Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DDR2016-00079 Hearing - DDR Letters / Memos - 8/30/2016
MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360) 482-5269 Elrna ext. 352 _--- Mason County Bldg. 8, 615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 -- www.co.mason.wa.us THE August 30, 2016 PARG ' L FILE NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Case Number: DDR2016-00079— Development Regulation Variance for Jerry Dehnert. Notice is hereby given that Jerry DehneM applicant for the above referenced Development Regulation Variance,has been granted conditional approval of the Variance with the conditions listed in the Decision dated 8/25/16. If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue,please contact Grace Miller,Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360) 427-9670,x 360. This is a final decision. This conditional approval of the Development Regulation Variance by the Mason County Hearing Examiner is final and subject to appeal to Superior Court. Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 -Development Code -No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval,the Hearing Examiner shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause,may extend the initial two year period by permit for one year. Otherwise,the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date. Expiration Date=August 30,2021. I BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner RE: Jerry Dehnert FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. 5 Development Regulation Variance 6 DDR2016-00079 7 INTRODUCTION 8 9 The applicant requests a variance to the 25-foot front yard setback to Crescent Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a single family garage/carport on the right of way 10 line of the private road, approximately 10-13 feet from the pavement. The variance is approved subject to conditions. I1 12 ORAL TESTIMONY 13 Grace Miller, Mason County senior planner, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Miller clarified that the conclusion in her staff report that 14 the variance would not affect line of sight was based upon view impacts to the shoreline, i.e. line of sight to the shoreline. She noted that the Public Works 15 department has not reviewed the variance for safety because the adjoining road is not public. Ms. Miller also clarified that the wall depicted in the Ex. 4 site plan is a 16 retaining wall and the wall is why the garage can't be built closer to the home (away 17 from the road).The retaining wall retains a steep slope. 18 Jerry Dehnert, applicant, noted that his photographs (Ex. 8) show that many other properties are built to the property line. As to line of sight, there are more trees and 19 brush that obscure sight than his garage will. One picture shows a large tree trunk just 20 a couple feet from the road. There's plenty of room between the garage and road for persons to walk. 21 Mr. Huish lives 200 yards from the project site. He walks past the project site every 22 day. He's very comfortable with the proposal and believes that the situation is perfectly safe. Information from the homeowner's association is frequently incorrect. 23 There's no view obstruction. In response to examiner questions, there's no sidewalk 24 and the speed limit is 20 mph.Very few people speed. 25 Janice Charles, neighbor, noted that the project site is at the end of a T intersection. The garage will create blind spots on the two adjoining lots, which creates a Development Regulation Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision dangerous situation. It's totally false to say there's no problem with speeding. The 1 police don't ticket in the area because it's a private road. Mr. Huish responded that 2 the Sheriff s Office does come on the private road and does issue citations. 3 Steven Charles stated that he has lived in the area for eight years and he is on the watch program. He stated that police only visit the area on a very, very rare basis and 4 the HOA has considered hiring its own police protection. The T intersection is very dangerous and there's a dip in front of the proposed garage. 6 Mrs. Dehnert noted that the proposed garage will be 27 feet from the road. The neighbors on one side already have a blind spot because of trees and the neighbor on 7 the other side has 27 feet between their garage and driveway. The hill is not a great big hill. 8 EXHIBITS 9 10 Ex. 1-6 identified in the staff report were admitted into the record. Google maps was added as Ex. 7. 12 8xI 1 photographs of the project site was admitted as Ex. 8. 11 FINDINGS OF FACT 12 13 Procedural: 14 1. Applicant. The applicant is Jerry Dehnert. 15 2. Hearing. A hearing on the applications was held on August 10, 2016 at 16 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 17 Substantive: 18 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant requests a variance to construct a 572sf garage with an attached 264sf carport (total 836sf)to be located up to the edge 19 of the road right-of-way of Crescent Drive, approximately 10-13 feet from the 20 pavement. 21 The property is 145' to 148' deep, with 57' of waterfront footage and 63' along the road. The lot has an existing residence and septic system. There is an existing upland 22 retaining wall between the residence with septic system and the proposed structure. 23 The subject property is located between the north shore of Fawn Lake on the south 24 and Crescent Drive (a private road) to the northeast. The property slopes downward from the road to the lake. The lot is located at the end of a T-intersection. 25 Approximately 26 home lie beyond the intersection along Crescent Drive which dead Development Regulation Variance p.2 Findings,Conclusions and Decision dangerous situation. It's totally false to say there's no problem with speeding. The 1 police don't ticket in the area because it's a private road. Mr. Huish responded that 2 the Sheriffs Office does come on the private road and does issue citations. 3 Steven Charles stated that he has lived in the area for eight years and he is on the watch program. He stated that police only visit the area on a very, very rare basis and 4 the HOA has considered hiring its own police protection. The T intersection is very 5 dangerous and there's a dip in front of the proposed garage. 6 Mrs. Dehnert noted that the proposed garage will be 27 feet from the road. The neighbors on one side already have a blind spot because of trees and the neighbor on 7 the other side has 27 feet between their garage and driveway. The hill is not a great big hill. 8 EXHIBITS 9 10 Ex. 1-6 identified in the staff report were admitted into the record. Google maps was added as Ex. 7. 12 8x11 photographs of the project site was admitted as Ex. 8. 11 FINDINGS OF FACT 12 13 Procedural: 14 1. Applicant. The applicant is Jerry Dehnert. 15 2. Hearing. A hearing on the applications was held on August 10, 2016 at 16 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 17 Substantive: 18 3. Site/Prol2osal Description. The applicant requests a variance to construct a 572sf garage with an attached 264sf carport (total 836sf)to be located up to the edge 19 of the road right-of-way of Crescent Drive, approximately 10-13 feet from the 20 pavement. 21 The property is 145' to 148' deep, with 57' of waterfront footage and 63' along the road. The lot has an existing residence and septic system. There is an existing upland 22 retaining wall between the residence with septic system and the proposed structure. 23 The subject property is located between the north shore of Fawn Lake on the south 24 and Crescent Drive (a private road) to the northeast. The property slopes downward from the road to the lake. The lot is located at the end of a T-intersection. 25 Approximately 26 home lie beyond the intersection along Crescent Drive which dead Development Regulation Variance p. 2 Findings,Conclusions and Decision ends to the west of the subject lot. Additionally, there are two other loop roads 1 servicing dozens of homes that funnel into this same intersection. 2 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is characterized by single-family residential development in a typical subdivision layout lying adjacent to the north shore of Fawn Lake. There is an existing single-family residence on each side of the 4 subject property. Many houses in the subject area have similar garage/carport structures to the one proposed. 5 6 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, no significant adverse impacts can be attributed to the requested variance. The front yard setback involves building closer 7 to Crescent Drive, but there will still be a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the proposed home and the road pavement at its closest point. Other developed lots in 8 this area have fences and carports developed on the right of way/property line or very close to it (Ex. 7 and 8). As far as can be discerned from the record this very limited 9 additional proximity to the road will not cause any line of sight problems for 10 adjoining driveway or any other safety hazards. However, for future front yard setback applications it is imperative that staff provide more information on safety 1 I issues pertaining to front yard variance, preferably with comment from the Public Works department. In an abundance of caution, approval of the variance will be 12 conditioned on a finding from Mason County Public Works showing the County has reviewed the proposed setback and determined that there will be no site distance 13 issues that may present a hazard to the public safety. 