HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2006-00033 Hearing - VAR Application - 3/20/2007 Pg0N cosy MASON COUNTY
�. rp Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1d54
March 20th, 2007
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2006-00033, a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance.
Applicant: John Laramie
John Laramie who is the applicant for the above-referenced action, has been granted the
variance.
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal
may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations
apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal
process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Rebecca
Hersha, Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x593.
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
y Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
3
RE: John Laramie
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
(MCC 7.01.150)
6
VAR 2006-00033
7
INTRODUCTION
8
9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in
order to build a 1,200 square foot (footprint) single-family residence and 450 square
10 feet of access road within a Type 3 stream buffer, which requires a 150 foot buffer in
addition to a 15 foot building setback. The buffer and setback would render the
1 I parcel unbuildable. The proposed residence would be constructed at least 78 feet
from Cranberry Creek. The Hearing Examiner approves the project subject to the
12 conditions recommended by staff.
13
ORAL TESTIMONY
14
Rebecca Hersha entered the Staff Report and exhibits. She and the applicant, John
15 Laramie, answered questions posed by the Hearing Examiner. See Transcript.
16 EXHIBITS
17
See exhibit list attached to the February 27, 2007 revised Staff Report.
18
FINDINGS OF FACT
19
20 Procedural:
21 1. Applicant. The applicant is John Laramie.
22 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
23 on February 27, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
chambers, Building I.
24
Substantive:
25
3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a 1,200 square
foot(footprint) single-family residence ("SFR") within a Type F stream buffer- a fish
bearing stream. The site, which is currently vacant, is less than an acre. A mobile
{PA0655100.DOC;1/13009.900000/90000}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
home existed onsite several years ago on the north side of the stream, but it is now
1 open area. The stream runs through the southern portion of the parcel flowing
2 westward. The parcel is roughly rectangular in shape, oriented northwest to
southeast. It is accessed by E Peebles Court to the north and is bordered to the west,
3 east, and south by single-family residential lots of similar size and shape. Vegetation
throughout the majority of the northern portion of the parcel is comprised of
4 herbaceous and shrub species. Vegetation south of the stream has been left well in
tact and contains an overstory of primarily Douglas fir with an understory comprised
5 of salal and sword fern. Topography within the lot is generally flat, with a low
6 gradient slope toward the stream. According to the Staff Report, the slopes are less
than 15% and do not warrant a geological study prior to development. The applicant
7 seeks to build a SFR, with attached garage and 450 square foot access road, within 78
feet of the stream. This distance allows the development to meet the Lake Limerick
8 Community's 30 foot setback requirement. A drainfield is proposed west of the SFR.
9 4. Characteristics of the Area. The property is within the Lake Limerick
10 subdivision. The subject stream runs southwesterly through several small lots in the
subdivision before it joins Cranberry Creek. Cranberry Creeks flows several miles
11 from Lake Limerick to Oakland Bay.
12 5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in the
Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). The HMP also recommends mitigation
13 measures for the same, which, combined with additional conditions recommended by
14 staff, should mitigate significant adverse impacts to the environment. Both the SFR,
access road and drainfield sites were selected to maximize their distance from the
15 Creek and still comply with setback requirements.
16 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17 Procedural:
18
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing
19 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
20
Substantive:
21
2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County
22 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
Residential 5.
23
24 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt
from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). As noted on page 2 of
25 the revised Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by
mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW and the Squaxin Tribe. A 28 day waiting
period followed, and no comments were received.
(PA0655100.DOC;1/13009.900000/90000)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the
1 150 foot buffer and 15 foot building setback from the ordinary high water mark
2 required for a Type 3 stream. The buffer requirement is imposed through MCC
17.01.110(13)(1). MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC
3 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance variances. Variance application from
Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC
4 15.09.050(C) requires compliance with review criteria for all Type III permit
applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the
5 general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable
6 Conclusions of Law.
7 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
8 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
9 5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of
10 residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to
accommodate them. Without the variance, there would be no buildable space for the
I I proposed SFR. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance denies the property owner a
reasonable use of his property.
12
MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
13 variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of
14 unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features in the
application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
15 the applicant's own action.
16 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the Type 3 stream and
its buffer, which encumbers the entire subject lot. Hardship as a result of the
17 Association's covenant requirements have been addressed above, and is not being
18 considered by the Hearing Examiner in conditionally approving instant variance.
19 MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
20 properties or the environment.
21 7. The proposed footprint of the proposed SFR is smaller than those in the
22 vicinity. Given the relatively small size of the proposed home, it is anticipated that
the instant development will be compatible with permitted uses in the area.
23 According to the HMP, the proposal would require the removal of invasive species of
vegetation only. With mitigation measures (including native planting and monitoring
24 of a 4,500 square foot mitigation zone), as recommended in the Staff Report and
25 conditioned herein as if set forth in full by this reference, which includes a 4,500
square foot mitigation zone, the project should not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the environment.
