HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2007-00026 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 3/3/2008 PgoN copes 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
f854
March 3, 2008
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2007-00026 a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance.
Applicant: John Parks
Mr. Parks, who is the applicant for the above-referenced action, have been granted a
Variance for constructing a house within a stream buffer/setback.. Attached are the
conditions associated with 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
3 - ---- - ----- -
4 RE: John Parks No. VAR2007-00026
5
Variance to build a new house within a DECLARATION OF MAILING
6 stream buffer.
7
8 I, Rebecca Hersha, declare and state as follows-
9
On March 3th, 2008, 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
John Parks Doris Fredin
13 6727 Glen Echo Ln. SW 60 E Olde Lyme Rd.
14 Lakewood, WA 98499 Shelton, WA 98584
15
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the
16
foregoing information is true and correct.
17
Dated this 3rd of March, 2008 at Shelton, Washington.
18
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
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: John Parks
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
(MCC 17.01.150)
6
VAR 2007-00026
7
INTRODUCTION
8
9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in
order to build single-family residence within a Type 1 / Type F stream buffer, which
10 requires a 150-foot-buffer in addition to a 15-foot building setback. The buffer and
setback would render the parcel unbuildable. The proposed residence would be
11 constructed at least 117 feet from Cranberry Creek. The Hearing Examiner approves
12 the project subject to certain conditions.
13 ORAL TESTIMONY
14 Rebecca Hersha entered the Staff Report and exhibits. She and the applicant, John
Parks, answered questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. Doris Fredin also
15 testified in opposition. She feels that the size of the proposed SFR is too big in
16 comparison to existing SFRs on the nearby lots. See tape of hearing.
17 EXHIBITS
18 See exhibit list attached to the February 12, 2008 revised Staff Report. In addition,
the applicant submitted at the hearing modified plans for the residence, admitted as
19 Exhibit 7.
20 FINDINGS OF FACT
21
Procedural:
22
23 1. Annlicant. The applicant is John Parks.
24 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
on February 12, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
5 chambers, Building I.
Substantive:
{PA0688845.DOC;1/13000.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a 1,400-
1 square-foot (1,591-square-foot footprint) single-family residence ("SFR") with
2 attached garage within a Type F stream buffer, a fish bearing stream. The site, which
is currently vacant, is rectangular in shape, and is approximately 65 feet x 228 feet
3 (0.33 acre). The Cranberry Creek runs through the back portion of the parcel.
Vegetation throughout the majority of the northern portion of the parcel is comprised
4 of Douglas fir with an understory comprised of salal, Oregon grape, huckleberry, and
sword fern. Topography within most of the lot is generally mild, with a steep
5 gradient slope towards approximately 80 feet of the stream. As a result, a geological
6 study prior to development has been required by staff. A septic/drainfield system is
proposed in front(east) of the SFR, outside the 150-foot buffer.
7
4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is within the Lake Limerick
8 subdivision to the south of Lake Limerick. Cranberry Creek runs through several
small SFR lots in the subdivision. It flows several miles from Lake Limerick to
9 Oakland Bay.
10
5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in the
11 Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). The HMP also recommends mitigation
measures for the same, which, combined with additional conditions recommended by
12 staff, should mitigate significant adverse impacts to the environment. Both the SFR,
access road and drainfield sites were selected to maximize their distance from the
13 Creek and still comply with setback requirements.
14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15
Procedural:
16
17 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing
Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
18
Substantive:
19
20 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County
Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
21 Residential 5.
22 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
the revised Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by
24 mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW, and the Squaxin Tribe. A 28-day waiting
period followed, and one comment, by a neighbor, was received noting that the size
25 of the proposed SFR would be out of scale with the existing SFRs in the area.
4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
150-foot buffer and 15-foot building setback from the ordinary high water mark
{PAo688845.DOC;1/13000.900000/1
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
required for a Type 1 / Type F stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through
1 MCC 17.01.110. 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
applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the
4 general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable
Conclusions of Law.
5
6 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
.standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
7 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
8 5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of
residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to
accommodate them. Without the variance, the applicant would be left with
insufficient buildable space for a SFR. The buffer and setback encumbers three
quarters of the property. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance significantly
l 1 interferes with the property owner's reasonable use of the property.
12 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
l' unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
14 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
15
6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the protected stream
16 and its buffer, which encumbers three quarters of the subject lot. The lot is not wide
enough to accommodate the SFR and the drainfield/septic system side by side and
17 still meet the buffer and setback requirements.