14 As to shoreline view impacts, impacts are highly marginal given that existing 15 vegetation and structures already impair views. Given the subjective nature of view impacts and the dubious legal authority to restrict development on the basis of such 16 impacts in the absence of specific view standards, view impacts are found to be 17 nonsignificant. Beyond safety and view issues, there are no other potential adverse impacts associated with the front-yard setback request. 18 6. Necessity of Variance. The applicant would not be able to build a 19 functionally sized garage without the variance. The lot width, existing home, retaining wall and septic system preclude the applicant from being able to construct 20 the garage outside of the setback or anywhere else on the lot. The garage cannot be 21 reduced in size because it is already the minimum necessary to park a car and allow a person to walk around the vehicle. 22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23 Procedural: 24 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) provides the 1 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon development regulation variance 2 applications. 3 Substantive: 4 2. Zoning Designation. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5"). 5 3. Review Criteria and Application. The variance criteria for the front yard 6 setback variance is governed by MCC 15.09.057'. Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 7 8 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance 9 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 10 4. A single-family home is the primary use authorized in the RR-5 zoning 11 district and is therefore considered a reasonable use of property in that zoning district. Garages and carports are typical and customary structures associated with single 12 family residential development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the south 13 side of Crescent Drive is the only portion of the applicant's property that can be reasonably developed with a functionally sized and placed garage/carport. Since strict 14 application of the front yard setback completely precludes the development of a garage/carport except within the front yard setback, it is concluded that the 15 dimensional standards preclude a reasonable use of the property.The proposed garage is considered to be the minimum reasonable use as determined in Conclusion of Law 16 No. 7. 17 18 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 19 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 20 the applicant's own action. 21 22 Front yard setbacks can normally be addressed under the administrative variance 23 standards of MCC 17.05.034(C). However,those standards only authorize a variance up to ten feet from the road. Since the applicant is proposing the elimination of the 24 setback from the road right of way, the variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 must be 25 applied. Development Regulation Variance p.4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) provides the 1 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon development regulation variance 2 applications. 3 Substantive: 4 2. Zoning Desi Designation. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-591). 5 3. Review Criteria and Application. The variance criteria for the front yard 6 setback variance is governed by MCC 15.09.0571. Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 7 8 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance 9 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 10 4. A single-family home is the primary use authorized in the RR-5 zoning 11 district and is therefore considered a reasonable use of property in that zoning district. Garages and carports are typical and customary structures associated with single 12 family residential development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the south 13 side of Crescent Drive is the only portion of the applicant's property that can be reasonably developed with a functionally sized and placed garage/carport. Since strict 14 application of the front yard setback completely precludes the development of a garage/carport except within the front yard setback, it is concluded that the 15 dimensional standards preclude a reasonable use of the property.The proposed garage is considered to be the minimum reasonable use as determined in Conclusion of Law 16 No. 7. 17 1 g MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 19 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 20 the applicant's own action. 21 22 1 Front yard setbacks can normally be addressed under the administrative variance 23 standards of MCC 17.05.034(C). However, those standards only authorize a variance up to ten feet from the road. Since the applicant is proposing the elimination of the 24 setback from the road right of way, the variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 must be 25 applied. Development Regulation Variance p.4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 5. The need for the variance is completely attributable to the unique features 1 of the property, i.e., the size, width, existing house placement, existing septic system 2 placement and the existing retaining wall placement. Additionally, the lot was approved prior to the roadway alignment and therefore the applicant took no action to 3 create the hardship. 4 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 properties or the 5 environment. 6 6. The property is surrounded by single-family homes. As determined in 7 Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, the requested variance will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjacent uses or the environment. 8 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special 9 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimnim 10 necessary to afford relief. 11 7. The variance enables the construction of a functionally sized garage with a placement similar to many of the surrounding lots. Since other surrounding lot 12 owners have had the opportunity to build similarly placed garages and carports (Ex. 8), the granting of the variance in this instance would not constitute a grant of special 13 privilege. 14- The variance is also the minimum necessary to afford relief in that the proposed 15 footprint is the minimum size to accommodate a typical vehicle with room to walk around it. Since the applicant's proposed building footprint is the minimum required 16 to create a functional garage, the requested variance is considered the minimum 17 necessary to afford relief. 18 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 19 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned the variance will not adversely affect the environment or adjoining uses while allowing for a 20 reasonable use of the subject property. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 21 T) MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 23 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only 24 shall not justify a variance. 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 9. As previously noted, the proposed garage is the minimum footprint necessary to 1 permit construction of a functional garage. The garage cannot be constructed on any 2 other portion of the subject lot. Consequently, the applicant currently has less than minimum reasonable use, which is construed as lacking a reasonable use. Further, 3 other than the regulation subject to the variance request, the proposal is consistent with all applicable regulations and the Growth Management Act. Staff have 4 determined that the proposal is consistent with the shoreline master program because the proposal does not involve construction closer to the shoreline. 5 6 Generic Permitting Criteria 7 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 8 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 9 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 10 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 1 1 in the public interest. 12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 12. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the 15 criteria above except for the setback regulation subject to the variance request. No subdivision of land is proposed, consistency with health regulations will be assured 16 during building permit review and the proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it 1 does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. The proposal will not lower 18 level of service standards for transportation and neighborhood park facilities. As previously noted, staff have determined the proposal to be consistent with the 19 County's shoreline master program. 20 DECISION 21 The front yard setback variance meets all applicable variance criteria for the reasons 22 identified in the conclusions of law above. The variance is approved subject to the following conditions: 23 1. Development shall comply with the Rural Residential 5 Provisions of the 24 Mason County Development Regulations. 25 2. Erosion control to be installed and maintained throughout construction. Development Regulation Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 9. As previously noted, the proposed garage is the minimum footprint necessary to 1 permit construction of a functional garage. The garage cannot be constructed on any 2 other portion of the subject lot. Consequently, the applicant currently has less than minimum reasonable use, which is construed as lacking a reasonable use. Further, 3 other than the regulation subject to the variance request, the proposal is consistent with all applicable regulations and the Growth Management Act. Staff have 4 determined that the proposal is consistent with the shoreline master program because 5 the proposal does not involve construction closer to the shoreline. 