Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2006-00031 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 10/1/2007 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 I 4 RE: William Maiden No. VAR2006-00031 5 Variance to build a new house within a DECLARATION OF MAILING 6 Type 1 stream buffer. i 7 8 I, Rebecca Hersha, declare and state as follows: 9 On March 2nd, 2007, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the 10 documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this 11 declaration is attached to- 12 William Maiden 13 7203 105th Avenue SW 14 Olympia, WA 98512 15 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the 16 foregoing information is true and correct. 17 Dated this 1st of October, 2007 at Shelton, Washington., , 18 i 19 % 20 Rebecca Hersha, Planner 21 22 23 24 25 DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 360-427-9670 TEL. 360-427-8425 FAX �014 c oN MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 Sf March 2nd, 2007 Notice of Decision Case: VAR2006-00031, a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance. Applicant: William Maiden William Maiden who is the applicant for the above-referenced action, has been granted the variance. 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 Rebecca Hersha, Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x593. 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner 3 RE: William Maiden 4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (MCC 7.01.150) 6 VAR 2006-00031 7 INTRODUCTION 8 9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in order to build a 1,512 square foot single-family residence within a Type 1 stream 10 buffer. The proposed residence would be constructed 130' from Cranberry Creek. The Examiner approves the project subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 11 ORAL TESTIMONY 12 13 Rebecca Hersha entered the staff report and exhibits. She and the applicant, William Maiden, answered questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. See Transcript. 14 EXHIBITS 15 16 See exhibit list attached to the February 1,2007 staff report. 17 FINDINGS OF FACT 18 Procedural: 19 l. Applicant. The applicant is William Maiden. 20 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application 21 on February 13, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners chambers, Building I. 22 23 Substantive: 24 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a 1,512 square foot single-family residence ("SFR") within a Type 1 stream buffer. The site, which 25 is currently vacant, is less than an acre. Cranberry Creek, which is a salmon bearing stream, runs along the southwest portion of the parcel, which is rectangular in shape. The topography is primarily flat, except for the Creek's steep bank. The SFR's septic/drainfield system would be sited outside the Creek's 150 foot buffer on the {BFP652949.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision northeast portion of the parcel. The SFR is proposed within the Creek's 150 feet 1 buffer and 15 foot setback. It will be situated in an open area of the parcel and the 2 farthest distance to the Creek that the configuration of the parcel will allow and still leave room for the septic/drainfield system. 3 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is to the south of Lake Limerick 4 within the Lake Limerick subdivision. Cranberry Creek flows from Lake Limerick through several small single family residential lots in the subdivision, including the 5 applicant's. The Creeks flows several miles from Lake Limerick to Oakland Bay. 6 5. Adverse Impacts. As noted above, both the building and drainfield sites 7 were selected to maximize their distance from the Creek. According to the Staff Report, the topography of the site is primarily flat, and therefore, a geological study 8 prior to development is not needed. Provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and conditions recommended by staff will mitigate all significant adverse impacts to the 9 environment. One comment from a neighbor concerned about protecting his privacy 10 was received. The neighbor asked that the structure not be allowed to exceed two stories. Loss of privacy, however, is not an impact created by construction in stream I 1 buffer or setback, therefore, it is not subject to mitigation in this application for a variance. 12 I' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 14 Procedural: 1.5 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the 1�' Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 17 Substantive: 18 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Desi arlg tions. The Mason County 19 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural 20 Residential 5. 21 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). As noted on page 2 of 22 the revised staff report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW and the Squaxin Tribe. 23 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the 24 150-foot buffer and 15' building setback from the ordinary high water mark required for a Type 1 stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through MCC 25 17.01.110(D)(1). MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Variance application from Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit {BFP652949.