HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2010-00003 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 6/14/2010 June 14, 2010
Notice of Decision
Case: DDR2010-00003
Applicant: Kevin Et Juanita Lea.
Notice is hereby given that Kevin Et Juanita Lea, who are the
applicants for the above-referenced Mason County Special Use
Permit, have been granted approval of that Special Use Permit. The
request was reviewed on May 11, 2010 by the Mason County Hearing
Examiner, additional written testimony from a neighbor was
submitted for consideration on May 13, 2010, and the request was
approved pursuant to the Mason County Title 1.05.044 Special Use
Permit review, specifically to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit on
a parcel in the Rural Residential 5 zone at 3 miles west of the Belfair
Urban Growth Area. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per
WAC 197-11-800 (1).
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency
as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact
Allan Borden, Senior Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community
Development at 360-427-9670 x365.
HAWORMPermit Reviews\Decision coversheet.doc
J U1N 01 1 @ 10
MCCO - PLANNING
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Kevin and Juanita Lea
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Special Use Permit OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
#DDR2010-00003
6
7 INTRODUCTION/POST-HEARING COMMENTS
8
The applicant has applied for a special use permit for an accessory living quarters
9 (ALQ). The Examiner approves the application with conditions.
10 Pursuant to the objection of Mr. Lea, the Erickson written comments are excluded
11 from the record and consideration in this decision. Mr. Erickson was advised that if
the document was excluded it could jeopardize the validity of his decision. Mr.
12 Erickson still objected. Should the Ericksons successfully pursue a judicial appeal of
this decision, Mr. Erickson's special use permit decision now could be delayed for a
13 year or more.
14 As background, after the close of the hearing in this case Mr. Borden, Mason County
15 Staff, emailed the Examiner to notify him that one of the Applicant's neighbors has
missed the hearing. In the email Mr. Borden explained that he exited the hearing
16 chambers upon conclusion of the Lea hearing and found Mr. Lea neighbor, Renee
Erickson, waiting in the lobby to testify on the Lea application. Ms. Erickson
17 informed Mr. Borden that she had arrived at the lobby at 12:50 (ten minutes before
18 the start of the hearing) and had been advised by the receptionist at the switchboard to
wait in the lobby. In the same email Mr. Borden asked for direction from the
19 Examiner on whether Ms. Erickson could still provide written comment.
20 The Examiner responded by email that if he didn't reopen the hearing for the written
21 comment that the decision could be invalidated due to the misdirection given to Ms.
Erickson to wait in the lobby. He asked for Mr. Lea's email address so that he could
22 send the Erickson comments to Mr. Lea for a response. Mr. Borden then emailed Mr.
Olbrechts the Erickson written comments and advised that he only had Mr. Lea's
23 phone number. The Examiner's legal assistant then phoned Mr. Lea to request his
email or fax number so that the Erickson comments could be forwarded to him. Mr.
24 Lea declined to provide this information so the Erickson comments were mailed to
25 him. In the cover letter to the Erickson letter, Mr. Olbrechts advised Mr. Lea that he
could object to the timeliness of the Erickson comments but that if the comments
were excluded that could put the validity of his decision into question. Mr. Lea still
objected to comments in this response.The Examiner has had no direct
coo '' Y
f IEDD
Lea SUP for ADU P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
communication with Ms. Erickson on the Lea application or any other matter. All
I communications between staff and the Examiner are public records available for
2 inspection at Mason County offices. Those emails are also listed as an exhibit to this
decision.
3
If Ms. Erickson was misdirected by the receptionist, there is a high likelihood that a
4 reviewing court on appeal will exercise its statutory and/or equitable powers to either
consider the Erickson comments as part of a judicial appeal or order the Examiner to
5 hold another hearing to consider the comments. Under principles of equity,the courts
6 have ruled that administrative appeal deadlines, if not jurisdictional,may be tolled if a
party misses a deadline due to reliance upon false assurances or deception by a
7 government entity. See Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 154 Wn. App. 395, 406
(2010). Given the flexibility of equitable doctrines, it would not be much of a stretch
8 to extend this doctrine to someone who misses an opportunity to provide public
comment due to the false assurances of a government official. Given the
9 circumstances of this application, a court could (and probably would) exercise its
10 authority under RCW 36.70C.140 to remand the decision back to the Examiner to
give the Ericksons a fair opportunity to comment on the application. In the
11 alternative the court could arguably also consider the Erickson comments itself.
RCW 36.70C.120(2)(b) allows the court to consider evidence outside the record if it
12 was "improperly excluded" from the record. The alleged misdirection given by the
County receptionist could be construed as leading to the improper exclusion of the
13 Erickson comments. RCW 36.70C.120(2)(c) also allows a court to consider new
14 evidence pertaining to matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The
Erickson's procedural due process rights were arguably violated by the misdirection
15 given by the receptionist. As shall be discussed, the Examiner does not have
authority to address constitutional issues.
16
Given the vulnerability of Mr. Lea's decision to judicial attack and the attendant,
17 extensive delays associated with judicial appeals, the Examiner had hoped to remedy
18 the situation by giving Ms. Erickson an opportunity to comment and Mr. Lea to
respond. No one other than Mr. Lea and staff testified at the hearing on this
19 application so Ms. Erickson's right to comment could easily have been
accommodated by some quick email exchanges. However, this remedy could only be
20 exercised if Mr. Lea did not object to it. Although the courts are free to consider the
21 equitable and constitutional principles that underlie the Ms. Erickson's right to
comment, the Examiner is not. See Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App.
22 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule
on constitutional challenges); Chaussee v. Snohomish County, 38 Wn. App. 630
23 (1984) (hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). In short,
24 the Examiner had no authority to rely upon equity or constitutional requirements to
25 reopen the hearings and was dependent upon Mr. Lea's acquiescence to consider the
Lea SUP for ADU p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOQI\13009.900000\}
Erickson comments'. Mr. Lea's response, faxed to the Examiner on May 27, 2010,
I objected to entry of the Erickson comments. Given Mr. Lea's position, the Examiner
2 is no longer in a position to protect the decision on his application from a viable
judicial challenge.
3
The Erickson comments are not accepted into the record and were not considered in
4 the issuance of this decision. Mr. Lea's response to the substance of the Erickson
comments was also not considered. The emails of the Examiner and staff regarding
5 the Erickson comments and the portion of Mr. Lea's response that objects to entry of
6 the Erickson comments are admitted into the record.
7 ORAL TESTIMONY
8
Allen Borden—Mason County Staff
9
Mr. Borden entered additional photographs into evidence,taken April 20,
10 2010, of the garage that is already under construction.
11 Kevin Lea-Applicant
12
Mr. Lea wanted to clarify that the permit is not after the fact, but rather that
13 their circumstances and plans have somewhat modified. The area was intended to be
converted at some point in the future, and was designed with that conversion in
14 mind.
15 EXHIBITS
16 See "Exhibits" attached to the staff report by Allan Borden dated May 11, 2010 for
exhibits, in addition to:
17
18 Exhibit 8: Photos taken April 29, 2010 by Allen Borden.
19 Exhibit 9: 5/13/2010 email from Allan Borden to Examiner, excluding
Erickson attachment.
20
Exhibit 10: 5/25/10 letter from Examiner to Lea, excluding Erickson
21 enclosure.
22 Exhibit 11: Lea 5/27/10 fax to Examiner, p. 1, second paragraph (contesting
23 admission of Erickson letter) and p. 8, last paragraph (contesting
admission of Erickson letter).
24
25
' If Mr. Lea waived objection,the only party with standing to challenge the reopening
of the hearing would be the County. Presumably the County would have had no
interest in making such a challenge.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision.
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
1
FINDINGS OF FACT
2
Procedural:
3
4 1. Applicant. The applicants are Kevin and Juanita Lea.
