Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR99-0016 Findings of Fact - SHR Letters / Memos - 8/23/1999 MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 27, 1999 APPLICANTS - HOWARD and NANCY BAUER FINDINGS OF FACT: SHR99-0016 1 . Under consideration is a pier, ramp and float facility located on Pickering Passage. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . The applicants are Howard and Nancy Bauer. The representative is Tim Zech of Lakeshore Construction. 2 . The proposed development is guided by the Piers and Docks Chapter 7. 16 . 170 of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. 3 . The development requires a Substantial Development Permit because the fair market value exceeds $2500 and the project is not exempt from permit requirements. 4 . A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 9 , 1999 . Written comments were received from the Department of Ecology and this permit has been conditioned to reflect those recommendations . Written comments were also received from two of the adjacent property owners . 5 . Neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposal concerned with the adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts to their properties and the shoreline as well as the precedent it may set for more similar developments in the area. 6 . Planning staff recommended denial of the proposal finding it inconsistent with Policies #1 and #3 and Use Regulation #2 of the e Piers an Docks Chapter. 7 . After review of the proposal during three public hearings and reduction of the pier length portion of the facility from 56 ' to 40 ' , the Board decided to conditionally approve the permit request. Based on the Shoreline Master Program policies and use regulations, the Board found that the proposed pier, ramp and float facility meets the policies and use regulations. In review of the impact of these types of proposals, the Board has discretion as to how they determine what is significant and what is insignificant. There is no definition or specific guideline in the SMP. The Board does not disagree that there is an impact with the proposal, but the views that are impacted are not substantially impacted and still afford those property owners very nice views. 1 FROM THE PRECEDING FACTS, the proposed facility is consistent with the policies and use regulations for Piers and Docks Chapter 7. 16 . 170 within the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and subject to the following conditions : 1) Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause water quality degradation of state waters . 2) The project proponent is responsible to ensure that adequate Best Management practices are designed into the project and implemented during construction to comply with the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201A, revised Nov. 18, 1997 . 3) The pier, ramp and float shall not exceed 100 ' in length beyond the OHWM and can be no higher than 11 ' above mean higher high water and shall have at least an eight foot span between pilings. 4) All treated wood piling and lumber to be used for the project shall meet or exceed the standards established in "Best Management Practices For the Use of treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, revised July 1996 . 5) The handrail shall be no more than 36" high. 6) The revised drawing submitted during the July 6th hearing which shows a 40 ' pier, is that which is hereby approved. 7) The entire structure shall be a minimum of ten feet (101 ) north of south property line. August 23, 1999 ✓ g Chai Date 2 40 MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 0,4of- PUBLIC HEARING - JULY 27, 1999 APPLICANTS - HOWARD and NANCY BAUER FINDINGS OF FACT: SHR99-0016 1 . Under consideration is a pier, ramp and float facility located on Pickering Passage. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . The applicants are Howard and Nancy Bauer. The representative is Tim Zech of Lakeshore Construction. 2 . The proposed development is guided by the Piers and Docks Chapter 7. 16 . 170 of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. 3 . The development requires a Substantial Development Permit because the fair market value exceeds $2500 and the project is not exempt from permit requirements . 4 . A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 9, 1999 . Written comments were received from the Department of Ecology and this permit has been conditioned to reflect those recommendations. Written comments were also received from two of the adjacent property owners . 5 . Neighbors spoke in opposition to the proposal concerned with the adverse environmental and aesthetic impacts to their properties and the shoreline as well as the precedent it may set for more similar developments in the area. 6 . Planning staff recommended denial of the proposal finding it inconsistent with Policies #1 and #3 and Use Regulation #2 of the Piers an Docks Chapter. 7. After review of the proposal during three public hearings and reduction of the pier length portion of the facility from 56 ' to 401 , the Board decided to conditionally approve the permit request . Based on the Shoreline Master Program policies and use regulations, the Board found that the proposed pier, ramp and float facility meets the policies and use regulations. In review of the impact of these types of proposals, the Board has discretion as to how they determine what is significant and what is insignificant . There is no definition or specific guideline in the SMP. The Board does not disagree that there is an impact with the proposal, but the views that are impacted are not substantially impacted and still afford those property owners very nice views . 