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable Conclusions of Law. 3 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 4 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 5 5. Given that nearly the entire lot is encumbered by a resource ordinance 6 buffer and building setback, strict application of the Resource Ordinance would deny the applicant of a reasonable use. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a 7 reasonable use of residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to accommodate them. Without the variance, there would be no buildable 8 space for the proposed SFR. The proposed SFR is as far away from the Creek as possible and still leaving room for the septic/drainfield system. Environmentally, 9 between the SFR and the septic system, it is better to permit the SFR to encroach on 10 the buffer than the septic system. There is no room for both the SFR and the septic system outside the buffer zones and setbacks. 11 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the 12 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the 13 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 14 the applicant's own action. 15 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the Type 1 stream and its buffer, which encumbers almost the entire subject lot. 16 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 17 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 18 properties or the environment. 19 7. The proposed footprint of the proposed SFR is smaller than those in the vicinity. Given the relatively small size of the proposed home, it is anticipated that 20 the instant development will be compatible with permitted uses in the area. 21 According to the Habitat Management Plan("HMP"), the proposal would require the removal seven trees and brushes. As mitigation, the applicant will be required to 22 enhance 2,000 square feet of open space within the buffer as recommended in sections 6 and 7 of the HMP and conditioned in the Staff Report, incorporated by 23 reference as if set forth in full herein. 24 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 25 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. (BFP652949.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 8. SFRs are allowed in the Rural Residential 5 zoning district and as noted in 1 the staff report, the proposed residence is smaller that those already in the area. Consequently, the proposed variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The location of the residence and septic system is as far from the stream as possible. Therefore,this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 4 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 5 9. Much of the buffer will remain. The proposed SFR will be conditioned to 6 be no closer than 130 feet from the Creek. As mitigated in the Habitat Management Plan and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the project's adverse 7 impact on environmental resources should be minimal; therefore, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 8 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 9 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 10 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only 1 1 shall not justify a variance. 12 10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would be allowed to build a single family residence on the site. However without the variance, the applicant will 1' not be able to build anything within the resource ordinance buffer. Therefore, the 14 owner would lack reasonable use of land without the requested variance. The proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, Comprehensive 15 Plan,or the GMA. 16 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 17 proposed development according to the following criteria: 18 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 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 20 in the public interest. 21 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or 22 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. 23 11. As noted above as well as in the staff report, the project is consistent with 24 the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR 25 developments at subject location. It also meets the requirement and intend of the Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project will not harm environmental resources; and therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare, and is in the public interest. In addition, at least 130 feet of buffer will {BFP652949.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision remain, on which 2,000 square feet of open space will be enhanced with native 1 vegetation. As further noted in the staff report, the development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities. 3 DECISION 4 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 5 recommended in the staff report as well as those identified in the Habitat 6 Management Plan. G 7 Dated this 7 day of February,2007. 8 9 10 '1 A. Olbrechts Mason County Hearing Examiner 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2; 24 25 {BFP652949.