005.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County
Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife
Habitat Conservation Areas which detail stream buffer requirements. Section
17.01.150, Variances from Standards, establishes Variance procedures and criteria.
The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan and Hearing Examiner
approval.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday ,May 10, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in the County
Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I,411 N. 51h Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact Charles Mead McCoy III of the Mason County Department of
Community Development at(360)427-9670, ext. 294,with any questions or
comments on this development and variance.
H:\Word\Christain RO Variance Public Notice.doc.ram
Affidavit of Publication
---Notice of application for Variance from
the Mason County Resource Ordinance
and Notice of Public Hearing STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS.
Notice is hereby given that Robert and COUNTY OF MASON
Kim Christian,who are the applicants for the
following proposal, have filed an application
for a Variance. Julie G. Orme
The request for a variance from the Ma- being first duly swom
son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93
is to replace an existing "park model' re clerk
creational trailer of 396 square feet with a on oath deposes and says that she is the
manufactured home of 1,104 square feet of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
within a type 4 stream buffer of a tributary of paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
Hood Canal. Property location is 71 NE An- date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
chor Drive, Belfair. Section 30 of Township ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
23 North, Range 1 West. Parcel#12330-50- and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
00057. publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
Date of complete application: March 1, was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
2005. of said Mason County.
The proposed development is reviewed
as a Variance under the Mason County Re- ThattheannexedisatruecopyofaNOtice of Application for
source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically
Section 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Variance # 77-93
Conservation Areas which detail stream
buffer requirements.Section 17.01.150,Var- Robert and Kim Christian
iances from Standards, establishes Var-
iance procedures and criteria. The proposal as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
requires a Habitat Management Plan and
Hearing Examiner approval. newspaper once each week for a period of two
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the consecutive weeks,commencing on the
Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday, May 10,2005 31 day of March ,20 05 ,and ending on the
at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners
Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shek 7 April 05
ton,WA. day of ,20 ,both dates inclusive,
Please contact Charles Mead McCoy III and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
of the Mason County Department of Com- period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
munity Development at(360)427-9670,ext.
294,with any questions or comments on this foregoing publication is the sum of$ 7 A 7
development and variance.
3/31-4/7 2t '
Subscribed and sworn to before me 7 t h day of
April 05 ````�%%tttut�I/////�
p .20 ``\ �o pN rl.Do
`�-IN Sion
iNIJK. _1 'off ���' �S
Not blic in and for the State of Washington�FA R y
Residing at Shelton,Washington = —c_
My commission expires ( ,20 8 AV Q LAG it
Affidavit of Publication
---Notice of application for Variance from
the Mason County Resource Ordinance
and Notice of Public Hearing STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS.
Notice is hereby given that Robert and COUNTY OF MASON
Kim Christian, who are the applicants for the
following proposal, have filed an application
for a Variance. Julie G. Orme
The request for a variance from the Ma- being first duly swom
son County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93
is to replace an existing "park model" re- on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
creational trailer of 39 square feet with a
manufactured home off 1,104 square feet of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news-
within a type 4 stream buffer of a tributary of paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
Hood Canal. Property location is 71 NE An- date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language confinu-
chor Drive, Belfair. Section 30 of Township ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON, Mason County,Washington, and it is now
23 North, Range 1 West. Parcel#12330-50- and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
00057. publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
Date of complete application: March 1, was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
2005. of said Mason County.
The proposed development is reviewed
as a Variance under the Mason County Re- That the annexed is a true copy of a No t i ce of Application for
source Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically
Section 17.01.110 Fish and Wildlife Habitat Variance # 77-93
Conservation Areas which detail stream
buffer requirements.Section 17.01.150,Var- Robert and Kim Christian
iances from Standards, establishes Var-
iance procedures and criteria. The proposal as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
requires a Habitat Management Plan and
Nearing Examiner approval. newspaper once each week for a period of two
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the consecutive weeks,commencing on the
Mason County Hearing Examiner on the
proposed project on Tuesday, May 10,2005 31 day of March _,20 05 and ending on the
at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners
Chambers, Bldg. 1, 411 N. 5th Street, Shel- 7 April 05
ton,WA. day of 20 ,both dates inclusive,
Please contact Charles Mead McCoy III and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
of the Mason County Department of Com- period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
munity Development at(360)427-9670, ext.
294,with any questions or comments on this foregoing publication is the sum of$ 7 7 IS
development and variance.