6 Generic Permitting Criteria 7 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 8 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 9 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 10 2 Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 11 in the public interest. 12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 12. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the 15 criteria above except for the setback regulation subject to the variance request. No subdivision of land is proposed, consistency with health regulations will be assured 16 during building permit review and the proposal is exempt from the State 17 Environmental Policy Act. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. The proposal will not lower 18 level of service standards for transportation and neighborhood park facilities. As previously noted, staff have determined the proposal to be consistent with the 19 County's shoreline master program. 20 DECISION 21 The front yard setback variance meets all applicable variance criteria for the reasons 22 identified in the conclusions of law above. The variance is approved subject to the following conditions: 23 1. Development shall comply with the Rural Residential 5 Provisions of the 24 Mason County Development Regulations. 25 2. Erosion control to be installed and maintained throughout construction. Development Regulation Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 3. Approval is contingent upon a finding from the Mason County Public Works 2 Department that the proposed setback will not create any vehicle safety hazards. Dated this 26th day of August,2016. 4 5 6 7 Mason County Hearing Examiner 8 APPEAL 9 The variance decisions are final and may be appealed to superior court as outlined in 10 the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. 1 1 CHANGE IN VALUATION L Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.7013.130 that property owners who are affected 13 by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 14 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision I July 29,2016 EXHIBIT 1 TO:Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM:Planner,Grace Miller RE: Development Regulation Variance#DDR2016-00079 request by Jerry Dehnert. STAFF REPORT I. Introduction. This report evaluates a Development Regulation Variance Permit Application for the construction of a single family garage/carport to be located 0'from a private road right-of-way. U. Applicant.The applicant is Jerry Dehnert. M. Property Location.The proJ�' ct is located southeast of Shelton,within the private gated development of Fawn LakelThe address of the property is 250 SE Crescent Drive,Shelton. Legal Description:FaA ake Div#6,Tract 18. Sec 4,Twn 19 N,R 3 W. Parcel Number:31904-55-00018. �. IV. Project Description.The proposal is to construct a 572 sq ft garage with an attached 264 sq ft carport(total 836 sq ft)to be located up to the edge of the road right-of-way of Crescent Drive. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site.The small lot has an existing residence and septic system.There is an existing upland retaining wall between the residence with septic system and the proposed structure.The property is 145'to 148'deep,with 57'of waterfront footage and 63'along the road. B. Characteristics of the surrounding area.The surrounding parcels within the development have similar single family residences with similar garage/carports such as the one proposed. C. Zoning.The zoning for the site is Rural Residential 5. D. Shoreline Environment. The shoreline environment is Urban Residential with a minimum shoreline setback of 15'from the OHWM to development.The lake and its uplands within 200'of it are regulated by the Mason County Resource Ordinance with a minimum 35' building setback from the OHWM.There is a minimum 5'side yard setback. E. SEPA. The project is SEPA exempt under WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(iii). F. Other Permits.The proposal requires a Building Permit.A building Permit was obtained allowing the applicant to be 10'from the road right-of-way. Public Notice.Public Notice procedures were followed in accordance with Section 1.05.052 of the Development Regulations and Section 15.07.010 of Mason County Code Title 15.Comments from the adjacent neighbors,in support of the proposal,were received with the application.To date,four letters in opposition to the proposal have been received and are within Exhibit 6. _ ,idd k1b's ✓«d.Srnu 1 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc i VI.Analysis.The Rural Residential 5 Zoning provides for uses such as single family residences and accessory buildings. The proposal requires a Development Regulation Variance because within this zoning the minimum setback of structures to the front property line is 25 feet.This minimum can be allowed down to 10'from the front yard setback with an approved administrative variance.An Administrative Variance was approved by staff in March 2016 to allow the structure to be located 10'from the road right of way, indicated on the submitted site plan. The roofline of the structure is proposed approximately 10'-13'from the edge of the pavement,rather than the actual right-of-way,as determined by the Fawn Lake Maintenance Committee..In order to reduce the front yard setback to 0',as proposed,an approved Development Regulation Variance is required. 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 and adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal 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. 2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 3)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. It appears to staff that the proposed development does in fact comply with the Mason County Code, including Title 6,8 and 16.The project is not subject to Title 16 that only governs subdivisions.The development does not appear to impact the public health,safety and welfare.The project will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK: The Variance is required because the proposed 0'setback to the front yard of the private road right-of-way does not meet the minimum 25'front yard setback that is required for new construction within the Mason County Development Regulation 17.04.223(C)and because it is less than the minimum 10'front yard setback that could be approved administratively under 17.05.034(C)for Rural Residential 5 development. The variance criteria and responses follow: 1. Describe the specific modifications from the terms of the chapter required. The requested variance is for modification of the front yard setback for Tract 18 of Division#6 within the Fawn Lake development,Assessor Tax Parcel#531904-55-00018 from the private road right-of-way of 25' to be reduced to 0'or eliminated. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. The reason for requesting the variance is to allow enough room to place a small garage and carport between the road and the existing residence on the property.With the existing residence,septic system and retaining wall,there is not enough room to place a usable garage on the property without reducing the front yard setback from the private road right-of-way line.Reducing the setback to 0',or eliminating it entirely,will allow for the construction of a garage/carport. 2 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc VL Analysis.The Rural Residential 5 Zoning provides for uses such as single family residences and accessory buildings. The proposal requires a Development Regulation Variance because within this zoning the minimum setback of structures to the front property line is 25 feet.This minimum can be allowed down to 10'from the front yard setback with an approved administrative variance.An Administrative Variance was approved by staff in March 2016 to allow the structure to be located 10'from the road right of way, indicated on the submitted site plan. The roofline of the structure is proposed approximately 10'-13'from the edge of the pavement,rather than the actual right-of-way,as determined by the Fawn Lake Maintenance Committee..In order to reduce the front yard setback to 0',as proposed,an approved Development Regulation Variance is required. 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 and adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal 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. 2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is in the public interest. 3)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. It appears to staff that the proposed development does in fact comply with the Mason County Code, including Title 6,8 and 16.The project is not subject to Title 16 that only governs subdivisions.The development does not appear to impact the public health,safety and welfare.The project will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan. DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK: The Variance is required because the proposed 0'setback to the front yard of the private road right-of-way does not meet the minimum 25'front yard setback that is required for new construction within the Mason County Development Regulation 17.04.223(C)and because it is less than the minimum 10'front yard setback that could be approved administratively under 17.05.034(C)for Rural Residential 5 development. The variance criteria and responses follow: 1. Describe the specific modifications from the terms of the chapter required. The requested variance is for modification of the front yard setback for Tract 18 of Division#6 within the Fawn Lake development,Assessor Tax Parcel#531904-55-00018 from the private road right-of-way of 25' to be reduced to 0'or eliminated. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. The reason for requesting the variance is to allow enough room to place a small garage and carport between the road and the existing residence on the property.With the existing residence,septic system and retaining wall,there is not enough room to place a usable garage on the property without reducing the front yard setback from the private road right-of-way line.Reducing the setback to 0',or eliminating it entirely,will allow for the construction of a garage/carport. 2 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc I 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. The lot shape is rectangular and is approximately 63'wide along the road and 148'deep toward the shoreline.If the front yard setback requirement of 25'is not relaxed,the applicant would not be able to build a small garage.This lot was originally approved for a building site by Mason County but the development's community club made a determination of where the actual road right of way is located on the ground.Subsequently,this Variance request is required. The strict setback of 10 feet from the front property line does now allow enough room for a reasonable size garage to accommodate any vehicles. 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 lot shape is rectangular and is approximately 148'deep and 63'wide.The width is defined by the Crescent Drive road on one side and Fawn Lake on the other.With the small size of this lot and the current setbacks in place,it makes it impossible to build their garage/carport as proposed on the lake property.The applicant's stated hardship is that the strict application of the 10 foot setback from the front property line does not allow enough room for a reasonable size garage to accommodate any vehicles. Therefore the hardship becomes apparent due to the lack of protection against the elements or vandalism or theft may occur to his vehicles. 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 applicants have designed the garage/carport to fit into the lot with a proposed reduction of the front yard setback to the private road right-of-way.The applicants proposed garage/carport will not interfere with the adjoining landowners properties.The lot is located at the lower side of a"T"intersection.There will be no adverse effect on traffic flow or line of sight.This size garage is the maximum to fit on this area.Any smaller size in depth would not accommodate a normal length vehicle and have enough room in front or rear of the vehicle to walk around it. d.That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The variance requested does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area and is the minimum necessary to be able to build their garage/carport.It appears that other homes in the area have already been built to the right-of-way line or within the minimum 25'setback.The applicants garage/carport will not be restricting any of the neighbor's views because it is landward of the residence. e.That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. �— There is no apparent detrimental effect to the public by granting this variance. 3 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc 1 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 shall not justify a variance. The applicant has reduced the width footprint of the proposed garage/carport to make it fit into the lot while maintaining the setback from the retaining walls and septic system.The proposed building plan meets all of the plan and development regulations,resource ordinance and county ordinance except for the front yard setback from the right-of-way which this variance request is for. VI. Conclusion: Staff has considered the surrounding residential uses on the lake and it appears that the proposal meets the Development Regulation criteria for granting a variance for the 0' front yard setback with the reasons stated above.All other County setback requirements are met by the proposal including the minimum 6.5' side yard setbacks for RR5 zoning. It is unclear to staff as to the county role in this case given the community's maintenance commission decision stated in the submitted letter. The proposal does not appear to have detrimental effects to the public health,safety and welfare.The Building,Environmental Health and Planning Departments have reviewed the structure development through the Building Permit Process. It does not appear that there are conflicts with existing and adjacent uses as proposed yet comment letters do suggest that it will conflict and set a precedence. No hazardous conditions are expected as a result of the proposal. Several comment letters have been received,to date, and are attached as Exhibit 6. The concerns include precedence,vehicle safety issues,pedestrian safety and the adjacent neighbor's ingress/egress safety.One neighbor also objected to their view from across the street being blocked because of the size of the garage. Views of upland properties are not protected under the SMP regulations. Based upon the policies and regulations,the project appears to conform to the Mason County Development Regulations Variance criteria and the Shoreline Master Program.If approved,staff recommends that the following conditions be added to the permit: 1) Development shall comply with the Rural Residential 5 Provisions of the Mason County Development Regulations. 2) Erosion control to be installed and maintained throughout construction. CHOICE OF ACTION. 1. Approval of DDR2016-00079 request. 2. Approval of DDR2016-00079 with conditions. 3. Deny permit(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 15.09.090 of Title 15. 4 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.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 shall not justify a variance. The applicant has reduced the width footprint of the proposed garage/carport to make it fit into the lot while maintaining the setback from the retaining walls and septic system.The proposed building plan meets all of the plan and development regulations,resource ordinance and county ordinance except for the front yard setback from the right-of-way which this variance request is for. VL Conclusion: Staff has considered the surrounding residential uses on the lake and it appears that the proposal meets the Development Regulation criteria for granting a variance for the 0' front yard setback with the reasons stated above.All other County setback requirements are met by the proposal including the minimum 6.5' side yard setbacks for RR5 zoning. It is unclear to staff as to the county role in this case given the community's maintenance commission decision stated in the submitted letter. The proposal does not appear to have detrimental effects to the public health,safety and welfare.The Building,Environmental Health and Planning Departments have reviewed the structure development through the Building Permit Process. It does not appear that there are conflicts with existing and adjacent uses as proposed yet comment letters do suggest that it will conflict and set a precedence. No hazardous conditions are expected as a result of the proposal. Several comment letters have been received,to date, and are attached as Exhibit 6. The concerns include precedence,vehicle safety issues,pedestrian safety and the adjacent neighbor's ingress/egress safety.One neighbor also objected to their view from across the street being blocked because of the size of the garage. Views of upland properties are not protected under the SMP regulations. Based upon the policies and regulations,the project appears to conform to the Mason County Development Regulations Variance criteria and the Shoreline Master Program.If approved,staff recommends that the following conditions be added to the permit: 1) Development shall comply with the Rural Residential 5 Provisions of the Mason County Development Regulations. 2) Erosion control to be installed and maintained throughout construction. CHOICE OF ACTION. 1. Approval of DDR2016-00079 request. 2. Approval of DDR2016-00079 with conditions. 3. Deny permit(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted). 4. Remand to for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with section 15.09.090 of Title 15. 4 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc ID LIST OF EXHIBITS for Jerry Dehnert: DDR2016-00079 1. Staff Report and List of Exhibits. 2. Application for Dev Reg Variance,2 letters of support from neighbors. 3. Public Notice. 4. Site Plans and Vicinity Map. 5. MC Code for RR5. 6. Public Comment letters. 7, 6PAf AT 8. Mr_� l►'U !O h �Clvn Zit f 11 - 4" lam_, G � 9- ' �In /bilk,Pr� .,�-.�u e sh 1�e�u.