HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2004-00027 Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 7/26/2005 CASE INDEX
Raymond and Barbara Sebastian,and Lorren and Jeannie Fladseth
SHR2004-00027
Index# Date Description
1 January 6,2W5 Exhibit 1:Staff Report
Aril 27,2005 Attachment 1:Photos(9)of Hood Canal north shore
shoreline
May 4,2005 Attachment 2:Photos(5)of existing piers on the north
shore of Hood Canal in the vicinity of the project area
Attachment 3:Photos(5)of Port of Allyn Public Boat
Ramp and Marina
Attachment 4:Mason County Environmental Checklist
Attachment 5:Mitigated Determination of
onsi ificance SEP2004-00103
Attachment 6:Joint Aquatic Resources Permit
Application Form
March 17,2005 Attachment 7:Affidavit of Publication of Notice of
Shoreline Management Permit
Attachment 8:Shoreline Permit Application
10 March 21,2005 Attachment 9:Comments received from Washington
Department of Ecology
11 —April 27,2005 Attachment 10:Letter received from Joseph Farmer
12 arch 15,2005 Attachment 11:Letter received from Doris Gennotti
13 April 15,2005 Attachment 12:Letter received from Northshore
Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
14 March 29,2005 Attachment 13:Hydraulic Project Approval FW)
15 Attachment 14:Mason Environmental Permit
16 23 June,2004 Attachment 15:Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law
d Final Decision;Re:Robert Evans;Shoreline
Substantial Development SHR2004-00006
17 28 January,2005 Attachment 16:Biological Evaluation,Marine Surveys
Assessments
18 Attachment 17:Curriculum Vitae,Charles Mead
McCoy III
19 Attachment 18:Dock,Piers and Float Impacts
0 16 June,2005 Attachment 19:WDFW(DRAFT)Priority Habitat and
Species Management Recommendations
1 29 October,1999 Attachment 20:SHBSW,Final Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Order;SHB No.99-011
2 19 January,2005 Attachment 21:Central Puget Sound Growth
Management Hearings Board,State of Washington,
Final Decision and Order,Case No.04-3-0013
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N.5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
July 26,2005
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Charles Mead McCoy III
RE: Mason County Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2004-00027).
STAFF REPORT
Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal for the construction of a joint-use pier,
ramp and float(PRF)structure in Hood Canal along the North Shore Road at milepost
10.7. The proposed structure will consist of a 6'by 65' fixed pier with to pilings,a 4'by
40'ramp leading to a 6'wide by 8'long float with two float pilings. Attached at a right
angle to this float will be a 8'by 60'float with two float pilings. The total length of the
PRF is not to exceed 115'from the Ordinary High Water Mark of Hood Canal
(Attachment 16).
I. Applicant:Lorren&Jeannie Fladseth and Raymond&Barbara Sebastian
11. Agent:Amy Leitman,Marine Surveys and Assessments.
III. Date of Complete Application:January 29,2005.
IV. Property Location:Site address and Project Location: 10731, 10741 and 10743
North Shore Road,Belfair. Section 24,Township 22N,Range 03W
V. Evaluations:
Characteristics of the area. The general area is characterized by residential construction
along the north shore of Hood Canal.Waterfront residences are immediately east and
west of the project site. No private residential pier,ramp,and float(PRF)structures are
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area(Attachment 1). The predominate
form of anchorage for private residences in the area is the use of moorage-ball buoys
(Attachment 1). Many anchored floating platforms are also in existence along the north
shore for recreational use by private residents(Attachment 1).To the southwest of the
proposed project area,approximately a%4 mile from the proposed project site,the Shore
Hill Estates Home Owners Association maintains a seasonal PRF for its approximately
50 resident members(Attachment 2).The majority of existing PRFs that do exist along
this portion of the north shore of Hood Canal are predominately non-conforming
structures under the current structural design requirements found in the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program(Chapter 7.16.170)(Attachment 2). They continue to exist
�M_', 2 3 Z:
STATE OF WASHINGTON MCCD 1lEs�N(
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
PO Box 47775•Olympia,Washington 98504-7775•(360)407-6300
March 21,2005
Mr.Charles Mead McCoy III Your address
Mason County ` is in the
Department of Community Development (. ..I Kitsap
Planning Division watershed
PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Dear Mr.McCoy:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the
Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float Construction project(SEP2004-00103)located at 10731
Northeast North Shore Road in Beifair as proposed by Raymond Sebastian. We reviewed the
environmental checklist and have the following comments:
SHORELANDS:Kim Van Zwalenbarg(360)407-
.§A bS l-�
I have concerns about this proposal in an area with few docks. Hood Canal is a Shoreline of Statewide
Significance and the proliferation of docks is an issue on this waterbody. In addition,it would appear that
the portion of dock located on the Sebastian property exceeds the 115-foot length from the Ordinary High
Water Mark.
WATER QUALITY:Betsy Dickes(360)407-6294
The waters and aquatic life in Hood Canal must be protected from pollutants entering it from this project.
Erosion control measures must be in place prior to any clearing,grading,or construction. These control
measures must be effective to prevent soil from being carried into surface water by stormwater runoff.
Sand,silt,clay particles,and soil will damage aquatic habitat and are considered pollutants when
discharged to waters of the state.
Any discharge of sediment-laden runoff or other pollutants to waters of the state is in violation of Chapter
90.48,Water Pollution Control,and WAC 173-201A,Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the
State of Washington,and is subject to enforcement action.
During construction,all releases of oils,hydraulic fluids,fuels,other petroleum products,paints,solvents,
and other deleterious materials must be contained and removed in a manner that will prevent their
discharge to waters and soils of the state. The cleanup of spills should take precedence over all other
work on the site.
Proper disposal of construction debris must be on land in such a manner that debris cannot enter Hood
Canal or cause water quality degradation of state waters.
grLy',
March 21,2005
Page 2
All trenches,depressions,or holes created in the intertidal area shall be backfilled prior to inundation by
tidal waters.
All stormwater discharges must be constructed in a manner that will not cause scouring on the beach.
If you have any questions or would like to respond to these comments please contact the appropriate
reviewing staff listed above.
Department of Ecology
Southwest Regional Office
(AW:05-1800)
cc: Betsy Dickes,WQ
Lorren and Jeannie Fladseth(Applicants)
Raymond and Barbara Sebastion(Applicants)
Amy Leitman(Contact)
Grace Miller(Mason County)
-
Agency Date Received:_
JOINT AQUATIC RESOURCES PERMIT APPLICATION FORM (DARPA)
(for use in Washington State)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT IN BLACK INK
❑I am applying for a Fish Habitat Enhancement Project per requirements of RCW 75.20.350. YOU must submit a copy
of this completed JARPA application form,and the(Fish Habitat Enhancement JARPA Addition)to your local
Government Planning Department and Washington Department of Fish&Wildlife Area Habitat Biologist on the same day.
NOTE: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS—You must submit any comments on these projects to WDFW within 15 working day
Based on the instructions provided,I am sending copies of this application to the following: (check all that apply)
fit] Local Government for shoreline:®Substantial Development ❑Conditional Use ❑Variance ❑Exemption ❑Revision
❑Floodplain Management ❑Critical Areas Ordinance
(LI Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for HPA(Submit 3 copies to WDFW Region)
(gJ Washington Department of Ecology for 401 Water Quality Certification Nationwide Permits(to Regional office-Federal Permit Unit)
❑ Washington Department of Natural Resources for Aquatic Resources Use Authorization Notification
10 Corps of Engineers for: ❑Section 404 9)Section 10 permit
❑ Coast Guard for Section 9 Bridge Permit
❑ US Fish&Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service for Endangered Species Act(ESA)Consultation
SECTION A-Use for all permits covered by this application. Be sure to ALSO complete Section C(Signature Block)for all permit applications.
1.APPLICANT I � '
LO R R Err A Al N I E FL D5 E TH 1 lYt,, D I
MAILING ADDRESS
Da a1 5-1-_A✓E SW SF_arTrLr_ WA 981 &1 /3r4v-
WORK PHONE E-MAIL ADDRESS HOME PtiONE FAX
Iran agent is acting for the applicant during the permit process,complete ti2.
2.AUTHORIZED AGENT
I4 M LEIT
MAILING ADDRESS
5NA&STEAD LAY F0
r r Dw t✓ 3(o
WORK PHONE / O 3 9 E-MAIL ADDR�E�� _ed. HOME PHONE - FAX t) -
3.RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICANT TO PROPERTY:p OWNER ❑PURCHASER ❑LESSEE ❑OTHER:
A.NAME,ADDRESS,AND PHONE NUMBER OF PROPERTY OWNER(S),IF OTHER THAN APPLICANT:
kM/t'4o/-Ia c 3ARBAIZP� SEBRSTIAr!
06(o TuRkEY TRACK WbAD FA)1 . (13o) &?-&-0V30
R e I L A 95-fo C-ft1RIL : sebetsiiAll @ SedC•CAM
5.LOCATION!STREET ADDRESS,INCLUDING CITY,COUNTY AND ZIP CODE,WHERE PROPOSED ACTIVITY EXISTS OR WILL OCCUR)
1
6)
}31 /O3�3 NE NoRTiFSHnRE 12o.4D BELFAr%P_, L✓A 7135'a3 /NM�tSon/ COur�Y
LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION(CITY OR COUNTY) MASorJ Cou1,_r1—Y
WATERBODY floc)] C A NA-L.. TRIBUTARYOF RIAR
rC Nc5v-T-
Sot-tND
%SECTION I SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE GOVERNMENT LOT SHORELINE DESIGNATION
(1± aat4 03V TR. 35�T T"L• U23Alra
LATITUDE&LONGITUDE ) A4 , ZONING DESIGNATION
L- �j IF KNOWN: : 42*91 ' LON&: �d3-Do•
TAX PARCEL NO: 31
1
a LL- CD- DDOI r -FLAD SETH ONR STREAM TYPE,IF KNOWN
3&3-a q- - So- 000($-5E13ASTlAd N/A
JARPA,Revised 12198,contact Ecology's Permit Assistance Center for latest version,360/407-7037 Page 1 of 4
6.DESCRIBE THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY,AND STRUCTURES EXISTING ON THE PROPERTY.IF ANY PORTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY IS ALREADY COMPLETED ON
THIS PROPERTY,INDICATE MONTH AND YEAR OF COMPLETION,
SINGLE FAMILj"RE5!Dt n/CE
IS THE PROPERTY AGRICULTURAL LAND? p YES 01TO ARE YOU A USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANT? ❑YES EMO
7a. DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AND/OR FILL WORK FOR THE PROJECT THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD THAT NEEDS AQUATIC PERMITS:COMPLETE PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR ALL WORK WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LINE.INCLUDING TYPES OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED.IF APPLYING
FOR A SHORELINE PERMIT,DESCRIBE ALL WORK WITHIN AND BEYOND 200 FEET OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK.ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE LS
NEEDED. CONST-RuCr NEB/, T oJNr USE �IERI RAMP I F'Lor�T:
(.0I X I(o FIYEb P1ER CONSTRU�Et> OF DOUGL14S Fug, y-'X 'I-o'(ZAM?
(Au,kAtlntuM) , 1 wo FLOATS ( VY- 8' c 8'X (oo') -i► PT CoN515i OF
1=N\uY Er4CL05ED IN EXTi AD'ED FOLyETy YLGNE., FDLI/STYRF,-IC-
Flo AT10nl• ILf AC-aA- 1FILE5 LV,L.L SE DR\VE" Ta ELApPORT-
STRv.CTUt2E PlE� AN-1) FLOATS WILL BE GAA-TCO
SEE 5-E.) FOR ADD i(ONAL DET?i-tLS.
7b. DESCRIBE THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED WORK AND WHY YOU WANT OR NEED TO PERFORM IT AT THE SITE,PLEASE EXPLAIN ANY SPECIFIC NEEDS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED
THE DESIGN.
EA5(EK WATER ACCESS FoR RECREA-T70M4L 01'FbRTuN1T7E$•
7c. DESCRIBE THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO CHARACTERISTIC USES OF THE WATER BODY.THESE USES MAY INCLUDE FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE.WATER QUALITY,WATER SUPPLY.
RECREATION,and AESTHETICS.IDENTIFY PROPOSED ACTIONS TO AVOID,MINIMIZE,AND MITIGATE DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS,AND PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION OF FISH AND
AQUATIC LIFE.ATTACH A SEPARATE SHEET IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED. )VO ADVE25E A FF i<c T5 /D WArE i2 r3*D/At l c tPATEb,
f. GRoOfI C . �. MARGoL�S (ED5) N'll. LIFE (fl5TOR`,j OF PACIFIC 5ALNtanl, 09C
MS55, A" -3 PG•
Z. M YElz5 T.M. Er AL 1199 STATuS I?Eoeu/DF 04INOok SALMON FROM
/WIAIF=�t� OAR, 1' L-A U
3 •S• DEaT C.E Avg
. OF 66MMER , OA T 6 TECH MMo • lvMF5-
3 N!C>rtfTlrlCr+4LE, 4RB/kR IfARLES SIMF�JSr1°rD Gaul 3- d/ER+n�4rE STt �tES MARINE ISSUES.
PREPARATION OF DRAWINGS:SEE SAMPLE DRAWINGS AND GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING THE DRAWINGS.ONE SET OF ORIGINAL OR GOOD QUALrry REPRODUCIBLE DRAWINGS MUST
BEATTACNED.NOTE:APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SUBMIT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROJECT SITE,BUT THESE DO NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR DRAWINGS. THECORPS OF
ENGINEERS AND COAST GUARD REQUIRE DRAWINGS ON B-112 X 111NCH SHEETS.LARGER DRAWINGS MAYBE REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
8.WILL THE PROJECT BE CONSTRUCTED IN STAGES- .❑YES am
PROPOSED STARTING DATE: AS 5ootj PcS PERM 1,1 S 'A P-E (SSLA ED, W/Z CONS—JPLkCfl afl VJND0%A/.
ESTIMATED DURATION OF ACTIVITY: TV/() WEEKS
9.CHECK IF ANY STRUCTURES WILL BE PLACED: -
p WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LINE FOR FRESH OR TIDAL WATERS;AND/OR '
110ATERWARD OF MEAN HIGH WATER LINE IN TIDAL WATERS
10.WILL FILL MATERIAL(ROCK FILL,BULKHEAD,OR OTHER MATERIAL)BE PLACED: Nt)
❑WATERWARD OF THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK OR LINE FOR FRESH WATERS? IF YES,VOLUME(CUBIC YARDS) /AREA (ACRES) I'
❑WATERWARD OF THE MEAN HIGHER HIGH WATER FOR TIDAL WATERS? IF YES,VOLUME(CUBIC YARDS) AREA (ACRES)
JARPA,Revised 12/98,contact Ecology's Permit Assistance Center for latest version 360/407-7037 Page 2 of 4
> g
11.WILL MATERIAL BE PLACED IN WETLANDS? D YES EMIT
IF YES:
A.IMPACTED AREA IN ACRES:
B.HAS A DELINEATION BEEN COMPLETED?IF YES,PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. ❑YES ❑NO
C.HAS A WETLAND REPORT BEEN PREPARED?IF YES,PLEASE SUBMIT WITH APPLICATION. ❑YES D NO
D.TYPE AND COMPOSITION OF FILL MATERIAL(E.G..SAND,ETC.):
E MATERIAL SOURCE:
F.LIST ALL SOIL SERIES(TYPE OF SOIL)LOCATED AT THE PROJECT SITE,6 INDICATE IF THEY ARE ON THE COUNTY'S LIST OF HYDRIC SOILS.SOILS INFORMATION CAN BE OBTAINED
FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION.SERVICE(NRCS): -
12.WILL PROPOSED ACTIVITY CAUSE FLOODING OR DRAINING OF WETLANDS? D YES 0'90
IF YES,IMPACTED AREA IS_ACRES.