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision VA2006-00031 Written 02/01/07 - 1 - Mason County Department of Planning Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279 Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670 TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Staff—Rebecca Hersha, 360.427.9670 ext. 593 RE: Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2006-00031). HEARING DATE: February 13`h, 2006 STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance Number 77-93. The request for a Variance (Exhibit#2) is for the construction of a 1512 square foot single-family dwelling unit to be placed within Cranberry Creek's stream buffer. Cranberry Creek is a Type 1 stream, which requires a 150' buffer plus a 15' building setback. The proposal is to construct the house a minimum of 130' from the Cranberry Creek. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed residence subject to the provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and conditions added by staff. II. Applicant: William Maiden III. Date of Complete Application: November 2, 2006 IV. Project Location: Property location is on Old Lyme Road, Shelton, WA 98584. Lot 188 of Lake Limerick, Division 4. Parcel 32127-53-00188. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the area. The property is to the south of Lake Limerick within the Lake Limerick subdivision (Exhibit# 6 and# 7). Cranberry Creek flows from Lake Limerick through several small single family residential lots in the subdivision, including the applicant's. From there, it flows for several miles through rural areas and into Oakland Bay. B. Characteristic of the site. The site is currently vacant and totals about 1/3rd of an acre. Except for the center of the lot, which is clear, the vegetation consists of a Douglas Fir trees and native shrubs: primarily salal, evergreen huckleberry, and sword fern. The proposed home is to be sited in the open area. Cranberry Creek, a salmon bearing stream, runs along the back property. The topography is primarily flat, except for Cranberry Creek's steep bank, therefore the slopes do not warrant a geological study prior to development. The footprint of the proposed house will be less than 1550 square feet (Exhibit# 5). A septic/drainfield system is proposed to be sited in front (northeast) of the house, which is outside of Cranberry Creek's 150 feet buffer. .... VA2006=00031 Written 02/01/07 -2- C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ng_ ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5. VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800(1)(c)(i). Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit#4) for the Application for a Variance was publicized in the Mason-Shelton Journal on 11/23/06 and at three public places on 11/15/06. In addition,the Notice of Application was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the proposal, the Washington State Department of Fish&Wildlife, and the Squaxin Tribe on 11/15/06. A 28-day comment period followed. One person commented. This adjacent neighbor is concerned about protecting his privacy. He desires that the structure not be two or more stories. A copy of this staff report has been sent to this neighbor. A Habitat Management Plan(HMP) (Exhibit#3)accompanies this Variance application. VII. Other Permits. A County Building Permit will be required before constructing the single-family residence. VIII. Analysis. A Comprehensive Plan Review: Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted plans and regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following criteria: A. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8 and 16. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code. B. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public interest. The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare, but may not be considered to be in the public interest. However, considering the house will be at least 130 feet from the stream and considering the 2,000 square foot mitigation zone, stafffeels that there will be little to no net impact. C. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. The development proposal will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities. Section 17.01.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses Variances From Standards,the purpose of which is set forth in Section 17.01.150 A. Applicability in Section 17.01.150 B. 2. Review Standards Per Title 15,the Mason County Development Code (15.09.057). Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Development Regulations may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. VAR2006=00031 Written 02/01/07 -3- IX. Findings. 1. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; Type I streams require a 150'buffer plus a 15'building setback for a total of 165'per the Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 D. 1. The Type I stream buffer encumbers nearly the entire land ownership. The proposed residential building site is as far away from the stream as viable. Since it is better to have drain-fields as for away from a critical area as possible, it is proposed to be sited between the house and the road. The lot is too narrow to site the house and drain-field side by side. The property was purchased with the intention of building a single-family residence. Without this Yariance from the required standards, there is no buildable area. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; The hardship specifically related to this property is the limited size of the lot and the natural feature of the Type I stream. 