{PA0655100.130C;1/13009.900000/90000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
1 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
3 8. SFRs are allowed in the Rural Residential 5 zoning district and as noted in
the Staff Report, the proposed residence is smaller that those already in the area.
4 Consequently, the proposed variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege.
However, the proposed variance is not the minimum necessary to afford relief since
5 the home can be placed further from the stream. The proposed plan includes a 30
6 foot front yard setback as set forth in Lake Limerick's Community Association
covenant. The Association's covenant requirements cannot be the basis for the
7 Hearing Examiner to allow a variance in the instant case. In contrast, front yard
setback requirement under the County codes is 25 feet. As recommended in the Staff
8 Report, the applicant shall apply for a setback reduction of 5 feet from the County as
condition of approval. If approved, he shall submit plans reflecting a 20 foot front
yard setback. If denied, he shall submit plans reflecting a 25 foot front yard setback.
10 No further variance review will be necessary for any of these modifications.
11 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
12 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and state of the stream, as well as
in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property. As mitigated in the
13 HMP and by staff in the recommended conditions of approval, the project's adverse
14 impact on environmental resources should be minimal; therefore, the public interest
will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
1.5
MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
16 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
1 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
IS shall not justify a variance.
19 10. But for the resource ordinance, the applicant would be allowed to build a
single family residence on the site. However without the variance, the applicant will
20 not be able to build anything within the resource ordinance buffer. Given that the size
21 of the lot is suitable for an SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate SFR's and the
surrounding neighborhood is characterized by SFR development, the property owner
22 would lack a reasonable use of his land with anything short of a SFR. The proposal is
not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan, or
23 the GMA.
24 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
25 proposed development according to the following criteria:
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
{PA0655100.DOC;1/13009.900000/90000}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
3 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
4 Comprehensive Plan.
5 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report, the project is consistent with
6 the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR
developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the
7 Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project will not harm
environmental resources; and therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety
8 and welfare, and is in the public interest. In addition, the applicant shall be required
to also apply for a front yard setback reduction to diminish encroachment into the
9 buffer. Four thousand five hundred square foot of open space will be enhanced with
10 native vegetation. As further noted in the Staff Report, the development will not
lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
1l
DECISION
12
The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
13 recommended in the Staff Report as well as those identified in the Habitat
14 Management Plan.
15 Dated this 13th day of March, 2007.
16
17
18 Phil A. Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
19
20
21
22
23
24
2.5
1 PA0655100.DOC;1/13009.900000/900001
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3
4 RE: John Laramie No. VAR2006-00033
5 DECLARATION OF MAILING
Variance to build a new house within a
6 Type 3 stream buffer.
7
8 I, Rebecca Hersha, declare and state as follows.-
9
On March 201h, 2007, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the
10
documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this
11
declaration is attached to:
12
John Laramie
13 8501 Baird Rd. NE
14 Olympia, WA 98516
15
1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the
16
foregoing information is true and correct.
17
Dated this 20th of October, 2007 at Shelton, Washington.
18
19
20
Rebecca Hersha, Planner
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
VAR2006-00033 Revised 02/27/07
- 1 -
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 51h Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Rebecca Hersha, 360.427.9670 ext. 593
RE: Mason County Resource Ordinance Variance (VAR2006-00033).
HEARING DATE: February 27, 2007
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a Variance (Exhibit#2) from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance Number 77-93. The request for a Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the construction of a 1200 square foot(footprint)
single-family dwelling unit and 450 square feet of access road within a type F (3) stream
buffer, which requires a 150 foot buffer plus a 15 foot building setback. The proposal is to
construct the house a minimum of 78 feet from the stream. Staff is recommending approval
of the proposed residence subject to the provisions of the Habitat Management Plan and
subject to the conditions added by Staff.
II. Applicant: John Laramie
III. Date of Complete Application: December 21, 2006
IV. Project Location: Property location is on Peebles Court, Shelton, WA 98584.
The lot is in the Lake Limerick subdivision, Division 5. Parcel # 32127 54 00105.
V. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the area. The property is within the Lake Limerick subdivision. The
subject stream (Exhibit # 6) flows southwesterly through several small lots in the
subdivision before it joins Cranberry Creek, which flows from Lake Limerick into Oakland
Bay.
B. Characteristic of the site. The lot consists of less than half an acre. The 150 foot stream
buffer encumbers the entire parcel (Exhibit# 5).
There is an open area on the north side of the stream where a mobile home existed several
years ago. The remainder of the lot on the north drainfield in the northeast corner is
approximately 70 feet from the stream. Between the drainfield and the side property line,
the 1200 square foot (footprint) house (with attached garage) is proposed to be sited a
minimum of 78 feet from the stream, allowing for the Lake Limerick Community's 30 feet
front yard setback requirement. The applicant stated that there is about a 30 inch elevation
drop from the easement road to the proposed driveway.