13.WILL EXCAVATION OR DREDGING BE REQUIRED IN WATER OR WETLANDS? D YES DIMS
IF YES:
A.VOLUME: (CUBIC YARDS)/AREA (ACRES)
B.COMPOSITION OF MATERIAL TO BE REMOVED:
C.DISPOSAL SITE FOR EXCAVATED MATERIAL:
D.METHOD OF DREDGING:
14.HAS THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT(SEPA)BEEN COMPLETED? COtAN r ❑YES ENO
SEPA LEAD AGENCY: SEPA DECISION:DNS,MONS,EIS,ADOPTION,EXEMPTION MASQI4 DECISION DATE(END OF PERIOD):
SUBMIT A COPY OF YOUR SEPA DECISION LETTER TO WDFW AS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION
15.LIST OTHER APPLICATIONS,APPROVALS.OR CERTIFICATIONS FROM OTHER FEDERAL,STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES FOR ANY STRUCTURES,CONSTRUCTION,DISCHARGES.OR
OTHER ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION(I.E.,PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL,HEALTH DISTRICT APPROVAL.BUILDING PERMIT,SEPA REVIEW.FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION LICENSE(FERC),FOREST PRACTICES APPLICATION,ETC.)ALSO INDICATE WHETHER WORK RAS BEEN COMPLETED AND INDICATE ALL EXISTING WORK ON
DRAWINGS.
TYPE OF APPROVAL ISSUING AGENCY IDENTIFICATION DATE OF APPLICATION. DATE APPROVED COMPLETED?
NO.
WDF/
GT D
rjrA(0t_J5lS-rAr4V( 0
Li- 014 e6"N T
V 0 ATM lCI MPCSDIJ
16,HAS ANY AGENCY DENIED APPROVAL FOR THE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED HEREIN OR FOR ANY ACTNITY DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTIVITY DESCRIBED
HEREIN? ❑YES BIZ IF YES,EXPLAIN:
SECTION B-Use for Shoreline and Corps of Engineers permits oniy:
7.TOTAL COST OF PROJECT.THIS MEANS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROJECT,INCLUDING MATERIALS,LABOR MACHINE RENTALS,ETC 3Q/ 00D
18.LOCAL GOVERNMENT WITH JURISDICTION: MA-5t)J C0
u-rj1
19.FOR CORPS,COAST GUARD,AND DNR PERMITS,PROVIDE NAMES,ADDRESSES,AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.LESSEES,ETC..
PLEASE NOT£SHORELINE MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE MAY REOUIREADDITIONAL NOTICE—CONSULT YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER
ALLgr4 s&e7t4A BLAcK- o} l NE oRitt StJOAP 90AD Sd
RF,Lej,(P_ K 131 AVE, SW 51FAME, w
L MR KPASKO j FgAr44 u/ D
JARPA,Revised 12198,contact Ecology's Permit Assistance Center for latest version,360/407-7037 Page 3 of 4
SECTION C-This section MUST be completed for any permit covered by this application
0.APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE FOR A PERMIT OR PERMITS TO AUTHORIZE THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED HEREIN.I CERTIFY THAT I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS APPLICATION,AND THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF,SUCH INFORMATION IS TRUE,COMPLETE,AND
CCURATE 1 FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I POSSESS THE AUTHORITY TO UNDERTAKE THE PROPOSED ACTIVITIES.I HEREBY GRANT TO THE AGENCIES TO WHICH
HIS APPLICATION IS MADE,THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LOCATION TO INSPECT THE PROPOSED,IN-PROGRESS OR COMPLETED WORK I
AGREE TO START WORK ONLY AFTER ALL NECESSARY PERMITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
SIGNNATUURRQ/FF APPLIC6W AUTHORIZED AGENT ATE
I H V OES r`TE 117�rt
TO 4GENT IN MATTERS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR PERMIT(S).I UNDERSTAND THAT IF A FEDERAL PERMIT IS ISSUED.
I S EPERMIT. y
NATURE OF APPLICANT DATE
SIG WNER(EXCEPT PUBLIC ENTITY LANDOWNERS,E.G.D DATE
HIS APPLICATION MUST BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE AGENT,IF AN AUTHORIZED AGENT IS DESIGNATED.
f e U.S.0§7001 provides roar:Whoever,in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United Stales knowingly falsifies,conceals,or covers up by any trick,sch
m eme,or device a
nalerial factor makes any false,fictitious,or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or doctirnent knowing same to contain any false,fictitious.or fraudulent statement or
entry,shall he fined not more than 3110,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.
Ufa 0-e
'j c �'Fs a*fi ry&_�.�' '"..^ . :�:- 3.a .,, -•�..4",':�� :� �z'2,��u der .,'��.F ,'- � .+-ter .° -y 3 �"
1TA�..
1-Y t
These Agencies are Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action employers.
For special accommodation needs,please contact the appropriate agency in the instructions.
1ARPA,Revised 12198,contact Ecology's Pertnit Assistance Center for latest version,360/407-7037 Page 4 of 4
Affidavit of Publication
NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
PERMIT
SHR2004.00027
Notice is hereby given that RAYMOND STATE OF WASHINGTON, SS
SEBASTIAN,who is the owner of the de- COUNTY OF MASON
scribed property,has filed an application for
a Shoreline Management Permit for the de-
velopment of:
Sub.Dev. Julie G. Orme ,being first duly swom
joint use pier ramp and float 6'x65'fixed
pier constructed of douglas fir,4'x4O'alumi. on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk
numcon ramp,two floats(6'x8'and extruded
that oI'THESHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,aweeklynewspaper.Thatsaidnews-
consist of fully enclosed in extruded poly-
ethylene,polystyrene floatation 14 plies will paper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the
be driven to support structure. pier and date of the publication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu-
floats will be grated ously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason County,Washington,and it is now
Site Address: 10731 NE NORTH and during all of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of
SHORE RD BELFAIR publication of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL.
Parcel Number:322245000018 was on the 9th day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court
Location of Project:follow sr 3 north to of said Mason County.
belfair from belfair follow sr 300 west to
north shore rd site is approximately 8 miles west of belfair state park on north shore rd That the annexed is a true copy of a Not i e e of Shoreline
Within:(quarter section)of Section:24
Township:22 N Range:03 W,W.M.in,Ma- Mgmt Permit — Raymond Sebastian
son County Washington.
Said development is proposed within
hood canal and/or Its associated wetlands. as it was published in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said
Any person desiring to express their view or
to be notified of the action taken on the ap. newspaper once each week for a period of two
plication should notify: consecutive weeks,commencing on the
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 t h day of March 2O 0 5 ending on the
P O BOX 279
SHELTON,WAtit8581 17th d March 05
in writing of their interest within 30 days ay of 20 both dates inclusive,
of the final date of publication given pursu- and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said
ant to WAC 173-14-020.The final date of period.That the full amount of the fee charged for the
publication,posting,or mailing of notice is
3/17/2005. foregoing publication is the sum of$ 9 7•5 0
Written comments must be received by /
4/1 612 0 0 5. L
A public hearing will be held on this per-
mit request.Contact this office at(360)427-
9670,ext.294 for date and time of hearing. Subscribed and sworn to before me 1 7♦ h day of
A Determination of Nonsignificance was vssttttrrrrrr
issued on 3/WOOO under WAC 197-11.340.
Written comments regarding thisdetermina- March 120 05 ```wpt1N DU6r!<,�
lion must be received by 3/MrAw. `�` v5SION
3/10-17 2t
Notary Vlic in and for the State of Washington AOTARI, =
Residing at Shelton,Washington
My commission expire 20�
''�q�/11 tW A SNwv�`\`
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Courthouse Amex
P.O.Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
(360)427-9670
SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION
PERMIT NO. SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE VARIANCE
DATE RECEIVED SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE
SHORELINE EXEMPTION
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$5,000.00 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or
shorelines of the State be reviewed with the goals,polices,and performance standards established in the Master
Program. -
Answer all questions completely.Attach any additional information that my further describe the proposed
development. Incomplete applications will be returned.
APPLICANT: LoRRE T,T£ANN tF FLAf)SE-r-H 0*Aaj j Dt}SpF1aig
ADDRESS: FLA05FTW /0a-r¢A' al-rA/E. 5-1 5CB451-1AN
5 F-A r� (street)WA
(city) (state) (yip)
TELEPHONE: (.W(.)(oa3-0(pe2I
(home) (business)
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Am,( LEIrwtAt4
ADDRESS: Sal SNAG5MAD WPr✓
(atrm2f Tow/N5EN D s y5q WRY(zip)(zip)TELEPHONE: (�tyt'31p0) 3gS p�'I/- -3 (ante)
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Genaal location(include property address,water body and associated wetlands--identify,the name of the
0 3raImp)•
l /1�ff3 N iy�Rila S4042E P—OM> SELPMrG, WA r OR/
NOR(tt S&QF— OF Hnrr7 r6t.jokl.
Legal description(include section,township,and range to the nearest quarter,quarter section or latitude and
longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from Sand shall provide a longitude
location)-include all parcel numbers:
pt4G: fj ' 00.
OWNERSHIP: Contract
Applicant )(_Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other
Owner. S .
►ZRYMoNO s J?ARD�F4 rB+Sr+sb J/LD"W F[AD.tPnp..
SEBRsr,A-74 : .5o m(e Iuakr;Y iRAck Ro ft
PLA-CV,4l u a; c-A- 9564�
(eitY) i� (state) (zip)
CrP1wNNII101CHARHLL&RFHHFISHORH[.WEPHRMIT.APP
RHVISHD:06-23-03
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTON
Development(identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction
methods,principle dimensions,and other pertinent information):
//s' ,TbtNT'uSE PiE2,i&mP s Fr p&1-: id' ms'pf,eD PiEQ
lDrtSfPAACTED OF DOLA&L J" F1R r /Ift X W' AU&KINNM 1z+MP'_(-1✓0
BLOOM) (G,IY 91 424D_ 'x W')Tr vc toNrls ro F 1"U-y 04CLore-D f;i
EXT-W%k9SD P6UVE1HVLG,JE b1-VSTYl�w�1E r-t�arFtrron� . �S�Ac��F
t
t t.fc W�LJ- veN c kE E c Flr„4
1✓Ii l 8>; GRIrc><7. SEP e. r2 A7atno�s+c�> S.
Use(identify current use ofpropeny with exist improvements:
`__.SrNrst-F_ 1::LFMILV RESTDF_NCF,
Reason for requesting development
EASiEQ WiYrE)P AccESS Fat Rcr a�noNRL
OPPO 2Tuly 17Z E s.
ACKOWLEDOEMENT
I bye,to the best of my knowledge and beef,the a forgoin%gcp"/ Bnd&Ujittached information is
8a .�.. :.s Fe. � Iq "t
(applicant or authorized representative) —
..................6............................................................
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 obstructive view:
If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested,make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program
I:iPIANNINOICHAREUARBNEMHOREUNEPERMIT.APP REVISP.D;06.25-07
The Shoreline Permit Application
Page 3 PERMIT NO.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LIST
Addresses arc to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office,Building 1,second floor.
Charlotte&Paul O'Leary A'Lan Hutchinson Helen Krasko Et Al
8438 S I O ST. 9419 40 Street CT E 16436 91 Ave.SW
Tacoma,WA 98465 Puyallup,WA 98371 Seattle,WA 98166
Joseph&Jane Farmer Allen&Gem Black Daniel Lopriore
1401 5m Ave.W 4308 10711 NE North Shore Rd. 3020 W Garfield St.
Seattle,WA 98119 Belfair,WA 98528 Seattle WA 98199
William&Kimmerlee Olsen Robert&Donna Tessier Kathaleen&Donavan Form
P.O.Box 460 1565 Weathervane CT 3221 SW Avalon Way#206
Belfa r,WA 98528 Fircrest,WA 98466 Seattle,WA 98126
I
I
THE SHORELINE PERMIT PROCESS—Page 4
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.
UWE understand that UWE must sign and date the attached acknowledgement indicating that
UWE understand that is MY/OUR responsibility. UWE must submit the signed page as part of
this application in order for it to be considered as complete.
APVUCANY
PSpl%-STAT�cO� MASON COUNTY
Ao N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Y S N Planning Division
o N V o~ P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
O 186A (360)427-9670
SHR2004-00027 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT
Notice is hereby given that RAYMOND SEBASTIAN,who is the owner of the described property,
has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of:
Sub. Dev.
joint use pier ramp and float 6'x 65'fixed pier constructed of douglas fir,4'x 40'aluminum ramp,
two floats(6'x 8'and 8'x 60')that consist of fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene, polystyrene
floatation 14 piles will be driven to support structure. pier and floats will be grated.
Site Address: 10731 NE NORTH SHORE RD BELFAIR
Parcel Number: 322245000018
Location of Project: Follow SR 3 north to Belfair,from Belfair follow SR 300 west to North Shore
Road,site is aproximatly 8 miles west of Belfair State Park on North Shore
Road.
Within: (quarter section)of Section: Township: N Range: W,W.M.
in,Mason County Washington.
Said development is proposed within hood canal 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
P O BOX 279
SHELTON,WA 98584
in writing of their interest within 30 days of the final date of publication given pursuantto WAC
173-14-020. The final date of publication,posting,or mailing of notice is 3/17/2005.
Written comments must be received by 4/16/2005.
A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext.294 for
date and time of hearing.
A Determination of Nonsignificanoe was issued on 3/6/2000 under WAC 197-11-340. Written
comments regarding this determination must be received by 3/20/2000.
SHR2004-00027
L
ypN STArF� MASON COUNTY
o A o DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
y S u Planning Division
i N T 4 P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
Y boy (366)427-9s70
1864
Case No.: SHR2004-00027 SHORELINE PERMIT
STATUS: DENIED
Received: 11/24/2004
TO BE KEPT IN THE
Type of Permit: Sub. Dev. PARCEL FILE
Applicant: RAYMOND SEBASTIAN FN; 322v9-515_000 18
10731 NE NORTH SHORE RD
BELFAIR,WA 98528
Location of Project: Follow SR 3 north to Belfair,from Belfair follow SR
300 west to North Shore Road,site is aproximatly 8
miles west of Belfair State Park on North Shore
Road.
Within hood canal and/or its associated wetlands. The project will be within shorelines of
statewide significance.
Shoreline Designation: Urban
Parcel Number. 322245000018
Address: 10731 NE NORTH SHORE RD BELFAIR
Legal Description: CADY'S SUNRISE BEACH TR. 34&T.L.
EX.34-A TR. 33&T.L. EX. NE 20'
Project Description: joint use pier ramp and float 6'x 65'fixed pier constructed of douglas fir,4'x
40'aluminum ramp,two floats(6'x 8'and 8'x 60')that consist of fully
enclosed in extruded polyethylene, polystyrene floatation 14 piles will be
driven to support structure. pier and floats will be grated.