5 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on May 10, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
6 Meeting Chambers.
7 Substantive:
8
3. Site/Proposal Description. The application is for a Special Use Permit for
9 an Accessory Dwelling Unit for the conversion of second floor garage area of 768
square feet into an accessory dwelling unit. The applicant wishes to change the
10 classification to an accessory dwelling unit, for potential future retirement use for
11 either their elderly parents or themselves in the future. The garage is already under
construction, as it had already received a building permit. The second story area is
12 already insulated, dry walled, and nearly complete for its previously planned use as a
storage area. The primary residence on site was constructed in 1985 and is 1,800
13 square feet, and is approximately 30 feet to the south of the garage. The site is sloped
from the rear towards the southeast, and a geotechnical report was reviewed in 2007
14 for the approval of the permit to construct the garage.
15 4 Characteristics of the Area. The parcel is within a high-density rural
16 residential development, with approximately 3 dwellings per acre. Nearly every
parcel in the surrounding development area has a residence and/or garage building.
17
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The staff concludes in its report that
18 there does not appear to be impact on surrounding properties for view blockage,
19 traffic, parking, or drainage. The development appears to meet the applicable rural
residential standards of the MCC. No comments from the public at large have been
20 received, and no significant adverse impacts are apparent from the record.
21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22 Procedural:
23
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) provides the
24 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon Special Use Permits.
25 Substantive:
2. Zoning_Designation. The area is zoned as Rural Residential 5 or RR-5.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
1 3. Review Criteria and Application. MCDR 17.03.029 governs ADUs in
2 rural lands and requires a special use permit if the ADU is located outside the
shoreline (Chapter 90.58 RCV) jurisdiction. The proposed ADU is not within 200
3 feet of a shoreline regulated by Chapter 90.58 RCW, and therefore, is subject to a
special use permit. The review criteria for the Special Use Permit application is
4 governed under Mason County Development Regulation 17.05.044. These criteria, in
addition to miscellaneous criteria for all Hearing Examiner decisions, are quoted and
5 addressed below.
6 MCDR 17.05.044 SPECIAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA:
7
A) That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
8 welfare.
9 4. The proposed ADU is to be part of a newly erected structure that was
10 reviewed and approved in 2007. The proposed ADU will not be approved for use
until the Building and Environmental Health Departments have checked that it meets
11 current safety and health regulations. As proposed, it meets all county setbacks and
assures adequate off-street parking. There will be no detrimental impact to the public
12 health, safety, and welfare by using the already existing art studio structure as an
ADU.
13
14 B) That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
15
5. There do not appear to be any conflicts with the County Comprehensive
16 Plan. Rural Residential 5 zoning does allow for one ADU per lot, the owner of the
parcel will reside on the lot, and the ADU does not exceed 80% of the habitable area
17 of the proposed primary residence.
18
C) That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the site that
19 cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and
the community at large.
20
21 6. The structure has already nearly been completed, and conversion of the
space into a livable ADU will require minor modifications to a permit that has already
22 recently been approved. No hazardous conditions are expected to be introduced, as
the building has already been constructed and only minor construction must be
23 undertaken for the conversion; all of which will require an additional building permit
and inspection. No adjacent properties, nor the community at large, will be impacted
24 by permitting the ADU.
25 D) That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities which are in place,
or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital
Facilities Plan.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
1 7. The structure is served by a private septic and private water. The parcel is
2 located off of Larson Lake Road and Larson Boulevard, both paved roads.. The street
address is clearly marked for emergency and mailing purposes. The site has postal,
3 emergency, and public school bussing services currently in place. The ADU does not
require any further public facilities beyond those currently in place.
4
E) That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing uses on
5 adjacent lands.
6 8. No significant impacts are expected to result from this proposal. The
7 structure has essentially already been built, and the conversion of the inside into a
livable space will not make any outwardly visible changes to the structure. The
8 permit for the garage itself was obtained in 2007, and impacts were evaluated at that
time.
9
10 F) If located outside an Urban Growth Area, that the proposed use will not result in
the need to extend urban services.
11
9. The site is currently served by water, septic, road access, and electric lines
12 that are sufficient to meet all of the proposed needs of the current as well as the
proposed resident. Therefore, the project will not result in the need to extend urban
13 services.
14 MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA FOR ALL HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW:
15
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
16 proposed development according to the following criteria:
17 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
18 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
19 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
20
21 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation andlor
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
22 Comprehensive Plan.
23 10. As indicated in the staff report, the project is consistent with the Mason
County comprehensive plan and will not lower the level of service for transportation
24 or park facilities, as only one individual will be residing in the ADU. In addition to
25 requirements already addressed in the above Conclusions of Law, the project, as
conditioned, appears to be consistent with other applicable requirements of the Mason
County Code. The proposed ADU is not subject to Title 16 which only governs
subdivisions. It meets the requirements and the intent of Titles 6 and 8. It also meets
Lea SUP for ADU p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
of the ADU is less than 1000 square feet and is less than 80% of the primary
1 residence; only one ADU will result from the project; adequate parking will be
2 provided for the ADU; the ADU will be located within 150 feet of the primary
residence; all setback requirements are satisfied; and the ADU will hook into existing
3 and County approved water and septic. The proposed project does not impact the
public health, safety and welfare and it is in the public interest as it permits full
4 beneficial use of real property. No condition has been identified to show that this
particular project will lower the level of service of transportation and/or
5 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7 DECISION
8 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested Special Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit as recommended in the Staff Report by Allen Borden for DDR 2010-
9 00003.
10
11 Dated this 27th day of May, 2010.
12
13 ...
14 Phil A. 01brechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
15
16 NOTICE OF RIGHT OF RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
17
Appeal to Superior Court: An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner
18 must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the
19 Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20 RECONSIDERATION:
21 (a) Reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner code enforcement decision may be
granted by the Hearing Examiner!to the extent consistent with state'law, if a moving
22 party demonstrates one or more of the following:
23
1. Irregularity in the proceedings by which the moving party was prevented from
24 having a fair hearing;
25 2. Newly discovered evidence of a material nature that could not, with reasonable
diligence,have been produced at hearing;
Lea SUP for ADU p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(BFP696098.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
1 3. Error in the computation of the amount of damages or other monetary element of
2 the decision;
3 4. Clear mistake as to a material fact.
4 (b) Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the date of the
Hearing Examiner's decision. Unless otherwise specifically provided by the
5 applicable ordinance(s), the filing of a motion for reconsideration shall not stop or
6 alter the running of the period provided to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision.
7 Change in Valuation
8 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any
9 program of revaluation.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lea SUP for ADU p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;I\13009.900000\}
PV1 CC D - PLANNING
DECLARATION OF MAILING
Kevin and Juanita Lea
Special Use Permit#DDR2010-00003
I,N. Kay Richards, make the following declaration:
1. I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a
party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. On the 27th day of May, 2010, 1 mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a true
and correct copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and this
Declaration of Service to the following:
Kevin Lea
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington,this 27th day of May, 2010.
N. Kay Rich rds
ORIGINAL
{PA0791126.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
CASEINDEX
Kevin & Juanita Lea Accessory Dwelling Unit Special Use Permit
DDR2010-00003
Exhibit# Date Description
1 May 3, 2010 Staff Report
2 January 13, 2010 Special Use Application and Property Owner List
3 Aril 19, 2010 Proposal Vicinity
4 January 13, 2010 Site Plan Ma
5 Aril 19, 2010 Site Topography
6 March 18, 2010 Notice of Application
7 Aril 29, 2010 Affidavit of Posting
Lea ADU DDR2010-00003 case index.doc
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
May 11, 2010
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden; 360.427.9670 ext. 363; ahb _co.mason.wa.us
RE: Special Use Permit(DDR2010-00003) for conversion of garage second floor to an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal to convert the garage second floor to an
Accessory Dwelling Unit on a 0.42-acre property. The completed unit will be 768 square
feet in area. Staff finds all review standards for the Special Use Permit are met.