3131-4/7 2t
!A f"z
Subscribed and swum to before me 7 t h day of
April i l 05 \ N%tt1111t►tr/ /�
p 20 ���� O pN P1 D 0 ,����
NotarChblic in and for the State of Washington -Z i ttOTAR;. J' • ._
Residing at Shelton,Washington
My commission expires ( 20 8 ADO LAG i
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360 Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th ) 482-5269
P.O. Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
March 24, 2005
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
502 High Street, Suite 108
Port Orchard, WA 98366
RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00004, a
proposal to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer with a
larger manufactured home within a Type 4 stream buffer.
Dear Danette:
The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Robert
and Kim Christian, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County
Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat
Management Plan. The proposed activity is to replace an existing 396 square
foot "park model" recreational trailer with a 1,104 square foot manufactured home
within the buffer of a type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the
Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe (or other relevant tribal
authority).
Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments,
question, or concerns about this plan. I have included my e-mail address if you
find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a
28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is April 22, 2005. Thank
you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles Mead McCoy III, Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
chuckm@co.mason.wa.us
RwL9- i --_� CAGE l of
MASON COUNTY Shefton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
F9 Planning Elma (360
Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th )482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
March 24, 2005
Skokomish Tribe
ATTN: Marty Ereth
N. 541 Tribal Center Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Variance from Mason County Resource Ordinance, VAR2005-00004, a
proposal to replace an existing "park model" recreational trailer with a
larger manufactured home within a Type 4 stream buffer.
Dear Marty:
The enclosed Habitat Management Plan (HMP) has been provided by Robert
and Kim Christian, who is applying for a variance from the Mason County
Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas chapter of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat
Management Plan. The proposed activity is to replace an existing 396 square
foot "park model" recreational trailer with a 1,104 square foot manufactured home
within the buffer of a type 4 stream. Pursuant to Section 17.01.110.J, the
Resource Ordinance provides for comment opportunity for Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Skokomish Tribe (or other relevant tribal
authority).
Please review the enclosed HMP and let me know if you have comments,
question, or concerns about this plan. I have included my e-mail address if you
find this method of correspondence more convenient. Our ordinance allows for a
28-day comment period. Closing date for comments is April 22, 2005. Thank
you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles Mea McCoy III, Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
chuckm@co.mason.wa.us
OF-1
Return To:
TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATE:
OWNER NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS
PARCEL#
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
(ABBR.FORM: QUARTER/QUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT,
LOT&BLOCK
NOTICE: The property was the subject of a development proposal within a
critical area or its buffer, for the purpose of
application number
Sled on . (date)
This property is subject to the conditions,mitigation and/or
conservation measures as contained within the Habitat Management
Plan submitted to and approved by the Mason County Department
of Community Development. Restrictions on the use or alteration of
the property may exist due to the contents, conditions, mitigation
and/or conservation measures of the Habitat Management Plan
which are to be maintained in perpetuity. A copy of the Habitat
Management Plan is attached hereto.
GRANTOR(S):
LAST FIRST MI
LAST FIRST MI
SIGNATURE(S):
GRANTEE: PUBLIC
1844338
Paa: 1 of 1
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 0; a112005 02 COP
KIM CHRISTIAN NOTCE 32.00 M&SOM CO, IAA
Return To:
�sl�n,� , �2 GiPira2�
TITLE NOTIFICATION OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
DATE:
OWNER ivAi' IE:
MAILING ADDRESS (J � 9f A ix(Ao(, M.
WA K` 52>S
PARCEL#
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: L--67 5 7, 157 .3
�jk )2 -cis^c��7
(ABBR.FORM: QUARTER/QUARTER,SECTION,TOWNSHIP,RANGE,PLAT,
LOT&BLOCK
NOTICE: The property was the subject of a development proposal within a
critical area or its buffer,for the purpose of
application number
filed on (date)
This property is subject to the conditions,mitigation and/or
conservation measures as contained within the Habitat Management
Plan submitted to and approved by the Mason County Department
of Community Development. Restrictions on the use or alteration of
the property may exist due to the contents,conditions, mitigation
and/or conservation measures of the Habitat Management Plan
which are to be maintained in perpetuity. A copy of the Habitat
Management Plan is attached hereto.