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; The proposed footprint(less than 1550 square feet square feet) is smaller than the average size of homes in the vicinity. According to the Habitat Management Plan, the proposal would require the removal of"a maximum of 7 trees"and some brush. A. MITIGATION: The Habitat Management Plan recommends that the applicant enhance the 2,000 square foot open area by planting native trees 10 feet on center, shrubs 5 feet on center,ferns 3 feet on center, and groundcover 6 inches on center. The plantings should be installed in the winter months. The applicant shall monitor the plantings for three years to ensure their survival. Invasive species, if they appear, will be removed from the stream buffer. B. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:Recommended in the Habitat Management Plan are the following recommendations for construction activities: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream. • Minimize amount of eroding soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur offsite. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, or hazardous substances outside overnight in the project area. VAR2006-'00031 Written 02/01/07 -4- Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; The house and septic location is proposed to be as far from the stream as possible. Therefore, this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford relief. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; The public interest is in the health of the Type 1 stream. The modest house size, the preservation and enhancement of much of the buffer will result in no substantial detrimental effect. 6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. To some extent, reasonable use of the property depends on the expectation of the landowner at the time of the purchase. The applicant purchased the property with the expectation to build a single-family residence, which would be allowed under the zoning code, if it weren't encumbered by the stream buffer. The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. X. Conclusion. Staff recommends approval of the Variance with the following conditions: 1. Development is subject to all conditions and recommendations in the Habitat Management Plan written by The Wetland Corps (Lee Boad and Heather Lane), dated September 2006. 2. The preserved buffer zone shall remain undisturbed by any construction and/or development activities except those absolutely required for minimal disturbance to construct the single-family residence. The closest that the proposed house may be to the ordinary high water mark of Cranberry Creek is 130 feet. There may be a clearing setback with a maximum width of 10 feet around the house and drainfield footprint. No trees or shrubs may be cut down outside of this setback,unless they are deemed"danger trees"by a qualified arborist. 3. Invasive species on the property, if they appear,will be removed. 4. Applicant shall be required to control erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation, other than in the area where the residence is proposed shall not occur, and any areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts. Install silt fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream. Perform work during dry weather. Minimize the amount of eroding soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. 5. Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, or hazardous substances outside overnight in the project area. VAF(2006-00031 Written 02/01/07 -5 - 6. Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. 7. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project. IX. Choices of Action. 1. Approve the Variance request. 2. Approve with conditions the Variance request. 3. Deny the Variance request (reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year). 5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. EXHIBITS 1. Staff Report 2. Variance Application 3. Habitat Management Plan 4. Notice of Hearing 5. Site Plan 6. Vicinity Map 7. Plat Map RECE,VD VARIANCE APPLICATION NOV 0 2 2006 aff �D�� /CL ( MASON COUNTY MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO BE KEPT IN fht I" Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 PARCEL FILE Variance from Standards As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA, variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is met. Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance criteria listed below. Applicant name: (d 11/14,w ,L aid MG 1 de4 Telephone No. 060) `?S-6-0 7y Maiin addlress: 7� 0`3 /a t� i1e 's ('I-) �� / Site address: (J /Yl Ck e r/ e— Owner Name (If different than applicant): Owner Address (If different than applicant): Tax Parcel # .3.2- /—� 7 -j J _ 60 1 Legal Description: Lot /8(Y, La ke j to e r �e k I D 1 U• / UoIune o ,DlG s ,_ QgeC /90 - /9S, Re-c6rdj 0 � /6-5614 C6. GJ,4 Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance Mason County Development Regulations Subdivisions and Plats 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 1 ✓ C�Q I r 11 - -A i � fejg1j.1 led, \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\[-TOME\COMMON\PLANNING\Variance Application 2005.doc 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. / s / S are e cf Q 'c C Ltc J e2 7� 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; h e s�' r►' f Ok Xe Apot el lie St/��l�G_ S✓.tl�als� r�Te y/iaf .na< il�,�P [c>�fLit� ,c 1/ccry i fAA f��c� a,Dd li �cf �S �'7� a G K.t b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; f e n e rem u e i i 2,1 es cre u e Y /� 1' i� o S � IvI Gc�" o .