II. Applicant. Kevin and Juanita Lea.
III. Property Location. 41 NE Jolly Rogers Ln. Belfair, WA.; Parcel # 12330-54-00029.
IV. Project Description. An application for Special Use Permit was received on January 13,
2010 to convert a garage second floor area(768 sq. ft.)to an Accessory Dwelling Unit on
a 0.42-acre property(Exhibit 2). The septic, water and driveway are now existing. The
1,800 square foot primary residence is located approximately 30 feet to the south. See site
plan(Exhibit 4).
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is 80 feet deep and 180 feet wide and is along
the ridge that continues to the south. (Exhibit 3). The primary residence was
constructed 1985 and the applicant applied for a building permit for the garage with
heated second floor area(BLD2007-00053). The site is sloped from the rear towards
the southeast at around 25 to 30 percent(Exhibit 5). A Geotechnical Report was
reviewed in 2007 to permit the constructed garage.
B. Characteristics of the area. The area is characterized by high-density rural residential
development(three dwellings per acre)in an area zoned as Rural Residential 5. The
vicinity(Exhibit 3) is 1.5 miles west of Belfair and accessed by the paved roads
(Larson Lake Rd. and Larson Blvd.). Nearly every parcel in this portion of the
Beard's Cove plat has a residence or garage building.
C. Shoreline Desi ng ation. Not Applicable.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Page 1 of 3
D. Comprehensive Plan Desi nation/Zoning. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural and the zoning is Rural Residential 5.
VI. SEPA Compliance. Project is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i).
VII. Other Permits/Approvals. The proposal will require completion of the Mason County
Building Permit for the residential (ADU) construction(BLD2007-00053). A Notice of
Application and Public Hearing (Exhibit 6) was posted in the Mason County Journal on
March 18 and 25, 2010,posted on site on April 29,2010, and mailed to neighboring
properties on April 30, 2010. An Affidavit of Posting is included as Exhibit 7.
VIII. Analysis. This proposal requires a Special Use Permit per the requirements of the Mason
County Development Regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units, M.C.C. 17.03.029.
The applicable Development Regulations standards are:
A. The ADU shall be subject to a special use permit, unless in the shoreline
jurisdiction it is subject to a shoreline permit.
B. The owner of the ADU must reside on the lot in either the principal residence or
ADU.
C. The ADU shall be located within 150 feet of the principal residence or shall be a
conversion of an existing detached structure (i.e. garage).
D. The ADU shall not exceed 80%of the square footage of the habitable area of the
primary residence or 1,000 square feet, whichever is smaller.
E. All setback requirements must be met by the ADU.
F. All applicable health district standards for water and sewer must be met by the
ADU.
G. No recreational vehicles shall be allowed as ADUs.
H. Only one ADU is allowed on any property.
I. An additional off-street parking space must be provided for the ADU.
The ADU as proposed(768 sq.ft living area, 30 feet distance from existing primary
residence, water and septic provided, and meeting proper building setbacks) meets all of
the above criteria A —I.
Applicable Special Use review criteria:
1. Will the proposed use be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare?
The conversion of the second floor area as a ADU in an existing garage meets all county
setbacks, assures adequate off street parking, and is provided with proper septic and
water services. No potential detrimental effects have been identified.
2. Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan?
The proposed residential land use is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan. Rural Residential S zoning does allow for one ADUper parcel.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Page 2 of 3
3. Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions at the site that cannot be mitigated
through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large?
No hazardous conditions are expected as a result of the conversion of the second floor
area to the proposed accessory residence.
4. Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, or planned as
a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
No public facilities are present in the vicinity; individual water and septic systems are in
place to serve the proposed ADU. The project will not lower the level of service of
transportation or neighborhood park facilities below applicable minimum standards.
5. Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
The proposed accessory residence in the existing garage will have no significant impact
upon existing adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses are developed residential
properties or vacant lots.
6. If located outside an Urban Growth Area,will the proposal result in the need to extend
urban services?
The conversion of the second floor ofgarage to an ADU would not result in a need to
extend urban services to this location.
Project Analysis: Based upon these policies and regulations,the project conforms as
noted to the use regulations of the Mason County Development Regulations in regard to
the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards.
IX. Conclusions. As designed,the proposed accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the
Mason County Development Regulations. Staff finds all review standards are met.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the SUP request.
2. Denial of the SUP request.
3. Conditional approval of the SUP request.
4. Postpone the decision for further information.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Page 3 of 3
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
A Special Use is one that possesses unique characteristics due to size, nature, intensity of use,
technological processes involved, demands upon public services, relationship to surrounding
lands, or other factors. The purpose of this application is to provide for adequate oversight and
review of such development proposals, in order to assure that such uses are developed in
harmony with surrounding land uses, and in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Development Regulations for Mason County; Ordinance No. 82-96. Acceptance of this
application by Mason County does not guarantee approval of request.
Applicant name �1"";7 J-U,t A)l 7-4 466 9 Telephone# (366) 2-7!r-Y/0
Mailing address D6,612 �.N ,�
Site address
Tax Parcel#
Legal Description 1
U005 caU ,Q1V7 L0r2 V010rne ?48a Pa b
4,01 T fo N L f C) 1-d T 3 A,6 to I, lq ti 00_7_7
Type of Special Use Permit: Communications Tower
Accessory Dwelling Unit li
Oversize Construction
Other
On a separate piece of paper, please state your reasons for requesting a Special Use
Permit. Be sure to address the following six criteria, your request will be evaluated based on
these criteria.
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan?
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site, that can not be
mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community
at large?
Special Use Permit: $1,135.00 plus Hearings Examiner: $2005 or $670 for ADU's
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee
approval.
I:\PLANNING\PAC\FORMS Updated 12/15/08
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, planned as a
condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need to extend
urban services?
es
7) Please provide a site plan that includes the following:
❑ Indicate Scale and North Arrow
❑ Property line dimensions,easements,and right-of-ways.
❑ The location of all existing and proposed structures. Include square footage of existing and proposed
structures.
❑ Setback distance, in feet from all property lines and structures.
❑ Existing and proposed road access to and from the site.
❑ Parking sites
❑ Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields.
❑ Location of drinking water supply. Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels.
❑ Steep bluffs,wetlands,streams,and bodies of water
❑ Location of fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access roads, including grade.
❑ Surface and storm water run-off routes.
X o��
Applicant(s) signature
�� , TNouT PRFTUOIC E
"eGW CO d 7
Special Use Permit: $1,135.00 plus Hearings Examiner: $2005 or $670 for ADU's
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee
approval.
I:\PLANNING\PAC\FORMS Updated 12/15/08
Application for Special Use (AFSU)
Answers to Questions 1-7
Jan 4. 2010
For Kevin and Juanita Lea
Tax Parcel 12330-54-00029
It is currently our desire to convert a permitted and under construction heated
storage area (24 ft X 32 ft outside dimension - 768 sq feet) into an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU). My wife and I hope to someday make it our retirement
dwelling unit. With our parents currently in their 80s and 90s, it is also possible
that we will need to care for them in the near future. If so,we want to be ready. We
currently have occupancy in the lower level garage (also 24 X 32), and the upstairs
storage area is insulated, dry walled and nearly completed as a storage unit.
Instead of getting a final inspection for the garage/storage permit, we plan to apply
for a building permit change to make the necessary modifications for an ADU once
the Special Use Permit is approved. The following addresses questions 1-7 of the
AFSU.
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
No.
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan?
To the best of my knowledge—Yes.
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site, that cannot
be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties
and the community at large?
No.
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place,
planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's
Capital Facilities Plan?
Yes, the water and electrical power use have already been evaluated
as adequate by the PUD #3 and by the county health department.
The health department approved the design and installation of the
septic system on 2/23/07 (permit #2006-00690)
i
On 2/12/2009 the Health Department approved the addition of
plumbing items (tub/shower,washer, sinks, toilet) that I submitted as
a proposed change in support of some day converting to ADU. All
water supply and drain plumbing that is needed and planned to
support converting from storage to ADU is now installed and
inspected complete per county code requirements. No additional
plumbing changes are planned.
On September 7, 2008, I received a letter from Teresa Ancich from
PUD #3 (copy attached) stating that their existing electrical facilities
"will be adequate for your added load." My electrical load request
for the garage and storage unit included a request that they also
evaluate for the future plan to convert to an ADU with a 200 amp
service.