GRANTOR(S): f7�
(JrILLAST FIRST fi u, le/, I
LAST FIRST MI
SIGNATURE(S):
GRANTEE: PUBLIC
4pz
pe/` /VTS �-
r '3 4'
F f
X
p9
1 v�i
\ 9 a;
I \
p
G p
A n f D
G y �
1 � �
h -c
]7 tZ C \�
O
oc
t
G
1 s F4-
�v v,
a-
i
.�P
Washington Home Center, Inc.
LL
Floor Plan Silvercrest Discovery 5443R-Robert&Kim Christian
444-011
� 9 3 C6�
� ENrRY "
91E1MT5
— a o l REFER CP1yUNEN °
- UTILITY L-C_ C05ET
' ----08
OPT AIM TUB
6EDR0 2
On
9- 7 BATH_ KITCHEN BATH
DINING AREA
--- ---------------- ----
EAU0'x6'-3' WALK-IN aasn Y
_ ----------
BN 3 LIVING R00 FASTER BEDROOM
9'-874-1" 19'-8"x11'-?" 13'-0"x11'-2"
efflW
(��V'RCREST DISCOVERY 5443R
3 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHS
23'-4"x44'-0" APPROX. 1026 SO. FT.
IL
RQOi� PANS10NS ARE APPROXIMTE AND SUBJECT 10 CK4M.
4 $6 a
1 Add Kitchen Cabinet Upper Per Plan 9 Additional Passage Door, (Up To 30")
2 Extend Wall In Kitchen Per Plan/Shorten Bar
3 Linen or Pantry Cabinet-(Up to 30"Wide Subject to PI
4 Brace Standard Light For Future Customer Installed Ceil
5 Ceiling Fan Wiring,Bracing&4-Speed Switch,Fan Rea
6 Frost Free Hose Bib (Each)
7 Overhead Bedroom Ceiling Light (Each) (Exchange Fc
8 1 Piece Fiberglass Oversize Tub/Shower Exch Std Tub,
Specifications subject to change. (c)1996 softsell, Inc. Dec/14/2004
v - /A
qA�, oo �
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
Z
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Robert Carrier FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 OF LAW AND.FINAL DECISION.
5 MCC 17.01.150(E)Variance
6 INTRODUCTION
7 The applicant has applied for a variance from a 150-foot buffer along a Type III
stream in order to construct a 1,040 square foot home 108 feet from the stream. The
8 Examiner grants the variance subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
9 ORAL TESTIMONY
10
See transcript. Tammi Clark introduced the staff report. Lee Boad and staff
11 answered Examiner questions about the woodpecker habitat and testified that the
Resource Ordinance prohibits development in the habitat area, Robert Strickland, a
12 representative of the applicant, identified when the lot was cleared and the impacts to
13 access if the home had to be built outside the buffer. Susan Baker questioned the
classification of the stream and the development history of the lot. She also inquired
14 whether it would be possible to permanently prohibit clearing of the woodpecker
habitat as a condition of development.
15
16 EXHIBITS
17 Exhibit 1: Staff Report.
Exhibit 2: Variance application.
18 Exhibit 3: Bearing notice.
Exhibit 4: Habitat management plan.
19 Exhibit 5: 115105 Clark letter to Skokomish Tribe.
20 Exhibit 6: 115105 Clark letter to WA Fish and Wildlife.
Exhibit 7: MCC Chapter 14.30
21 Exhibit 8: E-mails between Clark and Boad.
Exhibit 9: 2/9/05 Revised Site Plan.
22 Exhibit 10: 2/22/OS letter from John Diehl
Exhibit 11: Five color photos of woodpecker habitat
23
24 FINDINGS OF FACT
25 Procedural:
1. Applicant_ The applicants is Robert Carrier,
Carrier Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591701.nOC;1113009.90000a}
03/18/2005 16:21 FAX 206 4470215 �003/007•
-z oC-t
1 2. Hearin a. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
2 on February 22, 2005 in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room.
3 Substantive-
4 3. Site/Proposal Description. The parcel is a pie shaped wedge that is 150
feet from north to south'. The eastern property line is 144 feet, while the western
5 property line extends 50 feet. There is an onsite sewage system that is capable of
6 supporting u ortin a two-bedroom home. The Environmental Health Department has
s
approved the septic system. The septic is located on the southeastern quarter of the
7 parcel. Existing structures include two small outbuildings totaling approximately 250
square feet just west of the proposed project. There is a portable shed located
8 approximately 21 feet from the western property line,just north of the driveway. The
9 site has retained a relatively intact riparian zone surrounding the stream with a mature
second growth forest up to the proposed building site. Dominant plant species
10 include western red cedar, Douglas fir, Red alder, big leaf maple, sword fern, lady
fern, and vine maple.