1 l j FROM THE PRECEDING FACTS, the proposed facility is consistent with the policies and use regulations for Piers and Docks Chapter 7. 16 . 170 within the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and subject to the following conditions: 1) Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause water quality degradation of state waters. 2) The project proponent is responsible to ensure that adequate Best Management practices are designed into the project and implemented during construction to comply with the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201A, revised Nov. 18, 1997 . 3) The pier, ramp and float shall not exceed 100 ' in length beyond the OHWM and can be no higher than 11 ' above mean higher high water and shall have at least an eight foot span between pilings. 4) All treated wood piling and lumber to be used for the project shall meet or exceed the standards established in "Best Management Practices For the Use of treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood Preservers Institute, revised July 1996 . 5) The handrail shall be no more than 36" high. 6) The revised drawing submitted during the July 6th hearing which shows a 40 ' pier, is that which is hereby approved. 7) The entire structure shall be MOVED a minimum of ten feet (101 ) north of THE PROPOSED LOCATION, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 46 ' FROM THE south property line. JA� a r Date 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ONLY CHANGES MAY BE MADE TO REPORT PRIOR TO HEARING ON 6/8/99 June 3 , 1999 TO: Mason County Commissioners FROM: DCD Staff, Grace Miller RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #99-16 for a Pier, Ramp and Float Facility on Pickering Passage Applicants - Howard and Nancy Bauer STAFF REPORT I . INTRODUCTION. This report evaluates a proposal to construct a 100 ' pier, ramp and float facility for recreational use by a single family residence on Pickering Passage. II . APPLICANTS . The applicants are Howard and Nancy Bauer. The agent is Tim Zech of Lakeshore Construction. III . LOCATION. The site is located at 155 East Community Club Road, Shelton. NE NE Sec 4, Twn 20 N, R 2 W. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The project involves the construction of a 6 ' wide by 56 ' long pier, installation of a 4 ' wide by 40 ' long aluminum ramp and a 10 ' X 20 ' float. Nine piling will be driven. The overall length of the facility is 1001 . The end of the pier facility at 56 ' out will be 11 ' above beach grade. V. EVALUATION. A. Characteristics of the site. The upland site contains a single family residence and garage on low-bank waterfront . The shoreline has been modified with a concrete bulkhead. B. Characteristics of the area. The property is located on Pickering Passage facing Harstine Island. The surrounding area contains single family residences. Within view, there is a pier facility to the south of the site that may have been used as part of a shellfish operation. Other than that, this is the only facility of it ' s kind within view. C. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . D. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural . 1 r VI. SEPA COMPLIANCE. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 9 , 1999 . Written comments were received from the Dept . of Ecology and the permit has been conditioned to reflect those recommendations. Written comments were also received from two of the adjacent property owners . Their letters are attached. VII. OTHER PERMITS . Hydraulic Project Approval from the Wash. State Dept. of Fish & Wildlife is required as well as authorization by the Corps of Engineers. VIII. ANALYSIS . This project requires a Substantial Development Permit because the value exceeds $2500 . The Piers and Docks Chapter 7 . 16 . 170 guides in the review of the project. Applicable Policies and Use Regulations follow: POLICIES : 1) Piers and docks shall be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen. 2) Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored, especially in tidal waters . 3) The type, design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration shall be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land and water uses . USE REGULATIONS : 1) The location and design of docks and piers as well as the subsequent use shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. 2) Docks and piers shall be located, designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners or adjacent water uses . Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line. 5) Prior to final project approval of a residential subdivision or short plat, a usable area shall be set aside for a community pier or dock, unless no suitable area exists. Only one pier or dock is permitted in a new residential subdivision or short plat where each lot frontage does not exceed 150 feet on the shoreline. 2 7) Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water on salt water. The length of any pier or dock facility shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from OHWM on salt water. 9) The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet . 10) At the end of a dock or pier a float may be attached. These floats may be either parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" or an "L" 11) Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight- foot span between pilings . 14) The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. 15) All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. 16) All structures shall be maintained in a safe and sound condition. IX. CONCLUSION. The project appears to be consistent with most of the applicable policies and use regulations of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program' s Piers and Docks Chapter. Based on the letters received from the neighboring property owners, it appears that the project is inconsistent with Policies #1 and #3 and Use Regulation #2 . The neighbors are concerned that the facility will impact their and recreational boaters and fishermen use of the water. They are also concerned that their views of the water will be severely altered. In 1991, a similar proposal was brought before the Board, at the time, and subsequently denied based on these same policies and use regulations . That pier facility was proposed north of this site. The Commissioners denied it based on conflicts with policy 41 (it will impact the fishing along the shoreline and water uses in the area) Policy #3 (because of its impacts on aesthetics and pristine visual environment in the area) . Staff recommends the following conditions if the permit is approved by the Board: 3 CONDITIONS : 1) Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause water quality degradation of state waters . 2) The project proponent is responsible to ensure that adequate Best Management Practices are designed into the project and implemented during construction to comply with the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201A, revised Nov. 18 , 1997 . 3) The pier, ramp and float shall not exceed 100 ' in length beyond the OHWM. 4) All treated wood piling and lumber to be used for the project shall meet or exceed the standards established in "Best Management Practices For the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood preservers Institute, revised July 1996 . X. CHOICE OF ACTION. 1. Approve Substantial Development Permit request . 2 . Deny permit request . 3 . Conditionally approve permit request. 4 . Postpone for further information. GBM 4 June 7, 1999 TO: Mason County Commissioners FROM: DCD Staff, Grace Miller RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #99-16 for a Pier, Ramp and Float Facility on Pickering Passage Applicants - Howard and Nancy Bauer STAFF REPORT I. INTRODUCTION. This report evaluates a proposal to construct a 100 ' pier, ramp and float facility for recreational use by a single family residence on Pickering Passage. II. APPLICANTS. The applicants are Howard and Nancy Bauer. The agent is Tim Zech of Lakeshore Construction. III. LOCATION. The site is located at 155 East Community Club Road, Shelton. NE NE Sec 4, Twn 20 N, R 2 W. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION. The project involves the construction of a 6 ' wide by 56 ' long pier, installation of a 4 ' wide by 40 ' long aluminum ramp and a 10 ' X 20 ' float. Nine piling will be driven. The overall length of the facility is 100 ' . The end of the pier facility at 56 ' out will be ill above beach grade. V. EVALUATION. A. Characteristics of the site. The upland site contains a single family residence and garage on low-bank waterfront. The shoreline has been modified with a concrete bulkhead. B. Characteristics of \the area. The property is located on Pickering Passage facing Harstine Island. The surrounding area contains single family residences. Within view, there is a pier facility to the south of the site that may have been used as part of a shellfish operation. Other than that, this is the only facility of it 's kind within view. C. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential . D. Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural . 1 VI . SEPA COMPLIANCE. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on April 9 , 1999 . Written comments were received from the Dept . of Ecology and the permit has been conditioned to reflect those recommendations. Written comments were also received from two of the adjacent property owners . Their letters are attached. VII . OTHER PERMITS . Hydraulic Project Approval from the Wash. State Dept . of Fish & Wildlife is required as well as authorization by the Corps of Engineers . VIII . ANALYSIS . This project requires a Substantial Development Permit because the value exceeds $2500 . The Piers and Docks Chapter 7 . 16 . 170 guides in the review of the project . Applicable Policies and Use Regulations follow: POLICIES : 1) Piers and docks shall be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen. 2) Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored, especially in tidal waters . 3) The type, design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration shall be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land and water uses . USE REGULATIONS : 1) The location and design of docks and piers as well as the subsequent use shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. 2) Docks and piers shall be located, designed and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners or adjacent water uses . Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line . 