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on
adjacent lands?
No.
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the
need to extend urban services?
No.
7) Please provide a site plan that includes the following:
See attached
2
TROY V ERICKSON SEARLE, DALLIN D &JACQUELYN R
11 NE JOLLY ROGER LN 81 NE JOLLY ROGER LANE
BELFAIR WA 98528-9231 BELFAIR WA 98528-9231
JOSLIN, LARRY W& KATHY M KIRKPATRICK, RICHARD & SARAH
2906 48TH ST NE 130 NE ADMIRAL DR
TACOMA WA 98422-4443 BELFAIR WA 98528-9299
FULLER, DOUGLAS A & LAURIE A OSTRANDER, DAVID J &TERESA L
121 NE ADMIRAL WAY 111 NE ADMIRAL DR
BELFAIR WA 98528-9299 BELFAIR WA 98528-9299
BRIAN M JOHNSON RITA J MATSON
101 NE ADMIRAL WAY 1905 VISTA LN W
BELFAIR WA 98528-9299 BREMERTON WA 98312-4722
MANJIT SINGH C/O ANNA HALL JOHN S WHISTLER
2992A MOUNTAIN VIEW RD E PO BOX 6189
PORT ORCHARD WA 98366-8107 SILVERDALE WA 98315-6189
C RICHARD HITE DAVID G ENKE
61 NE ADMIRAL DR 3515 RILEY STREET
BELFAIR WA 98528-9232 BELLINGHAM WA 98229-2413
CLARK, DONALD G & KIYOKO MATTHEWS,JEFFREY A& RAE DEANE
21810 E STATE ROUTE 3 P O BOX 87
BELFAIR WA 98528-9692 BREMERTON WA 98337-0026
LANDES, TIMOTHY H & EVONNE E DONALD L VERBEKE
90 NE JOLLY ROGER LANE 307 S COLE AVE
BELFAIR WA 98528 MOLALLA OR 97038-8115
CAMPBELL, LYNDA L NEWMAN, ROBERT F & PHYLLIS L
P.O. BOX 1781 8361 NE NORTH SHORE RD
BELFAIR WA 98528-1781 BELFAIR WA 98528-9791
JOHN MCKAY GAGE TRS, ROBERT K& OPAL F
116 MOONDANCE LN 29823 23RD AVE SW
PORT LUDLOW WA 98365-9591 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023-2308
a
O
O
J
W
Z
O
O
2
U
N
W
Z NE LARSON BLVD Z
Z 1W
D
N '
1 inch = 200 feet
W E
1 inch = 0.04 miles C)r3
at
`C o Nr 0
i, M (l\
A
IYUPI
x3
$� ��1 a�a
-O- If 0
-6
c�
� Q3�'lQGuO'J 9�
�a7 �o ��
(SONt1'7190-7 `5f:fn7q dg31S ON -
oloY
N,Ol oc
�S i! 2b'���51� 7 O
'1 BYO/1.e9/7dd d �/l aj ms
123305300025 }
123305300026 F <�
�123305400032
123305300027 " OAF
r '
A
123305400046
123305400031
123300060000
n
. 123305300028
s
Nk
123305400033T
123305300029
_ NRIW 123305400006,
123305400046 `
a!Y
f
" 123305400029 " 123305400007
�123305400034
12330540002
123305400008
a 123305400028
123305400036 `--
H
` 123305400309
1')�,_m:annm 7 123305400026
"rn a
N
1 inch = 50 feet
W E
1 inch =0.01 miles
S
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
DDR2010-0003 NOTICE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that the Kevin and Juanita Lea, who are the owners of the described property
below, has filed an application for a Special Use Permit for the development of.
Conversion of a second-floor heated storage area (768 sq. ft.) to an accessory dwelling unit in an
existing garage on a property zoned Rural Residential 5 zone. To finalize this conversion, the
applicant must receive approval through a Special Use Permit public review and hearing by the
County Hearings Examiner.
Parcel Number: 12330-54-00029 (0.42 ac.)
Site Address: 41 NE Jolly Rogers Lane, Belfair WA.
Location of Project: Near the corner of Jolly Rogers Lane and Larson Lake Road in Beard's
Cove Subdivision; within the northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 23 N., Range 1 W. in
Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to Special Use Permit review(M.C.C. 17.05.040) and associated
Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their view or to be
notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
The comment period is at least 10 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to M.C.C.
15.07.030 (public notice). Final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is March 25, 2010.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
May 11, 2010; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at (360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
This construction proposal is exempt from further environmental review per WAC 197-11-800(1)(c).
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
f Sop
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) bD k 'u 00wo3
COUNTY OF MASON ss.
do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached 4— U/J�- W`�
on ��day of A20 in
--------
public places as follows:
one at ��1�"(Ul
one at
one at-6*L—
� ®S14
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this � day
of--414
, 20 L6 .
By: P
Address: w4 �Z
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ) ss.
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2 day o �6 , 20 /C�
APbu ' t Sfia of ashington
.., _ Residing at
Commission Expires -
,,, 0,20
/�";z/-,yIWA-SH,NG\��..
June 14, 2010
Notice of Decision
Case: DDR2010-00003
Applicant: Kevin l* Juanita Lea.
Notice is hereby given that Kevin &t Juanita Lea, who are the
applicants for the above-referenced Mason County Special Use
Permit, have been granted approval of that Special Use Permit. The
request was reviewed on May 11, 2010 by the Mason County Hearing
Examiner, additional written testimony from a neighbor was
submitted for consideration on May 13, 2010, and the request was
approved pursuant to the Mason County Title 1 .05.044 Special Use
Permit review, specifically to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit on
a parcel in the Rural Residential 5 zone at 3 miles west of the Belfair
Urban Growth Area. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per
WAC 197-11-800 (1).
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available.
Appeal may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency
as regulations apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal
requirements of any appeal process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues, please contact
Allan Borden, Senior Planner with Mason County Dept. of Community
Development at 360-427-9670 x365.
HAWORD\Permit Reviews\Decision coversheet.doc
RECE MD
JUN 0 1 010
1 MCCD - PLANNING
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Kevin and Juanita Lea
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Special Use Permit OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
#DDR2010-00003
6
INTRODUCTION/POST-HEARING COMMENTS
8
The applicant has applied for a special use permit for an accessory living quarters
9 (ALQ). The Examiner approves the application with conditions.
10 Pursuant to the objection of Mr. Lea, the Erickson written comments are excluded
11 from the record and consideration in this decision. Mr. Erickson was advised that if
the document was excluded it could jeopardize the validity of his decision. Mr.
12 Erickson still objected. Should the Ericksons successfully pursue a judicial appeal of
this decision, Mr. Erickson's special use permit decision now could be delayed for a
13 year or more.
14 As background, after the close of the hearing in this case Mr. Borden, Mason County
15 Staff, emailed the Examiner to notify him that one of the Applicant's neighbors has
missed the hearing. In the email Mr. Borden explained that he exited the hearing
16 chambers upon conclusion of the Lea hearing and found Mr. Lea neighbor, Renee
17
Erickson, waiting in the lobby to testify on the Lea application. Ms. Erickson
informed Mr. Borden that she had arrived at the lobby at 12:50 (ten minutes before
18 the start of the hearing) and had been advised by the receptionist at the switchboard to
wait in the lobby. In the same email Mr. Borden asked for direction from the
19 Examiner on whether Ms. Erickson could still provide written comment.
20 The Examiner responded by email that if he didn't reopen the hearing for the written
21 comment that the decision could be invalidated due to the misdirection given to Ms.
Erickson to wait in the lobby. He asked for Mr. Lea's email address so that he could
22 send the Erickson comments to Mr. Lea for a response. Mr. Borden then emailed Mr.
Olbrechts the Erickson written comments and advised that he only had Mr. Lea's
23 phone number. The Examiner's legal assistant then phoned Mr. Lea to request his
email or fax number so that the Erickson comments could be forwarded to him. Mr.