�arotowu,ram•,-�k. 5 H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc H:\drvarstaffdehnert.doc _ �xa I am requesting and applying for a variance criteria permit. I am trying to construct a garage and I have limited space due to pre existing retaining walls. The size of the garage was originally going to be 28 feet deep and 26 feet wide with a carport attached measuring 28 feet deep and 12 feet wide. With the location of the retaining wall to the front property line is 24 feet. I now need the size of the garage to be 22feet deep and 26 feet wide and the carport 22 feet deep and 12 feet wide. This size garage will fit in this area and will include any overhangs or gutters. There is no concern with the side property lines. The lot is on the water of Fawn Lake and I am limited by the retaining wall and then the house and on down to the lake. The strict setback of 10 feet from the property line does not allow enough room for a reasonable size garage to accommodate any vehicles. Therefore the hardship becomes apparent due to the lack of protection against the elements or vandalism or theft. My lot is located at the lower side of a"T"intersection. There will be no adverse effect on traffic flow or line of sight. This size garage is the maximum to fit on this area. Any smaller size in depth would not accommodate a normal length vehicle and have enough room in front or rear of the vehicle to walk around it. I am not asking for any special treatment or privilege, I am just trying to protect my vehicles for any harm or danger and weather conditions. I can not see any ill effects on the public interest because it will not effect any day to day activities around the area. If I am denied the variance criteria permit,that portion of my lot just becomes unusable space and a deep parking lot. The underlying reason for this application is because of incorrect information given to me by the Fawn Lake Building liaison Bob Chandler. First thing I did was I had the county inspector look at the location for the garage. He informed me he thought the area would be ok but Fawn Lake maintained the roads and I needed to contact Fawn Lake commission. I had Bob Chandler come to my lot and he measured the distance from the edge of the road to the projected corner of the garage and it measured 23 feet. He said I needed to be 25 feet from the edge of the road or I need to get a variance from the county. He stated he was ok with the location and size of the garage provided Mason county granted the variance. I then started taking bids from contractors to draw plans to submit for a building permit with a 15 foot variance to cover the 23 feet per Fawn Lake. Mason county granted my building permit with the variance and Mr. Chandler signed the approval from Fawn Lake to construct the garage. As far as I was concerned,everything was in order. I contacted my contractor and told him the plans were authorized and the permit was issued to me. I met with the contractor and made a down payment to order the material and he had it delivered to the sight. He then sent out his crew and they dug the holes for the posts and the holes had to be inspected by Mason County before the posts could be cemented in. The inspector came out to inspect the holes and found some of them too shallow and did not sign off and said they needed to all be 4 feet deep. I informed my contractor and he sent his crew back out and made the holes the proper depth. The inspector came back out and signed the holes off and said it was ok to cement the posts. The crew came back and cemented the posts in the holes and that same morning the Fawn Lake building liaison came out because he was getting phone calls concerning the distance from the edge of the road. He looked at the plans and permits and variance and stated to the crew that everything was in order. They kept working and started cutting the lumber to set up for work tomorrow after the concrete set overnight. About 1 hour later,the President of Fawn Lake commission stopped by and suggest they �xa stop working because the posts were not 30 feet from the center of the road. I then called Mason County and sent the inspector back out and he measured the posts and said the closest post to the road is exactly 15 feet from the edge and there is an overhang on the garage and I would need to revise the variance. I went into the county office and they granted me a variance of 10 feet to the edge of the road and told me to continue building because I was clear with the county. Fawn Lake commission still had an issue with the building too close to the road and they told me I needed to get a survey. I responded to Fawn Lake that I have already received authorization from Fawn Lake and Mason County to build where it was designed.Nobody suggested or stated I may be too close to the road but I stopped work out of courtesy to Fawn Lake commission and spent$450.00 for a survey. The survey proves the posts are on the right of way and need to be moved. I now have thousands of dollars in this project with all the material laying on the ground unprotected. I believe with the information given to me I took all the correct steps to get authorization and permission and permits and variances to build.Now the posts need to come down and start the process over again. I spent money and time in good faith on a variance,permits, garage design,plans, and labor to install the posts.Now it will require additional money for post removal, additional posts,revised building plans, and a Variance Criteria Permit. Had the Fawn Lake Building liaison informed me correctly, I would have made different garage plans and applied for the Variance Criteria Permit. I did not get that choice and now I am forced to try and salvage a garage to make the money already spent not a waste. Here is an approximate time line and expenses already paid. On or around 11-16-15, I had the mason county inspection at my lot and showed him the location of the garage I am planning to build. He stated it looked ok in that area but I needed Fawn Lake to authorize the area because they maintained the roads. On or around 11-23-15 I had the Fawn Lake building liaison Bob Chandler come over and measure for clearances to the road and sides. He told me I was 23 feet from the edge of the road and I would need a variance from the county be built within 15 feet of the road. If they granted the variance,he would sign the Fawn Lake approval form. On or around the last week of November 2015, I began taking bids for construction of a garage. I selected Legacy Builders to measure, design,and draw the plans for the garage. On 12-19-15 I applied and got a loan for the garage. On 12-28-15 I signed a construction contract with Legacy Builders and paid 2400.00 non refundable deposit so they could draw the plans to submit for permit approval. And construction if plans are approved. On or around 1-16-16 I submitted a copy of the dimensions of the garage and the Fawn Lake approval form to Fawn Lake Building liaison for review and authorization. On 1-26-16 I received in writing the approval of the garage in the area he measured. On 2-2-16 I submitted the plans and request for a variance to Mason County and paid 772.79 and needed to pay the balance of 547.25 if the plans and variance were approved. On 3-10-16 I went into Mason County to pick up the authorized permit and variance and I then paid the remainder 547.25. On or around 3-11-16 I called Legacy builders and informed them the permits were all signed and in order and ready for construction. On 4-6-16 the materials were delivered on the property. r--x� On 4-13-16 the builders came out and measured and dug holes for the posts and as part of the contract, I paid them 7400.00. On or around 4-16-16 the Mason County inspection came out to inspect the holes before installing the posts. He did not sign off because some of the holes were not the required 4 feet deep. On or around 4-20-16 the holes were dug to proper depth and the inspection came back out and signed off the holes. On 4-26-16 the posts were concreted into the ground and the inspector came back out and said one corner post was at exactly 15 feet from the road and there is an 18 inch overhang on the garage. I went to Mason County and they adjusted the variance to 10 feet and said I could continue building. On 5-20-16 I had a survey taken for 450.00. In closing I have already spent 11,500.00 and 6 months of time trying to get a garage built that was preapproved for construction.Now I need to pay for a Variance Criteria Permit at a cost of 3100.00. Like I stated earlier, had I been correctly informed by Fawn Lake, I would have had the opportunity to make a decision before spending all this time, money, and stress 07/26/2016 10:52AM FAX 2534738524 LAKEWOOD FORD 2 0002/0005 To The Development Regulation Variance Administrator. In addition to the previous letter I wrote, I attempted to gain the support of the Fawn Lake community board members as suggested . l submitted my proposal 2 weeks in advance so the Board had time to make its review for the next board meeting. I attended the meeting and they declined support of my request for a letter of recommendation. I asked for the reason they declined and all I was told for a reason was the board did not support the request. They then closed all conversation on the issue and moved on to the next agenda on the list. I felt very disturbed about the fact they make a decision without any public input at this meeting. I went through all there hoops and regulations to be heard and it seems they just demised my issue. I have complied with all the requirements to the best of my ability on this project and got the permission to build from Fawn Lake and Mason county through the permit process as they instructed me. Everyone went off the measurement first taken by the building liaison from Fawn Lake who took the measurement from the edge of the road , believing it was the correct point of measurement. I recently received a letter from Fawn Lake requesting the removal of the posts immediately. l removed them on July 151" . One week after the letter. I had to get help to remove the posts. I am asking you to grant my variance so I can just have a usable garage. ���Kj 07/26/2016 10:52AM FAX 2534738524 LAKEWOOD FORD Z 0003/0005 Fawn Lake Maintenance Commission 471 SE Crescent Drive Shelton,WA 98584 P: 360-426-1657 F: 360-426-3266 Jerry& Renee Dehnert July 7, 2016 214 Seattle Blvd S Pacific,WA 98047 Mr. and-MrS-. Dellnert, - -- — In the beginning of June,after the completion of the land survey,you stated that you would be removing the posts upon returning from a week's vacation.This has not been done. I must insist that you remove these posts immediately. While removing the posts,take care to not damage any of the utilities that were exposed. If there are any further changes to your plans, we ask that you notify us immediately. Best Regards, Dave Peppard President Robert Chandler Building Permit Liaison 07/26/2016 10:52AM FAX 253473852.1 LAKEWOOD FORD �` /� / � Z0005/0005 i� SURVEY SKETCH FOR JERRY DEHNERT IN 96 FAWN LAKE DIVISION 6 IN MASON COUNTY, WASHINGTON o i o POSTS IN 0 40' CONCRETE 7.4' �0 c" 19 i; 18 '9 c 17 I 16 �E TURNBOW LAND SURVEYING, PLLC PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING 1 BASIS OF REARING PO BOX 834 SHELTON, WA. 98584 PER PLAT OF FAWN LAKE (360)432-2753 turnbowland@yahoo.com DIVISION NUMBER 6. VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGES 44-46 JOB: DEHNERT DATE: 5-28-2016 fmverx PC 07/26/2016 10:52AM FAX 2534738524 LAKEWOOD FORD 10 0004/0005 TURNBOW LAND SURVEYING, PLLC invoice PO 5OX 334 \ SHELTON WA 98584 �J Number: tSk3:, tray L�rhnt.r► Jerry Lkh►icri 'f$Q SE C:'.sc,:rt Jri\'r :50 SE Cr<<ivtu Jri�� �hct{nn•�t'a 9xS��l txliun.