This permit has been denied by Mason County persuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
w
m
as �_
�S't Ines aov
STATE OF WASHINGTON _ -. -- -------
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY R
PO Box 47775•Olympia,Washington 98504-7775•(360)407-6300
i
September 16,2005
Raymond and Barbara Sebastian
10731 NE North Shore Rd
Belfair WA 98528
Loren and Jeannie Fladseth
10248 21'Avenue SW
Seattle,WA 98146
Dear Mr.and Mrs.Sebastian and Mr.and Mrs.Fladseth:
Re: Mason County-DENIED Permit#SHR2004-00027
SEBASTIAN,RAYMOND and FLADSETH,LOREN-Applicants
Denied Shoreline Management Permit#2005-SW-02782
The Mason County-Denied Shoreline Management Substantial Development permit to authorize
construction of a 115-foot joint-use pier,ramp and float on Hood Canal was received from Mason
County. This decision was filed by the Department of Ecology on September 14,2005. Your appeal
period will terminate on October 05,2005.
Although your permit has been denied by Mason County you may choose to request a review(appeal)of
the denial before the Shorelines Hearings Board. Instructions on how to file an appeal are available from
the Shoreline Hearings Board at(360)459-6327. Note that your appeal must be filed by the end of the
21-day appeal period.
Other federal,state and local permits may be required in addition to this shoreline permit. If you
have any questions I can be reached at(360)407-6520.
Sincerely,
0AUV_, 11 �
�J Pfll
Kim Van ZwalYnburg
Shoreline Specialist
Shorelands and Environmental
Assistance Program
KV:dn
cc: Charles McCoy III,Mason County
Amy Leitman
Shoreline Management Act
Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter
From: Mason, county TO: Wash- crarA nept Of _010 ,
P.O. Box .x19 ATTN: Shoreline Permit Reviewer
Shelton, WA 98584 Southwest Regional Office
ox , Olympia, WA 99504
Date of Transmittal: /Z ar Date of Receipt
(Dept of Ecology)
Type of Permit:(Indicate all that apply)
Substantial Development_X_Conditional Use Variance_Revision_
Other
Local Government Decision:Approval_Conditional Approval T Denial
Applicant Information: applicant's Representative: (If primary contact)
Name: Rklmors.o Srz sTlAn1 Name: AM4 LEiTPAAt,1
Address: ID-f31 NC- rVoPT-41 5+boE- Address: Sz 1 St4AC-�S�-p WAm
I:2,0IAD 9 E LFA,i?- v-/A -FO'R=T r l b0tJ Sang 1,/J A —(
43S�8 `IS�68
Phone(s): wb/6 za, 06zi Phone(s): 366J 385 , 4023
Is the applicant the property owner: Yes No
'Location of Property:,(Section,Township and Range to the nearest 1/4,1/4 Section or latitude and
longitude,and a street address where available)
t0131 + 10:14-3 R-D.
Water Body Name: RV01:> CpvtA�
Shoreline of Statewide Significance Yes No
Environment Designation: URfsAN
Description of Project: (Summary ofthe intended use or project purpose)
C ie.F. R AwtQ A,yD l o Pk-r
Notice of Application Date 3 11 tog- Final Decision Date: 3 30 01-
By: CAAgCVi-S M. MCCU of Phone#: 360 _ b T.L94
10651 NE Northshore Rd
P.O Box 2122
Belfair,WA 98528
April 27,2005
RE:Pier Ramp&Floats Permit RECEIVED
Planning Division APR 2 8 2005
Dept of Community Development
P.O. 9 BELFAIR OFFICE
Sheltonon,,W WA 98584
To Whom It May Concern:
Subject Objection to Permit
We own neighboring property to the parcel at 10731 NE Northshore Rd(#322245000018)the
owner of which is seeking a permit to build an extensive pier ramp/floats configuration.
We object to the issuance of this permit. There are very few private pier ramps on the north shore;
we feel lucky,as do our neighbors,to be in this environment free of the shoreline CLUTTER that is
so common on the south shore. For generations our neighbors have found it quite convenient to
launch our boats at the Port of Allyn(only a few miles away)and tie up at a buoy in front of our
property.
Please help us maintain the natural beauty of our shoreline.
Regards,
Jose Fanner
March 15 2005
Mason County Department of Community Development
P.O.Box 279 MAR 2 2 2CC5 Loxt
Shelton,WA.98584
Re:Application for a Shoreline Management Permit PERMIT ASSISTA r,,,E CENTEP
Raymond Sebastian
10731 NE North Shore Rd.
Belfair,WA.98528
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing to express several concerns regarding a pier to be constructed at this site. First of
all it states in the publication that this is a joint use pier yet it does not mention who this joint
user will be. We do not know if it is north or south of the property,nor if perhaps the home
owner of both lots is one and the same. Certainly you cannot issue a permit under those
circumstances.
Another concern is the location of this particular request. It is in a place where it quite possibly
would be a situation where the pier would have to be brought in during the winter months as the
wind in that area is really a handful and would easily destroy the structure if it remains in the
water year around. If the land owner has not made arrangements for this it will not be long
before the structure will be beyond repair and be another eye sore in the community.
I am also concerned about the use of chemically treated pilings and their effect on chemical
contamination of fish,shellfish and wildlife. I don't believe this has ever been clearly settled.
A project of this type will shade/disturb apparent wetland plants and habitat.
How much will this pier obstruct views of both the adjacent property owners and owners of
upland properties. Are these people year round residents,I think that makes a difference to those
of us who live here year around. Will this obstruct the beach walks.
We do not know what docks are doing to the hood canal low oxygen problem. There should be a
moratorium on building until the studies are completed. The granting of this permit will just be
another proliferation of piers and we will have another south shore.The accumulative impact on
the whole area cannot be seen at this time,but undoubtedly it will change the whole appearance
of the shoreline from all the homes in the area.
This shoreline designation of the site is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and consideration
should be given concerning the interests of all people. Please note this letter is asking to be
notified of hearings on this matter.
t i d a vn�Z
Doris Gennotti
6311 NE Northshore Rd.
Belfair,WA 98528
Cc:County Commissioners
Allen Borden
APR-15-2005 13:20 FROM:CRRESOURCE�CONIFER C206) 682-2901 TO:13604277798 P.1
Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
426 Yale Avenue N. • Seattle, WA 98109
April 15, 2005
FAX: 360-427-7798
Mason County Dept. of Community Development
P.O. Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Re: Dock Permit Application of Raymond Sebastian— 10731 N.E.Northshore Rd.
Dear Sir or Madam:
I am writing on behalf of Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline. We
are a non-profit organization created last year to oppose the construction of
inappropriate permanent structures in the inter-tidal zone of Hood Canal.
With regard to the above referenced application,we urge planning staff to weigh
with utmost care the long-tens implications of this proposed dock development in
light of the state Shorelines Management Act,various decisions of the state
Shorelines Hearings Board(most notably Gennotti v. Mason County, SHB 99-011,
and Viafore v. Mason County, SHB 99-033), and the recent decision of Mason
County in Application of Robert Evans, Case SHR2004-00006.
This proposal is for permanent development on a shoreline that the legislature has
specifically designated a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Accordingly,the
applicant bears the burden of showing a clear need for the dock that can not be met
through other means. The applicant must also show a genuine absence of adverse
impact to views,public enjoyment of the tidelands, and the environmental quality of
the canal for marine life.
We respectfully urge you to withhold your approval of this application unless the
applicant is able to establish with solid, objective evidence:
APR-15-2005 13:20 FROM:CARESOURCE,CONIFER (206) 682-2901 TO:13604277798 P.2
Mason County Department of Community Development,April 15, 2005,p. 2 of 2
1. That he has a serious need for the dock structure that outweighs the public's
interest in preventing intrusion of permanent structures onto the shoreline,and
that the applicant has also conclusively demonstrated that his needs cannot be
met through any other means that are less intrusive on the shoreline;
2. That there will be no adverse affects on views from nearby parcels up and down
the shoreline;
3. That there will be no adverse aesthetic affect on the view of the shoreline itself,
i.e. the view of the shoreline as a natural feature when viewed from the water,
from the south shore,or from the North Shore Road;
4. That the water quality of the Canal will not be adversely affected;
5. That construction of this dock will not in any way lead or tend to lead to the
development of even more permanent dock structures on the tidelands.
6. That construction of this dock will not, as part of a cumulative effect of
development along the shoreline,diminish the natural character and scenic
beauty of the Canal.
7. That construction of this dock will not in any significant way impair or interfere
with the use and enjoyment of the tidelands and the waters over them at high tide
by neighboring property owners or the public, including for swimming, boating,
kayaking, canoeing, and fishing.
We also respectfully ask to be kept informed of your consideration and actions in
this matter.
Sincerely,
L.- 'I
Dennis Kenny, Vice Pre dent
Charles McCoy III-705masoncounty28.DOC page
Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
426 Yale Avenue N. • Seattle, WA 98109
August 1,2005
Mason County Hearing Examiner
Building 1
411 N. 511 Street
Shelton,WA 98584
Re: Substantial Development Permit Application of Raymond Sebastian—
SHR2004-00027
Dear Sir:
This letter is being submitted to you on behalf of Northshore Neighbors for an
Uncluttered Shoreline. We are a not-for-profit organization whose purpose is to
oppose the construction of unnecessary permanent structures in the inter-tidal zone
along the north shore of Hood Canal.We strongly support the recommendation of
the Mason County Planning Staff that this permit application be denied.
Statement in Support of the Staff Recommendation
We respectfully urge the adoption of the staff recommendation for denial.The
public has a long range and,we believe,compelling interest in preserving what
remains of the natural,relatively uncluttered beauty and character of the North
Shore.This is true because of the express designation in the state Shorelines
Management Act of the North Shore shoreline(along with the balance of Hood
Canal shoreline)as a"shoreline of statewide significance."
Staff hits the nail on the head in pointing out that:this is a stretch of shoreline that
is still relatively uncluttered by over-water structures;that the long-accepted
method for boat anchorage for private residences along the North Shore is
mooring buoys;and that a combination of mooring buoys and recreational floats
Charles McCoy.III-705masoncountyLB.DOC Page 2
1
are a readily available and preferred option open to applicants.
We feel that staff likewise gets to the heart of the matter when he writes:
[T]he south shore has been significantly altered by the high-density of piers and
docks along its shoreline. The question posed is whether we want to establish the
incremental increase of these types of over-water structures that will almost
certainly progress toward another zone of high-density of piers and docks along
the north shore like that of the already significantly altered south shore."(p.S)
The staff makes two key points we agree with and wish to stress:first, given the
realities of development along a sensitive shoreline,it is no longer adequate or
appropriate to look at a proposal such as this one in isolation—it must be judged,
instead,in the context of the precedent it sets;and second, if a person wants to
appraise the negative affects of dock proliferation(or,as some refer to it,the
"porcupine effect")one need look no further than the south shore.
Additional Points in Opposition to the Application
Regarding the Applicants'Failure to Demonstrate a Private Need That
Outweighs the Public's Recognized Interest in Maintaining the Relatively
Unspoiled,Uncluttered Character of the Shoreline
What is the applicants'burden in this situation?What must they show to justify
placing permanent structures on the tidelands?In short,what standard applies
here?
The answer to these crucial questions is clearly set forth by the state Shorelines
Hearings Board in the Gennotti case(Gennotti et al.v. Shearer,SHB Case 99-011,
October, 1999):
[W]e are not persuaded that accommodating[the applicant's]desire for
greater convenience outweighs the public interest in protecting this
shoreline of statewide significance as fully as possible. The legislature
contemplates the protection ofprivate property rights onl i extraordinary
circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial
detrimental effect. (page 10)
z
Charles McCoy ill-705masoncounty28.DOC Page 3
This is a clear,two-part test.Under the first part of this accepted standard,an
applicant seeking to build for private purposes on a shoreline of statewide
significance must first show that his interests and needs outweigh the public's
interest in"protecting the shoreline. . .as fully as possible."
A high standard,indeed;and not one,we believe,that has been met—or can be
met—in this situation.
Under the second part of this standard,an applicant must show"extraordinary
circumstances"AND that"the public interest suffers no detrimental effect."
Part two is as high,if not higher than part one.Here,too,we believe the applicants
have failed to make the required showing of extraordinary circumstances and
protection of the public interest in preserving the long term character of the
shoreline.
Re¢ardine Cumulative Impacts
So far as we have been able to determine,applicants and their expert have not
addressed the critical issue of cumulative impact.Yet cumulative affects of
structures like the ones being proposed are at the heart of the public's interest in
the long term well being of the protected shoreline.Cumulative impact just means
that approval of one dock application can reasonably be expected to lead to
another,and then a third,with a cluttered and degraded shoreline as the result.
Our argument is simple:we cannot line the shoreline with permanent docks
serving private residences—at a density of one every 100 or 150 feet—and still
enjoy anything like the beauty and character of Hood Canal that we have today.
And so the question is,where do you draw the line?And the problem—which
both the Shorelines Management Act and the Shorelines Hearings Board address—
is that unless you place the bar very high(by requiring a showing that the private
need outweighs the public interest AND that the application is supported by
"extraordinary circumstances"),the task of protecting the uncluttered character of
the shoreline becomes progressively more difficult,until soon the public asset that
is an uncluttered shoreline is beyond saving and,therefore,irrevocably lost.
There is ample authority for the concerns we are expressing. In Gennotti the state
Shorelines Hearings Board noted:
3
Charles McCoy III-705masoncount�/28.DOC Page 4
we share. . . concerns that approval of the proposed pier-dock and float
would pave the way for similar projects in the area, thus encouraging a
cumulative negative impact on the shoreline.Additional structures, like the
one proposed, could only exacerbate the adverse impact on threatened
Hood Canal summer chum and alter the character of the immediate vicinity.
(pages 10 and II)
And in a second case involving a permit application in Mason County, Viafore,
(Viafore v. Bauer,SHB Case 99-033,September,2000)the Shorelines Hearings
Board held:
Even if the proposed dock alone would have no adverse impact, it should be
considered in the cumulative adverse impact attendant on potential future
dock development. (page 4)
In terms of both compatibility and view impacts, considerable weight must
be given to the possibility that similar docks will be sought by property
owners. . . if the permit here is allowed to stand. The cumulative effect of
such development would be inconsistent with the cited policies and
regulations. It would allow for the substantial degradation and
corresponding reduction in public rights resulting from multiple docks on
what is now a relatively pristine shoreline environment. Ina case such as
this it is critical to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed
development. (page 7,emphasis added.)
Questions the Applicants Have Not Addressed and Should be Required to
Address Before a Permit is Granted
Ouestions for the Applicants'Expert on Biological Impacts
1. Have you made any attempt to quantify the cumulative,long term effects of
increased density of permanent pier-ramp-float(PRF)structures along this
stretch of the North Shore,including:(1)reasonably predictable adverse affects
on the natural,relatively uncluttered character of the shoreline; (2)reasonably
predictable adverse affects on the view both from and of the shoreline;(3)
a
Charles McCoy III 705masoncountyM.DOC Page 5
reasonably predictable adverse affects on over-water use of the near shore by
the public in boating,swimming,canoeing,kayaking,and fishing;and(4)
reasonably predictable adverse affects on the long term ecological health of
Hood Canal?
a. If the answer is"yes,"what specific conclusions have you drawn on
these issues and what data and analysis can you point to in support of
your conclusions?
I
b. If the answer is"no,"do you consider these considerations irrelevant?
And,if so,why?
Questions for the Applicants
2. The long accepted method for boat anchorage along the North Shore is with a
mooring buoy or float.Why do you feel this method will not adequately meet
your needs,as well?
3. The state Shorelines Management Act and cases decided by the Shorelines
Hearings Board require that you demonstrate that your need for the structures
you propose outweighs the public's interest in preserving the relatively
uncluttered character of the shoreline in the vicinity of your property.What
facts and circumstances,if any,can you point to in support of such a
conclusion?