18 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
19 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
20
21 7. Staff showed in Exhibit 5 and a neighbor testified that the originally
proposed size of the home is not consistent with size of surrounding homes, which
22 has an average size of 1,199 square feet according to Exhibit 5. However, on
December 27, 2006 the County Commissioners amended MCC 17.01.150(E) to
23 provide that the minimum reasonable use for a residence is the lesser of 2,550 square
feet or 40% of the lot size. This is a minimum size requirement and was adopted in
24 response to Examiner decisions that generally limited home sizes to a smaller size
25 when size was an issue. For this reason, the Examiner construes MCC 17.01.150(E)
as setting a minimum home size. MCC 17.01.150(E) authorizes larger homes if that
would meet the variance criteria. Given the small homes in the surrounding area,
nothing greater in size than the minimum set by MCC 17.01.150(E) would be
1 PA0688845.DOC;1/13000.9000001)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
compatible with other homes in the area. Of course, the minimum set by MCC
1 17.01.150(E)is larger than that originally proposed by the applicant, so that limitation
does not appear to be a significant burden on the property owner in this case.
3 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
4 necessary to afford relief.
5 8. As noted above, the Commissioners have made the minimum size
6 requirements identified in MCC 17.01.150(E) mandatory and defined those sizes as a
minimum reasonable sue. This overrides any contrary criteria, including special
7 privileges. Given MCC 17.01.150(E), nothing about the project constitutes a grant of
special privilege and the proposal is the minimum to afford relief.
8
9 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
10 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and state of the stream, as well as
in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property. As mitigated in the
I 1 HMP and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the project's adverse
impact on environmental resources should be minimal; therefore, the public interest
12 will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
13 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
14 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
15 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
shall not justify a variance.
16
10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would be severely restricted
17 from building a single family residence on the site. However without the variance,
18 the applicant will not be able to build anything within the resource ordinance buffer.
Given that the size of the lot is suitable for an SFR, the property is zoned to
19 accommodate SFRs, and the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by SFR
development, the property owner would lack a reasonable use of his land with
20 anything short of a SFR. The proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason
21 County Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, or the GMA.
22 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
proposed development according to the following criteria:
23
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
24 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
25 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
(PA0688845.DOC;1/13000.9000M)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
i
3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
1 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
3 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report, the project is consistent with
the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR
4 developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the
Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project will not harm
5 environmental resources; and therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety
6 and welfare and is in the public interest. As further noted in the Staff Report, the
development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood
7 park facilities.
8 DECISION
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended identified in the Habitat Management Plan, as well as those in the Staff
Report, except for condition#1, which shall be revised to read as follows:
Il
1. The total area of the residence shall be limited to the lesser of 2,550 square feet
12 or 40% of the lot area as specified in MCC 17.01.150(E). The applicant may build
closer to the stream than originally proposed if necessary to take advantage of the
13 additional area adopted by the County Commissioners, provided that the further
14 encroachment shall be the minimum necessary and subject to staff approval as
consistent with the objectives of the Resource Ordinance.
15
Dated this 27th day of February, 2008.
16
17 �-
18
Phil A. Olbrechts
19 Mason County Hearing Examiner
20
21
77
23
?4
25
1 PA0688845.DOC;1/13000.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
r VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08
I
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 (VAR2007-00026).
HEARING DATE: February 12`}', 2008
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# 1) is for the construction of a
2000 square foot single-family dwelling unit to be placed within Cranberry Creek's stream
buffer. Cranberry Creek is a Type 1/Type F stream, which requires a 150' buffer plus a 15'
building setback. The proposal is to construct the house a minimum of 117' from the Cranberry
Creek. Staff is recommending conditional approval of the proposed residence.
II. Applicant: John Parks
III. Date of Complete Application: December 41h, 2007.
IV. Project Location: Property location is on Old Lyme Road, Shelton, WA 98584. Lot 179 of
Lake Limerick,Division 4. Parcel 32127-53-00179.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The property is to the south of Lake Limerick within the Lake
Limerick subdivision. 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 1/3id of an acre.
Cranberry Creek, a salmon bearing stream,runs along the back property. The vegetation
consists of a Douglas Fir trees and native shrubs: primarily salal, Oregon grape, evergreen
huckleberry, and sword fern. The proposed home is to be sited 117 feet from the creek with
the septic drain-field between the house and the road. The topography is somewhat steep
(about 35 percent)within 80 feet of the stream, however the gradient is mild on the
remaining property. Consequently, the slopes warrant a geological study prior to
development.