11
About two-thirds of the site is encumbered by the 165-foot buffer/setback to a Type
12 III stream required by the Resource Ordinance. The remaining portion is comprised
13 of habitat for the pileated woodpecker. Staff and Lee$oad testified that the Resource
Ordinance, prohibits development in the habitat area and that Mason County has
14 prohibited development in woodpecker habitat in the past.
15 The applicant proposes to replace a trailer with a 1,040 square foot manufactured
home 108 feet from the Type III stream. The proposed building site was cleared 11
16 years ago and is currently(at least until recently) occupied by a trailer.
17
18 4. Characteristics of the Area. There general area is Lake Cushman, Lake
Cushman is located in the southeast corner of the Olympic Mountains. Several single
19 family houses occupy the area. Some residences are seasonal sue, but many are
primary residences. Examples of the size of surrounding residences include the
20 following:
21 a. 71 N. Wigeon Place S. : 1,456 sq. ft. manufactured home,
22 b. 40 N. Wigeon Place S. : 924 sq.ft.
C. 121 N. Wigeon Place S.: 1,679 square foot garage
23
24 5. Adverse Impacts. The home is proposed to be constructed in an area that
is already cleared. No removal of native vegetation will be necessary for construction
25 of the garage. As mitigated by the Habitat Management Plan and staff
recommendations, the proposed home will have no adverse impacts of any material
Carrier Variance p_ 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
PA0591701.DOC;1/13009,900000/1
UJ/10/ZUUD 10: Z1 rAA ZVO 441UZ15 IQ.JUU4/UU7
..
significance. If the home is placed outside the buffer, it will damage pileated
1 woodpecker habitat, which also serves a marginal role in protecting the stream
2 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
3
Procedural:
4
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(n provides the Examiner
5 with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
6
Substantive:
7
2_ Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the property is RR 5.
8
9 3. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from a
150 foot setback from an adjoining Type III stream. This buffer is imposed through
10 MMC 17.01.110, Table Ill. MCC 17.01.150(E) provides that the general variance
criteria of MCC 15.09,057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Those
11 review standards are laid out below with applicable conclusions of law.
12 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance
13 standards precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
14
4. Case law and reasonable use, at least in the constitutional context,
15 generally provides for at least one single family home per parcel that conforms with
16 the minimum lot size requirements. Reasonable use may also be limited to
recreational use, if factors such as investment backed expectations, historical uses,
17 surrounding uses and parcel size are consistent with a recreational use limitation. See
Buechel v. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994), for a good
18 description of the factors used in a "reasonable use analysis", as the terms used in the
Mason County Shoreline Variance criteria.
19
20 The two primary issues in assessing Treasonable use in this case, as accurately
identified in the Diehl letter (Exhibit 10) are whether the proposed home can be built
21 in a location without a variance and whether a permanent home, as opposed to a
trailer, is necessary for reasonable use.
22
On the issue of whether a home can be built outside the buffer, staff and the
23 applicant's expert (Lee Boad) both testified that development in the area outside the
24 stream buffer is prohibited by the Resource Ordinance due to the presence of pileated
woodpecker habitat. The pileated woodpecker list is identified as a species of local
25 importance in MCC 17.01.110, Table 1. MCC 17.01.110(G) does appear to prohibit
development in the habitat of "listed" species. Tammi Clarke (County staff) and Lee
Boad (applicant widlife expert) both testified that the Resource Ordinance does
Carrier Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
[PAo591701.D0Q 1/13009.9000W1
03/18/2005 16: 21 FAX 206 4470215_ 11005/007-
prohibit development in pileated woodpecker habitat. Mr. Boad testified that Mason
1 County has prohibited other clients that he has served from conducting any
2 development activities in pileated woodpecker habitat due to the requirements of the
Resource Ordinance. Since the woodpecker habitat essentially takes up all the area in
3 which a home could be built outside the Type III stream buffer, it is concluded that
the applicant has met its burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence -- more
4 likely than not) in showing that the proposed site is necessary for the minimum
reasonable use of the land, i.e. all developable areas are encroached with Resource
5 Ordinance buffers and the proposed location has the least adverse impact (because it's
6 already cleared).