4. The state Shorelines Management Act and cases decided by the Shorelines
Hearings Board require that you demonstrate"extraordinary circumstances"in
support of your application.What facts and circumstances,if any,do you
believe support a finding of extraordinary circumstances in this situation?
5. The state Shorelines Management Act and cases decided by the Shorelines
Hearings Board require that you show that the public interest will suffer no
substantial detrimental effect from your construction project. What facts and
circumstances,if any,do you believe support a finding that the long term
interests of the public in protecting the beauty and character of the shoreline
will be as well protected with your permanent structures as without them?
s
Charles McCoy III-705masoncounty28AOC _ Page 6
Thank you for your careful consideration of the issues in this case,including the
competing public and private interests in play here.For the reasons stated,we
respectfully urge that the Staff Recommendation be accepted and the application
denied.
Sincerely,
North Shore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
Steve Zabel,President
Dennis Kenny,Vice President
Carol Lavender Willison,Vice President
Linda Hinds,Secretary/Treasurer
Wanda Dray,Board Member
6
Sebastian/Fladseth SDP Application
Remarks in Support of Staff Recommendation
Offered by Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
August 9, 2005
Our group's position is that the staff recommendation for denial is strongly
supported by relevant precedent and should be accepted.
The authority and supporting points we would like to mention include:
The State Shorelines Management Act
Washington's Shorelines Management Act(SMA)became law in 1971. It was a
legislative response to the complete prohibition on any private infringement upon
navigable waters set down two years earlier in the Wilbour v. Gallagher case, 77
Wn. 2d 306,462 P.2d 232,(1969).
The SMA,in its statement of purpose,provides in part:
* * *
The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be
paramount in the management ofshorelines ofstatewide significance. The
department,in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance,
and local government,in developing master programs for shorelines of
statewide significance,shall give preference to uses in the following order of
preference which:
(1)Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
(2)Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
(3)Result in long term over short term benefit;
(4)Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
(5)Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines;
(6)Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;
RCW 90.58.020 (Emphasis Added.)
i
And in RCW 90.58.030, essentially all of Hood Canal's shorelines are expressly 1.
given this special level of protection:
I
Z * * *
(e) " Shorelines of statewide significance"means the following shorelines
of the state: * * *
(ii)Those areas of Puget Sound and adjacent salt waters and the Strait of
Juan de Fuca between the ordinary high water mark and the line of extreme
low tide as follows: * * *
(C)Hood Canal --from Tala Point to Foulweather Bluff,
Decisions by the State Shorelines Hearings Board
Decisions at the Shorelines Hearings Board, including both Gennotti and Viafore
out of Mason county,are strongly supportive of the staff recommendation. Here
are key passages from each case:
i
Gennotti, pages 10 and 11:
[w]e are not persuaded that accommodating[the applicant's]desire for
greater convenience outweighs the public interest in protecting this
shoreline of statewide significance as fully as possible. The legislature
contemplates the protection of private property rights only i extraordinary
circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial
detrimental effect.
Finally, we share[the neighbors J concerns that approval of the proposed
pier-dock and float would pave the way for similar projects in the area, thus
encouraging a cumulative negative impact on the shoreline.Additional
structures, like the one proposed, could only exacerbate the adverse impact
on threatened Hood Canal summer chum and alter the character of the
immediate vicinity. (pages 10 and 11)
Viafore, Conclusion of Law VI:
In terms of both compatibility and view impacts, considerable weight must
be given to the possibility that similar docks will be sought by property
owners on Pickering Passage if the permit here is allowed to stand. The
cumulative effect of such development would be inconsistent with the cited
z
policies and regulations. It would allow for the substantial degradation and
corresponding reduction in public rights resulting from multiple docks on
what is now a relatively pristine shoreline environment. In a case such as
this it is critical to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed
development. Buechel, 125 Wn.2d at 210; Hayes v. Yount, 87 Wn.2d 280
(1976)("Logic and common sense suggest that numerous projects, each
having no significant effects individually, may well have very significant
effects when taken together.');Bellevue Farm Owners Assn v. Shorelines
Hearings Board, 100 Wn. App. 341, 362 (2000). (page 7)
Recent Mason County Permit Denials
First,two short excerpts from the Hearing Examiners decision in last summer's
Evans case, SHR2004-00006:
To allow piers every fifty feet would transform the shoreline vistas from their
relatively unobstructed state to a crowded viewscape of piles, rails, and
decking. The cumulative impact would also be more than aesthetic. The
pilings that support the proposed pier hinders public access across inter-
tidal areas. The construction of piers of this nature every fifty feet would
create an obstacle course for inter-tidal use. (page 4)
The hearing examiner finds Gennotti and Tjia ore persuasive.As in those
cases, the proposed dock and pier is proposed for a largely unobstructed
shoreline where cumulative impacts could be very significant.
At a cumulative level, in addition to aesthetic incompatibility, the
construction of piers every fifty feet would also be incompatible with the
current accessibility to public use in inter-tidal areas. Aesthetic
incompatibility alone is sufficient to justify denial of the permit, but the
cumulative impacts upon access along the inter-tidal areas is also a
significant factor. (page 7)
It is also worth noting that prior to the Evans case,in three similar applications for
private docks on Hood Canal or its estuaries,the Mason County Commissioners
voted unanimously to deny a permit for permanent structures on the inter-tidal
zone.
3
II
The first was the application of Lynne and Doug Bevis along the South Shore.
Denied unanimously on May 14,2002.
Then on July 23,2002,the Commissioners heard the application of Calvin and
Jane Christiansen. In that case there were two existing docks in the area: on one
side 500 feet away;and one on the other side 1000 feet away.
Citizens opposed that project on the basis of view, aesthetics,beach usage, and the
noise of wave action on docks.
In voting to deny the application,Commissioner Holter noted:
The SMP allows for docks that meet the requirements, in areas where there
currently are docks. He referred to the piers and docks policy that is a
serious part of the SMP. He appreciates the fact the property owner would
like to have a dock to enjoy the waterfront but he doesn't want to see a dock
in an area where currently there aren't any docks.
And finally,in April 2003 the Commissioners unanimously denied a dock permit
to Andy Bell at 4261 E. State Highway 106,east of Union.
Mr. Bell owned 700'of waterfront and had a seemingly strong argument for
"extraordinary circumstances"in that he was wheelchair bound,and using a nearby
marina was not just less convenient, it was a physical impossibility. The
Commissioners nonetheless voted unanimously to deny the application.
I
Commissioners Camin and Johnson both suggested the applicant pursue other
options for improving beach and boat access_ Commissioner Johnson said:
If the proposal were to be approved, it would set a precedent that other
property owners could ask if it could be done on their property.
Conclusion
There's no doubt applications such as this can be difficult,involving, as they do,
two clearly opposing interests: one private and one public. j
On the one hand,there is the understandable—and presumably good faith—interest
of the property owners in developing the usability and value of their property.
4
�f
On the other hand,however,there's the long term interest of the public to be
considered. That interest includes protecting,as fully as possible,the public's
access to and ability to use the shoreline, including the inter-tidal zone extending
from very low tides to the"ordinary high water mark."It therefore often means
denying permits for permanent structures that would obstruct or impede
swimming,boating,kayaking, canoeing, and fishing. The public's interest also
includes preventing the progressive, incremental loss of the natural vistas and
character that this relatively uncluttered shoreline still enjoys.
Our group,Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline,is firmly
committed to supporting Mason County as it does the difficult work of balancing
these private and public interests. Our goal this afternoon has been to point out that
the various authorities interpreting and applying the state's designation of the
North Shore as a"shoreline of statewide significance"would seem to provide more
than enough support for the Planning Department's recormnendation.
i
I
i
I
�I
s
i
Coastal aL Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and RCW 77.55.100-Appeal pursuant to Chapter 34.05 RCW
Montesano,WA 98563
WILDLIFE
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: March 24,2005 Control Number: 100102-1
Expiration Date:April 15,2007 FPA/Public Notice#:
PERMITTEE AUTHORIZED AGENT OR CONTRACTOR
Marine Surveys&Assessments
Lorren Fladseth ATTENTION:Amy Leitman E C E I It E Di
10731 NE Northshore Road 521 Snagstead Way
Belfair WA,98528 Port Townsend WA,98368 t MR 2 g 2 NO
206-623-0621 360-385-4073
Fax:206-277-9739 Fax:360-385-1724 M Gn - P A NMI NCB Ji
Project Name: Fladseth
Project Description: Construct new joint use Pier, ramp and float with 14 ACZA piles.
PROVISIONS
1.Work below the ordinary high water line shall not occur from February 15 through July 14 of any
year for the protection of migrating juvenile salmonids.
2.Work below the ordinary high water line shall not occur from September 15 through December 31
and from January 1 through March 1 of any year for the protection of surf smelt spawning beds.
3.Work shall be accomplished per plans and specifications approved by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife entitled Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp and Float
Project and dated January 10,2005,except as modified by this Hydraulic Project Approval. A copy
of these plans shall be available on site during construction.
4.All manmade debris on the beach shall be removed and disposed of upland such that it does not
enter waters of the state.
5.The pier, ramp,and float centerline shall be re-established during the construction phase using
the same methodology employed to establish the centerline during the vegetation survey to ensure
protection of the eelgrass/herring spawning habitat.
6.The pier, ramp,and float structure shall not exceed 115 feet in total length.
7.The solid decked portions of the structure shall not exceed the following widths:the 65-foot long
pier,6 feet;the 40-foot long ramp,4 feet;and two rectangular floats: 8-foot long by 6 foot wide and
60 foot long by 8 feet wide.
8.The 6 foot by 8 foot rectangular shaped float shall contain 2 foot wide area down the center and
the 8 foot by 60 foot rectangular shaped float shall contain a 4 foot wide area down the center of
grating that passes a minimum of 60 percent sunlight,approved by WDFW. Floatation shall be
located under the solid decked area only. The grated area shall not be used for storage purposes.
9.No portion of the dock or float system shall ground. A minimum space of 12 inches shall be
maintained at all times between the bottom of the dock or float and the beach grade.
Page 1 of 5
jL Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and
WILDLIFE Montesano,WA 98563
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: March 24,2005 Control Number: 100102-1
Expiration Date:April 15, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#:
10.Floats, rafts,and associated anchoring systems shall have been designed and shall have been
deployed so that the bed is not damaged.
11. Floatation for the structure shall be fully enclosed and contained to prevent the breakup or loss
of the floatation material into the water.
12.As specified in the application,the 14 pilings may be recycled creosote treated pilings/
Chemonite pilings treated at 1.5 pounds per cubic foot but shall not be new creosote treated pilings.
13.All piling, lumber, and other materials treated with preservatives shall be sufficiently cured to
minimize leaching into the water or bed.
14.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.
15.The pier, ramp,float, and associated moorings shall have been designed and shall have been
located to avoid shading of eelgrass(Zostera spp).
16. Eelgrass and kelp shall not be adversely impacted due to any project activities(e.g., barge shall
not ground,equipment shall not operate,and other project activities shall not occur in eelgrass and
kelp).
17. Removal or destruction of overhanging bankline vegetation shall be limited to that necessary for
the construction of the project.
18. Intertidal wetland vascular plants shall not be adversely impacted due to project activities(e.g.,
barge shall not ground,equipment shall not operate,and other activities shall not occur in intertidal
wetland vascular plants). If such vegetation is adversely impacted,it shall be replaced using
provers methodology.
19.All natural habitat features on the beach larger than 12 inches in diameter, including trees,
stumps, logs,and large rocks,shall be retained on the beach following construction. These habitat
features may be moved during construction if necessary.
20. Project activities shall be conducted to minimize siltation of the beach area and bed.
21. If at any time,as a result of project activities,fish are observed in distress,a fish kill occurs,or
water quality problems develop(including equipment leaks or spills), immediate notification shall be
made to the Washington Department of Ecology at 1-800-258-5990, and to the Area Habitat
Biologist listed below.
22.All debris or deleterious material resulting from construction shall be removed from the beach
area and bed and prevented from entering waters of the state.
Page 2 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and
WILDLIFE Montesano,WA 98563
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: March 24,2005 Control Number: 100102-1
Expiration Date:April 15,2007 FPA/Public Notice#:
23. No petroleum products or other deleterious materials shall enter surface waters.
24.Wood treated with preservatives,trash,waste,or other deleterious materials shall not be
burned below the ordinary high water line. Limited burning of untreated wood or similar material
may be allowed at or above the mean higher high water line.
25.Project activities shall not degrade water quality to the detriment of fish life.
26. Sawdust,drillings or trimmings from treated wood shall be contained with tarps or other
impervious materials and prevented from contacting the beach, bed or waters of the state.
27.Treated piling or structures built of treated wood shall incorporate design features, such as
steel,plastic or rubber collars or fendering systems to prevent or minimize the abrasion of the
treated wood by floats, ramps or vessels.
PROJECT LOCATIONS
Location#1 Fladseth Work Start:07-15-2005 Work End:02-15-2007
WRIA WATERBODY TRIBUTARY TO COUNTY
15.9120 Wria 15 Marine Hood Canal Mason
1/4 SEC. Section Township: Range: Latitude: Longitude
SE 1/4 24 �22 N 03 W N 47.3820 W 123.0076
DRIVING DIRECTIONS:
NOTES
This project is a joint use PRF additional owners are Lorren&Jeannie Fladseth,address 10248
21 st Ave SW Seattle,WA 98146 and Raymond&Barbara Sebastian, address 5066 Turkey Track
Road, Placerville,CA 95667
APPLY TO ALL HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVALS
This Hydraulic Project Approval pertains only to the provisions of the Washington State Fisheries
and Wildlife Code,specifically RCW 77.55(formerly RCW 75.20). Additional authorization from
other public agencies may be necessary for this project. The person(s)to whom this Hydraulic
Project Approval is issued is responsible for applying for and obtaining any additional authorization
from other public agencies(local, state and/or federal)that may be necessary for this project.
This Hydraulic Project Approval shall be available on the job site at all times and all its provisions
followed by the person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s)
performing the work.
This Hydraulic Project Approval does not authorize trespass.
Page 3 of 5
Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL Coastal
Department of 48 Devonshire Road
FISH and
WILDLIFE Montesano,WA 98563
(360)249-4628
Issue Date: March 24,2005 Control Number: 100102-1
Expiration Date:April 15, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#:
The person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued and operator(s)performing the
work may be held liable for any loss or damage to fish life or fish habitat that results from failure to
comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval.
Failure to comply with the provisions of this Hydraulic Project Approval could result in a civil penalty
of up to one hundred dollars per day or a gross misdemeanor charge,possibly punishable by fine
and/or imprisonment.
All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.100 or 77.55.200 are subject to
additional restrictions, conditions or revocation if the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines
that new biological or physical information indicates the need for such action. The person(s)to
whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued has the right pursuant to Chapter 34.04 RCW to
appeal such decisions. All Hydraulic Project Approvals issued pursuant to RCW 77.55.110 may be
modified by the Department of Fish and Wildlife due to changed conditions after consultation with
the person(s)to whom this Hydraulic Project Approval is issued: PROVIDED HOWEVER,that such
modifications shall be subject to appeal to the Hydraulic Appeals Board established in RCW
77.55.170.
APPEALS INFORMATION
IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL THE ISSUANCE OR DENIAL OF,OR CONDITIONS PROVIDED IN A
HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL,THERE ARE INFORMAL AND FORMAL APPEAL
PROCESSES AVAILABLE.
A. INFORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-340)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT
TO RCW 77.55.100,77.55.110,77.55.140,77.55.190, 77.55.200,and 77.55.290: A person who is
aggrieved or adversely affected by the following Department actions may request an informal
review of:
(A)The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval,or the conditions or provisions made
part of a Hydraulic Project Approval;or
(B)An order imposing civil penalties. A request for an INFORMAL REVIEW shall be in WRITING
to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA Appeals Coordinator,600 Capitol Way North,Olympia,
Washington 98501-1091 and shall be RECEIVED by the Department within 30-days of the denial or
issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval or receipt of an order imposing civil penalties. If agreed to
by the aggrieved party,and the aggrieved party is the Hydraulic Project Approval applicant,
resolution of the concerns will be facilitated through discussions with the Area Habitat Biologist and
his/her supervisor. If resolution is not reached,or the aggrieved party is not the Hydraulic Project
Approval applicant,the Habitat Environmental Services Division Manager or his/her designee shall
conduct a review and recommend a decision to the Director or his/her designee. If you are not
satisfied with the results of this informal appeal,a formal appeal may be filed.
B. FORMAL APPEALS(WAC 220-110-350)OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO
RCW 77.55.100 OR 77.55.140: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the following
Department actions may request a formal review of:
(A)The denial or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval,or the conditions or provisions made
part of a Hydraulic Project Approval;
Page 4 of 5
jL Washington HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL coastal
toDepartment of FISH and 48 Devonshire Road
WILDLIFE Montesano,WA 98563
(360)249-4628
Issue Date:March 24, 2005 Control Number: 100102-1
Expiration Date:April 15, 2007 FPA/Public Notice#:
(B)An order imposing civil penalties;or
(C)Any other'agency action'for which an adjudicative proceeding is required under the
Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 34.05 RCW.
A request for a FORMAL APPEAL shall be in WRITING to the Department of Fish and Wildlife HPA
Appeals Coordinator,shall be plainly labeled as'REQUEST FOR FORMAL APPEAL'and shall be
RECEIVED DURING OFFICE HOURS by the Department at 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia,
Washington 98501-1091,within 30-days of the Department action that is being challenged. The
time period for requesting a formal appeal is suspended during consideration of a timely informal
appeal. If there has been an informal appeal,the deadline for requesting a formal appeal shall be
within 30-days of the date of the Department's written decision in response to the informal appeal.
C. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO RCW 77.55.110.
77.55.200,77.55.230,or 77.55.290: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial
or issuance of a Hydraulic Project Approval,or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic
Project Approval may request a formal appeal. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
WRITING to the Hydraulic Appeals Board per WAC 259-04 at Environmental Hearings Office,4224
Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two-Rowe Six,Lacey,Washington 98504;telephone 360/459-6327.
D. FORMAL APPEALS OF DEPARTMENT ACTIONS TAKEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 43.21 L
RCW: A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by the denial or issuance of a Hydraulic
Project Approval, or the conditions or provisions made part of a Hydraulic Project Approval may
request a formal appeal. The FORMAL APPEAL shall be in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 43.21 L RCW and Chapter 199-08 WAC. The request for FORMAL APPEAL shall be in
WRITING to the Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board at Environmental Hearings Office,
Environmental and Land Use Hearings Board,4224 Sixth Avenue SE, Building Two-Rowe Six,
P.O. Box 40903, Lacey,Washington 98504;telephone 360/459-6327.
E. FAILURE TO APPEAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME PERIODS RESULTS IN FORFEITURE
OF ALL APPEAL RIGHTS. IF THERE IS NO TIMELY REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL, THE
DEPARTMENT ACTION SHALL BE FINAL AND UNAPPEALABLE.
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER:Sergeant Jackson (29)P1
�H�abitat
hirato 360-427-2179 "'7t �1 ��. for Director
ologist i WDFW
CC: Grace Miller, Mason DCD, P.O. Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584.
Page 5 of 5
( ^� _ PERMIT NO. ���
DATE RECEIVED:
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
RESOURCE ORDINANCE(Chapter 17.01 MCC)
411 N.5TH Street/P.O.Box 279.Shelton,WA 98584
FJMVIRONMENTAL PERMIT APPLICATION
MASON ENVIRONMENTAL PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE❑ VARIANCE❑
The purpose of the Resource Ordinance Is to protect Mason County's natural resource lands and critical areas and is under
the authority of Chapters 36.32,36.70A,39.34,58.17.76.09,84.33.84.34 and 90.58 RCW.
PLEASE PRINT
1. kAYnacna0 s j3sFRgAKA SEf3<}5T-"4j,/ -/0}91 NE MoRl43f}�RJ;P�•8 tit wp
Owner. I�RRCN E ICANN•r- r'•b^^^—. Owner Mailing Address:10a2U_WQljJEA✓F tt,/(FLAr4ETH)
Site Address:/0tw3 N wnoruc,,.or- e.� City:�EAisLE State:W/ _Zip:-`73Lr
-City: CLF 1Q State WA Zip: Lied]'ideHolder: --
Phone:Daytime l�13-GYo Z.l Li s:
Fire District# x Stato: Zip:
Signature: sre"-nRN M",.Nc-ADDRess;
O(dn 7uRKE('772Acic LFFL LLE 954.6i
2' Parcel Number:3 cAP-X t f- - SO - 6n Ol q Legal description:5Ee,;I '�,�T Nf Q D 3 t.✓
PL
3 aa So -oo0 TR 34 ; 3 c — t.
Parcel Size: t g
3 Directions to Site: Foow o Ig F e✓au pt4 W SF}T
l&Av1< A60 LAIC-:5- -M NoRiH-SF}sQE .A'D 51
iNy� nt= 7r,tit LA a 51ksF tARK nr� 7H�„/n�= I ia coo�h-rE.l./ o rnt S
4. State what sections require a permit: In-Holding Lands,Chapter 17.01.062 ❑
Long-Term Commercial Forest,Chapter 17.10.060❑ Wetlands,Chapter 17.01.070 ❑
Mineral Resource Lands,Chapter 17.01.066 ❑ Frequently Flooded Areas,Chapter 17.01.090 ❑Aquifer Recharge Areas,Chapter 17.01.080 ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.100 ❑Erosion Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01,104 ❑
Seismic Hazard Areas,Chapter 17.01.102 ❑
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,Chapter 17.01.110
5.
Identify current use of property with existing improvements: i 1 1 y r /kAA t l y' i2F C1 nC t
6' Identify and describe the proposed project,including the type of materials to be used,construction methods,
principle
dimensions and other pertinent information(Attach additional sheets ifneeded): I�tNT-
I USF Pic RA T_.
uc D DoU U
PLo
o Ttl N14
! E E o 1 T7o . / c�fi P O Wi u
O RT L7URE. / J4 D I Ll GV
7.
Any water on or adjacent to property:Saltwater ® Lake ❑ River❑pond ❑ Wetland ❑ Seasonal Runoff❑
Other
8.
Will there bean alteration of a wetland and/or wetland vegetation area? Yes ❑No
8' If septic is located on project site,include records. NIA
Connect to septic? ❑ Community Septic? ❑ Public Weter Supply? u Weil? ❑
10.
Type of Job: New A Add❑ Alt❑ Repair❑ Demolition ❑ Other
This permit is granted pursuant to the Resource Ordinance(Chapter 17.01 MCC)and nothing in this permit shall excuse the
applicant from compliance with any other federal,state,or local statutes,ordinances,or regulations applicable to this project,but
not inconsistent with the Resource Ordinance.The permit may be rescinded pursuant to the event the pennittee fails to comply
with the conditions of this ordinance.
MASON EWIRONMENTALPFRMrr:$510.0Wo5.00(withmathuper t)
MASON CONDITIONAL USE ENVIR.PERMIT;312M.00
MASON RESOURCE ORDNANCE VARIANCE:$1,225,00 REVISED:12-5-2003
HEARINGS EXAMINRR:5350.00 I:tPLANNIN(I%RAGPAC1ENVIRONMENTAL PERMrr APPLICATION
oN'STAl�rOA` MASON COUNTY
MC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
4 7
o N = Planning Division
�o N Y o~ P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584
Mo
(360)427-9670
NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
December 06,2004
RAYMOND SEBASTIAN
10731 NE NORTH SHORE RD
BELFAIR WA 98528
Parcel No.: 322245000018
Project Description: joint use pier ramp and float 6'x 65'fixed pier constructed of
douglas fir,4'x 40'aluminum ramp,two floats (6'x 8'and 8'x
60')that consist of fully enclosed in extruded polyethylene,
polystyrene floatation 14 piles will be driven to support
structure. pier and floats will be grated
Dear Applicant:
You have submitted a permit application (case no. MEP2004-00091)for proposed
construction or development in the county. Upon review of your application, I have
determined that the contents of the application are incomplete or do not provide
enough detail for review.
Therefore, review of your application will not proceed until the necessary information
is provided (see the comment section of this letter for details.) Once the information
is submitted and the application is complete, I will continue to process your
application accordingly. If the additional information is not provided to the County
within 180 days of this request,the application shall expire and no further action on
the proposed development shall take place.
Please contact me at(360)427-9670,ext. 577 if you have questions.
i
TMr
La
Mason County Planning Department
121612004 Page 1 of 2 MEP2004-00091
i
NOTIFICATION OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
12/6/2004 Case No.: MEP2004-00091
Comments: A review of the submitted materials indicates that the Biological
Evaluation(BE)is forthcoming. Since the BE satisfies the Habitat
Management Plan requirement for the Mason Environmental Permit,
the SEPA will be issued upon receipt of the BE. If you have questions
or require clarification on this issue, please contact me.
12/6/2004 Page 2 of 2 MEP2004-00091
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Lorren&Jeannie Fladseth FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 and Raymond&Barbara OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Sebastian
6 Shoreline Substantial Development
(SHR2004-00027)
7
8
9 INTRODUCTION
10 The applicants have requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct
a pier,ramp and float structure on Hood Canal. The Examiner denies the requested
11 permit.
12 ORAL TESTIMONY
13 See transcript.
14 EXHIBITS
15
Exhibit 1: January 6,2005 Staff Report
16
17 Exhibit 2: April 27,2005 Photographs(9)of Hood Canal north shore shoreline
18 Exhibit 3: May 4, 2005 Photographs (5) of existing piers on the north shore of
Hood Canal in the vicinity of the project area.
19
Exhibit 4: May 4, 2005 Photographs (5)of the Port of Allyn Public Boat Ramp
20 and Marina
21 Exhibit 5: November 7,2004 Mason County Environmental Checklist
22 Exhibit 6: March 5,2005 SEPA Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
23
24 Exhibit 7: November 4,2004 Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application
Exhibit 8: March 17, 2005 Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Shoreline
25 Management Permit
(ASB613135.D0C;1/13009.900000/(
Fladseth/Sebastian P. 1 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Exhibit 9: November 4,2004 Shoreline Permit Application
1
2 Exhibit 10: March 21, 2005 Comments received from Washington State
Department of Ecology
3
Exhibit 11: April 27,2005 Letter from Joseph Farmer
4
5 Exhibit 12: March 15,2005 Letter from Doris Gennotti
6 Exhibit 13: April 15, 2005 Letter from Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered
Shoreline
7
8 Exhibit 14: March 29,2005 Hydraulic Project Approval(WDFW)
9 Exhibit 15: Mason Environmental Permit
10 Exhibit 16: June 23, 2004 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final
Decision regarding Robert Evans, Shoreline Substantial Development
11 (SHR 2004-00006)
12 Exhibit 17: January 28, 2005 Biological Evaluation, Marine Surveys and
13 Assessments
14 Exhibit 18: Curriculum Vitae,Charles Mead McCoy III
15 Exhibit 19: Flow chart of Dock,Piers and Float Impacts
16 Exhibit 20: June 16, 2005 Draft Priority Habitat and Species Management
17 Recommendations from Stephen Penland,Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife
18
Exhibit 21: October 29, 1999 SHBSW, Final Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
19 Law and Order,SHB No.99-011(Shearer)
20 Exhibit 22: January 19,2005 Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
21 Board,State of Washington,Final Decision and Order,case No.04-3-
0013(Samson/Hacker/City of Bainbridge)
22
23 Exhibit 23: May 12,2005 Revised Plan(overhead)View
24 Exhibit 24: May 12,2005 Revised Plan Elevation View
25 Exhibit 25: September 2003, Assessing Overwater Structure-Related Predation
Risk on Juvenile Salmon,Williams,et al.
(ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Fladseth/Sebastian p.2 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
1 Exhibit 26: Photographs from Lorren Fladseth
2 Exhibit
27: May 3, 2005 electronic-mail from Greg Fladseth to Amy Leitman
3 transmitting May 1,2.005 letter of support
4 Exhibit 28: Raymond and Barbara Sebastian Comments to Staff Report
5 Exhibit 29: July 28, 2005 letter from Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered
6 Shoreline supporting staff recommendation
7 Exhibit 30: August 9, 2005 Comments in Support of Staff Recommendation from
8 Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
Exhibit 31: August 9,2005 letter from Skykomish Natural Resources, Skykomish
9 Nation in support of staff recommendation for denial
10 Exhibit 32: Page 206 from "Hood Canal, Splendor at Risk" by the Staff of the
11 Bremerton Sun,1991,submitted by Bonnie Ruff
12 Exhibit 33: City of Bellevue: Summary of Effects of Bulkheads and Piers and
13
other Artificial Structures in Shore Development Zone Develo ment on ESA-
listed Salmonids in Lakes
14
FINDINGS OF FACT
15
Procedural:
16
1. Applicant. The applicants are Lorren and Jeannie Fladseth and Raymond
17 and Barbara Sebastian. The applicants' agent and representative is Amy Leitman of
18 Marine Surveys and Assessments.
19 2• Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on August 9, 2005, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of
20 Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
21 Substantive:
22
3. Site Description/Proyosal. The site address and project location is 10731,
23 10741 and 10743 North Shore Road,Beifair,Section 24,Township 27 and Range 03
West. The project site contains two single-family residences. Several other
24 residences exist east and west of the proposed PRF location. The project site is
25 designated as Rural under the Comprehensive Plan and Urban under the Shoreline
Management Program,and is zoned Rural Residential 5.
t ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/t
Fladseth/Sebastian p.3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
I This proposal involves construction of a pier,ramp,and float structure("PRF'). The
2 proposed structure consists of a 6'by 65'fixed pier with 10 pilings and a 4'by 40'
ramp leading to a 6' wide by 8'long float with two float pilings. Attached at a right
3 angle to this float applicants propose an 8' by 40' float,as revised,with two float
pilings. The total length of the PRF is proposed not to exceed 115'from the ordinary
4 high water mark of Hood Canal.
5 4. Characteristics of the Area. The general area is characterized by
6 residential construction along the north shore of Hood Canal. Waterfront residences
are immediately east and west of the project site. No private residential PRF
7 structures are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. Moorage-ball
buoys serve as the predominant form of anchorage for private residences in the area.
8 Many anchored floating platforms are also in existence along the notch shore for
recreational use by private residents. To the southwest]of the proposed project area,
9 approximately one-quarter mile from the proposed project site,the Shore Hill Estates
10 Home Owners Association maintains a seasonal PRF for its approximately 50
resident members. The majority of existing PRFs that do exist along this portion of
11 the north shore of Hood Canal are non-conforming structures under the current
structural design requirements found in the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
12 The Port of Allyn maintains a Public Boat Ramp and Marina at milepost 4.6 on North
13 Shore Road,approximately 6.1 miles from the proposed project site.
14 5. Adverse Impacts. The Biological Evaluation(Exhibit 17)established that
the proposed structure is not likely to adversely affect aquatic habitat or wildlife. The
15 direct effects from the proposed project may cause some short-term impacts on the
listed fish species from the turbidity and noise caused by the pile-driving. Indirect
16 effects over the long-term might include alteration of nearshore juvenile salmon
17 migratory pathways, increase in salmonid predation, reduction in refugia due to
shading of the epibenthic substrate by the structure and increased boat use.