The footprint of the proposed house will be less than 2000 square feet(Exhibit#4). A
septic/drain-field system is proposed to be sited in front(east)of the house, which is outside
of Cranberry Creek's 150 foot buffer.
VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08 .- ..
-2-
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation._ 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# 3) for the Application for a Variance was publicized in the Mason-Shelton Journal
on 12/6/07 and at three public places on 12/19/07. 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 12/5/07. A 28-day comment period followed. One
person commented (Exhibit#6). This adjacent neighbor submitted a letter stating that the
2,000 square foot proposal is too large for the small lot and much larger than the other homes in
the area. She also noted that several trees would have to be removed for the proposed
development,which would compromise the stability of the remaining trees on the adjacent lots.
A copy of this staff report has been sent to this neighbor. A Habitat Management Plan(HMP)
(Exhibit#2) accompanies this Variance application.
VII. Other Permits.
A County Building Permit and a geological assessment 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 should not impact the public health, safety or welfare, but
may not be considered to be in the public interest.
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.
VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08
-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
three quarters of the entire land ownership. The proposed residential building site is as far
away from the stream as viable while allowing for the septic drain-held to be even further
away from the stream. The drain-field will be sited in the 65 feet between the required
stream setback and the road, since it is better to have drain-fields as for away from a
critical area as possible. 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 Variance 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 of 2,000 square feet is larger than the average size of homes in the
vicinity(See Exhibit #5). An analysis of the nearest 12 developed properties results in an
average home (including any garage) being about 1200 square feet.
According to the Habitat Management Plan, the proposal would require clearing 3100
square feet currently vegetated with Douglas fir trees and some native shrubs.
A. MITIGATION: The Habitat Management Plan recommends that the applicant install a
split rail fence at the edge of the remaining 102 foot buffer as a means of preservation.
Any trees larger than 4 inches diameter at breast height that were cut down for this
project shall serve as nurse log habitat by being placed within the remaining buffer. A
silt fence shall be installed(and maintained) between the work area and the stream
prior to development activity. 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.
VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08
-4-
• 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.
• 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.
Although the proposal meets the Mason County Resource Ordinance criteria for minimum
use within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (see #7 below), Staff recommends
that the footprint of the structure be limited to 1200 square feet. This limitation serves to
comply with this (#4) Finding and Finding #3. Staff does not recommend limiting the
structure to a single story.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The public interest is in the health of the Type I stream. As conditioned, the development
should 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.
7. The minimum reasonable use for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined
by the lesser of 40 percent of the area of the lot or 2,550 square feet(including house,
garage, and porches/decks). (Mason County Resource Ordinance Section 17.01.150)
The proposal is for a 2000 square foot residence, including the garage, which is under the
2,550 ceiling. The proposal would occupy only about 14 percent of the lot.
X. Conclusion. Staff recommends approval of the Variance with the following conditions:
1. The footprint of the proposed structure shall not be more than 1200 square feet. (A revised
site plan must be submitted with the building permit application.)
2. Development is subject to all conditions and recommendations in the Habitat Management
Plan written by The Wetland Corps (Lee Boad and Heather Lane), dated October 2007.
r -
...VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08
-5 -
3. Any trees larger than 4 inches diameter at breast height that are or were cut down for this
project shall serve as nurse log habitat by being placed within the remaining buffer.
4. 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 117 feet. There may be a clearing setback
with a maximum width of 15 feet around the house. No trees or shrubs may be cut down
within the 102 foot vegetated buffer, unless they are deemed"danger trees"to a livable
structure by a qualified arborist.
5. Invasive species on the property, if they appear, will be removed.
6. 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. Before
development, 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.
7. 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.
8. Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
9. 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.
VAR2007-00026 Revised 02/12/08
0
EXHIBITS
1. Variance Application
2. Habitat Management Plan
3. Notice of Hearing
4. Site Plan
5. Plat Map and SF Calculations
6. Comment Letter from Neighbor
i
FOR 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.
-7
DATE
OWNER
APPLICANT
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
app..doc
r r 4
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 Nov 162007� .
M LD
Vj�� 2� Variance from Standards ASpN C
7_ � OVN 000 to ry
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 S Telephone#(2S5) 3�Z'
Mailing address / /
Site address
Tax Parcel# 32, t- - 7S3 - c0/ 7
Legal Description "
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance _
Mason County Development Regulations
Subdivisions and Plats
On a separate piece of paper,please state your reasons for requesting a variance. In your responses,be
sure to address all criteria. Your request will be evaluated based on these criteria.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. fttl—
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
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;
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
app..doc
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;
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;
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;
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
f. 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.