VAR2006-00033 Revised 02/27/07 '
-2-
The small land ownership to the south of the stream has been less impacted by human
activity and contains primarily Douglas fir trees, salal, and sword fern. The slopes are
under 15 percent and do not warrant a geological study prior to development.
C. Comprehensive Plan Desi ation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for
the site is Rural.
D. ZoninQ. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5.
VI. SEPA Compliance and other public notice requirements.
The proposal is exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(c)(i).
Notice of Public Hearing for the Application for a Variance (Exhibit#4) was publicized in the
Mason-Shelton Journal and at three public places on 01/04/07. In addition, the Notice of
Application was mailed to all property owners within 300' of the proposal, the Washington
State Department of Fish & Wildlife, and the Squaxin Tribe on 01/04/07. A 28-day comment
period followed. No comments have been received, to date.
A Habitat Management Plan(HMP) (Exhibit# 3) accompanies this Variance application.
VII. Other Permits.
If the Variance is approved, the proposal will require a Mason County Building Permit. An
Administrative Variance will also need to be applied for to reduce the front and side yard
setbacks to below the standard.
VIII. Analysis.
Comprehensive Plan Review: Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing
Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code, adopted
plans and regulations. The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the
following criteria:
A. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8 and 16.
The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets all the
requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, with the exception of Title 17, the
Resource Ordinance.
B. The development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in the public
interest.
The development proposal will not impact the public health, safety or welfare, and may be
considered to be in the public interest since the area to be developed is currently comprised
of invasive species of vegetation.
C. The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood
park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan.
VAk2006-00033 Revised 02/27/07
-3 -
The development proposal will not lower the level of service for transportation or
.f
hood aror nei hbk acilities.
g P
IX. Findings.
Section 17.01.150 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance addresses Variances From
Standards, the purpose of which is set forth in Section 17.01.150 A. Applicability in Section
17.01.150 B. 2. Review Standards Per Title 15, the Mason County Development Code
(15.09.057). Variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Development
Regulations may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written findings
compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria.
A. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or
significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by
County regulations;
Type 3 streams require a 150'buffer plus a 15'building setback for a total of 165'per the
Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110 D. 1. The Type 3 stream buffer encumbers
the entire parcel. The property was purchased with the intention of building a single-family
residence. Without this Variance from the required standards, there is no buildable area.
However, the proposed residential building site could be farther away from the stream than
proposed. The proposed site plan shows the development meeting Lake Limerick's 30 foot
front yard setback requirement. However, Mason County s interest is in protecting the
stream rather than serving community association covenants. Mason County requires a
25'front yard(to any road or access easement)setback for Rural Residential 5 zoning.
Furthermore, since Mason County often times allows for a reduced front yard setback, Itaff
is requiring the applicant to apply to Mason County to reduce the front yard setback to 20
feet, which should allow enough back out and turn around room from the garage and allow
for a feasible driveway slope. If the County approves a reduced front yard setback, then the
site plan submitted for the building permit shall reflect the reduced setback(see part IX-
Condition A).
B. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically
related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as
irregular lot shape, size or natural features and the application of the County regulations,
and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
The hardship specifically related to this property is the limited size of the lot and the
natural feature of the Type 3 stream.
C. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area
and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment;
The proposed residential size(1200 square feet) appears to be is smaller than the other
homes in the vicinity.
VAR2006-00033 Revised 02/i7/07 .
-4-
According to the Habitat Management Plan, the proposal would only require the removal
of invasive species of vegetation. Therefore, with the mitigation, this project will likely have
a net benefit to the stream.
MITIGATION: The Habitat Management Plan preserving the existing native buffer to the
south of the stream and enhancing 4,500 square feet of area north of the stream. The plan
includes a winter plantin
g g of native trees, shrubs,ferns, and groundcover at a density of
10 , 5 , 3'and 6", respectively, on center. This mitigation zone will be monitored for three
years to ensure native plant survival and invasive species control.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: The Habitat Management Plan outlines the
following recommendations for construction activities:
• Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather.
• Install silt fencing around the work area to prevent erosion and siltation of the stream.
• Minimize amount of eroding soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should
occur offsite. Don't store any fuel, lubricants, or hazardous substances outside
overnight in the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of the government authority.
D. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,
Therefore, this proposal, as modified to reduce the front yard setback, is the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
E. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
The public interest is in the health of the Type 3 stream. The HMP includes mitigation in
order for the proposal to cause no substantial detrimental effect.
F. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land.
Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,
Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the
Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance.
To some extent, reasonable use of the property depends on the expectation of the landowner
at the time of the purchase. The applicant purchased the property with the expectation to
build a single-family residence, which would be allowed under the zoning code, if it weren't
encumbered by the stream buffer.
The proposal is consistent with all other Mason County Ordinances, the Comprehensive
Plan, and the Growth Management Act.