5) Prior to final project approval of a residential subdivision or short plat, a usable area shall be set aside for a community pier or dock, unless no suitable area exists . Only one pier or dock is permitted in a new residential subdivision or short plat where each lot frontage does not exceed 150 feet on the shoreline. 2 7) Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean lower low water on salt water. The length of any pier or dock facility shall not exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from OHMM on salt water. 9) The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet. 10) At the end of a dock or pier a float may be attached. These floats may be either parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" or an "L" . 11) Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight- foot span between pilings. 14) The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water. 15) All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide. 16) All structures shall be maintained in a safe and sound condition. IX. CONCLUSION. The project appears to be consistent with most of the applicable policies and use regulations of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program's Piers and Docks Chapter. It appears that the facility will impact the neighbor's and recreational boaters and fishermen's use of the water. In addition, the adjacent property owners views of the water will be significantly altered. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with Policies #1 and #3 and Use Regulation #2 . In 1991, a similar proposal was brought before the Board at that time and was subsequently denied based on these same policies and use regulations. That pier, ramp and float facility was proposed north of this site. The Commissioners denied it based on conflicts with policy #1 (it will impact the fishing along the shoreline and water uses .in the area) and Policy #3 (because of its impacts on aesthetics and pristine visual environment in the area) . Based on the neighboring property owners concerns and the similarity of this proposal to above mentioned project, staff finds that this proposal is inconsistent with Policies #1 and #3 and Use Regulation #2 . If the request were to be approved by the Board, staff would recommend the following conditions: 3 CONDITIONS : 1) Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter the water body or cause water quality degradation of state waters . 2) The project proponent is responsible to ensure that adequate Best Management Practices are designed into the project and implemented during construction to comply with the Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201A, revised Nov. 18 , 1997 . 3) The pier, ramp and float shall not exceed 100 ' in length beyond the OHWM and can be no higher than 11 ' above mean higher high water and shall have at least an eight foot span between pilings . 4) All treated wood piling and lumber to be used for the project shall meet or exceed the standards established in "Best Management Practices For the Use of Treated Wood in Aquatic Environments" developed by the Western Wood preservers Institute, revised July 1996 . X. CHOICE OF ACTION. 1 . Approve Substantial Development Permit request . 2 . Deny permit request. 3 . Conditionally approve permit request . 4 . Postpone for further information. GBM 4 July 27, 1999 TO: Mason County Commissioners FROM: DCD Staff, Grace Miller RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit #99-16, Applicants - Howard and Nancy Bauer At the Commissioners request, from the July 6th Commissioners Hearing, staff has been in contact with the US Army Corps of Engineers staff, Jack Kennedy and Jim Green and a representative from the National Marine Fisheries Service, Rachel Freedman. Staff questioned if an alternative design such as a floating dock could currently be approved by these agencies? (It was stated by the applicant 's agent during the previous meeting that floats would not be approved by the Corps or Fish & Wildlife at this time) . The Corps of Engineers received the applicant 's application but it has not been reviewed, to date. The Corps would be willing to receive a revised design from the applicant. They would review a proposal for both its design and its site-specific location. The Corps would, with the National Marine Fisheries Service, determine if the design is likely or not likely to adversely affect the fish resource in that particular location. There are currently pros and cons of whether a pier and ramp should be on piling and/or floating which are being debated by the habitat biologists and agencies at this time. The shoreline area is used for migrating salmonids which may swim around the facility rather than under it . In the deeper water, they become more vulnerable to predators . The particular location is looked at carefully for any potential impacts to the resource. The applicants need to submit an application or revised application to the Corps and the location and design will be reviewed site specifically. Communication regarding alternative proposals between the Bauers, their representatives, the Zechs of Lakeshore Construction, David Viafore and the Silverthorns did not take place. Staff offered to receive written design revisions or negotiating ideas from the applicants to relay to Mr. Viafore, other neighbors and the Commissioners for their comment but none were received. After