24 Lea declined to provide this information so the Erickson comments were mailed to
25 him. In the cover letter to the Erickson letter, Mr. Olbrechts advised Mr. Lea that he
could object to the timeliness of the Erickson comments but that if the comments
were excluded that could put the validity of his decision into question. Mr. Lea still
objected to comments in this response. The Examiner has had no direct
. co [py
Lea SUP for ADU P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
communication with Ms. Erickson on the Lea application or any other matter. All
I communications between staff and the Examiner are public records available for
2 inspection at Mason County offices. Those emails are also listed as an exhibit to this
decision.
3
If Ms. Erickson was misdirected by the receptionist, there is a high likelihood that a
4 reviewing court on appeal will exercise its statutory and/or equitable powers to either
consider the Erickson comments as part of a judicial appeal or order the Examiner to
5 hold another hearing to consider the comments. Under principles of equity,the courts
6 have ruled that administrative appeal deadlines, if not jurisdictional,may be tolled if a
party misses a deadline due to reliance upon false assurances or deception by a
7 government entity. See Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 154 Wn. App. 395, 406
(2010). Given the flexibility of equitable doctrines, it would not be much of a stretch
8 to extend this doctrine to someone who misses an opportunity to provide public
comment due to the false assurances of a government official. Given the
9 circumstances of this application, a court could (and probably would) exercise its
10 authority under RCW 36.70C.140 to remand the decision back to the Examiner to
give the Ericksons a fair opportunity to comment on the application. In the
11 alternative the court could arguably also consider the Erickson comments itself.
RCW 36.70C.120(2)(b) allows the court to consider evidence outside the record if it
12 was "improperly excluded" from the record. The alleged misdirection given by the
County receptionist could be construed as leading to the improper exclusion of the
13 Erickson comments. RCW 36.70C.120(2)(c) also allows a court to consider new
14 evidence pertaining to matters outside the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner. The
Erickson's procedural due process rights were arguably violated by the misdirection
15 given by the receptionist. As shall be discussed, the Examiner does not have
authority to address constitutional issues.
16
17 Given the vulnerability of Mr. Lea's decision to judicial attack and the attendant,
extensive delays associated with judicial appeals, the Examiner had hoped to remedy
18 the situation by giving Ms. Erickson an opportunity to comment and Mr. Lea to
respond. No one other than Mr. Lea and staff testified at the hearing on this
19 application so Ms. Erickson's right to comment could easily have been
accommodated by some quick email exchanges. However,this remedy could only be
20 exercised if Mr. Lea did not object to it. Although the courts are free to consider the
21 equitable and constitutional principles that underlie the Ms. Erickson's right to
comment, the Examiner is not. See Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App.
22 574 (2005)(hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule
on constitutional challenges); Chaussee v. Snohomish County, 38 Wn. App. 630
23 (1984) (hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense
because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute). In short,
24 the Examiner had no authority to rely upon equity or constitutional requirements to
25 reopen the hearings and was dependent upon Mr. Lea's acquiescence to consider the
Lea SUP for ADU p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
(PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\)
Erickson comments'. Mr. Lea's response, faxed to the Examiner on May 27, 2010,
1 objected to entry of the Erickson comments. Given Mr. Lea's position, the Examiner
2 is no longer in a position to protect the decision on his application from a viable
judicial challenge.
3
The Erickson comments are not accepted into the record and were not considered in
4 the issuance of this decision. Mr. Lea's response to the substance of the Erickson
comments was also not considered. The emails of the Examiner and staff regarding
5 the Erickson comments and the portion of Mr. Lea's response that objects to entry of
6 the Erickson comments are admitted into the record.
7 ORAL TESTIMONY
8
Allen Borden—Mason County Staff
9
Mr. Borden entered additional photographs into evidence,taken April 20,
10 2010,of the garage that is already under construction.
11 Kevin Lea-Applicant
12
Mr. Lea wanted to clarify that the permit is not after the fact, but rather that
13 their circumstances and plans have somewhat modified. The area was intended to be
converted at some point in the future, and was designed with that conversion in
14 mind.
15 EXHIBITS
16 See "Exhibits" attached to the staff report by Allan Borden dated May 11, 2010 for
exhibits, in addition to:
17
18 Exhibit 8:. Photos taken April 29, 2010 by Allen Borden.
19 Exhibit 9: 5/13/2010 email from Allan Borden to Examiner, excluding
Erickson attachment.
20
Exhibit 10: 5/25/10 letter from Examiner to Lea, excluding Erickson
21 enclosure.
22 Exhibit 11: Lea 5/27/10 fax to Examiner, p. 1, second paragraph (contesting
23 admission of Erickson letter) and p. 8, last paragraph (contesting
admission of Erickson letter).
24
25
' If Mr. Lea waived objection, the only party with standing to challenge the reopening
of the hearing would be the County. Presumably the County would have had no
interest in making such a challenge.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision.
JPA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
FINDINGS OF FACT
2
Procedural:
3
4 1. Applicant. The applicants are Kevin and Juanita Lea.
5 2. Hearin . The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on May 10, 2010, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
6 Meeting Chambers.
7 Substantive:
8
3. Site/Proposal Description. The application is for a Special Use Permit for
9 an Accessory Dwelling Unit for the conversion of second floor garage area of 768
square feet into an accessory dwelling unit. The applicant wishes to change the
10 classification to an accessory dwelling unit, for potential future retirement use for
11 either their elderly parents or themselves in the future. The garage is already under
construction, as it had already received a building permit. The second story area is
12 already insulated, dry walled, and nearly complete for its previously planned use as a
storage area. The primary residence on site was constructed in 1985 and is 1,800
13 square feet, and is approximately 30 feet to the south of the garage. The site is sloped
from the rear towards the southeast, and a geotechnical report was reviewed in 2007
14 for the approval of the permit to construct the garage.
15 4 Characteristics of the Area. The parcel is within a high-density rural
16 residential development, with approximately 3 dwellings per acre. Nearly every
parcel in the surrounding development area has a residence and/or garage building.
17
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. The staff concludes in its report that
18 there does not appear to be impact on surrounding properties for view blockage,
19 traffic, parking, or drainage. The development appears to meet the applicable rural
residential standards of the MCC. No comments from the public at large have been
20 received, and no significant adverse impacts are apparent from the record.
21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22 Procedural:
23
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) provides the
24 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon Special Use Permits.
25
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designation. The area is zoned as Rural Residential 5 or RR-5.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
1 3. Review Criteria and Application. MCDR 17.03.029 governs ADUs in
2 rural lands and requires a special use permit if the ADU is located outside the
shoreline (Chapter 90.58 RCV) jurisdiction. The proposed ADU is not within 200
3 feet of a shoreline regulated by Chapter 90.58 RCW, and therefore, is subject to a
special use permit. The review criteria for the Special Use Permit application is
4 governed under Mason County Development Regulation 17.05.044. These criteria, in
addition to miscellaneous criteria for all Hearing Examiner decisions, are quoted and
5 addressed below.
6 MCDR 17.05.044 SPECIAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA:
7
A) That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
8 welfare.
9 4. The proposed ADU is to be part of a newly erected structure that was
10 reviewed and approved in 2007. The proposed ADU will not be approved for use
until the Building and Environmental Health Departments have checked that it meets
11 current safety and health regulations. As proposed, it meets all county setbacks and
assures adequate off-street parking. There will be no detrimental impact to the public
12 health, safety, and welfare by using the already existing art studio structure as an
ADU.
13
14 B) That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
15
5. There do not appear to be any conflicts with the County Comprehensive
16 Plan. Rural Residential 5 zoning does allow for one ADU per lot, the owner of the
parcel will reside on the lot, and the ADU does not exceed 80% of the habitable area
17 of the proposed primary residence.
18
C) That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at the site that
19 cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and
the community at large.