X. Conclusion. Staff recommends approval of the Variance subiect to the recommendations
made in the Habitat Management Plan (The Wetland Corps, dated November 2006) and
subiect to the following conditions:
. VA"R2006-00033 Revised 02/27/07
-5 -
A. The applicant shall apply to Mason County to reduce the front yard setback to 20 feet. If the
County approves a reduced front yard setback, then the site plan submitted for the building
permit shall reflect the reduced setback. If the reduced setback is not granted,then the site
plan submitted for the building permit shall show a front yard setback of 25 feet(not 30).
B. Aside from the house footprint and the access road(total 1650 square feet), no additional
impervious surface area may be created. Walkways, etc. must be constructed of porous
materials such as gravel. The 1200 square feet footprint allowed for the house also includes
the attached garage.
XI. Choices of Action.
A. Approve the Variance request.
B. Approve with conditions the Variance request.
C. Deny the Variance request(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted).
D. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year).
E. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section
15.09.090 of Title 15.
EXHIBITS
1. Staff Report
2. Variance Application
3. Habitat Management Plan
4. Notice of Hearing
5. Site Plan
6. Area Map
VARIANCE APPLICATION
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5"' Street/ P.O. Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA,
variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the
Development Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County
must document with written findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance
criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the following criteria is
met.
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a
special "exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet
the specific variance criteria listed below.
Applicant name: John Laramie Telephone No. QW-753-8106_
Mailing address: 8501 Baird Rd NE Olympia, WA 98516
Site address: 60 E Peebles Ct. Shelton
Owner Name (if different than applicant): John Laramie (Pending approval of Variance)
Owner Address elf different than applicant): 8501 Baird Rd NE Olympia, WA 98516
Tax Parcel # 32127-54-00105
Legal Description: Division 5 lot 105 Lake Limerick
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X
Mason County Development Regulations
Subdivisions and Plats
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
Construction of single family residence within regulated type 3 stream buffer.
1192 square feet of buildina will be constructed 78-feet from the stream at the
nearest point.
� J5 * Z
C:\Documents and Settings\Lee\My Documents\jobs\Marine Shoreline\Joemswariance Application 2005 laramie.doc
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
The regulated stream buffer encompasses the entire ownership.
3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that
certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how
the proposal pertains to these circumstances.
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations;
Due to the presence of critical areas within the property, the strict
application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance would not allow any space to accommodate residential
use of the property.
b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of the County regulations, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the
applicant's own actions;
The hardship is specifically related to the the parcel due to the limited size
and presence of natural features. The reaulated buffer associated with the
stream captures the entire property leaving no space for a house.
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in
the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the
environment;
A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures
necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the
environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations
specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in
Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated type 3
stream buffers. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The
findings of the Habitat Manaaement Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat
or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to
occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will
preserve and enhance the riparian area within the Property and minimize
potential for long term environmental impacts.
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not
enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to
afford relief;
The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate both a single family
residence and an attached garage. Residences in proximity to the project
site and along the type 3 stream are comprised of similar footprints
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially
effect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the Habitat
Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the proiect
site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the
public interest resulting from the proposed project.
C Oocuments and SettingsUxeWly Documents\jobsNarine ShorelineWernsWariance Application 2005 laramie.doc
f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of
the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive
Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,
and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a
variance.
The property is zoned as rural residential 5. The lot is of sufficient size to
accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area.
The proiect constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is
consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth_
Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all
environmental impacts associated with development near the stream.
I� /s/off
A licant Signature Date
/ ZEZa
er Signature Date
FEES:
Development Regulations Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $920.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00
Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,225.00 Hearings Examiner: $490.00
Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee: $360.00
NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached).
C:\Documents and Settings\Lee\My Documents\jobsWarine ShorelineVoernsWariance Application 2005 laramie.doc
�goz, coa��A MASON COUNTY
Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
_ Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1854
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 2007
TO: Gloria Rogers, WDFW
John Konovsky, Squaxin Island Tribe
FROM: Rebecca Hersha, Planner
RE: A Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (RO)No.77-93 to build a single-
family residence within a Type 3 stream buffer.
NOTE: The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter(17.01.110) of the RO requires
that a variance be accompanied by a Habitat Management Plan that shall be reviewed by
local Tribes, Washington State Dept of Fish and Wildlife and other applicable state/federal
agencies. A Habitat Management Plan prepared by The Wetland Corps is enclosed for your
review and comment. A 28-day comment period is provided. Details of the project follow:
Site Address: Lot 105 of Lake Limerick, Division 5. On Peebles Court, Shelton, WA.
Applicants: John Laramie
Legal Description: Township 21 N, Range 3 W, Section 27, Washington of Mason
County. Parcel No. 32127-54-00105.
Project description: Construct a single-family dwelling (1200 sq. ft.) within a Fish &
Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area Type 3 stream buffer. The structure's closest point to
the stream is 78 feet. Mason County's Resource Ordinance requires a 150' buffer plus a 15'
foot setback for Type 3 streams.