18
County staff Charles McCoy testified as to the desire to follow the "do no further
19 harm ecologically" principle stated in Marine Riparian: An Assessment of Riparian
Functions in Marine Ecosystems by Brennan and Culverwell, Washington State Sea
20 Grant Program(2004). Mr. McCoy stated Brennan and Culverwell advocate in the
21 final recommendation section the need for a greater scientific certainty before
continuing further to develop shorelines,including a determination of the cumulative
22 impacts of shoreline development and land use practices.
23 Marty Ereth,a habitat biologist for the Skykomish Tribe,testified that Hood Canal is
24 in a crisis with water quality and dissolved oxygen levels at an all time low.
25 ' Applicant Barbara Sebastian testified that the compass was actually "northeast" of the proposed
project area.
(ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Fladseth/Sebastian p.4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
Mr.Ereth briefly described a technical report prepared by the Point No Point Treaty
1 Council in 2003 mapping shoreline modifications throughout Hood Canal and the
2 eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, showing that lower Hood Canal was the most
negatively impacted. He stated that while it is difficult to analyze cumulative effects
3 and assess the additional impact from a single PRF,any analysis should conclude that
that the northern and southern shores of Hood Canal have already exceeded any
4 reasonable threshold of impact.
5 Also,as stated in Finding of Fact No. 4 above, no private residential PRF structures
6 are in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The placement of a PRF
would obstruct views. These impacts are not compatible with the natural and
7 unobstructed view characteristics of the north shore shoreline.
8 Finally,recreational opportunities would be adversely impacted by the proposed PRF
structure. Applicants' consultant testified that beach walkers would be underwater
9 without the presence of the PRF but did not submit evidence showing that swimmers,
10 kayakers and other recreational boaters would not be adversely affected.
11 6. SEPA Compliance and Public Comment A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued on March 5, 2005 for the Th 6 .Exhibit
proposal ( ) e
12 SERA comment period ended March 21 2005. The Notice of Sh
oreline horeline Substantial
13 Development Permit was published on March 10 and 17, 2005 (Exhibit 8). The
comment period ended April 16, 2005. A comment letter was received from
14 Washington Department of Ecology(WDOE)and is attached(Exhibit 10).
15 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
16 Procedural:
17 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the
18 Examiner with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline
Substantial Development Permits.
19
Substantive:
20
21 2. Shoreline Desi ation. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline of
22 Statewide Significance;therefore the requirements under MCC 7.24.010 apply.
23 3. Permit Review Criteria: Section 15.09.055(a)MCC requires a substantial
development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
24 Section 15.09.055(f) MCC requires that applications for substantial development
25 permits be subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. Section 15.09.055(f)(2)(C)
MCC provides that the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development
I ASB413135.DOC;III 3009.900M)
Fladseth/Sebastian p.5 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
permit application on the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County("MCSMP")
1 and the policies and procedures of chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management
2 Act ("SMA"). Chapter 7.08 MCC defines a substantial development as any
development of which total cost for market value exceeds$5,000 or any development
3 that materially interferes with any normal public use of the water or shorelines of the
state. The staff report indicates that the proposal will exceed $5,000 in cost and,
4 therefore, requires a shoreline substantial development permit. The MCSMP is
codified as Title 7 of the Mason County Code. The applicable shoreline policies are
5 quoted and addressed below.
6 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and located to
7 minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
8 4. This particular shoreline has so few existing residential PRFs that any new
PRF would be highly disruptive to shoreline views. However, there is no testimony
9 or evidence in the record to suggest that the PRF could be modified in any way to
10 minimize view obstruction. In requiring minimization,MCC 7.16.170 addresses the
design of piers and docks. It does not serve as grounds for denying a pier or dock.
11 Absent any evidence that the PRF could be further modified to minimize impacts
(other than not building one at all), the Examiner finds consistency with MCC
12 7.16.170.
13 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 2): Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,
14 especially in tidal waters.
15 5• The applicants have submitted a request for a joint PRF.
16 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and piers
17 should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration
should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land
18 and water uses, water quality and the habitat offish and wildlife.
19 6. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposed PRF will have
significant adverse aesthetic impacts. These impacts are not compatible with the
20 unobstructed view characteristics of the shoreline. Nor is the location compatible
21 with fish habitat when cumulative affects are considered as discussed below. For
these reasons,the proposal is not consistent with MCC 7.16.170,Policy No.3.
22
It is recognized that aesthetics has a tenuous role in land use regulation, but the
23 limited authority on the subject does allow for decision making to be based upon
aesthetics alone. Two Mason County Shorelines Hearings Board cases are on point.
24 In Gennotti v. Mason County, SHB 99-011, Final Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
25 Law, and Order (October 29, 1999), the applicant sought a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit to construct a one-owner pier, ramp and float on Hood Canal.
(ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/(
Fladseth/Sebastian p.6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
As in the case at hand,there were few existing docks and piers in the area. Adjacent
I property owners objected to the loss of their unobstructed view. In denying the
2 permit,the Shorelines Hearings Board held that the proposal was not consistent with
the policies of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program which requires that the
3 design minimize obstruction of views, preference of cooperative uses, and
compatibility and aesthetics. The Shorelines Hearings Board stated that in their
4 inquiry "We are guided by the overall objectives of the SMA and the MCSMP that
seek to promote and enhance the public interest in all shorelines,but for shorelines of
5 statewide significance the interest of all people shall be paramount." Id., at 9,citing
6 RCW 90.58.020.
7 Similarly, in Viafore v. Mason County, SHB 99-033, Final Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order (September 14, 2000), the applicant sought a
8 shoreline substantial development permit to construct a pier, ramp and float on
9 Pickering Passage. In denying the permit,the Shorelines Hearings Board stated:
10 The proposed dock is not consistent with the cited policies and use regulation
from the SMP. The Bauer dock would be the first dock approved under the SMA
11 in an area with only one other existing dock structure that predates the SMA. In
this context the proposed dock is not compatible with the shoreline. The proposed
12 dock will also unduly impact the views on an extensive shoreline with almost no
dock development. In terms of both compatibility and view impacts,considerable
13 weight must be given to the possibility that similar docks will be sought by
14 property owners on Pickering Passage if the permit here is allowed to stand. The
cumulative effect of such development would be inconsistent with the cited
15 policies and regulations. It would allow for the substantial degradation and
corresponding reduction in public rights resulting from multiple docks on what is
16 now a relatively pristine shoreline environment. In a case such as this it is critical
17 to consider the cumulative impacts of a proposed development. Buechel, 125
Wn.2d at 210; Hayes v. Yount, 87 Wn.2d 280 (1976)(Logic and common sense
18 suggest that numerous projects,each having no significant effects individually,
may well have very significant effects when taken together.); Bellevue Farm
19 Owners Assn. v. Shorelines Hearings Board, 100 Wn. App. 341, 362 (2000).
20 Viafore,at 7.
21 The Examiner finds Gennotti and Viafore persuasive. As in those cases, the PRF
22 structure is proposed for a largely unobstructed shoreline where cumulative impacts
could be very significant. The project would have severe view impacts.
23
Turning to location in relation to fish habitat, Applicants' consultant, Amy Leitman,
24 testified that there is no question that underwater structures may alter migration
25 routes. Ms. Leitman further testified there are also studies that indicate that salmon
migration is not affected by the presence of overwater structures and concludes that
AS B613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/1
Fladseth/Sebastian p.7 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
no one has shown that these migration changes lead to increased mortality or
1 decreased fitness. Marty Ereth quoted the opposite conclusion from the Simenstad
2 and Nightingale 2001b report, relied on by Ms. Leitman, as follows: "fo)verwater
structures have been proved to pose potential mortality and fitness risk to these
3 animals(estuarine and nearshore fish and shellfish)and their ecosystems."
4 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 5): Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers
and docks.
5
6 7. Mooring buoys and floats serve are predominant in the immediate vicinity
of the project area and in general along the north shore of Hood Canal. The Examiner
7 finds that placement of a PRF structure is not consistent with this policy.
8 MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 6): Joint use stairways are preferred over piers and
docks.
9
10 8. The plans were modified to reflect the proposed PRF would be accessed
by one stairway from the Fladseth property.
11
MCC 7.16.170(Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
12 as well as the subsequent use,shall minimize adverse effects on fish,shellfish,wildlife
13 and water quality.
14 9• As detailed in the Biological Evaluation, the PRF has minimal shoreline
environmental impacts. The PRF is designed to minimize shading of the aquatic
15 environment. The pile spacing is designed to allow sediment transport. No artificial
lighting is proposed. The Biological Evaluation did not consider cumulative effects
16 of the build-out of PRFs along the shoreline as will be discussed below.
17 MCC 7.16.170 Use Reg
ulation gelation No.2): Docks and piers shall be located,designed
18 and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a
19 minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
20 may be located on the property line.
21 10. The site plan reflects the structure will be placed on the shared property
line of the adjoining applicants. An adjacent property owner submitted a letter
22 objecting to the issuance of the permit and the plea for help to"maintain the natural
beauty of our shoreline." To the extent that MCC 7.16.170,Policy No. 3,provides a
23 "right'of natural and unobstructed shoreline views, that right has been significantly
24 impacted and interfered with as discussed in Conclusion of Law No.6.
25 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 4): No pier, dock, or float or similar device
shall have a residential structure constructed upon it.
(ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.9000001)
Fladseth/Sebastian p. 8 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
1 11. No residential structure is proposed upon the structure.
2 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No.7): Maximum overall length of a recreational
3 pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three
feet of water as measured at mean low lower low water on a saltwater or a depth of
4 five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or
dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from
5 ordinary high watermark on saltwater and 50 feet on freshwater shorelines. Joint
6 or community use facilities may be an additional fifteen feet in length, and shall not
exceed a depth of minus five(-5)feet.
7
12. The PRF is proposed at a total length of 115 feet,which is the maximum
8 allowed length of the pier. Washington State Department of Ecology staff
commented that"it would appear that the portion of the dock located on the Sebastian
9 property exceeds the 115-foot length from the Ordinary High Water Mark." (Exhibit
10 10) Applicants' consultant testified that the revised plans reflect that the dock was
shortened sixteen feet by removing a ramp. The terminus of the PRF is above the
11 0.0' of mean lower low water. As revised, the project complies with the criterion
above.
12
13 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
shall not exceed eight feet.
14
13. The maximum proposed width of the two attached floats is eight feet.
15
MCC 7.16.170(Use Regulation No.10): At the end of a dock or pier,afloat may be
16 attached These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T"or
17 "L." In tidal water, the float shall not exceed 600 gross square feet with the boat
slip.
18
14. The float surface is 320 square feet.
19
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
20 than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
21 an eight foot span between pilings.
22 15. The proposed pier height is approximately two feet above mean higher
high water. The span between pilings appears to be between 14 and 20 feet and well
23 in excess of the minimum of eight feet as required.
24 MCC 7.16.170(Use Regulation No.14): The surface of floating structures shall be
25 a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
(ASS613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Fladseth/Sebastian P.9 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
16. This is included in the project description.
1
2 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 15): All floating structures shall include
intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.
3
17. This is included in the project description.
4
5 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
6 18. County staff noted that the cumulative impact of piers and docks is an
issue that has received limited consideration in permit review. The north shore of
7 Hood Canal has not seen the magnitude of proliferation of individual and joint piers
and docks that has become commonplace along the south shore.
8
9 Kim Van Zwalenburg of the Department of Ecology commented:
10 I have concerns about this proposal in an area with few docks. Hood
Canal is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and the proliferation of
11 docks is an issue on this water body. (Exhibit 10)
12 As stated in Conclusion of Law No. 6, the Shorelines Hearings Board reversed the
County's granting of a substantial development permit for a 45-foot PRF based
13 primarily on impacts including obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational
14 uses, as well as adverse impacts on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality.
Gennotti v. Mason County, SHB No.99-011. In the Gennotti case, the Board
15 concluded that:
16 [alpproval of the proposed pier-dock and float would pave the way for
17 similar projects in the area,thus encouraging a cumulative negative impact
on the shoreline. Additional structures, like the one proposed could only
18 exacerbate the adverse impact on the threatened Hood Canal summer
Chum and alter the character of the immediate vicinity.
19
Gennotti,p.10-11. The Board further concluded that:
20
21 [W]e are not persuaded that accommodating [the applicants] desire for
greater convenience outweighs the public interest in protecting this
22 shoreline of statewide significance as fully as possible. `The Legislature
contemplates the protection of private property rights only if extraordinary
23 circumstances are shown and the public interest suffers no substantial
detrimental effect.' Lund [v. Department of Ecology, 93 Wn.App. 327,
24 969 P.2d 1072(1998)]at 337,citing RCW 90.58.100(5).
25 Gennotti,P. 10.
)ASB613135.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Fladseth/Sebastian P. 10 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
I Similarly, the Examiner is not persuaded that the applicants' desires outweigh the
2 public interest in an area that is currently largely devoid of any overwater structures.
3 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
4 19. The Examiner is aware that the shoreline is not pristine and contains
several bulkheads. Nonetheless,PRF structures do not preserve the natural character
5 of the shoreline,especially on the North Shore where PRF's are rare. As mentioned
6 previously,the proposal will affect the natural views of the shoreline both singularly
and cumulatively.
7
8 RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
20. The proposal meets the special needs of the current property owner. The
9 proposal will have long-term, probably permanent, view impacts with no public
10 benefit. For these reasons,the proposal is inconsistent with RCW 90.58.020(3).
11 RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
12 21. The PRF is designed to protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline,
but the cumulative impacts of setting a precedent for PRF construction on the North
13 Shore have not been addressed.
14
RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the
15 shorelines.
16 22. The proposed PRF will not increase nor will it decrease public access to
17 shorelines.
18 RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the
shoreline.
19
23. The proposed project does not increase recreational opportunities for the
20 public. Recreational opportunities for beach walkers, swimmers, kayakers and other
21 recreational boaters may be hindered by the proposed PRF at times depending on the
tide.
22
RCW 90.58.020(7): Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 9a58.100
23 deemed appropriate or necessary.
24 24. No apparent conflict seen.