attempts to discuss the proposal with the applicant ' s representatives, Tim and Laurie Zech, staff was contacted by Linda Gilbreath who is now representing the Bauer's as their permit agent . Ms .Gilbreath stated that the Bauer's do not intend to revise their proposal to reflect a floating dock system. Their application stands un-revised since the July 6th Hearing, indicating a 100 ' pier, ramp and float facility with a 40 ' long pier. 1 I - "'T►Sa"tl —G U r'� JI/1 r 7. - Yll":L4 o s a o `" S �b��oo�•v — -Aa t � � oW L -7 -ItO sa �� 7 IW�J/l n4v ??,*- r�(72 �-- i 6 Ms . Gilbreath faxed a copy of a letter to staff that she had received from WDF&W staff regarding a different proposal on Hood Canal . The letter applies to a floating dock with grounding floats on surf smelt spawning habitat and how the pier, ramp and float design would be preferable because floats will ground out on the smelt beach. Ms . Gilbreath stated that the Bauers beach is also a documented surf smelt spawning beach and the same WDF&W regulations will most likely apply were a floating system proposed. Staff would agree this may be true for the Bauer' s site. It appears that the floats could be designed such that their supports prevented most of them from grounding on the beach but there would be some grounding in either case. Staff understands that Thom Hooper, a Senior Biologist with National Marine Fisheries Service, contacted the Commissioners by telephone to discuss alternative floating facilities and their impact to the beach habitat, at Ms . Gilbreath's request. Staff has received a letter from neighbors, Roxanne and Miles Silverthorn who reiterated their objection to any kind of pier facility that interrupts their view and intrudes onto the beach in this area of Pickering Passage. One of their particular concerns is the impact of a pier and float structure will have on the sea run cutthroat trout 's habitat that are active over the beach areas of Pickering Passage. They are concerned with the precedent that the approval of this pier will set and the potential for the cumulative impact of more piers like it in this area. Staff continues to recommend denial of the current proposal for these same reasons as listed in the staff report dated June 7th 1999 . /V l wed a GUaa n,o-� 7 GBM 2 d, UV\ i v6�0`to e`ff rv-� • 44 c,-d vo-e 4 leaf 0�katlt CL UO-t wJ-9.4j -ffu Y Ce-v,,c e,utd b ►' C�-� �;-ram WDF14 t% agm-, ��(�' `�� Gw (lam �Z Y►n.0 . LL) l n-F5 �No YKADV 0 Gu�1'�rev i� �2Si a�11� �►ec�rc►,q . CD �( aC VlLl o� ca v,o dy 44 LAVA VCj24J � CL- i tip- .. qEr t'w I dwWIN _ Apow d tx-`y�t r �+.., e«y�►.. N•as.5`���y�yr.., -. \ ` / I I MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Courthouse Annex III, 426 W. Cedar P.O. Box 578, Shelton, WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 THE SHORELINF PFRMrIT APPLICATION PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHORELINE VARIANCE DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE The Washington State Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures (WAC 173-14) and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development(any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $2,500 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State) be reviewed with the goals, policies, and performance standards established in the Matter P* ora•-, Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that may further describe the proposed development. APPLICANT: ( i ADDRESS: —I`��J 1✓ O n'1 Iy'1 I Yl 1' 4 A c (Street) (City) (State) (zip) TELEPHONE: (Home): �� — �a �—�ot�U -T,nt -L►�ro sharp C►on�, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: ADDRESS: , � I (Street) (City) (State) dip) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION General Location (include water body or wetlands involved, address, if any): Pa s o SS rnmc�nkJ-4 N()b Cd Legal Description (include quarter section, township, range, and parcel number): P ry aa004- OWNERSHIP Q nt11 i r a n t Owner Contract Other '•`�` Purchaser (Identify) Owner: (Street) (City) (State) (Zip) (Revised 1/95) The Shoreline Permit Ap plication Page 2 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION r Development (identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be us construction methods, principal dimensions, and other pertinent information): L( 1 _ V� q Cie r)I iLLL 1 a`(1� �• 4� n Ium��vm c���, c� I d�.e�, non 5�id LOA � � k 0 R oo4 h ���c4 �, ms nd ra�n S Use (identify current use of property with existing improvements: _ Rec Reason for requesting development: r,P oJn r\ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the foregoing information and all attached information is true and correct. (Applicant or Authorized a resentative) (Date) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area. ` If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet above the existing grade level, indicate the location of any residential units that will have an obstructed view. If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested, make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program. ,. (Revised 1/95) i 06/28/1999 10: 15 3602757520 1 LAKESHORE CONST PAGE 02 RCW90. 58 . 320 HEIGHT LIMITATION RESPECTING PERMITS . No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shoreline except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. m w T Q w S z U PiPo PO s E--6 w �L O RT p �C w — -- ._If ....-.