20
21 6. The structure has already nearly been completed, and conversion of the
space into a livable ADU will require minor modifications to a permit that has already
22 recently been approved. No hazardous conditions are expected to be introduced, as
the building has already been constructed and only minor construction must be
23 undertaken for the conversion; all of which will require an additional building permit
and inspection. No adjacent properties, nor the community at large, will be impacted
24 by permitting the ADU.
25 D) That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities which are in place,
or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital
Facilities Plan.
Lea SUP for ADU p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
1 7. The structure is served by a private septic and private water. The parcel is
2 located off of Larson Lake Road and Larson Boulevard,both paved roads.. The street
address is clearly marked for emergency and mailing purposes. The site has postal,
3 emergency, and public school bussing services currently in place. The ADU does not
require any further public facilities beyond those currently in place.
4
E) That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon existing uses on
5 adjacent lands.
6 8. No significant impacts are expected to result from this proposal. The
7 structure has essentially already been built, and the conversion of the inside into a
livable space will not make any outwardly visible changes to the structure. The
8 permit for the garage itself was obtained in 2007, and impacts were evaluated at that
time.
9
10 F) If located outside an Urban Growth Area, that the proposed use will not result in
the need to extend urban services.
11
9. The site is currently served by water, septic, road access, and electric lines
12 that are sufficient to meet all of the proposed needs of the current as well as the
proposed resident. Therefore, the project will not result in the need to extend urban
13 services.
14 MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA FOR ALL HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW:
15
MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
16 proposed development according to the following criteria:
17 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
18 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
19 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
20
21 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
22 Comprehensive Plan.
23 10. As indicated in the staff report, the project is consistent with the Mason
County comprehensive plan and will not lower the level of service for transportation
24 or park facilities, as only one individual will be residing in the ADU. In addition to
25 requirements already addressed in the above Conclusions of Law, the project, as
conditioned, appears to be consistent with other applicable requirements of the Mason
County Code. The proposed ADU is not subject to Title 16 which only governs
subdivisions. It meets the requirements and the intent of Titles 6 and 8. It also meets
Lea SUP for ADU p. 6 Findings; Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
of the ADU is less than 1000 square feet and is less than 80% of the primary
residence; only one ADU will result from the project; adequate parking will be
provided for the ADU; the ADU will be located within 150 feet of the primary
residence; all setback requirements are satisfied; and the ADU will hook into existing
3 and County approved water and septic. The proposed project does not impact the
public health, safety and welfare and it is in the public interest as it permits full
4 beneficial use of real property. No condition has been identified to show that this
particular project will lower the level of service of transportation and/or
5 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7 DECISION
8 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested Special Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit as recommended in the Staff Report by Allen Borden for DDR 2010-
9 00003.
10
1 1 Dated this 27th day of May, 2010.
12
13
14 Phil A. Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
15
16 NOTICE OF RIGHT OF RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
17
Appeal to Superior Court: An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner
1 must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the
19 Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20 RECONSIDERATION:
21 (a) Reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner code 'enforcement decision may be
granted by the Hearing Examiner!to the extent consistent with state'law, if a moving
22 party demonstrates one or more of the following:
23 �I
1. Irregularity in the proceedings by which the moving party was prevented from
24 having a fair hearing;
25 2. Newly discovered evidence of a material nature that could not, with reasonable
diligence,have been produced at hearing;
Lea SUP for ADU p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{BFP696098.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
1 3. Error in the computation of the amount of damages or other monetary element of
2 the decision;
3 4. Clear mistake as to a material fact.
4 (b) Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the date of the
Hearing Examiner's decision. Unless otherwise specifically provided by the
5 applicable ordinance(s), the filing of a motion for reconsideration shall not stop or
6 alter the running of the period provided to appeal the Hearing Examiner's decision.
7 Change in Valuation
8 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected by this
decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any
9 program of revaluation.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Lea SUP for ADU p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
{PA0791071.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
j.L'k-'z1V1GL,
JUN 0 1 2010
MCCD - PLANNING
DECLARATION OF MAILING
Kevin and Juanita Lea
Special Use Permit#DDR2010-00003
I,N. Kay Richards,make the following declaration:
1. I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a
party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. On the 27th day of May, 2010, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a true
and correct copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and this
Declaration of Service to the following:
Kevin Lea
41 NE Jolly Roger Lane
Belfair, WA 98528
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington,this 27th day of May, 2010.
N. Kay Rich ds
ORIGINAL
{PA0791126.DOC;1\13009.900000\}
of the ADU is less than 1000 square feet and is less than 80% of the primary
I residence; only one ADU will result from the project; adequate parking will be
2 provided for the ADU; the ADU will be located within 150 feet of the primary
residence; all setback requirements are satisfied;and the ADU will hook into existing
3 and County approved water and septic. The proposed project does not impact the
public health, safety and welfare and it is in the public interest as it permits full
4 beneficial use of real property. No condition has been identified to show that this
particular project will lower the level of service of transportation and/or
5 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
6 Comprehensive Plan.
7 DECISION
8 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested Special Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit as recommended in the Staff Report by Allen Borden for DDR 2010-
9 00003.
10
11 Dated this 27th day of May, 2010.
12
13 �
14 Phil A. Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
15
16 NOTICE OF RIGHT OF RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL
17
Appeal to Superior Court: An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner
18 must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the
19 Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20 RECONSIDERATION:
21 (a) Reconsideration of a Hearing Examiner code enforcement decision may be
granted by the Hearing Examiner to the extent consistent with state law, if a moving
22 party demonstrates one or more of the following:
23
1. Irregularity in the proceedings by which the moving party was prevented from
24 having a fair hearing;
25 2. Newly discovered evidence of a material nature that could not, with reasonable
diligence,have been produced at hearing;
Lea SUP for ADU p. 7 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
(UP696098.DOC;1l13009.900000/1
l'd 8LOL 669 09C L s1goeag10 uelsu){ dLZ:ZO N LZ ABA
CASEINDEX
Kevin & Juanita Lea Accessory Dwelling Unit Special Use Permit
DDR2010-00003
Exhibit# Date Description
1 May 3, 2010 Staff Report
2 January 13, 2010 Special Use Application and Property Owner List
3 Aril 19, 2010 Proposal Vicinity
4 January 13, 2010 Site Plan Ma
5 Aril 19, 2010 Site Topography
6 March 18, 2010 Notice of Application
7 Aril 29, 2010 Affidavit of Posting
Lea ADU DDR2010-00003 case index.doc
II
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
May 11, 2010
TO: Mason County Hearings Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Allan Borden; 360.427.9670 ext. 363; ahb _co.mason.wa.us
RE: Special Use Permit(DDR2010-00003) for conversion of garage second floor to an
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal to convert the garage second floor to an
AccessoryDwelling Unit on a 0.42-acreproperty. The com completed unit will be 768 square
g p q
feet in area. Staff finds all review standards for the Special Use Permit are met.
II. Applicant. Kevin and Juanita Lea.
III. Property Location. 41 NE Jolly Rogers Ln. Belfair, WA.; Parcel # 12330-54-00029.
IV. Project Description. An application for Special Use Permit was received on January 13,
2010 to convert a garage second floor area(768 sq. ft.)to an Accessory Dwelling Unit on
a 0.42-acre property (Exhibit 2). The septic, water and driveway are now existing. The
1,800 square foot primary residence is located approximately 30 feet to the south. See site
plan (Exhibit 4).
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The parcel is 80 feet deep and 180 feet wide and is along
the ridge that continues to the south. (Exhibit 3). The primary residence was
constructed 1985 and the applicant applied for a building permit for the garage with
heated second floor area(BLD2007-00053). The site is sloped from the rear towards
the southeast at around 25 to 30 percent(Exhibit 5). A Geotechnical Report was
reviewed in 2007 to permit the constructed garage.
B. Characteristics of the area. The area is characterized by high-density rural residential
development (three dwellings per acre) in an area zoned as Rural Residential 5. The
vicinity (Exhibit 3) is 1.5 miles west of Belfair and accessed by the paved roads
(Larson Lake Rd. and Larson Blvd.). Nearly every parcel in this portion of the
Beard's Cove plat has a residence or garage building.