7 For future reference, however, staff and future applicants should do more than just
speculate that the Resource Ordinance would prevent development because of
8 woodpecker habitat or the like. A full Habitat Management Plan and mitigation as
required by the Resource Ordinance should be prepared if the proposition is made
9 that an applicant cannot develop in an area because of Resource Ordinance
10 restrictions. Staff may in this case have not felt this was necessary because they were
relying more upon the fact that the proposed location is already cleared and
11 development outside the buffer would involve the removal of vegetation. As
mentioned in prior cases, this type of analysis does not meet Resource Ordinance
12 standards because the Resource Ordinance (setting aside the woodpecker issue)
doesn't protect vegetation outside the Resource Ordinance buffer. Staff and the
13 applicant both emphasized that you cannot expect that the currently cleared area will
14 be returned to its native state, because the cleared area and corresponding recreational
use are grandfathered and likely to be perpetuated in one form or another. This is
15 certainly true, but switching from a trailer to a permanent home within the Resource
Ordinance buffer is unquestionably an intensification of use that creates more adverse
16 impact to the buffer. Without the added element of the woodpecker habitat, the
17 requested variance could not have been approved.
1s The other issue appropriately raised by Mr. Diehl was whether the applicant in fact
already has a reasonable use of the property. As noted in the Buechel decision,
19 recreational use of property can constitute all the reasonable use to which a property
owner is entitled. This is another area where it would have helped to have more
20 information. However, given the "more likely than not" standard, the fact that several
21 lots in the vicinity have permanent homes is marginally enough to show that the
proposed home is necessary for a reasonable use of the property. The subject lot,
22 however, is relatively small. It would have helped to know if the permanent homes in
the vicinity were on lots of similar size. The value of the property (and its
23 relationship to recreational as opposed to single-family home lots) and the investment
backed expectations of the owner are also highly relevant. In future variance requests
24 to convert a lot from recreational use to single-family home use, more information of
25 this type should be provided to explain why recreational use does not already qualify
a minimum reasonable use of the property.
Carrier Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PAd591701.D OCY 13009.900000/)
vvr tvi ..vvo tom.L1 1'r LVV R41 UG1J
_ L9J0Ut5/ 07
Given the conclusion that a single-family home is a minimum reasonable use and that
1 all developable portions of the subject lot are prohibited from development under the
2 Resource Ordinance, the Resource Ordinance restrictions do significantly interfere
with the reasonable use of the subject property within the meaning of the variance
3 criteria quoted above.
4 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
5 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
6 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
7
5. The need for the variance is created by the natural features on the property
8 and their corresponding development buffers.
9 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
10 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
11
6. As discussed in the findings of fact, the proposed home is of a size
12 consistent with the sizes of garages in the vicinity. The use proposed is also
residential, which is also consistent with surrounding uses and the zoning designation
13 for the site,RR-5.
14 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
15 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief_
16
17 7. The property is located in a Rural Residential-5 zoning district, which
permits single family garages outright. The applicant is only requesting the
18 opportunity to build a home, which is a right afforded to most other properties in the
vicinity. Consequently, the granting of a variance application would not constitute a
19 special privilege. The size of the home is also consistent with the size of adjoining
homes, making it the minimum variance necessary to afford relief.
20
21 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
22 81 The building site is on an already cleared area with no discernible adverse
impacts, especially as mitigated as recommended by staff and Habitat Management
23 Plan. Consequently, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
24 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
25 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
Carrier Variance P. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0591701-DOC;1/I3009.900000/)
03/18/2005 16:22 FAX 206 4470215 Z 007/007.
County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mirror loss in value only
1 shall not justify a variance.
2 91 The purpose of the Resource Ordinance is to protect environmentally
3 sensitive areas from adverse impacts created by development. The Resource
Ordinance specifically provides for a variance and reasonable use waiver process so
4 that the goals of environmental protection do not place undue hardship upon property
owners, at least to the extent that their constitutional rights may be violated. The
5 granting of the variance in this particular case will not have any significant adverse
6 environmental impacts and will at the same time provide for a reasonable use of
property, thus satisfying the purpose of the Resource Ordinance. The Comprehensive
7 Plan and Zoning Code provide for residential development in the subject area- The
lot, which appears to be less than an acre in size, is too small for residential
8 development in a rural area to be consistent with the policies of the Growth
Management Act as they pertain to discouraging urban sprawl aBd encouraging the
9 efficient use of public infrastructure. However, the Growth Management Act also
10 encourages the protection of private property rights. Authorizing the construction of
a garage on a grandfathered lot in the circumstances of this application does promote
11 the private property rights of the applicant. For these reasons, the granting of this
variance would also be considered consistent with the intent of the Growth
12 Management Act.
13
14 DECISION
15 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended by staff in the staff report (Exhibit 1). In addition, the applicant shall
16 record a covenant or easement that permanently prohibits development in the
woodpecker habitat area. The covenant or easement shall be subject to the prior
17 approval of the Mason County Prosecuting Attorney.