25
)AS 8613135.1)M I/13009.9000M)
Fladseth/Sebastian P. 11 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
DECISION
1
2 The Examiner denies the requested shoreline substantial development application.
3 Dated this3�day August,2005.
4
5 Phil Olbrechts
6 Mason County Hearing Examiner
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
{ASa613135.D0C;1/13 009.900000/
Fladseth/Sebastian p. 12 Findings,Conclusions and Decision
1 i his n0tne Of M
NLJ
consPICIJOLISly displayed at the site of work,
United States Army Corps of Engineers
ACID I v 2J05
A permit to INSTALL JOINT USE PIER.RAMP,TWO FLOATS,ONE STEEL PM AND 12 PILES OF
ACZA Tfl BER PUM TO PROVIDE JOINT USE RECREATIONAL ACCESS IN HOOD CANAL.
near BELFAnL MASON COUNTY.WASH[NGTON
has been issued to MR.LORRENAm Ms.JEANNIEFLADSETH
AND MR.RAYMOND AND MS BARBARA SEBASTAIN on AUC 10 2005
Address of Permittee 10248217 AVENUE SOME WEST.SEATTLE.WASHINGTON 98146
AND 5066 TURKEY TRACK ROAD.PLACERVILLEAND 5066 TURKEY TRACK ROAD. C��95667
Permit Number
200401431
DEBRA
COLONEL, G]NEERS
DISTRICT COMMANDER
ENG FORM 4336.Jul Bt (ER 11452-M) E XnON OF JUL 70 MAYBE USED (PAW-vt DAEN-C )
I I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
- P.O.BOX TOSS
SEATTLE,WASHINGTON 98124.3755
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF AUG 10 2005
Regulatory Branch ,�
RECEI, V ��:
f�}t:
Mr.and Mrs.Lorren and Jeannie Fladseth 426
10248 2151 Ave SW
Seattle,Washington 98146
and
Mr.and Mrs.Raymond and Barbara Sebastian
5066 Turkey Track Road
Placerville,CA 95667
Reference: 200401431
Fladseth and Sebastian
Dear Mr.And Mrs.Fladseth and Sebastian:
The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,(Corps)regulatory program provides for the
authorization of certain work that is minor in nature,would not have significant individual or
cumulative impacts on the environment,and should encounter no appreciable opposition by a
type of permit known as a"Letter of Permission"(LOP). After reviewing your application for
Department of the Army authorization to install pier,ramp,two floats and 13 piles,we have
determined that the proposed work meets these requirements and is authorized by this LOP. The
proposed work would occur in Hood Canal near Belfair,Washington. The purpose of the
proposed project is to provide joint use recreational access. We have assigned your permit
Reference Number 200401431. Please include this reference number in all future
correspondence with us concerning this permit.
Your authorization to conduct the proposed work under this LOP is contingent upon you
conducting the work as shown in the enclosed drawings dated May 12,2005,which are made
part of this permit;in compliance with the enclosed Letter of Permission General Conditions;
and the following special conditions:
a. You must implement and abide by the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in
the`Biological Evaluation Fladseth and Sebastian Joint-Use Pier,Ramp,and Float Project",
dated January 10,2005,and the addendum dated February 15,2005,in their entirety. The
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)concurred with a finding of"may affect,not likely to
adversely affect"based on this document on June 3,2005(USFWS Reference Numb 1-3-05-I-
0312). The National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFS)concurred with a finding of"may affect,
not likely to adversely affect"based on this document on July 12,2005(NMFS Reference
Number 2004/00402). Both agencies will be informed of this permit issuance. Failure to comply
-2-
with the commitments made in this document constitutes non-compliance with the ESA and your
Corps permit. The USFWS/NNIFS is the appropriate authority to determine compliance with
ESA.
b. In order to protect Chinook salmon,bull trout,Hood Canal summer chum and forage fish,
the permittee may conduct the authorized activities from July 16 through September 14 in any
year this permit is valid. The permittee shall not conduct work authorized by this permit from
September 15 through July 15 in any year this permit is valid.
c.A copy of this permit,permit drawings,mitigation planting plan,final authorization letter,
and joint-use agreement shall be recorded with the Registrar of Deeds and proof provided to the
Corps,within 60 days after final Corps authorization,to ensure that subsequent property owners
are aware of the construction,use,and mitigation requirements. As this authorization is for a
joint-use pier,all co-applicants must voluntarily agree to build no additional overwater structures
on their property,except for the maintenance or modification of the joint-use overwater structure.
This voluntary agreement and the documentation described above must be recorded on the deeds
of all involved properties.
d. You must provide a copy of the permit transmittal letter,the permit form,and drawings to
all contractors performing any of the authorized work.
e. The permittee understands and agrees that,if future operations by the United States
require the removal,relocation,or other alteration,of the structure or work herein authorized,or
if,in the opinion of the Secret of the Arm or his authorized representative,said structure or
> P Secretary Y eP
work shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters,the
permittee will be required,upon due notice from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,to remove,
relocate,or alter the structural work or obstructions caused thereby,without expense to the
United States. No claim shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal
or alteration.
Please be reminded that Special Condition"a"of your permit requires that you implement
and abide by the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the Biological Evaluation for
this project. In particular,note that the BE requires that you:to record and implement joint use
agreement,implement the shoreline planting plan,monitor and submit monitoring reports on the
planted area to the Corps and Services annually for a period of 5 years,and record the location
and description of the planting area on your deed. Failure to comply with the commitments made
in the BE constitutes non-compliance with the ESA and your Corps permit.
Your authorization to conduct the proposed work under this permit expires AUG 10 M
Please remember that failure to comply with the terms and conditions of this LOP,including any
special conditions,invalidates your authorization and could result in a violation of Federal law.
-3-
Any change in the plans for this work will require that you submit revised drawings to this office
and receive our written approval of those changes prior to conducting the work.
Upon completing the authorized work,you must fill out and return the enclosed
Certificate of Compliance with Department of the Army Permit form to the address indicated on
the form. Your signature on this form is our assurance you have conducted the work and any
required mitigation in accordance with the terms and conditions of this LOP,including all special
conditions.
We have reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). After consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service,we have determined that this project will meet the requirements of the ESA
provided you comply with special conditions"a"through"b"listed above. We have also
reviewed your project pursuant to the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act,as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996,and
determined that the proposed action will not adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat for federally
managed fisheries in Washington.
Under the provisions of the Corps'Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process,you
have the right to appeal this permit decision in accordance with the enclosed
Notification of Administrative Appeal Options and Process and Request For Appeal. If we have
not received an objection from you within 60 days of the date of this letter,or if you conduct the
authorized work,we will presume that you have accepted,and will comply with,all terms and
conditions of this LOP.
While this project will not require further authorization from us,please note that it must
comply with all State,local,and other Federal requirements that may apply. For example,you
may need to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from Mason County and/or a
Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. You should
also contact the Washington State Department of Natural Resources before starting work for a
determination of leasing requirements for work over submerged lands. For further information,
we recommend you contact the Washington Department of Ecology's Permit Assistance Center
at(800)917-0043 or,on the Internet,at http://www.ecy.wa..eovlproerams/sea/pac/.
Thank you for your cooperation during the permit process. Your efforts help us protect our
nation's aquatic resources. Please remember to fill out and return the compliance certification
form within 30 days of completing the authorized work. We are interested in your thoughts and
opinions concerning your experience with the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Seattle District's
Regulatory Program. Please complete a Customer Service Survey form. The form is available
on our website at:http://per2.nwp.usace.anny.mil/survey.html. At your request,we will mail you
a paper copy that you may complete and return to us by mail or fax.
-4-
A copy of this letter with enclosures is being furnished to Ms Amy Leitman,
521 Snagstead Way,Port Townsend,Washington 98368. If you have any questions about this
letter or our regulatory program,please contact Olivia Romano at telephone(206)764-6960 or
e-mail Olivia.H.Romano@mace.anny.mil.
BY AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
Debra M.Le 's
Colonel,Corps Enginee
District Engineer
Enclosures
� I
cc: USFWS ECOLOGY DNR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
123°01.000' W W1G684 123000.000' W
4.
24
0
Fladseth
Pi a
,,
>• :; � App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
in:Hood Canal near Belfair �t
•_+ +a :t Parpow.-Recreational use of pier ramp and
float.
Pltldaet4/sebastia0PMjeceLoagou: --------_____..___._..._.._._. - Dawn:ACLW
Adjapept Prpperty 4wmn:
` Sectiat W,Township 22N,Range 03W 1)Allen&Gana Blade �•
10731/10743 North Shore Rd Bollidr,WA 2)Heleae Kmdm 1r I AL
.;.;
47�2.77'LAW 123000.79' ,,:s"�" sheet 1 of 4 Date:C+ctober-2T,
123001.000' W WGS84 123000.000' W
TN I1IIN 0 1/2 1 MILE
�•
18`l=o --NW FEET 0 500 1000 m
aD0 a(01431 0 10' 21
App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
In:Hood Canal near Belfair
Purpose:Recreational use of pier ramp and
float.
Datum:MLLW
..�Adjacent Property Owners: NORTH SHORE ROAD
1)Allen&Getia Black
2)Helene Krasko ET AL
Sheet 2 of 4 Date:October 27,2004
All dimensions are approximate
0
1
j
1 g 13' SEBA5TIAN
+ \/ l
FLADSETH
as
4 _
Bulkhead ' i
15' Wood deck LARGE EXISTING FIR
Stairs to beach SEE PHOTOGRAPHS IN
PIORtIng K" It should be noted that in THE BE
Bulkhead addition to the 3 oceanspray TN
5t' shrubs and shorepine along the MN
! bulkhead,there are the
®vaclno dogwood + following included in the
Proposed pier, planting plan:
qW.PW. ram and float 2 ocean and I
O o«wny PL p Pacific dogswo&ood on the HOOD CANAL
west side of the Flodseth
residence
2 vine maple and 1 shorepine
1 500'to pier,ramp and float between the Flodseth and
Sebastian residences
3 vine maple and 1 dogwood
on the northern edge of the
+ PL Sebastian property
5', AS TO BEAtTEEAEL
BASTIA, . LAWN
BULKHEAD
IRS TO L
FLAD5ETH WOOD DEACH
BULKHEAD PILING
Corrected ACZA PILING
depth (one of 12)
-4.6'
50%OF PIER
GRATED
6'
65' c�D 01 `f 9
115' App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
In:Hood Canal near Belfair
Purpose:Recreational use of pier ramp and
float.
Datum:MLLW
Adjacent Property Owners:
10' 1)Allen&Gena Black
2)Helene Krasko ET AL t/
Sheet 3 of 4 Date:October 0004 t
Ramp will
be fuily
grated
TN MN
34 4 P
FLADSETH/SEBASTIAN
HOOD CANAL REVISED PLAN VIEW
MAY 12,2005
6'WIDE FLOAT
2'WIDE&RATING
B 4'WIDE&RATING
y
40' -
G by 65 pier FLAOSETH
WOOD DECK
4'by 40'romp
MHHw Fully grated
12.r
—_
AAF�v IAW
ACZA PILING SINGLE
tq (One of 12) STEEL PILING
T.20
o Y f bats Mu.w____ Corrected depth
«4.6' 10'
SERASTUN
Float stops LAWN
on the small float
FLADSETH / SEBASTIAN PROJECT a2 Bp q o 1 4 3/
Revised elevation view App:Marine Surveys&Assessments
Revised May 12,M In:Hood Canal near Belfair
Purpose:Recreational use of pier ramp and
float.
Datum:MLLW
Adjacent Property Owners:
1)Allen&Gena Black ,/� �
2)Helene Krasko ET AL /!{,Yj dril✓/,
Sheet 4 of 4 Date:October 27,2004
Charles McCoy III Re:Request for a continuance fro case#SHR2004 00027(Fladseth&Sebastian) Page 2 I
Port Townsend,WA 98360
Phone:360 385-4073
Fax: 360 385-1724
Cell: 360 301-0262
Email:sea@cablespeed.com
-----Original Message----
From:"Charles McCoy III'<ChuckM@co.mason.wa.us>
To:<sea@cablespeed.com>
Cc:"Susie Ellingson"<Sme.mail.Mason@co.mason.wa.us>;
<polbrechts@omwlaw.com>
Sent:Thursday,June 09,2005 3:22 PM
Subject:Request for a continuance fro case#SHR2004-00027(Fladseth
&Sebastian)
Dear Mr.Olbrechts:
Amy Leitman,Agent for the Applicants,has requested a continuance on the
hearing date scheduled for 14 June 2005 before the Hearing Examiner for
case#SHR2004-00027 as of today 9 June 2005.
The completed application for this case was received and logger on 28
January 2005. It is becoming a case that has been on the docket for a
substantial amount of time.
It is in my opinion unnecessary to continue the hearing date scheduled
above,a second time,without adequate do cause. I was informed by Susie
Ellingston,Planning Department Administrative Professional,that Ms.
Leitman made the request to better prepare and do research for the case. It
is my opinion that adequate time has been allowed for preparation for this
case.
Respectfully,
Charles Mead McCoy III
Planner
Mason County
CC: "Susie Ellingson"<Sme.mail.Mason@co.mason.wa.us>,"Charles McCoy III'
<ChuckM@co.mason.wa.us>,"Ray&Barb Sebastian"<basebastian@gscdc.com>
I�
Charles McCoy III Re:Request for a continuance fro case#SHR2004 00027(Fladseth&Sebastian) Page 1
From: "Amy Leitman"<sea@cablespeed.com>
To: <polbrechts@omwlaw.com>
Date: 6/9/2005 4:34:11 PM
Subject: Re:Request for a continuance fro case#SHR2004-00027(Fladseth&Sebastian)
Hello Mr.Olbrechts,
I was astounded to read the below email message and hear about the
continuance being unnecessary.Yes the case has been on file for a long time
however,the first and only request up until this day for an extension was
made by Charles Mead McCoy III,planner,Mason Co.We did not fuss over this
request,as we recognized that if he needed time to review this case in more
detail,his first dock project review for Mason Co.,we were fine with his
need to understand all of the pertinent information.I discussed this case
with him and offered him the titles of the many citations that we use in our
review of the biological impacts of a dock project within Puget Sound.Being
that there is a large amount of literature on the subject,a continuance
seemed appropriate.My help was offered.
The proponents and myself have just received a copy of the staff report at
the beginning of this week(June 6,2005),a mere 3 days ago.After
reviewing the report,we recognized that with all of staffs concerns(many
more than I had originally been made aware of through conversations with
Charles Mead McCoy III),a lawyer might be necessary to help address those
concerns that fall outside of the purview of biology.1 am completely
prepared for representing the clients in terms of biology,however,I am not
a land-use attorney,nor profess to be an adequate representative in a
controversial case in terms of aesthetics and view impacts within Mason
County.As you know from the previous Robert Evans case on Northshore Road
where Mr.Dennis Kenney represented the opposition to a dock on the
Northshore(as he has done for this case on paper),a lawyer representing
the proponents interpretation of pier and dock use regulations may have been
a much more just situation.In this case,my clients after reviewing the new
staff report,have realized that it might be in their best interest to hire
representation on land-use issues in addition to my biological expertise.
Why Mr.McCoy did not mention his disapproval about this continuance request
when I spoke with him today,I do not know.If indeed this case is in danger
of being dropped because of our continuance request,we will without
question attend our hearing date on June 14,2005.1 do not know the
ramifications of having Charles Mead McCoy III's feelings about our first
continuance request accepted.If you too feel that our first request of a
continuance after receiving a copy of the staff report three days ago is
unnecessary,please let me know so that I can be sure to inform my clients
about the hearing this coming Tuesday.I wonder what the impact to Mason Co.
is by asking for our first extension of a shoreline hearing?After dozens of
project representations in Mason Co.,this is my first request,I hope that
you can accept that this is not my common practice,but a first time request
that I feel is necessary to allow my clients the ability to attain
reasonable and appropriate representation.
Respectfully,
Amy R.Leitman
Marine Surveys&Assessments
521 Snagstead Way
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360)275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.� 411 N 5th Elma (360)482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Dennis Kenny 5�3r/oS
Vice President
Northshore Neighbors for an Uncluttered Shoreline
426 Yale Avenue N.
Seattle, WA 98584
As per your request I am contacting your organization to inform them that a
hearing will be conducted on 14 June 2005, Tuesday in the Commissioners'
Chambers,Courthouse Building I,411 N. 51h Street,Shelton, Washington
concerning the Substantial Development Permit/Shoreline Management
Permit application submitted for approval for a joint pier, ramp and float on
the northshore of Hood Canal. The joint applicants are Fladseth and
Sebastian(SHR2004-00027).
You are welcome to participate in the Hearing Examiner process and give
oral testimony, in addition to your written comments that will be submitted
as attachments to my Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner.