Please submit comments by February 12, 2007 to the address above,ATTN: Rebecca
Hersha. Or you may email your comments to RebeccH@co.mason.wa.us.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be reached at 427-9670, ext 593.
THE WETLAND CORPS
-
Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration • Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
LARAMIE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Parcel#321275400105
Mason County,Washington
Prepared for:
John L. Laramie
8501 Baird Road NE
Olympia,Washington 98516
Prepared by:
Heather Lane and Lee Boad
November,2006
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
THE WETLAND CORPS
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation
LARAMIE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................1
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1
3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..................................................................................................2
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.................................................................2
5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS....................................................................................................3
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................................5
7.0 MONITORING ......................................................................................................................8
8.0 SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................8
Figures
Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map
Figure 4. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
THE WETLAND CORPS !
Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation
November,2006 Page 1
LARAMIE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN
60 E.Peebles Court
Shelton,Washington
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The details of a Habitat Management Plan prepared for John L. Laramie for the above referenced
property (Parcel No. 321275400105) are discussed in full in this report. The site address is 60 E
Peebles Court, Shelton, Washington, 98588. The site is found in the SE '/a of Section 27
Township 21 North, Range 3 West(See Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map).
The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts resulting
from the proposed construction of a 1192 square foot single-family residence (SFR) and 450
square foot access road within a lot encompassed by the regulated buffer of a fishbearing stream.
The stream meets criteria for a Type 3 stream, requiring 150 feet of undisturbed buffer with an
additional 15-foot building setback. The SFR is proposed 78 feet from the stream at the nearest
point. The septic system already exists onsite and is located on the northeast side of the lot. The
objectives of this HMP are as follows:
■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife
habitat resulting from the establishment of the SFR and access road within the Type 3 stream
buffer. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be
residing in the vicinity of the parcel.
■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects
resulting from the establishment of the SFR and access road collectively occupying an area of
1642 square feet within the Type 3 stream buffer.
2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The ownership is less than one acre in size, roughly rectangular in shape, and oriented northwest
to southeast. The stream meanders within the southern portion of the parcel, with the associated
150-foot stream buffer encompassing the entire lot. The stream flows westerly through the
parcel, and drains into Cranberry Creek approximately 500 feet west of the ownership. The lot is
accessed by E Peebles Court to the north and is bordered to the west, east, and south by single-
family residential lots of similar size and shape.
A mobile home was removed from the portion of the parcel north of the stream several years ago.
This area has been maintained as an open area. Vegetation throughout the majority of the
northern portion of the parcel is comprised of herbaceous and shrub species including Scotch
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie FIN4P
November, 2006
Page 2
broom, Himalayan blackberry, and lawngrasses. Vegetation south of the stream has been left
well in tact and contains an overstory of primarily Douglas fir with an understory comprised of
salal and sword fern. Topography within the lot is generally flat, with a low gradient slope
toward the type 3 stream.
3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS
The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish
and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County.
The applicable setback for this project is as follows:
Habitat Type Buffer Building Setback from Buffer
Type 3 Stream 150' 15'
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES
4.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened
Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers
and streams flowing into Puget Sound. The type 3 fishbearing stream is a tributary to Cranberry
Creek. Cranberry Creek was recently excluded form NOAA's Fisheries Northwest Region
Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington in August,
2005. Although the stream may be accessible to Puget Sound Chinook, suitable habitat is not
present due to the limited size and lack of sufficient flow during the spawning period. This
project is not likely to have adverse impacts on Puget Sound Chinook due to the lack of suitable
habitat and proposed mitigation. No impacts to water quality are predicted with proposed
mitigation.
4.2 Bull Trout(Salvelinus malma)-Threatened
Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are
supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel,
relatively free of fine sediments.
Although the substrate may be suitable for Bull Trout spawning, the lower elevation and
relatively high temperature of the type 3 stream is not suitable habitat for Bull Trout. Given the
lack of suitable habitat and no documented occurrence the proposed project is not likely to have
any adverse impacts on bull trout.
4.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)-Threatened
Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old-
growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops
providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or
dead tops are used as perches and defense stations.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie HMP
November, 2006
Page 3
There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. The area
proposed for the SFR and access road is devoid of any overstory components. Recommended
overstory plantings recommended in Section 6.3 should improve the potential for use of the site
by Bald Eagle in the future by enhancing overstory habitat within the site. As no important
habitat features are to be removed,this project will have no adverse impacts on bald eagles.
4.4 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)- Threatened
Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests.
Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5-
miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly
found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in
coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest
20-40 meters above the forest floor.
Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient
forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No
potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project will likely have no adverse impact
on Marbled Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the
vicinity of the project area.