C. Shoreline Desi n�. Not Applicable.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Pagel of 3
D. Comprehensive Plan Desi ng ation/Zoning. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural and the zoning is Rural Residential 5.
VI. SEPA Compliance. Project is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i).
VII. Other Permits/Approvals. The proposal will require completion of the Mason County
Building Permit for the residential (ADU) construction (BLD2007-00053). A Notice of
Application and Public Hearing (Exhibit 6)was posted in the Mason County Journal on
March 18 and 25, 2010, posted on site on April 29, 2010, and mailed to neighboring
properties on April 30, 2010. An Affidavit of Posting is included as Exhibit 7.
VIII. Analysis. This proposal requires a Special Use Permit per the requirements of the Mason
County Development Regulations on Accessory Dwelling Units, M.C.C. 17.03.029.
The applicable Development Regulations standards are:
A. The ADU shall be subject to a special use permit, unless in the shoreline
jurisdiction it is subject to a shoreline permit.
B. The owner of the ADU must reside on the lot in either the principal residence or
ADU.
C. The ADU shall be located within 150 feet of the principal residence or shall be a
conversion of an existing detached structure (i.e. garage).
D. The ADU shall not exceed 80% of the square footage of the habitable area of the
primary residence or 1,000 square feet, whichever is smaller.
E. All setback requirements must be met by the ADU.
F. All applicable health district standards for water and sewer must be met by the
ADU.
G. No recreational vehicles shall be allowed as ADUs.
H. Only one ADU is allowed on any property.
I. An additional off-street parking space must be provided for the ADU.
The ADU as proposed(768 sq.ft living area, 30 feet distance from existing primary
residence, water and septic provided, and meeting proper building setbacks) meets all of
the above criteria A —I.
Applicable Special Use review criteria:
l. Will the proposed use be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare?
The conversion of the second floor area as a ADU in an existing garage meets all county
setbacks, assures adequate off street parking, and is provided with proper septic and
water services. No potential detrimental effects have been identified.
2. Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan?
The proposed residential land use is consistent and compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan. Rural Residential 5 zoning does allow for one ADUper parcel.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Page 2 of 3
3. Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions at the site that cannot be mitigated
through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community at large?
No hazardous conditions are expected as a result of the conversion of the second floor
area to the proposed accessory residence.
4. Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, or planned as
a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
No public facilities are present in the vicinity; individual water and septic systems are in
place to serve the proposed AD The project will not lower the level of service of
transportation or neighborhood park facilities below applicable minimum standards.
5. Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
The proposed accessory residence in the existing garage will have no significant impact
upon existing adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses are developed residential
properties or vacant lots.
6. If located outside an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need to extend
urban services?
The conversion of the second floor of garage to an AD would not result in a need to
extend urban services to this location.
Project Analysis: Based upon these policies and regulations, the project conforms as
noted to the use regulations of the Mason County Development Regulations in regard to
the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards.
IX. Conclusions. As designed,the proposed accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the
Mason County Development Regulations. Staff finds all review standards are met.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the SUP request.
2. Denial of the SUP request.
3. Conditional approval of the SUP request.
4. Postpone the decision for further information.
Lea ADU staff report DDR2010-00003.doc Page 3 of 3
00DO3
MASON COUNTY EX 11 44- 2—
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE
A Special Use is one that possesses unique characteristics due to size, nature, intensity of use,
technological processes involved, demands upon public services, relationship to surrounding
lands, or other factors. The purpose of this application is to provide for adequate oversight and
review of such development proposals, in order to assure that such uses are developed in
harmony with surrounding land uses, and in a manner consistent with the intent of the
Development Regulations for Mason County; Ordinance No. 82-96. Acceptance of this
application by Mason County does not guarantee approval of request.
Applicant name �145 1)1IU 4- J-U,4A)> 7-1" 46)9 Telephone# (366) 2-7�r—C-//O�
Mailing address
Site address
S�/yll�
Tax Parcel # i a 3 3 U - - D d v ';�
Legal Description
d���OS cave 0/V -7 LorZ t/olurne ?4PIhis Pa 6)
cv/Tf/ /J ,!f v F L.d T 3 oO,6�e /3 /q si 00—_73
Type of Special Use Permit: Communications Tower
Accessory Dwelling Unit l/
Oversize Construction
Other
On a separate piece of paper, please state your reasons for requesting a Special Use
Permit. Be sure to address the following six criteria, your request will be evaluated based on
these criteria.
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan?
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site,that can not be
mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties and the community
at large?
Special Use Permit: $1,135.00 plus Hearings Examiner: $2005 or $670 for ADU's
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee
approval.
LTLANNINGTACTORMS Updated 12/15/08
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place, planned as a
condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's Capital Facilities Plan?
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on adjacent lands?
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the need to extend
urban services?
7) Please provide a site plan that includes the following:
❑ Indicate Scale and North Arrow
❑ Property line dimensions,easements,and right-of-ways.
❑ The location of all existing and proposed structures.Include square footage of existing and proposed
structures.
❑ Setback distance, in feet from all property lines and structures.
❑ Existing and proposed road access to and from the site.
❑ Parking sites
❑ Location of on-site sewage tanks and drainfields.
❑ Location of drinking water supply. Include location on the proposed site and surrounding parcels.
❑ Steep bluffs,wetlands,streams,and bodies of water
❑ Location of fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access roads, including grade.
❑ Surface and storm water run-off routes.
Applicant(s) signature
A—
�� , TNov7' PRETUD1C E
ACL )EI( I-) TS
r.401 - 0 7
Special Use Permit: $1,135.00 plus Hearings Examiner: $2005 or $670 for ADU's
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.Acceptance of this application,by Mason County does not guarantee
approval.
I:\PLANNING\PAC\FORMS Updated 12/15/08
Application for Special Use (AFSU)
Answers to Questions 1-7
Jan 4, 2010
For Kevin and Juanita Lea
Tax Parcel 12330-54-00029
It is currently our desire to convert a permitted and under construction heated
storage area (24 ft X 32 ft outside dimension - 768 sq feet) into an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU). My wife and I hope to someday make it our retirement
dwelling unit. With our parents currently in their 80s and 90s, it is also possible
that we will need to care for them in the near future. If so,we want to be ready. We
currently have occupancy in the lower level garage (also 24 X 32), and the upstairs
storage area is insulated, dry walled and nearly completed as a storage unit.
Instead of getting a final inspection for the garage/storage permit, we plan to apply
for a building permit change to make the necessary modifications for an ADU once
the Special Use Permit is approved. The following addresses questions 1-7 of the
AFSU.
1) Will the proposed use be detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare?
No.
2) Will the proposed use be consistent and compatible with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan?
To the best of my knowledge— Yes.
3) Will the proposed use introduce hazardous conditions, at the site, that cannot
be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent properties
and the community at large?
No.
4) Is the proposed use served by adequate public facilities, which are in place,
planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in the County's
Capital Facilities Plan?
Yes, the water and electrical power use have already been evaluated
as adequate by the PUD #3 and by the county health department.
The health department approved the design and installation of the
septic system on 2/23/07 (permit #2006-00690)
1
On 2/12/2009 the Health Department approved the addition of
plumbing items (tub/shower, washer, sinks, toilet) that I submitted as
a proposed change in support of some day converting to ADU. All
water supply and drain plumbing that is needed and planned to
support converting from storage to ADU is now installed and
inspected complete per county code requirements. No additional
plumbing changes are planned.
On September 7, 2008, I received a letter from Teresa Ancich from
PUD #3 (copy attached)stating that their existing electrical facilities
"will be adequate for your added load." My electrical load request
for the garage and storage unit included a request that they also
evaluate for the future plan to convert to an ADU with a 200 amp
service.
5) Will the proposed use have a significant impact upon existing uses on
adjacent lands?
No.
6) If located outside of an Urban Growth Area, will the proposal result in the
need to extend urban services?
No.