� � 7 e- .� /i iI/' n rD Y to � f 4- Z r c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; T21 e 1 A r,gi Ae J/u tya s S /� .l a r` 741s/ 112 � It t i / i A JA/�ry�vo� 7�z� e a� L nn J/`/l e a%LO1 10 n 2 r I' / e \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\Variance Application 2005.doc d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; l -Z Zr /,-S G EGt Sf U--) e-L Cr-0 a n cz /cs s OU i e i' e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;S L(A 4I i1 �� R'4e:1' 7'41'3 Boa/�'c �r�i'eLr � /� c>!c. Oe eax A ent9le_C_YL-c I\A e' "7n i /'/^CAA- 7L//74 6 AA S ke!)c I�LD Coot /n napml?t go Ad M I Ae i-IA e n i 7 a A .r J\hd tic l41e Y' Gt I K f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonab e use o q, the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. U e r7 y �i yl9r" ©1n t rk r e--a 1 lY a .s, e i nAJ Al. Applicant Signature °�— Date Z4�1 — /o!� ---2 4/ Owner Signature Date FEES: Development Regulations Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00_ Subdivision and Plats Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00 Resource Ordinance Variance: 1,22�5.00� Hearings Examiner: $490.00 LJ NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached). \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\Variance Application 2005.doc 11/15/2006 10:49 FAX Q001 TX REPORTac�c TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 3949 CONNECTION TEL 94269399 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 11/15 10:48 USAGE T 00'54 PGS. SENT 3 RESULT OK FAXCOVER SHEET TO: The Mason County Journal FAX #: 426-9399 FROM: Mason County Planning Department FAX#: 427-8425 DATE: November 1 5, 2006 Please publish the attached: Notice of Public Hearing On the following day: November 23, 2006 or November 30, 2006. Please keep the affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to pick up from your office, and send 1 copy to the following: William Maiden 72303 105"Ave. SW Olympia, WA 98512 Please send a bill for the publication to William Maiden (above). Sincerel.v. VARIANCE REQUEST Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County Journal will bill the applicant directly. I / WE understand that I / WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I / WE understand that is MY / OUR responsibility. I / WE must submit the signed page as part of application in order for it to be considered as complete. OWNER: l ^�( I a An ba( L APPLICANT: � � r^�/ r D Ir'l J/Q y DATE: \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\TOME\COMMON\PLANNING\Variance Application 2005.doc �goN Co MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning _ Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 1B f MEMORANDUM DATE: November 16, 2006 TO: Gloria Rogers, WDFW John Konovsky, Squaxin Island Tribe FROM: Rebecca Hersha, Planner RE: A Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO)No.77-93 to build a single- family residence within a Type 1 stream buffer. NOTE: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter(17.01.110) of the RO requires that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan that shall be reviewed by local Tribes, Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife and other applicable state/federal agencies. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by The Wetland Corps is enclosed for your review and comment. A 28-day comment period is provided. Details of the project follow: Site Address: Lot 188 of Lake Limerick, Division 4. On Old Lyme Rd., Shelton, WA 98584. Applicants: William Maiden 5� Legal Description:,.1, d /4 of Township 21 N, Range 3 W, Section 27, Washington of Mason County. Parcel No. 32127-53-00188. Project description: Construct a single-family dwelling (1500 sq. ft.) within Cranberry Creek's buffer, a Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Type 1 stream. The structure's closest point to the stream is 130 feet. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 150' buffer plus a 15' foot setback for Type 1 streams. Please submit comments by December 29, 2006 to the address above, ATTN: Rebecca Hersha. Or you may email your comments to RebeccH@co.mason.wa.us. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 427-9670, ext 593. THE WETLAND CORPS Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation MAIDEN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Parcel#321275300188 Mason County,Washington Prepared for: William David Maiden 7203 105t"Avenue SW Olympia,Washington 98512 Prepared by: Heather Lane and Lee Boad September, 2006 5x 3 PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com THE WETLAND CORPS ' Wetland Delineation , Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation MAIDEN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................1 3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..................................................................................................2 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.................................................................2 5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS....................................................................................................3 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................................4 7.0 MONITORING ......................................................................................................................7 8.0 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................7 Figures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Map Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com THE WETLAND CORPS r Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation September,2006 Page 1 MAIDEN HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Lake Limerick 4 Tract 188 Shelton,Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The details of a Habitat Management Plan for the above referenced property (Parcel No. 321275300188) are discussed in full in this report. The site is found in the NW %4 of Section 27 Township 21 North, Range 3 West(See Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map). The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a 1512 square foot single-family residence (SFR) within an area encompassed by the regulated buffer of Cranberry Creek. Cranberry Creek meets criteria for a Type 1 stream, requiring 150 feet of undisturbed buffer with an additional 15-foot building setback. The SFR will be 130 feet from the stream at the nearest point. The septic design for the SFR is outside of the stream buffer. The objectives of this HMP are as follows: ■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife habitat resulting from the establishment of the SFR within the Type 1 stream buffer. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be residing in the vicinity of the parcel. ■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects resulting from the establishment of the SFR within the Type 1 stream buffer. 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The ownership is less than one acre in size, roughly rectangular in shape, and oriented northeast to southwest. Cranberry Creek meanders within the southwestern portion of the parcel, with the associated 150-foot stream buffer encompassing the majority of the parcel. The lot is accessed by Olde Lyme Court to the north and is bordered to the west, east, and south by single-family residential lots. An old road grade crosses the lot within the northern third of the property. Vegetation in the parcel is comprised of an overstory of Douglas fir, with a shrub layer of salal, evergreen huckleberry, and sword fern. The central portion of the parcel is maintained as an open area, devoid of overstory components typical of the surrounding area. Topography within the lot is generally flat, with the exception of a steep bank down toward Cranberry Creek. The stream is draining southerly through the parcel, from Lake Limerick. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 2 The open portion of the parcel spans from the top of the bank to the old road grade, occupying an area of approximately 4,000 square feet. The proposed SFR will be situated within this open area, the farthest distance from the stream that the configuration of the lot will allow, given the placement of the septic. Photo 1. Facing downstream, Cranberry Creek. 3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setback for this project is as follows: Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer Type 1 Stream 150' 15' 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES 4.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. Cranberry Creek is a fishbearing stream, but was recently excluded form NOAA's Fisheries Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington in August, 2005. Although the stream may be accessible to Puget Sound Chinook, suitable habitat is not present due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. This project is not likely to have adverse impacts on Puget Sound Chinook due to the lack of suitable habitat and proposed mitigation. No impacts to water quality are predicted with proposed mitigation. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 3 4.2 Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)-Threatened Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel, relatively free of fine sediments. Although the substrate may be suitable for Bull Trout spawning, the lower elevation and temperature of Cranberry Creek is not suitable habitat for Bull Trout. Given the lack of suitable habitat, the proposed project is not likely to have any adverse impacts on bull trout. 4.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)-Threatened Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. The proposed project site will require the removal of a maximum of seven trees. The trees to be removed do not contain nesting and roosting features important for the Bald Eagle, such as exposed lateral limbs or dead tops with an unobstructed view of nearby water. Recommended overstory plantings recommended in Section 6.3 should improve the potential for use of the site by Bald Eagle in the future. As no important habitat features are to be removed,this project will have no adverse impacts on bald eagles. 4.4 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)- Threatened Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest,however the average distance is roughly 5-miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project will likely have no adverse impact on Marbled Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the project area. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS The project lies within the regulated buffer of a Type 1 stream. Project scale in the protected area is as follows: Development Type Habitat Type Project scale Single Family Residence Type 1 Stream Buffer 1512 sq. ft. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 4 5.1 Vegetation Disturbance The majority of the building footprint is located in a portion of the ownership that has been maintained as an open area. A maximum of seven Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees and associated shrub understory that surround the open area will be removed for the proposed SFR. With recommended planting of native vegetation described in Section 6.3, the project will likely have a net benefit of vegetation abundance and diversity within the lot. 5.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids is not within the vicinity of the project area. Therefore, none of the proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. 5.3 Noise Pollution A slight increase in noise from construction activities is likely to occur during daylight construction hours. No nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be impacted by noise associated with the establishment of the SFR. 5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended in Section 6.2 to minimize the adverse effects to sediment supply and turbidity during project implementation. 5.5 Light and Glare The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with residential construction and land use. The majority of wildlife activity likely occurs within the forested ravine. The vegetative buffer to be enhanced between the proposed project and the stream is expected to shield the majority of the stream from increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by wildlife species is likely to result from light and glare associated with this project. 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants The remainder of the Type 1 stream buffer, outside of the proposed SFR, will be preserved and remain in tact or enhanced with native vegetation. The proposed SFR is located 130 feet from the stream at the nearest point, this is the greatest possible distance from the stream given the limited size of the lot, and septic drainfield requirements. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 5 x .. f w to y Photo 2. Proposed location of SFR, and trees to be removed 6.2 Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of waters. • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances outside overnight within the project area. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority. 6.3 Enhancement Recommendations It is recommended that the open area between the SFR and the Type 1 stream be enhanced with native vegetation. The enhancement of a moderately dense forested and shrub community within the suggested PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@ eo le c.com P P P Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 6 portion of the open area is likely to improve potential for wildlife utilization of the site. The area selected as the mitigation zone occupies an area of approximately 2000 square feet. VIA 1I y_bd r. Photo 3. Mitigation Zone Native Plantings To offset impacts associated with the establishment of the SFR and the displaced stream buffer, it is recommended that the mitigation zone be enhanced with native plants. The following species are recommended: Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata) Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii) Shrubs: Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa) salal (Gaultheria shallon) evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum) Groundcover: kinnikinnik(Arcostaphylus uva-ursi) coastal strawberry(Fragaria chiloensis) PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com J Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 7 Native Planting Guidelines It is recommended that plantings be installed within the identified mitigation zone to achieve the following densities. trees- 10' on center shrubs-5' on center ferns- 3' on center herbaceous groundcover—6 inches on center These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the mitigation zone. Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. A monitoring program is recommended to insure project effectiveness. Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may invade the mitigation zone. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the mitigation zone should they invade. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the stream. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. 7.0 MONITORING Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following native species plantings and maintained on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced plant species; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the mitigation zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 8.0 SUMMARY This report addresses the effects of the establishment of a 1512 square foot SFR area within the regulated buffer of a Type 1 stream, identified as Cranberry Creek. Best Management Practices are recommended to insure no negative impacts to the stream. Mitigation recommendations include native plant enhancement of 2000 square feet of open area in proximity to the stream. No impacts to water quality or stream habitat are predicted. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Maiden HMP September,2006 Page 8 Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction. I trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, Lee Boad Senior Ecologist Feather Lane Staff Wetland&Natural Resource Specialist PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com REFERENCES Audobon WatchList. http;//audobon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies. Knutson, K.L., and V.L.Naef, 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp. Native Plants for Kitsap County. ft :/p /kcwppub3.co.kits4p.wa.us/pw/sw/Native Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes Concerning Wild 1Salmonids. Adopted by Washington fish and Wildlife Commission,1997. Wq ingtR� State Department p f Ecology; William Symington Lake Hari}fat Analysis. 1998. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com "Ike Wetland Corps Figxc 2 Maiden Habitat Managemer>,flan 5ite flan fax parcel #321215300188 scakI •30'-O' �xi-tinq Old load Grade \ nrainfield Area �i 0 boughs Fir to be Removed 36 Pr 5ingle Famlly I;e51cmxe 15' BuFfer 198' c, 50' Mitigation Zone (2,000 sa W 130' 150' 9uiWhI 5-dock Cranberry Creek 60' U� f r ,4a., 176 :�--_ 114 Jr, jr 179 178 180 63 0 C7 181 Q 1776 - 127 182 *6 Ise j 159 0190 2w t 7 191, Q v� 4 14 s i�r n C� I • LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'"* WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST "Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. Dc, tj l /=✓' 1'ed Eli,zu 6 r-d / S o O la/ Lyre Rol 130 E old AlAwe- Rd 6Ae-//om E Sg �5'G�C l��c lJ 5�� .5 4 a ro k ,Frown L o 4 m e yc r- / ), ! E Old Lym e Rd /6o Old L/rne Rd , he ifoq I IS spy 5 k l W4 q e 5 epY van f roper-b"cs 141eycz,�i fer L " 1" 76 � S lo��,Qy s -r /so r- old Lyme Rcl ,Uwa � ne 600c.I 6 4 L �r. us 9 Cf l �(o L old L e R� � Y m lto>z � gSe`l- 960 st.C- lion 0 0 91 Sb'y �ennJS SGtr-filler �lehry -T4 ,'e / 5 / E . Anyus C- old Zlme RJ Is s,? y l rfo� E S 8 q L l�Q sL1 rll/c/^ �/'� T/zr- KCAm inn-r-Ze // 8a /6 r )4ax 7/ E Old Lyme. Rd. Gef-a rCf JarYl_5 f7eh r- // O 1_ 0Id Ly e E old 4yme- Rd. e /7b //A 4 / /4 J 9 l? r'e- tG R e�1 /t'I I'le o- ^o 6 e r f /\ e-I/! 3 y.Z S s- 176 o f .4 .S3 9 2 yy s E S? ¢h S t Sea tac !,J 8 4/0 qj /Ker-cer AA q el Cl I�'l 6[�l��Il 90 be rt 6 o y / l D l E Old Lyme Ro� � y F. D Id �y ,ne Rc/ s I o s r� 5h e-1hm 4=?4 V 5 F y l0,4-f-hc1 Fal/e-r ge-55lcu Sain4404.5- CroajarA/ C f $ I C Gromar�y Ct S�eyfon__YY \\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMO LANNING\Variance Application 2W5.doc Co,t �inu�� on neXf �ay,e ofs D pr pet c on fin 71 L C r-o inL:5e- S r /E� cr'9 Ylar Ay Lt, foss , ,Jo � anoes 31 E C-r'on�a��/ Ct SG«lto►� , do q8 58 y i 0 °p°4 MASON COUNTY � ap Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 f f Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance Notice of Public Hearing Notice is hereby given that William Maiden,who is the applicant for the following proposal, has filed an application for a Variance. The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the construction of a 1500 square foot single-family residence within a type 1 stream buffer. Property location is on Old Lyme Road., Shelton, WA 98584. Lot 188 of Lake Limerick, Division 4. Date of complete application: November 13, 2006. The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 D. 1., Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details type 1 stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat Management Plan, and Hearing Examiner approval. 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 by February 12, 2007: REBECCA HERSHA C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 98584 A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday, February 13, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5'h Street, Shelton, WA. Please contact Rebecca Hersha of the Mason County Department of Community Development at (360) 427-9670, ext. 593, with any questions or comments on this development and variance. A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of the complete application. 11 I'lie Weiland Corps F(gore 2 Malden Habitat Management plan 51te plan fax parcel #321215300188 hi5tlnq Old Pooad Grade nrainfleld Area C 1,50 O n 6 ou*5 Fir to 6e Removed �2.\ 56 pro�o""_ Ingle Famdy l esidwe 15' Mer 50' Mlt,q on Zone (2,000 5q ft) W, 150' DudWmq 5et6a& Cranberry Creek 60' e Wtland Corps F 4 re 2 Maiden Hakat Management plan Site flan fax parcel #N121 M0188 30 -o N15t1nq Old Road Grade nrainfield Area O nouglas Fir to be Removed 56 \ ' propc Ingle �. Family Residmxc 15'Buffer 1�8' '40, 50' wtlgation Zone C 2,000 5q ft) 130' I5O' Budd►iq 5et6eA Granberry Greek 60' MEA d41 r �O �24 lok�OPLM ORgt Wy��s� ANDRE WS DR NORTH e ,ch un ay3�P �SHETLAND' E WAY TOT r _ s � . OAF Lake Limerick - �s �co D E� rry Lake / G�� } 2b 4� �V �Oq RTa`00 Cr �• m z o z o - a z v / E,GREENVIEW LN w V d C ,14 Lc e E MARJORIE LN S�01 �� W w ;� \ EEG w Puget Sound T20 W �r� Prrgef Sound Iox nn • K a ca ct t lll.a Iw[ « 7O v w ` JR IL 4� 4 � ; � �' t � ems+. • aµ '� ti "6 r H. � h�r a [� t, �¢ � 't tµ \ � „; " : J � •'as� r r r 'bra '`�r Fa • ^�, DNS �* <+ � 4� � � r OPP 400 a A + ♦ n = t 11`/ A R Al it + ��yy Ar • i • 'o i ,,��;; � }R+ a.. � rX � air:• o q �4 � � w lux .�• �� �� rt o-- o ?r �yF}*!.� C k ` � .fits �, �''� �5 't \\ q �� � r•.F I N tl- Y- d 3 �i Al lix a , �4F ps KU op Prt a * t l r ~ • w ar wa w 7 s