5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS
The project lies within the regulated buffer of a Type 3 stream. Project scale in the protected area
is as follows:
Development Type Habitat Type Project scale
Single Family Residence Type 3 Stream Buffer 1192 sq. ft.
Gravel Access Road Type 3 Stream Buffer 450 sq. ft
Total Type 3 Stream Buffer 1642 sq. ft.
PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie 1IMP'
November, 2006
Page 4
�-
5
Photo ]. Proposed building site.
5.1 Vegetation Disturbance
The access road and SFR are proposed in a portion of the lot that has been maintained as an open
area interspersed with Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry. No native vegetation will be
removed for the proposed project. With recommended planting of native vegetation described in
Section 6.3, the project will likely have a net benefit of vegetation abundance and diversity
within the lot.
5.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids
Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids is not within the vicinity of the project area.
Therefore, none of the proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated
critical habitat. Actions described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued
existence of any listed species.
5.3 Noise Pollution
A slight increase in noise from construction activities is likely to occur during daylight
construction hours. No nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be
impacted by noise associated with the establishment of the SFR and access road.
5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction
The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment
within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended in Section 6.2 to
minimize the adverse effects to sediment supply and turbidity during project implementation.
5.5 Light and Glare
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie F1W
November,2006
Page 5
The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with
residential construction and land use. The majority of wildlife activity likely occurs south of the
stream, where the vegetative buffer has been left in tact. The vegetative buffer to be enhanced
between the proposed project and the stream is expected to shield the majority of the stream from
increased light and glare. No impacts to the use of the site by wildlife species is likely to result
from light and glare associated with this project.
6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES
6.1 Preservation of Critically Important Plants
The remainder of the Type 3 stream buffer, outside of the proposed SFR and access road, will be
preserved and remain in tact or enhanced with native vegetation. The proposed SFR is located
78 feet from the stream at the nearest point, this is the greatest possible distance from the stream
given the limited size of the lot.
6.2 Best Management Practices
Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows:
• Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather.
• Install silt fencing between the work area and the stream to prevent erosion and siltation of
waters.
• Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible.
• Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur
off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants, chemicals, or hazardous substances outside
overnight within the project area.
• Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain.
• Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority.
6.3 Enhancement Recommendations
It is recommended that a 50-foot strip of the stream buffer, parallel to the stream, between the
SFR and the Type 3 stream be enhanced with native vegetation. The enhancement of a
moderately dense forested and shrub community within the suggested portion of the open area is
likely to improve wildlife utilization and riparian function of the site. The area selected as the
mitigation zone occupies an area of approximately 4,500 square feet.
Native Plantings
To offset impacts associated with the establishment of the SFR and access road and the displaced
stream buffer, it is recommended that the mitigation zone be enhanced with native plants. The
following species are recommended:
Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata)
Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Shrubs: Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie H P
November,2006
Page 6
salal (Gaultheria shallon)
evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum)
nootka rose(Rosa nutkana)
salmonbeny(Rubus spectabilis)
Pacific Willow(Salix lusida)
Hooker willow(Salix hookeriana)
Scouler willow(Salix scouleriana)
Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis)
beaked hazelnut(Corylus cornuta)
Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis)
oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor)
Pacific ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus)
California black currant(Ribes bracteosum)
western thimbleberry(Rubus parviorus)
red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa)
Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum)
Groundcover: kinnikinnik(Arcostaphylus uva-ursi)
coastal strawberry(Fragaria chiloensis)
Native Planting Guidelines
It is recommended that plantings be installed within the identified mitigation zone to achieve the
following densities. A minimum of 1 tree species, five shrub species and one groundcover
species from the above list are recommended.
trees- 10' on center
shrubs-5' on center
ferns- 3' on center
herbaceous groundcover—6 inches on center
These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the
mitigation zone.
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie HMP
November,2006
Page 7
iO
Photo 2. Mitigation zone.
Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is
during February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may
call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. A monitoring program is recommended
to insure project effectiveness.
5.2 Invasive Species Removal & Prevention
Within the stream buffer, Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry are interspersed within the
open area. Himalayan blackberry and Scotch broom are invasive shrubs that threaten the health
and success of native plants. In addition to the enhancement recommendations described above,
it is recommended that the Himalayan blackberry be removed from the stream buffer to avoid
further invasion and allow native vegetation to persist more abundantly. This may be done either
manually or with the use of heavy equipment. Herbicides should not be used due to the
proximity to the stream. The Bradley Method is one common approach to manually removing
invasive species (Fuller and Barbe, 1985). This approach consists of hand removal starting in
areas of lesser weed infestation, and working in toward the worst stands.
Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, Scotch broom, Canadian thistle, fireweed, reed
canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may invade the buffer and mitigation zone.
These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants.
Invasive species should be removed from the buffer should they invade. Persistent cutting during
the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a
problem.