18 Dated this 18th day of March,2005.
19
20
Phi Olbrechts
21 Mason County Hearing Examiner
22
23
24
25
Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0591701.DOC;3/13009.9000001 F
cS
l
� C
os
{
ct
REKIVED
APR 112005
fi t, nST.W. CED
\ ►►'* , ,
`d7
ov 5° k �'�q=
aee
Page 6
Vehicle Data and Expenses
Vehicle One Vehicle Two
1 Description of vehicle
2 Is the vehicle used in a business or as an employee?
3 Cost (including sales tax
4 Date placed in service
5 Business miles
6 Commuting miles (daily commuting miles times the number of trips to work
7 Other personal use miles
8 Total miles driven
9 Gas and oil expenses
10 Repairs and maintenance
11 Auto insurance
12 Registration, licenses, and fees
13 Other auto expenses (identify)
14 Auto rentals
Auto Mileage Documentation
Yes No
1 Is another car available for personal use?
2 Do you have evidence to support your mileage information reported above?
3 If yes, is the evidence written in a log or other lace?
Income or Loss from S Corporations
Other Passive
Name Income Loss Expenses es/ No
1
2
3
4
5
6
Income or Loss from Partnerships
Other Passive
Name Income Loss Expenses es/ No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Income or Loss from Trust
Other Passive
Name Income Loss Expenses es/ No
1
2
3
4
5
I� 6
`rn
ORAIOJ FIE�'0
I
SFP FT!C
_ sit
a Al
y,
5
t�
RECEIVED
APR 112005
426 W• CEDAR ST-
Page 9
Income or Loss from Rentals and Royalties
A Address of Property A
B Address of Property B
C Address of Property C
Property A Property B Property C
Prior Year Current Yeai Prior Year Current Yeai Prior Year Current Year
1 Was property used for
personal purposes for
more than the greater of
14 days or 10% of the
total days rented at fair
rental value?
2 Total rents received
3 Total royalties received
4 Advertising expenses
5 Auto and travel
6 Cleaning & maintenance
7 Commissions
8 Insurance
9 Legal & professional fees
10 Management fees
11 Mortgage interest paid
12 Other interest
13 Repairs list below
14 Supplies
15 Taxes
16 utilities
17 Other:
18 New equipment & improve-
ments (description,
cost and date):
1
r� 14- CAC-e- (owl
Curriculum Vitae
Charles McCoy has been with the Planning Department since October 2004. He
holds Bachelor's and Master's degrees in biology from The Pennsylvania State
University and State University of New York, respectively. His most recent
senior-authored, publication in the peer-review, scientific literature is titled: The
Fish Community of a Small Impoundment in Upstate New York, by C. Mead
McCoy III, Charles P. Madenjian, Jean V. Adams and Willard N. Harman in the
Journal of Freshwater Ecology, Volume 16, Number 3 - September 2001.
Charles' most recent professional oral presentation titled: Trophic Dynamics and
Nutrient Flux in a Standing Water Body in Upstate New York: A Working Trophic
Cascade Hypothesis, by C. Mead McCoy III, Charles P. Madenjian, Jean V.
Adams, Willard N. Harman, Matthew Albright and David Warner was given at the
84th Annual Meeting of the Ecological Society of America, Spokane, Washington
(1999). He has taught Ichthyology, as a Visiting Instructor, at Eastern Michigan
University, Ypsilanti, Michigan to both graduate and undergraduate students; and
Introductory Biology, as Adjunct Faculty, at South Puget Sound Community
College (SPSCC), Olympia, Washington. He will be teaching Summer Session
2005 Marine Biology at SPSCC. He has been employed as a researcher and
resource manager with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Fish
and Wildlife Service, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, National
Marine Fisheries Service, US Geological Survey, Ichthyological Associates, Inc.
and US Peace Corps.