My submitted Staff Report will be recommending denial of the application on
the premise that the cumulative impact to esthetics along the northshore of
Hood Canal,a "water of statewide significance", under Mason County's
Shoreline Master Plan and Washington State's Shorelines Management Act
of 1971 has and or will be adversely affect the natural beauty of Hood Canal
by the incremental encroachment of individual and joint pier, ramp and float
structures over time.
Respectfully;
Charles McCoy III
Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
Tel: 360/427.9670 ext: 294
Email: chuckm@co.mason.wa.us
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670 E,cr
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360)275-4467 2-Itq
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360)482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Dear Ms.Gennotti:
I am writing to inform you that the hearing date for the Sebastian&Fladseth joint pier,
ramp and float shoreline permit request will be conducted on May 10,2005 at 1PM in
Building 1 Commissioners Chambers.
The proposal is to place the structure on the property line between the two joint-
applicants properties.
Sincerely,
Charles Mead McCoy III
Planner
Mason County
because of their ability to be replaced and maintained in there current non-conforming
state. These structures would not be permitted today because of their non-compliant,
structural design flaws. The Port of Allyn maintains a Public Boat Ramp and Marina at
milepost 4.6 on the North Shore Road,approximately 6.1 miles NE from the proposed
project site(Attachment 3).
Characteristics of the site. The site contains two single-family residences. Several other
residences exist east and west of the proposed pier,ramp and float location. Mooring ball
buoys could be anchored offshore of both residences,and in combination with two
individual,unattached,recreational,floats of not to exceed 400 square feet each(Mason
County Shoreline Master Program,Chapter 7.16.170).
Comprehensive Plan Desijznation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation
for the site is Rural.
Shoreline Master Program Designation. The Shoreline Master Program designation for
the site is Urban.
Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5(RR-5).
SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements. The proposal was reviewed
under SEPA,SEP2004-00103(Attachment 4). Please find attached posted and circulated
for agency review Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance(Attachment 5). Please
find attached Joint Aquatic Resources Permit application form(Attachment 6). Please
find attached Affidavit of Publication of Notice of Shoreline Development Permit
(Attachment 7). Please find Attached Shoreline Permit application(SHR2004-00027)
(Attachment 8). Comments were received from Washington Department of Ecology
(Attachment 9)and would be incorporated into the conditions required for Building
Permit approval. No other comments were received from other agencies. Three letters
were received from the public in opposition to the proposed project(Attachments 10, 11
and 12).
Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit. A
Hydraulic Project Approval was issued from Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife(WDFW)(Attachment 13).Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality
Protection Concurrence,and US Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE)NWP approvals are
also necessary.A Mason Environmental Permit was also required with Staff review
(MEP2004-00091)(Attachment 14).
Analysis. Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(SMP),this proposal
requires a Shoreline Substantial Development permit due to the cost exceeding$5,000
per Section 7.13.010 and by reference to the Project Classifications matrix,Chapter 7.16.
The proposal is for a pier on an Urban-designated shoreline.
Piers and Docks Policies are:
1.Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of views and
conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
Impacts will result from the emplacement of thisibintpier,ramp and float(PRF). This
particular shoreline along the north shore has so few existing residential PRFs in the
immediate area as to cause substantial impact to the view-aesthetics along this shoreline
of Statewide Significance. An additional impact to access to views along the north shore
is the potential loss of beach-walking activity by local residences desiring to enjoy the
aesthetics of Hood Canal as a result of over-water structure build-out. The Hearing
Examiner has previously rule)in a similar case regarding aesthetics along the north
shore with Evans(SHR2004-00006),in which the Hearing Examiner denied the permit
primarily of the basis of aesthetic criteria(Attachment 15).
In a different case that went before the Shorelines Hearing Board State of Washington
(SHB No.99-011)reversed the County of its granting of a Substantial Development
Permit for 91illiam and Paula Shearer(SHR99-00004)for a 45 foot pier,ramp and float
along the Hood Canal at approximately 6 miles from the City of Belfair on the North
Shore Road. The Board based its Decision primarily on impacts to obstruction of views
and causing conflicts with recreational uses,as well as,adverse impacts on fish,
shel ph,wildlife and water quality.In addition the Board found "that approval of the
proposed pier-dock and float would pave the way for similar projects in the area, thus
encouraging a cumulative negative impact on the shoreline. Additional structures,like
the one proposed could only exacerbate the adverse impact on threatened Hood canal
summer Chum and alter the character of the immediate vicinity."(Attachment 20).
The City of Bainbridge Island and the State of Washington Department of Ecology
recently had a decision before the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings
Board,State of Washington(Case No.04-3-0013)in which the Synopsis stated that the
City assessed cumulative impacts due to 'projected dock build-out"in Blakely Harbor
on "navigation,scenic views,aquatic resources and recreational use,and by and
extensive record." It also stated that the Board found"the Petitioners failed to meet
their burden of demonstrating that the City's action was clearly erroneous."And "The
Board found that Petitioners failed to present "clear and convincing evidence of error"
in Ecology's approval of the amendment."(Attachment 21).
2.Cooperative uses of piers and docks are favored,especially in tidal waters.
The Applicants have submitted a request for a joint pier,ramp and float.
3. The type,design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with the
shoreline characteristics,tidal actions,aesthetics,adjacent land and water uses.
The compatibility of the shoreline location criterion has not been met,as described above
in Section Y,Evaluations:Characteristics o the area. The private residential pier,ramp
and floats(PRF)in the vicinity are non-conforming in nature and would not be permitted
today under current structural design criteria. Photographs were taken of these non-
conforming structures that are at a significant distance from the proposed project area
(Attachment 2). As stated earlier in the Report the pre-dominate use in the immediate
vicinity of the project area is of mooring buoys and anchored floats.
4. Priority should be given to the use of community piers and docks in all new waterfront
subdivisions. In general,encouragement should be given to the cooperative use of piers
and docks.
A public boat ramp and marina facility exists,and is operated by the Port of Allyn at a
distance of approximately 6.1 miles NE along the North Shore Road from the proposed
project area.
5.Mooring buoys and floats are preferred over piers and docks.
As stated earlier the prevailing use in the immediate vicinity,and in general along the
north shore of Hood Canal by private residents is to have mooring buoys and floats in the
waters offshore of their properties.
6. Joint use stairways are preferred over individual stairways.
As design in the Biological Evaluation submitted the joint pier, ramp and float will have
separate access capability from both adjoining property owners(i.e. the Applicants).
7. Boathouses and covered moorages shall be discouraged.
Not applicable.
Applicable Piers and Docks Use Regulations are:
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.
As detailed in the Biological Evaluation,the shoreline environmental impacts of this
structure are minimal. The float and ramp additions have been configured to pose little
or no threat to natural resources. Staff cites the biological evaluation as informative in
this aspect. However, it is Staffs professional biological opinion to "Do No Further
Harm"ecologically as stated in Marine Riparian:An Assessment of Riparian Functions
in Marine Ecosystems, by James S.Brennan and Hilary Culverwell, Washington State
Sea Grant Program. They advocate in the final Recommendations section the need for
greater scientific certainty before continuing further to develop shorelines;in particular
they state in a list of data needs# "9. Determine the cumulative impacts of shoreline
armoring and other shoreline development and land use practices on marine riparian
vegetation and marine riparian vegetation functions."
In addition,as cited in Ovrwater Structures:Marine Issues. by Barbara Nightingale and
Charles Simenstad, University of Washington, in the sub-section titled:Ovrwater
Structure E ects they state that "The impacts of altered light environments upon juvenile
salmonid physiology and behavior are well documented(Ali 195(9], 1962;Browman et
al. 1993;Coughlin and Hawryshyn 1993;Dera and Gordon 1968;Fields and Finger
1954;Hawryshyn and Harosi 1993;Nemeth 1989;Novales-Flamique and Hawryshyn
1996;Puckett and Anderson 1987)."and "Changes to ambient underwater light
environments pose a risk of altering fish migration behavior and increasing mortality
risks."
Recently received from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,Habitat Program,
Environmental Services Division, Titled:DRAFT Washington Department of Fish&
Wildlife Priority Habitat and Species Management Recommendations Forage Fish
Spawning Habitats(Penttila,2005)addresses some of the concerns of"Overwater
Structures"on page 10 of the document,stating "Herring spawning habitat,however,
may be significantly impacted by shading from overwater structures,grounding of floats,
and accumulation ofshell fragments that fall from the structure(Burkle pers. Comm).
Studies have shown that there are no species of marine macro-vegetation that can
tolerate the footprint of a typical overhead dock or pier, including plant species used by
spawning herring(WDFW unpub.Data). Introduction of these fixed overwater
structures invariably results in a die-off of vegetation directly beneath and may also show
negative impacts on either side."(Attachment 19).
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. Structures shall be located a minimum of five feet from side property lines.
Community use or joint use facilities may be located on the property line.
Per the site plan the structure will be placed on the shared property line of the adjoining
applicants'. One letter was received from an adjacent property owner opposing the
project and stating "We object to the issuance of this permit"and "Please help us
maintain the natural beauty of our shoreline."(Attachment 10).
4. No pier,dock,or float or similar device shall have a residential structure constructed
upon it.
None proposed.
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 saltwater or a depth of five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes.
The length of any pier or dock facility shall do exceed the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch
or 100 feet of OHWM on saltwater and 50 feet on fresh water shorelines. Joint or
community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in length,and shall not exceed a
depth of minus five(-5)feet. When sufficient depth to serve a vessel is not found at
these depths,a recreational float,with one boat slip,may be located at a depth sufficient
to serve the vessel,but not exceeding minus eight(-8)feet as measured from mean lower
low water,on marine shores,and ordinary low water on lake shores.
The pier,ramp and float(PRF)as proposed at a total length of 115', which is the
maximum allowed length for a pier,perhaps does not meet the criteria based upon the
argument that the actual OHWM is 16 feet farther toward the shore than has been
contemplated by the Biological Evaluation(Attachment 16). The comments submitted
by Kim van Zwalenburg, Shorelines Specialist with Washington Department of Ecology,
indicate that an issue may exist surrounding the placement of the PRF on the property
line "In addition, it would appear that the portion of the dock located on the Sebastian
property exceeds the 115 foot length from the Ordinary High Water Mark."(Attachment
9). The terminus of the pier(afloat)is above the 0.0'of mean lower low water.
9.The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
The maximum proposed width of the two attached floats is eight feet.
10. At the end of a dock or pier,a float may be attached. These floats may either be
parallel to the dock or pier,or form a"T"or"L". IN tidal water,the float shall not
exceed 600 gross square feet with a boat slip.
The float surface area is 480 square feet.
13. 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.
Pier height is 2'above mean higher high water. The span between pilings appears to be
14 feet and well in excess of the minimum of 8 feet as required.
14.The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the
surface of the water.
As configured.
15.All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off the
tidelands at low tide.
As configured.
Applicable guidelines for Shorelines of Statewide Significance in the following order of
Preference are:
#1: Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
As stated in the comments submitted by Kim Van Zwalenburg, Washington Department of
Ecology "I have concerns about this proposal in an area with few docks. Hood Canal is
a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and the proliferation of docks is an issue on this
water body." Staff notes that the cumulative impact of piers and docks is an issue that
has received limited consideration in permit review. The north shore of Hood Canal has
not seen the magnitude of proliferation of individual/joint residential piers and docks that
has become commonplace along the south shore. As noted in previous staff reports to the
Hearing Examiner,the south shore has been significantly altered by the high-density of
piers and docks along its shoreline. The question posed is whether we want to establish
the incremental increase of these types of overwater structures that will almost certainly
progress toward another zone of high-density of piers and docks along the north shore
like that of the already significantly altered south shore.
#2: Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
Pier,ramp and float structures do not preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
#3: Result in long term over short term benefit;
The long term benefits of a more natural appearing shoreline is supported by the three
letters of opposition to the proposal, that stated their desire for an uncluttered shoreline
along the north shore of Hood Canal. It is Staffs opinion that the comments received
from Washington Department of Ecology also contents that there is a long term issue of
cumulative impact of on a water such as the Hood Canal from the proliferation of docks
along its shoreline(Attachment 9).
#4: Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
The ecological concerns were previously stated in Applicable Pier and Dock Use
Regulations(1), with particular emphasis given to juvenile salmonid behavioral
alterations and survival. As an addition to the earlier argument with regard to juvenile
salmonid survival or mortality,I have attached a representational flow diagram that
illustrates the interconnectedness of alteration in ambient light intensity caused by
"Dock,Pier and Float Impacts"(Nightingale and Simenstad 2001)(Attachment 18).
#5: Increase recreational opportunity for the public in the shoreline;
Private, residential,piers and docks do not generally complement the general public
recreational interests. The interference with access to residences of the area to beach-
walking and to recreational sportfishers is a concern.
#6: Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or
necessary.
No apparent conflict foreseen.
Conclusions:Based upon these policies and regulations,the project appears to be
inconsistent with most of the Shoreline Master Program Policies,Use Regulations and
Shorelines of Statewide Significance Preferences regarding piers and docks.Staff
recommends denial.
Choices of Action.
1. Approval.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
5. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360)275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg,1 411 N.51h Elma (360)482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Joseph Farmer
10651 NE Northshore Road
PO Box 2122
Belfair, WA 98528
As per your request I am contacting you to inform you that a hearing will be
conducted on 14 June 2005, Tuesday in the Commissioners' Chambers,
Courthouse Building I,411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, Washington concerning the
Substantial Development Permit/Shoreline Management Permit application
submitted for approval for a joint pier, ramp and float on the northshore of
Hood Canal. The joint applicants are Fladseth and Sebastian(SHR2004-
00027).
You are welcome to participate in the Hearing Examiner process and give
oral testimony, in addition to your written comments that will be submitted
as attachments to my Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner.
My submitted Staff Report will be recommending denial of the application on
the premise that the cumulative impact to esthetics along the northshore of
Hood Canal,a "water of statewide significance", under Mason County's
Shoreline Master Plan and Washington State's Shorelines Management Act
of 1971 has and or will be adversely off ect the natural beauty of Hood Canal
by the incremental encroachment of individual and joint pier, ramp and float
structures over time.
Respectfully;
Charles d Mc�����
Coy III
Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
Tel: 360/427.9670 ext: 294
Email: chuckm@co.mason.wa.us
MASON COUNTY Shelton (360)427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360)275-4467
Planning Elma (360)482-5269
Mason County Bldg.I 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
Doris Gennotti U S
6311 NE Northshore Road
Belfair, WA 98528
As per your request I am contacting you to inform you that a hearing will be
conducted on 14 June 2005, Tuesday in the Commissioners' Chambers,
Courthouse Building I,411 N. 51h Street, Shelton, Washington concerning the
Substantial Development Permit/Shoreline Management Permit application
submitted for approval for a joint pier, ramp and float on the northshore of
Hood Canal. The joint applicants are Fladseth and Sebastian (5HR2004-
00027).
You are welcome to participate in the Hearing Examiner process and give
oral testimony, in addition to your written comments that will be submitted
as attachments to my Staff Report to the Hearing Examiner.
My submitted Staff Report will be recommending denial of the application on
the premise that the cumulative impact to esthetics along the northshore of
Hood Canal,a "water of statewide significance", under Mason County's
Shoreline Master Plan and Washington State's Shorelines Management Act
of 1971 has and or will be adversely affect the natural beauty of Hood Canal
by the incremental encroachment of individual and joint pier, ramp and float
structures over time.
Respectfully;
Charle Me McCoy III
Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
Tel: 360/427.9670 ext: 294
Email: chuckm@co.mason.wa.us