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
Laramie) MP '
November, 2006
Page 8
7.0 MONITORING
Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following native species plantings and maintained
on a seasonal basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of
reintroduced plant species; 2)the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by
the development and its effect on the protected zone an
d associated aquatic P tic habitat; 4 an
P q ) Y
occurrence of exotic species within the mitigation zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be
deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the
duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and
submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development.
8.0 SUMMARY
This report addresses the effects of the establishment of a SFR and access road, occupying a total
building footprint of 1642 square feet within the regulated buffer of a Type 3 stream. Best
Management Practices are recommended to insure no negative impacts to the stream. Mitigation
recommendations include native plant enhancement of 4500 square feet of open area in
proximity to the stream, and invasive species removal within the entire stream buffer within the
lot. No impacts to water quality or stream habitat are predicted.
Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize,
and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction.
We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The
Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. If you have any questions feel free to call.
Respectfully submitted,
/7
Lee Boad
Senior Ecologist
Feather ane
Staff Wetland&Natural Resource Specialist
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
REFERENCES
Audobon WatchList. http;//audobon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies.
Fuller, T.C. and G.D. Barbe. 1985. The Bradley Method of eliminating exotic plants from natural
reserves. Fremontia 13(2):24-26.
Knutson, K.L., and V.L. Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority
habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 pp.
Native Plants for Kitsap County. ftp://kewppub3.co.kitsap.wa.us/pw/sw/Native
Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes
Concerning Wild Salmonids. Adopted by Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,1997.
Washington State Department of Ecology; William Symington Lake Habitat Analysis. 1998.
PO Box 2854, Belfair, WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com
i6*one
•�3t3 � If,OS.a.:,,._ x.',,.r.. �+k Zih(L�.4• �� ,f ��,��, `
i J
"�T •a "k L.. ._ r S•��` p 5. 'off tGS y._ T t 9f .'.1 !"�A� Zs�!.
711
)f• 1 ,�r y"J)I J j _ � %1 - - _. Jyy,� •,ryiw•:.3'—�. `i ^� ._.. f...�JJ�-- �_.
JIjj
„Ls. . i. I`
Jrnb[rrY- Je�[e • :� --- r �°.`s.'�L. t ';fJ • f ,`,;C' ��
a
Mason Lake Drive
- tl ,:.
* At AIMS Zl!:.f{ �{,� 1.,4 \' 'J R/. s3 t• i•. -7G:
Approximate Parcel _ 5= T
_� ,:,•. f , �. - � ►' i Location _
r
ell•. l
r ....h ... r - �.. .�^r.J��� .,,.. � •rf �� . r,,./ 1 u y.f fM :i". ; _.y'h•IY�'5.,,,_"
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP
Project Name: Laramie ffi"
Location: Lake Limerick,Washington
Project: TWCO6-W310
Client: John Laramie
THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 11/06
TI go Wetland Corps �Igure 2
Laramie Habt at Management plan 56e Map
Parcel#5212-75400105
�1�j
6��h �xl5ting 5eptic
\ i \ 150' 202'
proposed Access goad \y� \�
Proposed 51Nle Famil4
(50' x 15') y Pesidence C l
M►t1*10n Zone
8, (4,500 sa f�)
f4pe 3 5t-eam
scale; I"=30'-O"
; r
PF05HJ4
PSS4IC
PEh71C' PSS EIAICH PF04A' , PF04C�
qy _
P S S,E fA 1 C
Map Legend PUSH-u
CONUS Cities PF61A
tti�y
CONUS slams 1OOK y
Lower 49 Wetland Pdy9orts loft,
F01i4C
Estuarine and Marine Osaywaier �" QJQ PER91H
PF�1G
Esowine and Marine Welland
F reshwats.Emergent Wetland
Freshwata.Forasladrghrub Wetlandr :. _ r
Frashwalot Pend -ii..is.1�r`�'�n\. '.HLIP
P UBH14 PA84 H
lake - PF01CF'{i
ICI �} -
Otl,er sit if. lE`?n
Nirerine ' ' ll rsfan
Digital
swP:� t2r+94H L1UBHF4
arp
SS1i4C r�
12USCH
Approximate
Parcel Location
PFW A
i,
PF0411C 5W
y;PSS1A
Figure adapted from NWI Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map
Mapper website Section 27 Township 21 N Range 03W
FIGURE 3 NWI MAP
Project Name: Laramie HMP
Location: Lake Limerick,Washington
Project: TWC06-W310
Client: John Laramie
THE WETLAND CORPS Date: 11/06
Note: No mapped wetlands in project vicinity
tip✓ � � -::,�
1 28 1702028 120 1702122
I 5 Lake Limarink t
28 006 02100
1702102
Approximate
parcel
location
t 701 $ 17 088 701180 +7011
4
35
SIli1= 1IS SOILS
Stream Water Type 1-5 t=as;nde)
.� — H—dric Soils
Stream T47,e U noun(Eat.de,`• HishlY Unstable
Stream Water Type! 5(We.:vide;
Highly Erodible
l! Stream Type Unknor.'n(Ye.>:adf) E_=.hh-Uwtab e�
ILL -Erodible
" EE"ater Tape Change No Data or Gravel Pits
FIGURE 4 DNR STREAM MAP
Project Name: Laramie HMP
Location: Lake Limerick,Washington
Syr Project: TWC06-W310
Client: John Laramie
THE A%'ETL_-AND CORY�S Date: 11/06
Note: Mapped "F"stream in project vicinity.