-'-- - - - x x MSTM BULKHEAD +�1 L N SCR.t F I�e�IEs p m Lo PRDPOSED NEW PIER, RAMP& - 0 FLDAT FOR RECREATION AND APPLICANT: HOWARD&NANCY BAUER m BGAT TIE UP IN PICKERING SITE ADDRESS: 155 E. COMMUNITY CLUB ROAD PAMAGE,NEAR SHELTON, SHELTON, WASHINGTON 98594 MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. m IADJACENT ) BUCK CLARK PROPERTY ) DAVID VIAFORE m OWNERS ) 10' Lli F� oRT 44 OL 's 1 - il n F- z oAq w x r a J is co p , to 04 M—STIl�G BULKHEAD RAILROAD TIES - - r- N CD LD PROPOSED NEW PIER,RAMP & FLOAT FOR RECREATION AND BOAT TIE UP IN PICKERING PASSAGE, NEAR SHELTON, m MASON COUNTY,WASFIINGTON. APPLICANT: HOWARD&NANCY BAUER — _ -- SITE ADDRESS: 155 R COMMUNITY CLUB ROAD cp SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 m ADJACENT ) BUCK CLARK m PROPERTY ) DAVID VIAFORE OWNERS ) t �or A �� 1•a .ax+ • ��,,r,aR I ,• °�'� a p i S �Z�v��\'4c.7 �d!Q -tal 'a�ct�r?antl 1 tti patrsa�1. -s��s'S�� Si >vgwcr� 1 tti It6uy Ad h 6U, Q 9 xT t«s le do...L 02 4A, 44 yx,i Sr►Cw,iq e,, E•st nvq r S Dxco o co dV-.) d4.L J % ,. 9 /00 It N � ii II ,•' � o O, S \ a • • / ! :.•..::::::::•:.::.:.:. •. Sag ' . \,��` ..\G .. • ---\ " �A cj i "•'1` `• sV . Nit it .WY n II �� �' �•� c O � � p N 1 � � .., Oqq m ✓ M` SL S ---- it If C p I ✓! J m VIFI/1w Ac2oss IMLOT Ta "(L f � LkN-D QFP ucAww Wo FAQ t ITT ���o-- r 1 �l U�{ CTP—RC°,� IVt l�-lE� J V1 W T O Noa7l Ud MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Substantial Development, Notice is hereby given that HOWARD AND NANCY BAUER who -mot the owners of the described property Eiled an application for a Shoreline Management Permit- Substantial Development, for the development of : Construction of a pier, ramp and float facility located 100 ' beyond the OHWM Site Address : 155 E COMMUNITY CLUB RD SHELTON Project Location: Pickering Passage - Tract 22 of E 1/2 NE 1/4 of Sec 4, Twn 20, R 2 WParcel #220041190220 Parcel Number: 220041190220 Within. . . . (quarter section) of Section. . . 04 Township. .20N Range. . . . . 02W.W.M, in SHELTON, Mason County Washington. Said development is proposed within PICKERING PASSA and/or its associated wetlands . Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 578 SHELTON, WA 98584 in writing of their interest within 30 days of the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-14-020 . The final date of publication, posting, or mailing of notice is 04/15/99 . Written comments must be received by 05/15/99 . A public hearing will held on this permit request . Contact this office at (360) 427-9670, Ext 296 for date and time of hearing. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 04/08/99 under WAC 197-11-340 . Written comments regarding this determination must be received by 04/23/99 . SHR_NOT, rev: 04/29/92 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE DATE: STATE OF WASHINGTON) :SS COUNTY OF MASON ) ( . Ctr e ��I L(�' , do hereby certify that I posted copies of the attached in 2 public places as follows: 1 at 1 at � � - � � 1 at WITNESS my hand and seal this day of 19 • Name o <`Zc'� Address STATE OF WASHINGTON) :SS COUNTY OF MASON ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to me this day of _ 19 qq . Not y P blic for the State of Washington residing at MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR Affidavit of Publication SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Substantial Development, Notice is hereby given that HOWARD AND NANCY BAUER who are the owners of STATE OF WASHINGTON, the described property have filed an application COUNTY OF MASON SS. for a Shoreline Management Permit Sub- stantial De -` Constri facility Inra MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR Affidavit of Publication SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Substantial Development, Notice is hereby given that HOWARD AND NANCY BAUER who are the owners of STATE OF WASHINGTON, the described property have filed an application COUNTY OF MASON SS. for a Shoreline Management Permit- Sub- stantial Development,for the development of: Construction of a pier, ramp and float facility located 100'beyond the OHWM Site Address:155 E COMMUNITY CLUB Tlilla QrmP being first duly sworn RD SHELTON Project Location: Pickering Passage - on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk Tract 22 of E 1/2 NE 1/4 of Sec 4,Twn 20,R of THE SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news- 2 W Parcel#220041190220 paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the Parcel Number:220G41190220 date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu- Within... (quarter section)of ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now Section...04 and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of Township...20N publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL Range...02W.W.M, was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court In SHELTON,Mason County,Washington. of said Mason County. Said development is proposed within PICKERING PASSAGE and/or its associated wetlands.Any person desiring to express their That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Ap p 1 . For view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: Shoreline Mamt Permit — Howard and Nancy MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bauer P.O.BOX 578 as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said SHELTON,WA 98584 in writing of their interest within 30 days of newspaper once each week for period of the final date of publication given pursuant to p than WAC 173-14-020.The final date of publication, consecutive weeks,commencing on the posting,or mailing of notice is 04115/99. Written comments must be received by S t h day of Apr i 1 19 99 05/15/99. and ending on the A public hearing will be held on this permit 15 th day of Apr i 1 ,19 99 both dates inclusive, request.Contact this office at(360)427-9670, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said Extension 296 for date and time of hearing. period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on 04/08/99 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding this determi- foregoing publication is the sum of$ $4 ,e e nation must be received by 04/23/99. 