«•a ��X?h•1 i Tornu I D<scrip fan fijto Amount Date � UJilU/Ih rilitl I 1Y t�'juror) -ii(I,UII 4,40.00 i I I I I • I I • I I t i 0-3U dJ 31 .60 City• 90 day': Tot:H Y% tir�,(x: \tt,U(1 ti•itit.l,clil Mason County Permit Center Use: MASON COUNTY n� DEPARTNMNT OF CON MLNITY DEVELOPMENT DDR C9D I 411 N.Fifth Street/P.O.Box 279, Shelton WA 98584 �� l 360.427.9670 ext.352 Date Rcvd (U Request for Administrative Variance for Reduction in the Required Setbacks ($115.00) For administrative review,the minimum variance on a setback request is 5 feet from the side yard lot lines and 10 feet for front and rear lot lines or any access easement. Request for further reduction requires a standard variance. Setbacks are measured from the furthest projection of the structure, including roof eaves and gutters. -n Applicant/Owners: J erYh 00-R h X VT RECEIVED Mailing Address:_ - �- `-� Sep � 1 �y.� S- FEB 0 2 2016 p City: r�, State: W11 Zip: ILVU 7 M C C D - Telephone: 3 6 6�� Email: � _, o'(�a��i` �'1..A�.�,� . C�►�,,, If this reduction is tied to a building permit, please give permit case number. BLD 0007 Parcel Number(s): 3 1 t(' d G C-) t Zoning Site Address: __ S0 -S F CVE Le�" Requested setback variance: ` 1 ft. Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side f-' ft ❑ Front ❑ Rear ❑ Side �. ft. ❑ Front,, ❑ Rear , Side/ l •h—` ❑ Front -`Rear ❑ Side Front S acks-From access easements and road right of ways. Minimum 10 feet. Rear Setbacks-From the rear property line. Minimum 10 feet. Side Setbacks-From the side property line. Minimum S feet except for certain shoreline designations. An illustrated site plan is required. Your site plan must show the following: north arrow, abutting street or easements, set backs to all property lines and existing buildings, slopes, surface water,wetlands, critical areas, septic, well and driveway. Show all proposed new development. I:\Community DevelopmentTAC-Permit Assistance Center\VARIANCES\Admin Variance.doc Edited on 7/16/10 .,.*FRONT AND OR REAR YARD REDUCTION REQUESTS: For existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002: You must meet one of the following: 1) One of the following exists on the lot (check all that apply): ❑ a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present; ❑ b) soils that restrict building or septic development; )S: c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet; ❑ d) lot size of no more than one-fourth acre; ❑ e) existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas. SIDE YARD REDUCTION REQUESTS: For existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002; You must meet one of the following: 2) One of the following exists on the lot (check all that apply): ❑ a) steep slopes, wetlands, or streams present; ❑ b) soils that restrict building or septic development; ❑ c) lot width at the front yard line of no more than 50 feet; ❑ d) lot size of no more than one-half acre; ❑ e) existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas. Explain how these circumstances preclude a reasonable development proposal from meeting the setback standard for Rural Residential 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 zones. c1 �aYt�c.�� � 9^✓g ti A �6,.mac,R 2h aug �j '� � �' `1r1 Y) irk + Owner/ gent (please indicate) Si ature Date Official Use Only Approved by: fi7��/ Date Denied by: Date Reason for denial: L\Community Development\PAC-Permit Assistance Center\VARIANCES\Admin Variance.doc Edited on 7/16/10 W 55 N � cam. ►� e� M le, Je- 6e- ------------- ------ CP Development Regulations Variance: $1,135.00 Mason County Permit Center Use: I Z) ❑ Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,135.00 DDR D 'IP -QWT Y Public Hearing: $2,005 Date Rcvd I.P-13 ❑ Habitat Management Plan Review: $445.00 Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W.Alder Street,Shelton,WA 98584 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Mason County CodeTitle 15, Section 15.09.057 VARIANCE CRITERIA states that variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations(zoning regulations)may be allowed if written findings show compliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the criteria is met. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special"exception to the rule". Type of Variance Requested: ❑ Development Regulations ❑ Subdivisions and Plats Applicant Name err !Je-Aioe,�� Email �evey �)nl.�l /l mgi'.od L'Mailing Address se" I/A /3 5-3 73 9/`�U Z Phone Number 1 ( ) � � Phone Number 2 5 �- Site Addressy S C'v� eh � ✓ S h Tax Parcel Legal Description Property Owner Names V°Y Yy k h�Z �� rI rz✓� __ J { Project Description Cc' S�YH e- f) v `i V On a separate piece of paper,please address the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 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 J-r/-7ra features and the application of the County regulations,and not,for example,from deed restrictions or the 3) applicant's own actions; c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. #of Pages Attached: —AL5'N Applicant(s) Signature Date �v �� �c3 6oN ooa� MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 �° rA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 _ Mason County Bldg. 8, 615 W. Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 1854 www.co.mason.wa.us NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that Jerry Dehnert,applicant,has filed an application for a Development Regulations Variance for the following development:Construction of a garage to be located up to the road right of way of Crescent Drive,with a 0'setback. Legal Description: Fawn Lake 96,TR 18,Parcel No.31904-50-00018.Address:250 SE Crescent DR A decision on this application will be made within 120 days.The proposed development is reviewed as a Development Regulation Variance under Ordinance No 82-96 Mason County Development Regulations as well as Mason County Development Code,Title 15.The project is SEPA Exempt under WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(iii)• A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Wednesday,August 10, 2016 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Bldg I,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton.If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners Office,(360)427-9670,ext 419. Any person wishing to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should express their views or interest by July 29,2016 and/or at the public hearing.Please send comments to the Dept.of Community Services,Attn:Grace Miller,615 W Alder ST,Shelton,WA 98584. Please contact Grace Miller of the Planning Department at(360)427-9670,ext 360 or at the address listed above with any questions regarding this development and permit. IW 6&/1i"c}{1u�G(,uG�d( ar 7�l S11v. LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. J�wy nea A 98aY� �a�lln Lal�c M•�c�vAin�is3ron `l71 �Cresc�r'�2 qfy�,+.,Qcucwc�(L�ir 3) G—e��ld 'ti'ad�n9 w4 18S8y �1QhnG�ol�I2./ lid 5e OZ^a4-5 14 V6 9�8'M Le�lcr wt rl xk,�V' �.253��3q-44 qq �QEed�/z�r�Ko .75'3-0 35 'Pl-S WA 18"03 ,mot Lit tIqo WA L"�rejory qo � � Vn SKzi� WA 11 S5SN C:\Users\mdrewry\Desktop\PUBLISH TO WEBSITEWariance from Standards.doc -Dy2 dolt- - 00079 �x3 �p.✓ry���— ��iy D�Rrr.uc�c AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) I, au ,�rl�ey do hereby certify that I posted 3 copies of the attached on /_5"" day of 20 /4o in � public places as follows: one at one at one at1 In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this 15-�' day of , 20 i b By: -, M41 Address: &15 l✓ A� Si { , /�� q�5 g� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) Subscribed and sworn tome this /6 day of JUL , 20� Notary Public State of Washington - ��(�/; i " MELISSA DREWRY Not ry l for h State of Washington MY COMMISSION EXPIRES Residing at a OCTOBER 20,2019 Commission Expires / �? 9 _� .. _. _, r, _ �: 7 A � t .. � 'g` ��� . J ... �_ ,'G, 1. .