7) Please provide a site plan that includes the following:
See attached
2
TROY V ERICKSON SEARLE, DALLIN D & JACQUELYN R
11 NE JOLLY ROGER LN 81 NE JOLLY ROGER LANE
BELFAIR WA 98528-9231 BELFAIR WA 98528-9231
JOSLIN, LARRY W& KATHY M KIRKPATRICK, RICHARD & SARAH
2906 48TH ST NE 130 NE ADMIRAL DR
TACOMA WA 98422-4443 BELFAIR WA 98528-9299
FULLER, DOUGLAS A & LAURIE A OSTRANDER, DAVID J &TERESA L
121 NE ADMIRAL WAY 111 NE ADMIRAL DR
BELFAIR WA 98528-9299 BELFAIR WA 98528-9299
BRIAN M JOHNSON RITA J MATSON
101 NE ADMIRAL WAY 1905 VISTA LN W
BELFAIR WA 98528-9299 BREMERTON WA 98312-4722
MANJIT SINGH C/O ANNA HALL JOHN S WHISTLER
2992A MOUNTAIN VIEW RD E PO BOX 6189
PORT ORCHARD WA 98366-8107 SILVERDALE WA 9831 5-6 1 89
C RICHARD HITE DAVID G ENKE
61 NE ADMIRAL DR 3515 RILEY STREET
BELFAIR WA 98528-9232 BELLINGHAM WA 98229-2413
CLARK, DONALD G & KIYOKO MATTHEWS,JEFFREY A & RAE DEANE
21810 E STATE ROUTE 3 P O BOX 87
BELFAIR WA 98528-9692 BREMERTON WA 98337-0026
LANDES, TIMOTHY H & EVONNE E DONALD L VERBEKE
90 NE JOLLY ROGER LANE 307 S COLE AVE
BELFAIR WA 98528 MOLALLA OR 97038-8115
CAMPBELL, LYNDA L NEWMAN, ROBERT F & PHYLLIS L
P.O. BOX 1781 8361 NE NORTH SHORE RD
BELFAIR WA 98528-1781 BELFAIR WA 98528-9791
JOHN MCKAY GAGE TRS, ROBERT K & OPAL F
116 MOONDANCE LN 29823 23RD AVE SW
PORT LUDLOW WA 98365-9591 FEDERAL WAY WA 98023-2308
IL
O
O
J
W
f Z
O
O
2
U
W
Z NE CARBON BLVD Z
r
Z 1W
D
N '
1 inch = 200 feet
W E
1 inch = 0.04 miles Wr/�
S vv�
scwl e APpl-icArIOA)
AJ D R'YN �o�v �H,4h J50 S gq6� TQ
?13NY,�2oljl
1uo s tEfF
�i
Zor
36 eoM&)&1 6 J
It)1Ty LOB
31
D APProve /v Set�ac,�
I
XT
4ko QO \` A'+Iry
OPptY Q �' V(U
vA n �1
ti
SID
Ar Ilk
a o
a
J� J
� I ti
w
L o r
a
boo(\
U1UgFIL 1�Op�O � �
STORm WJ�Y�� � � � �, � •l� P'`� ➢�
�UNb�J� AILz}1�US � \1
To d¢N;0 FLOWS
OU6)2 LOT A&
1233O5300025
123305300026 '
12330540003211,
-_ 5)c
123305400046„
123305400031
ti
0
123300060000
� J
Q
w
R 5
fi 123305400033 V it
123305400006
NR1W
�+ 123305400046
123305400034 l 123305400029 123305400007:
jo-
k
r 000ON
94
123305400008
R�
�F
a ` y "44!
r 123305400028
,, �"'�* 123305400009
- 123305400026
N
1 inch = 50 feet
W E
1 inch =0.01 miles
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
P.O. Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584
(360) 427-9670
DDR2010-0003 NOTICE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
Notice is hereby given that the Kevin and Juanita Lea, who are the owners of the described property
below, has filed an application for a Special Use Permit for the development of:
Conversion of a second-floor heated storage area (768 sq. ft.) to an accessory dwelling unit in an
existing garage on a property zoned Rural Residential 5 zone. To finalize this conversion,the
applicant must receive approval through a Special Use Permit public review and hearing by the
County Hearings Examiner.
Parcel Number: 12330-54-00029(0.42 ac.)
Site Address: 41 NE Jolly Rogers Lane, Belfair WA.
Location of Project: Near the corner of Jolly Rogers Lane and Larson Lake Road in Beard's
Cove Subdivision; within the northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 23 N., Range 1 W. in
Mason County Washington.
Said proposed development is subject to Special Use Permit review(M.C.C. 17.05.040)and associated
Mason County Development Regulations standards. Any person desiring to express their view or to be
notified of the action taken on the application should notify in writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
The comment period is at least 10 days from the final date of publication given pursuant to M.C.C.
15.07.030 (public notice). Final date of publication,posting or mailing of notice is March 25, 2010.
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday
May 11, 2010; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 365 for further information.
This construction proposal is exempt from further environmental review per WAC 197-11-800(1)(c).
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
� SOP
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) bD 2 .0 L0 , ONO3
COUNTY OF MASON ss.
I, /-�I.w4 1.(4
do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached N)h& We fiytI�-
on 20�lday of 20 in public places as follows:
one at G m(1 ?G(1 ( �/ JA >
one at (� "�t✓ U pllyi �4r
one at
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day
of , 20
By:
Address:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF MASON ss.
Subscribed and sworn to me this 2 day o /� , 20
� .
OPT% � Ao Pub ' t ASt�aofj—ashington
Residing at
Commission Expires
WASH�NC���..
���y/llllllt1111ti\\\�\
J
Affidavit of Publication
PUBLIC NOTICE
DDR2010-0003 NOTICE OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT
who
Noticare thee
row n egivrseoftthetdescrriibedhe vin apopend tytb ow, COUNTY OFMASONSTATE OF I
has filed an application for a Special Use Permit for theTON SS.
development of:
Conversion of a second-floor heated storage area Margot Brand being first duly sworn
(768 sq.ft.)to an accessory dwelling unit in an ex-
isting garage on a property zoned Rural Resider- on oath deposes and says that she is the CLERK
mu 5 zone. o finalize this conversion,the applicant of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That
must receive approval through a Special Use Per-
mit public review and hearing by the County Hear- said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six
ings Examiner.
Parcel Number: 12330 54-00029(0.42 ac.) months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in
Site Address: r: NE Jolly Rogers Lane, Belfair WA the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason
Location of Project: Near the corner of Jolly Rogers County,Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an
Lane and Larson Lake Road in Beard's Cove Subdivi- office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That
sion;within the northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of
23 N., Range 1 W.in Mason County Washington.
August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said
Said proposed development is subject to Special Use Permit review (M.C.C. 17.05.040) and associated Ma- Mason County.
son County Development Regulations standards. Any
person desiring to express their view or to be notified That the annexed is a true copy of a PUBLIC NOTICE
of the action taken on the application should notify in
writing of their interest to:
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL USE PERM IT/CONVERSION STORAGE UNIT TO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 27
SHEL ON,WA 989
584 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 3059
The comment period is at least 10 days from the final as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said
date of publication given pursuant to M.C.C. 15,07.030
(public notice). Final date of publication, posting or newspaper once each week for a period of TWO
mailing of notice is March 25,2010.
consecutive weeks,commencing on the
Written comments will be accepted up to the date of
the Hearings Examiner public hearing Tuesday May 11, 18TH day of MARCH ,2010 and ending on the
2010; 1:00 PM. Contact this office at (360) 427-9670,
ext.365 for further information.
25TH day of MARCH 2O10 both dates inclusive,
This construction proposal is exempt from further envi- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of
ronmental review per WAC 197-11-800(1)(c).
3059 3/18,3/25 2t the said period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
foregoing publication is the sum of$ 250.00
e
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
201
too
A(0` �allC
Q Notary T u lic in and for the State of Washington
�4Z��� h, I ��`0 ��`a Residing at Shelton,Washington
�,� o d
My commission expires ` ,20� _.