4/8-15 2t S • .a�wwR•��a 1 NC •q,\11Subscribed and sworn to before me this 15 th 9� day of 0. AiJr i t 19 9 9 TARy�': ae J .tom► n p G ems„ Notary Pub in and for the State of Washington 0, %cf: UB0 � � 0' ©�l � Residing at Shelton,Washington 40,4aa2, `� c" My commission expires a--(tG 20Dy ����W A S srgtFo (ell C GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR yoN, o A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT U r o T z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE - UTILITIES N Y y BLDG. I • 411 N. 51 ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 • (360) 427-9670 June 1, 1999 TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES FROM: PLANNING STAFF, GRACE MILLER RE: HOWARD AND NANCY BAUR'S PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A Public Hearing before the Mason County Commissioners to consider Howard and Nancy Baur's Shoreline Substantial Development Permit request to construct a pier, ramp and float facility on Pickering Passage. The hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 8, 1999 at 9 :30 AM. The hearing will take place in the Commissioner's Chambers of Building I, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. Any oral or written comments will be accepted at this time. You are cordially invited to attend. If you have any questions, please give me a call . Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Recycled y PHILIP KRAMER ERNEST HARRELL 2803 E PICKERING RD 3815 S 305TH PL SHELTON WA 98584 AUBURN WA 98001 DAVID VIAFORE WILLIAM JONES 1120 PARADISE PKWY 2771 E PICKERING RD FIRCREST WA 98466 SHELTON WA 98584 TIM ZECH MICHAEL & SALLY DOIG PO BOX 1058 2811 E PICKERING RD BELFAIR WA 98528 SHELTON WA 98584 MILES SILVERTHORN DONALD VIAFORE 2501 CANTERBURY LN #316 1467 N HIGHLANDS ST SEATTLE WA 98112 TACOMA WA 98406 HOWARD & NANCY BAUER DARRYL JONES 155 E COMMUNITY CLUB RD 2851 E PICKERING RD SHELTON WA 98584 SHELTON WA 98584 BUCK CLARK MARJAN DEVELOPMENT INC 152 E COMMUNITY CLUB RD (BENEFIT PENSION PLAN) SHELTON WA 98584 1512 E KATELLA AVE ANAHEIM CA 92805 GARY YANDO,DIRECTOR c N=STA P a A O 0DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r o T z PLANNING -SOLID WASTE-UTILITIES zOP N Y BLDG. I • 411 N. 5TH ST. • P.O. BOX 578 1864 SHELTON,WA 98584 9 (360) 427-9670 TO: THE SHELTON/MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING STAFF, DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: Please publish the attached /Vv��u �r ? � " on the following day(s) Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Department of Community Development to pick up from your office (and send copies to the following _ Please charge for the publication at: >421) x i021' A)A- 991 Thank you. Mason County Planning Staff The Shoreline Permit Application Page 3 PERMIT NO. 99"�4 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST �Cc uew' Addresses are to be obtained from Mason County Assessor's Office Building I, Second Floor. ro j ►En �5aI1� ffj piC.ILer�n�' 2811 �. Pta -enr2�S5I E . Ftcxenr0 d 1EINl-0n via , She l pn v�J�, ��e t+OK. W of a tsgy 9 5t54 a�s�q erne �- N�rr�11 ��Q.s. S�1v�� c,►� P3uc-K QAQ �- 3o s`+-Pl. 3�S p� 31� r� 152 C Commun4qC ub 141 Q�Co l ltJ 0. C'3 Q ►1Z 4 tsSy��{ (), oce d U 1U-�o�2. M�r�gr. opm I ! Zc> .CV.6tSe f?KUj L4 r) r1 4`91," b l3e 0kciA Penston 48c� q$`�Ci �-r�e�he►►� cry. 9Zga t( 1'Oi11V0.1Yl �`(`Q_g "lDGuRYQ �<Lr7G lul�j Z�-11 ���r..C:ec►rtc� � isSE��u�, �'C�.�/ZD C06 /00 BaX/o�s of Vc ►^ 5��� Ca53� 5(0C - sa �f (Revised 1/95) BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDINGS tl''� —PAGE 4 /` , DULY 27, 1999 b ��y't. `;` unanimously. B-aye; 0-absent; C-aye. 4` ;e• GIS TECHNICIAN to advertise,interview and hire a GIS Technician to work on the County s Mr. Hauth requested permission Geographical Information System. rks Department to Cmmr.CadyBolender moved and seconded S�ts�ems Technici tile an. Mootion carried unanimouslySeB-aye, interview and hire a Geographical informationy O-absent; C-aye. RECESS The Board recessed until 8:45 p.m. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - pier,ramp and float facility for Hearing cont. from 6/8/99; 7/6/99 on a proposal to construct a 100' p' recreational use by a single-family residence on Pickering Passage. Applicants-Howard & Nancy Bauer Grace Miller, Planning,presented the staff report. Staff, at Jim Green, and a'represe representative from the National een in ith the US Army Corps of Engineers staff, Jack s request,has b Kennedy and Marine Fisheries Service,Rachel Freedman Staff asked if an alternus meet ng, stated that floats would be not ive design such as a floating dock be d be approved by these agencies.