�60N °Oo,�rA MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning
Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
1854
Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that John Laramie, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has
filed an application for a Variance.
The request for a Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the
construction of a 1200 square foot single-family residence within a Type 3 stream buffer.
Property location is on Peebles Court, Shelton, WA 98584. Lot 105 of Lake Limerick, Division
5.
Date of complete application: December 21, 2006.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110 D. 1., Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, which details Type 3 stream buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150,
Variances from Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal
requires a Habitat Management Plan, and Hearing Examiner approval.
Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application
should notify in writing of their interest by February 26, 2007:
REBECCA HERSHA
C/O MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PO BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed
project on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers,
Bldg. I, 411 N. 5" Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact Rebecca Hersha of the Mason County Department of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670, ext. 593, with any questions or comments on this development and variance.
A decision of this application for a variance will be made within 120 days of the date of the
complete application.
i��i 4
01/04/2007 10:09 FAX Z 001
�c TX REPORT x
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 4106
CONNECTION TEL 94269399
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 01/04 10:08
USAGE T 00'54
PGS. SENT 3
RESULT OK
FAXCOVER SHEET
TO: The Masson County Journal FAX#: 426-9399
FROM: Mason County Planning Department FAX#: 427-8425
DATE: January 4, 2007
Please publish the attached:
Notice of Public Dearing
On the following day:
January 11, 2006.
Please keep the affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Plaraiing
Department to pick up from your office, and send 1 copy to the following:
John Laramie
8501 Baird lid. NE
Olympia, WA 98516
Please send a bill for the publication to John Laramie (above).
Sincerelv.
MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE May 5,2W2
c)
FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND VARIANCE
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur until
advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason County
Journal will bill the applicant directly.
I /WE understand that I /WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and that I /
WE understand that is MY/ OUR responsibility. I /WE must submit the signed page as part of
application in order for it to be considered as complete.
1 /9 /o7
DATE
Owl
APPL T
z0 ow Am oI-ignd dIdw),,-iO 09C
T1 e Weiland Corps
Laramie Habttab Management plan 5tre Map
Parcel#321215400105
eh �xl�l 5e Ic
�0'
\ i \ 150' 202'
proposed Access load y proposed 5ingle Famll�
>
y kesldence(Il R
u
A►gatlon Zane
sa
hype 5 5tream
scale; I"=30'-0" \
ec,huuu!`
e(( > �i
�Sl fr Al2,
ke
r r �
/
C !
E_.---- -- S
r / S
f
►!° __-,--
Y.
fee r
Ok
IL
E 1 inch equals 3,205.2 feet
W
1 inch equals 1 miles
S
41 lle r
�T- o�n �e
+Iliiling Address_g 5o I - ('J
Home #� n
y �' _'753 51 cxo Work ti
# 3!0 . . ' 56
P1,0j)er11y Location Q-;� 9 Cell # -
1 egql Address TS1,N lyte)A) WA
_ ec p 63jj" a ?
d -- -_ Tox Lot #
t
_��4..s i✓ County, State of cj "? S¢. 66/0.57
TPiE II ffORMATI ON ON T 5 0
OIVtILR WI10 8Y'I",BELOW:U ANHA5 BEENPROVIpE
3�� tON I15 ACClJHACY AND COMMETE1�55.2)I5 gESpE IJ IBIE 5 F24 LV SPA 6 I Ti E 1j y qT7
5cALE; V _ IMfpOVEM N-BTo71E517FTAYFp55-9) 45AE5O(yM_ Tm=T1NT7FIE
ESTA6fI511 ALL TI E"I'"IR0II5,LOT LIPE5 A1.10 CO WITN U R5 PLAN:9)WILL
" PROPERTY.APIYCHANGE5 'REQUIREU5ETBACK5RE
t Ta 7 QUIRED
HIs Of
60VERf•LU"AL AbEME5 WI III JURIsPIcfIO1MU57 BE PRE.APIy1OVE0 Ay TkjE
/ C0141RACTOR AND UOCUAIH{7EO, TIE MORi6A6F LE1•gEN nND TIR:
JWNEF,�sI614UR Q 6
nO D TE .
OWNER 5I6NATURE
DATE
€XISTtwiG
�49 4pmy
P�AI�IF►EtA
2� a,
fL � "-c�. �xiSTcaC�
f fi n ScPi(c.
A � xti 3 T•,ak5
ry t,U
A2
O
J?`
0