Signs a Date
Development Regulations Variance: $1,010.00 - Hearings Examiner: $540.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,010.00 -Hearings Examiner: $540.00
Resource Or dinnce Variance: $1,350.00 -Hearings Examiner: $540.00
Applicant will also be bille or all advertising costs.
\\CLUSTERl_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
app..doc
�G -s e4l 0c �1 ��'�P'l O
r)ort tk- � ✓t.
CA-pnli c c 6,3 o
Q F :M-e T.�✓Lo��e C.y l r
ev�1n
P`f64tf
in
e
T( c WAJand Corps Npre II
Parks Habitat Managmcmb plan 56-- plan
Parcel#5212-7-53-001 79
Cranberry Creek
type 5 5tream
215'
10'
AO'
Duddeq
� I 15' Mftlgatlat
Proposed 50ht Rai Fence
Proposed 5eptic 11�01 I Proposed 5t4e
�o I Family KeS�clence
50' 60'
lo'
I
bo' I I
Proposed PrNeway
L �, L
.Ps0 oO 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
1854
Notice of Public Hearing
Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance
Notice is hereby given that John Parks, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has
filed an application for a Variance.
The request is for the construction of a 2000 sq. ft. single-family dwelling within a Fish&
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Type F stream buffer. The proposed structure's closest point
to.the stream is 115 feet. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 150' buffer plus a 15'
foot setback for Type F streams.
Property location is 70 Olde Lyme Road, Shelton, WA 98584, which is lot 179 of Lake Limerick
Division 4.
Date of complete application: November 30, 2007.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 D. I., Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, which details Type F 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 January 301h, 2008:
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 121h, 2008 at or around 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners
Chambers, Bldg. I, 411 N. 5th 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.
�gov ooD. MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1854
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 30, 2007
TO: Gloria Rogers, WDFW
John Konovsky, Squaxin Island Tribe
FROM: Rebecca Hersha, Mason County Planner
RE: A Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO) No.77-93 to build a
single- family residence within a Type F stream buffer (Cranberry Creek).
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: 70 Olde Lyme Rd., Shelton, WA.
Applicant: John Parks
Legal Description: Lot 179 of Lake Limerick Division 4. Township 21 N, Range 3 W,
Section 27, Washington of Mason County. Parcel No. 32127-53-00179.
Project description: Construct a 2000 sq. ft. single-family dwelling within a Fish &
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Type F stream buffer. The proposed structure's closest
point to the stream is 115 feet. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 150' buffer
plus a 15' foot setback for Type F streams.
Please submit comments by December 31", 2007 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.
SON COO't�A MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1 5f
January 30, 2008
Doris Fredin
60 E. Olde Lyme Rd.
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Residence Proposed in Stream Buffer (Parcel No. 32127-53-00179)
Dear Ms. Fredin:
We have received your letter dated January 28, 2008. Thank you for your comments
regarding the Parks' proposal to construct a residence within the vegetated buffer of
Cranberry Creek. Enclosed is the Staff Report for the upcoming hearing . Please note
that I recommended approval of the project with the condition that the square footage of
the residence (and any garage)be limited to 1200 square feet.
You may want to be at the February 12`h public hearing to express your concerns. Public
hearings begin at 1 PM. Please call me at (360) 427-9670 extension 593 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Re ecca Hersha, Planner II
Enclosures
Gv z 2�4 .�
-
a�-�C
i ��- I'r2�� Div GL�
r
ZeO
778
�O,oN cock MASON COUNTY
�. Tp Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Punning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1854
March 4, 2008
John Parks
6727 Glen Echo Ln.
Tacoma, WA 98499
RE: Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2007-00026)
Dear Mr. Parks:
Please record the three pages (enclosed) of the Habitat Management Plan with the
enclosed Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan at the Mason County Auditor's
Office (cost of recording will be around$45). Then either send a copy of the recorded
documents or inform me of the Auditor File Number that it was recorded under.
Also enclosed are the conditions that have been attached to your Variance. The
associated (future)building permit will not be approved until you sign these conditions
and record the three pages of the HMP.
Please call me if you have any questions at 427-9670, extension 593. Thank you.
Sincerel r
e ecca Hersha, Planner
Enclosures