(The applicants agent,at a pr approved by the Corps or Fish & Wildlife at this time). Thcific e Corps would be willing to receive a revised design and w Fisheries Service,determine if the design as likelyld review for both its design and eor not location. The Corps would, with the National Martn to adversely affect the fish resource in the particular location. Communication regarding alternative proposals betweena Bauers lace their representatives,the Zechs of Lakeshore Construction, David Viafore and the Silverthorns did not P t intend to revise their Staff was contacted by Linda Gilbreath,permit agepli at on st ndnt,who stateds unrev sed since othe 7-6-99 hearing, indicating proposal to reflect a floating dock system. Theo aPP pier. a 100' pier, ramp and float facility with a 40' long p f smelt ng beach. if t were a Ms. Gilbreath has sent a letter stating the Bauer'be designeds beach is a such that theirocumented supports upportsspo lu dtprevent mosttof them floating dock system, it appears the floats could from grounding on the beach but there would be some grounding. Ms. Miller acknowledged the letter received from Roxanne Miles Silverthorn that objects to any kind of pier facility that interrupts their view and intrudes onto the b onal C arine Fisheries mmr. Bolender added that he did talk to Thom Hooper, floatsSenior vs Biologist structures to determine whether they Services,with regards to their review of pier, ramp off of the bulkhead onto floats. Mr. Hooper indicated would review a proposal as discussed 7-6-99 for a ramp reference. that is something they would permit but it was not the agency's p fish ation Mr. Hooper told Cmmr. Bolender that where there that ues relative to aquatic round on the beach and in mostcases,or National spawning areas they have concerns with using floatsg Marine Fisheries prefers piers over floats in these cases. Linda Gilbreath stated she is not acting as permit agent for the Bauer's but is trying to assist them through the proposal in having a Tamp coming directly off of the bulk head onto a series process. In addressing the design pro pexisting bulk of floats, she emphasized the ile lack of engineeringex stint bulkhead would not support a ramp i nlcont continual design and her professional opinion is that the g pier, ram and float facility storms. They would r like submitted at the submitted but will and compromise peot tto e a ds the 00orth property line. She pointed with a 40' long pie out this is an urban designation shoreline. he doesn't Cmmr. Bolender interjected that when this hearing was c� believe it was the intent of the Board to consideror t not to nued it was to consider design a options, o deny the permit He skedMs Gilbreath to address whether there are viable alternatives. Ms. Gilbreath reiterated they would like a 40' pier with a 40' ramp and moving it as close as they can to the north property line. oard is sitting quasi-judicial. He David Viafore questioned the public hearing process al havepndica indicated theointed out y will be negatively impacted ed. if this is majority of those notified of this Proposal d the Y state J r � BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' PROCEEDING /} y to a d<= tq+ JULY 27, 1999 —PAGE 5 +l „� fo,t, t 47 requested it be conditioned that boats cannot be stored and beached on the ground. HeA because h n " � o approved,he (� 40' pier significantly impacts his use of beach.He believes he is being discriminated g full-time resident and that his due-process has been violated. and whatever decisions are made, there Cmmr. Cady stated the regulations in the SMP are what the Board go by pertaining to a different project, is recourse to the Shorelines Hearings Board. She read from a WFWD letter, p g that states a fixed pier, ramp and float is a more desirable structure in terms of fish protection. She stated the Board's intent after the vote was taken at the 7-6-99 hearing was to see if an alternate was available they could concur on. The Board does consider the testimony given. antial velopment Permit Cmmr. Cady/Bolender moved and seconded to approve prove the reline the ;auer'stwith theesame five conditions9 16 for a pier, ramp and float facility on Pickering ge for that were proposed and that the handrail b 40mo more moving ng the entire stru an 36" high. The second cure a minimum of 10as submitted at the last public hearing,with thep feet to the north. o the ignificant impacts on the Cmmr. Bolender spoke to the neighbor's concernrelative t have sdiscretion as to how they det rmine what When is Board reviews impacts for these types of proposalsY significant and what is insignificant. There belie e no s the views y ews that are impacted are not on or specific guideline-in the Ssubstantiallysimpact der there is an impact with the proposal,but he b and still afford those property owners very nice views. Motion carried unanimously. B-aye; O-absent; C-aye. WARRANTS APPROVED The following warrants are approved for payment: WARRANT AMOUNT FUND NAME NUMBER 5483-5490 3,078.65 Convention Center/Fair 29 24,000.00 Criminal Justice 80-81 6,966.00 Cumulative Reserve Legal 566 180.00 Cumulative Reserve#1 197 882.06 84985-85163 Current Expense 19 28,000.00 239 Juvenile Detention Facility/Jail 300.00 Narcotic Investigation ADJOURNED The regular meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON Absent Cynthia D. Olsen, Chairperson Mary Jo Cady, Commissioner ATTEST: John A. Bolender,Commissioner Rebecca S. Rogers Clerk of the Board