��.;'. �,N. ry kx 3 ��BON coa��A MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 -_- Mason County Bldg. 8, — 615 W. Alder Street Shelton, WA 98584 www.co.mason.wa.us 1854 TO: MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: -7A Ll(, Please publish the attached on the following day(s)�� Yun � -o � - Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Department of Community Development to pick up from your office and send copies to the following: Please charge: —<o4-u 4 a�✓e for the publication at: 5 4 d„,9 Thank you, A4UA;AV (3&o) Mason County Planning Staff • • E I o Mason . ua —X 6 Development Regulations Variance: $1,135.00 Mason County Permit Center Use: ❑ Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,135.00 DDR 20 1 1P Public Hearing: $2,005 DateRcvd LP-0- ZUUP ❑ Habitat Management Plan Review: $445.00 Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W.Alder Street,Shelton,WA 98584 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Mason County CodeTitle 15,Section 15.09.057 VARIANCE CRITERIA states that variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations(zoning regulations)may be allowed if written findings show compliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the criteria is met. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special"exception to the rule". Type of Variance Requested: ❑ Development Regulations ❑ Subdivisions and Plats �e rr ,J 4Z A to t V/ — Email �1 e r�ry 4a�.��! /Ja�`a q i�.O'd Applicant Name f� / c,� Mailing Address LI Sep �� /tI4 �7d'c. -0 �5 ! ��/ Ll Phone Number 1 ( 2}1 �3 9 U Phone Number 2 1 Site Address � <) -�� �v�c eh ��✓ S h c ��h %Z'l/q / 0 �tl Tax Parcel# Legal Description -V r, G q Property Owner Names �`�r✓� RQ h 2 2 � A n Q✓t Project Description �� 'S e-1-',3 o On a separate piece of paper,please address the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 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 I.CXa features and the application of the County regulations,and not,for example, from deed restrictions or the (q 13) applicant's own actions; 4 c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,Development Regulations,Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. #of Pages Attached: Applicant(s)Signature944't 6--C� Date �v �� XNNNGPL � �N ` L (�T� MM r k —to -10 a l , 0 i Jo RECE - ALL Elf EL VEDAC ARE r4EAsuRED APPROVED FEB 0 2 2016 u_ F t j j 1, �,COUNTY DCD PLANNING -CTIOM O 'S1�fliV•-ftEQUIRED TO BE ON SITE ! CHANGES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL i MCCD - By J& __._.-._ Gate � _ i `j �. 0� a 7K t P LA N N I ` .\, .,r;Oj;"��: _..►4`r„11Mair �4RYa��f.' .Aj1:�. wig �J PROJECTION OF TFjl N __-• per' n� M w ; . w Q 1p /��Or,.;�`c'�,� +�'•'. 't:�;, ,� ,.P,.LA`�1��f�ffif G IR '01 Z-14 la Zo ' Te � �. - ���✓mac/ o - w \ ; A��26•s5 Z So S.� - C/2G-S< Z000/Z000I?j GHOJ QOOM3xvi VZ28CLPCSZ XVJ KVC5:TT 9TOZ/LZ/LO Fawn Lake Maintenance Commission 471 SE Crescent Drive Shelton, WA 98584 360-426-1657 Ms. Grace Miller, Mason County Planner Mason County Planning Department 615 S. Alder Street Shelton, WA 98584 Ref: 250 SE Crescent Drive (proposed garage construction on property) Dear Ms. Miller, Mr. Jerry Dehnert, property owner at 250 SE Crescent Drive, requested the Fawn Lake Maintenance Commission (FLMC) Board of Trustees to provide a letter to the Mason County Planning Department supporting a "no contest for criteria variance" regarding his proposed garage location (see attachment#1). The Board of Trustees met on Monday, July 18, 2016, and unanimously agreed "not to provide such a letter." The Board Members present had several concerns about the garage location, establishing a precedent in the community by allowing permanent structures this close to the roadways, and creating conditions contributing to potential pedestrian and vehicle safety issues by such structures impeding visibility of vehicles along our narrow roads and in this case vehicles exiting the adjacent driveway. Attachment# 2 are pictures of the proposed garage location where six remaining upright support beams are still in place (3 beams closest to the road were removed on Friday evening,July 15). It also appears the side of the garage would be within 10 feet of the adjacent property line where Mr. Dehnert's neighbor's driveway is located. We are submitting this letter and attachments in response to Mr. Dehnert's letter to FLMC, but not for support of the garage construction as initially positioned. Mr. Dehnert was advised of the Board of Trustees decision during the FLMC Board meeting of July 18, 2016. Respectfully, _--- RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2ft "I, A /�,,,/� �L y,� 615 W. Adder Street To Fawn Lake Commission Board I am requesting a statement from the board to mention no contest for a criteria variance allowing me to build a garage on or near the property line. Mason County controls the process of permitting usage of the 10 feet in question.. It has no impact on Fawn Lake property. The no contest statement may help me get a garage I need to secure my vehicles. RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2016 615 w• Alder Street Fawn Lake HOB 250 SE Crescent Drive Garage Location Issue RECEJVEp July 19, 2016 JUL zszo� s , warde.Street At 4�• .VP r IL 4L. . Lmt L '- ^ Or tl Three (3) upright beams closest to Crescent Drive roadway removed on July 15 at :30pm . I now E'l yr a' W �x O Corner front beam was adjacent to the telephone pole. 1 } +�:''-�•rw' �,. y� r eta,.. �O Dianne Roethler JUL 70 SE Clematis Avenue L 2 5?0, Shelton, WA 98584 615 AlU�, r July 17, 2016 eet Department of Community Services 615 West Alder Street Shelton, WA 98584 Attention: Ms. Grace Miller Re: 250 SE Crescent Drive, Shelton, WA 98584 Fawn Lake #6, TR 18, Parcel No. 31904-50-0018 Dear Ms. Miller: I am writing you concerning a projected garage that is being built at 250 SE Crescent Drive. I live at 70 SE Clematis Avenue, a cross-street that goes directly to the lake. I have lived at this address for almost seven years. One of the reasons that I bought my property was that I had a view of the lake from the top of my driveway. I bought in this community because I loved its peaceful, rural atmosphere. It never occurred to me that the owner of the property next to Clematis would decide to erect a huge garage. (Please see attached photographs.) I don't have an objection to a garage so long as it is the same size as the house and it is located directly behind the house. What I object to is the size of the garage and that it obstructs my view. More importantly, once a huge garage is constructed, the peaceful, rural atmosphere will be destroyed. My view will be of a huge monolithic building that resembles an airplane hangar and that will create an industrial feel. Once this building has been erected, other owners may decide to build the same kind of structure. After this owner has built his garage, a precedent will have been set. And there goes the rural feeling of the community. I am wondering why it would be necessary to build such a huge structure. What does the owner plan on doing with it? Going into construction? Working on cars? Storing materials? This could be potentially hazardous to the neighborhood. G,x Ms Grace Miller Planning Department Department of Commu nity Services 615 W. Alder St. Shelton, Washington 98584 Re: Development Regulation Variance of Jerry Dehnert Fawn Lake#6,TR 18, Parcel No. 31904-50-00018 250 S. E. Crescent Dr., Shelton Washington 98584 Dear Ms. Miller: I am writing to you in response to your Notice of Application and Public Hearing regarding the above request for a variance to construct a garage. The notice states that Mr. Dehnert wishes to construct a garage located up to the road right of way of Crescent Drive, with a zero degree setback. I am the owner of a home at 330 S.E. Crescent Drive. I wish to state that I am opposed to this request. His home was constructed knowing the city setback regulations and the Fawn Lake Convenant requirements. Moreover, there are no sidewalks on either side of S.E. Crescent Drive and constructing this garage with zero degree setback may interfere with walkers visibility of traffic that can legally go 20 miles per hour on this road. All of his neighbors in his area have their garages etc. within the city and Fawn Lake setback requirements. Thank you for informing me of this request before your department reviews his variance request. Sincerely, r' re:�dT. R o I i n g 330 S.E. Crescent Dr. Shelton, Washington 98584 RECEIVED JUL 252016 615 W. Alder Street ,E-k& Department of Community Services Rsctc l � July 17, 2016 C `✓ /'� Page Two JUL 15 2016 �✓ 615 W Aider Street Moreover, if the present owners were to decide to sell sometime in the future, what would the new owner decide to do with that structure? And if the new owner were to decide to use the structure for commercial purposes, who would be able to stop him? I do not object to a garage being built, only that it be located directly behind the house and of a size that is no larger than the width of the home itself, a garage that is typically built for a homeowner's residence. Thank you very much. L� Dianne Roethler Enclosures 3 h �,. 3, d aV k W- v JUL 2 5 2016 W. Aldr »_ Sireet w e i of d t` q; Grace Miller 07252016 About 250 SE Crescent Dr. and his attempt to get a variance. A variance should Not be granted. He has Not supplied you or Fawn Lake the Correct info,Nor does he know what he is doing. He put poles up and had No idea where they should go, even putting them on top of and down to the wires& stuff that run underground! Fawn Lake has told him No by a vote of the board. That should be enough.. His project, if allowed to continue, would be a hazard,to vision fir drivers&to walker. It would Not fit into the community. It would probably Lower property values for All of the properties. He thought he was sneaky and removed the poles that were on Fawn Lake property on a Friday at 930 at Night!! I think he thought no one would notice. This is being sent anonymous because no one knows what he might do.. A Neighbor RECE�vED JUL 2 7 2016 ra15 W, Alder Street July 26, 2016 To: Grace Miller, Planning Department, Mason County From: Mary Lou Radcliff Re: Variance on Parcel#31904-50-00018 250 SE Crescent Drive—(Fawn Lake)—Jerry Dehnert I am against the variance to grant Mr. Dehnert zero(0) set backs in building his garage, for the following reasons: 1. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to get his land surveyed to locate the property lines, so he can have the prescribed setbacks. 2. I feel it is unsafe—visibility will be hindered, he would be pulling into or out of the garage, with a hill and corner,traffic will be impacted as well as his safety. 3. We do not need this precedent,the lots here at Fawn Lake are small— everyone will want to have zero setbacks. This could result in many safety issues. 4. Everyone else has had to follow the rules,he needs to also. Thank you- 64Mary Lou 4cliq-/ 1140 SE Crescent Drive Shelton, WA 98584 360-427-7258 mlradcliff@aol.com R�C�I F15 jtk 29 2016 alder Street Larry & Jo Gregory 90 SE Crescent Dr. Sheltonl,WA. 98584 July 28, 2016 V�D Mason County Bldg. 8 A(/G �65 p 12016 Grace Miller, Planning 615 W. Alder St. g10!E3r �i'r� 1 Shelton, WA. 98584 This is in reference to: Parcel #31904-50-00018 Jerry Dehnert 250 SE Crescent Dr. Fawn Lake #6 TR 18 Deviation Ordinance HO 82-96 Deviation Code Title 15 Dear Ms. Miller We are opposed to the variance of setbacks as requested by Mr. Dehnert. This would allow a structure to be built on a property line. If this is allowed it could set a precedent for future building projects in the community. Most of the lots in Fawn Lake are only 60 feet in width and the structure as proposed would be a real violation of privacy. There is also a safety issue for anyone backing out of the surrounding driveways as this structure would impair the ability to see oncoming traffic. This is on a hill with a side street coming into it. Although our speed limit is set at 20 mph, many do not obey that and also do not properly stop at posted stop signs. In addition, the garage poles were drilled and set in place next to Fawn Lake utilities without having a utility locate performed. Sincerely Larry Gregory Copy of From: Renee Dehnert!enaodehne:. (ph Q 1 5 �ro V,4_, Subject: ' Date: August at 8:46 PM To: reneedehnertert@hotmail.com l �hnerf r p. Sent from my Phone y v� � p'-e tl `fir C d �X g ►=rorr: Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B Subjec: Date: August 6,2016 at 8:42 PM To: reneedehnert@hotmail.com I as IIL �YYV" �r Sent from my Phone y 15 fJ� ,:s /0-'r J J7 8 a ! f / � r lV o 0S Fron-: Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B Subjec.: Date: August 6,2016 at 8:47 PM To: reneedehnert@hotmail.com 13 _w aiiA �rtyyl• i. Sent from my Phone 5-� ( G I � 0 From: Renee Dehnert -aedehnert@hotmail.com B Subject: Date: August 6,2016 at 8:48 PM To: reneedehnertLho�n-,ail.corn ( it Ov'1 - - _ a • .�� '- .. ,,,.; +•.i air i�:�'.'!1 ham}`... � r Sent from my Phone >C 8 Fror;-: Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B Subject: Date: August 6,2016 at 8:51 PM To: reneedehnert@hotmaii.com i :�� �+ yr• f 4 -sue Sent from my Phone ,r 1p��J�'� �'�� e lk .;�� ; . =�,����� +- «+ fib• •, '� .tom Gdrt 5 Ca4, ✓, 1.4 :f to I ' ys ; , `,i•�r.e! a �,}, '\�+�.•�� WW 0 Nil f •.�" a q"a s�,�,r f r3 ��r.*r,,:�j€ � � , �71. 4%, M sl Y aw ( �' (/ �,�,� ., :. . � (����. #. �� �g a� �� �: � � .��. ate, s .s����,� �• r '' r �� a r` -. �` �. .��.... ��' ''� ��, .,rt .� � V � - �� .. � � _�' ,tea. R. a ': _, . .r` �, q ,-f �� � '��•�a ref � �*�',„S���'1 f�' * � ,� <�9� : .- et j�'�� � i qq }q_ i ,r� "�f� � a°'.r� � ie' s w '� '�}� t A y y 4 '` �' 6$ Fror Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B Subject Date: August 6,2016 at 8:52 PM To: reneedehnert@hotmail.com �. .. A A� a rR i -bowl Sent from my Phone i ror-: Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B $u b}ec:: Data: August 6,2016 at 8:52 PM To: reneedehnert@hotmail.com Y J �r IP , p / :* � T + *I ! ^r Sent from my Phone � g Renee Dehnert reneedehnert@hotmail.com B August 6,2016 at 9:38 PM Co: reneedehnert@hotmail.com r s.. r04�7 j dot/✓t, _ U ar Rock cr-421 «i Sent from my Phone 4.�V� .yam.. �• •y' �' ter, .J ��� �� s. .. .�_ -. � _. -- _ _. _' s. 1 � . .. �. - .-.__ .. a r,, F -���� ._ . � � ' ��: � .: � � i� � � ` �! , ♦ , � t i ; 1 � .. �_.; = .�' .;� - _. � ••: _ _ L -S. � � �„ .q MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING.PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. 8, 615 W. Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 1854 www.co.mason.wa.us July 29, 2016 RE: Notice of Public Hearing for Development Regulation Variance for garage/carport. Applicant - Jerry Dehnert. Case #DDR2016-00079. To whom it may concern: The Public Hearing before the Mason County Hearing Examiner to consider Jerry Dehnert's Variance request has been scheduled for Wed, August 10, 2016. The Hearing will take place at 1:00 PM within the Commissioner's Chambers of Building 1, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. If the courts need to use this location that day, we will move this hearing to the downstairs Conference Room of Building 8, 415 6th Street, Shelton. If special accommodations are needed, please contact Melissa Drewry, (360) 427-9670, Ext 236. From the Belfair area, please dial 275-4467; from the Elma area please dial 482-5269. Enclosed is a copy of my staff report. Please let me know if you have any corrections, or questions. My phone number is (360) 427-9670, ext 360. Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ,' 60Td Co __. MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 �° rA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING®PLANNING.FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 -- Mason County Bldg. 8,615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 7854 www.co.mason.wams July 29, 2016 RE: Notice of Public Hearing for Development Regulation Variance for garage/carport. Applicant - Jerry Dehnert. Case #DDR2016-00079. To whom it may concern: The Public Hearing before the.Mason County Hearing Examiner to consider Jerry Dehnert's Variance request has been scheduled for Wed, August 10, 2016. The Hearing will take place at 1:00 PM within the Commissioner's Chambers of Building 1, 411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. If the courts need to use this location that day, we will move this hearing to the downstairs Conference Room of Building 8, 415 6th Street, Shelton. If special accommodations are needed, please contact Melissa Drewry, (360) 427-9670, Ext 236. From the Belfair area, please dial 275-4467; from the Elma area please dial 482-5269. Enclosed is a copy of my staff report. Please let me know if you have any corrections, or questions. My phone number is (360) 427-9670, ext 360. Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller, Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Jq7D/z,)cic� �G7� �w �..4- �arryT�� LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. any 8W9 s. 5 ;�,� � �� �4-b 014-k. W� 98017 �l 6wn LaM( Mnfur^Oh,xo�syrar� °l q7t crest..�i �/Z 7jy�r,� E� ,xdl tl`�v 14 3) )e4t. ,51wvAm w4 5'S5-By 7/asfim L r 2).P.)nz R,a/Pa' 70 5e r!il. ^ab-s hvi5 ?� /�� /C�cd• leer $he 1 f tm Gc1t 9kgq',i 3cvf� 053) Y3`l-t�,fN ,7�5 3,07 35 GJA IffO31 C:\Users\mdrewry\Desktop\PUBLISH TO WEBSITEWariance from Standards.doc box coat MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 �° ap DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. 8,615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 1854 www.co.mason.wa.us NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that Jerry Dehnert,applicant,has filed an application for a Development Regulations Variance for the following development:Construction of a garage to be located up to the road right of way of Crescent Drive,with a 0'setback. Legal Description: Fawn Lake#6,TR 18,Parcel No.31904-50-00018.Address:250 SE Crescent DR A decision on this application will be made within 120 days.The proposed development is reviewed as a Development Regulation Variance under Ordinance No 82-96 Mason County Development Regulations as well as Mason County Development Code,Title 15.The project is SEPA Exempt under WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(iii)• A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Wednesday,August 10, 2016 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Bldg 1,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton.If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners Office,(360)427-9670,ext 419. Any person wishing to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should express their views or interest by July 29,2016 and/or at the public hearing.Please send comments to the Dept. of Community Services,Attn: Grace Miller,615 W Alder ST,Shelton,WA 98584. Please contact Grace Miller of the Planning Department at(360)427-9670,ext 360 or at the address listed above with any questions regarding this development and permit. Mason County Map Output Page Page I of I Mason County Map 319645568001 3"04""'06 1190155001 f 718045500075 319045500077 m 719045500110 31180455900119 I 319045500076 N 319045500080 n fn 319045500105 319045500120 319045500042 m y 719045500111 1 319045500117 312045500128 17 O 319045500041 {ry < 319045500081 y 319045500104 313045500121 Q 319045500123 319045500082 .II 319045500112 Z r = 319045500116 Q U 319045500039 319045500103 W 319045500130 319045500084 31904550004 0 319045500113 31904SS00122 y 319045500083 319045500126 319045500114 3 t9045500131 SE DOGWOOD PL SE CRESc" 319045500102 3190455001 319045500123" 319045500107 319045500125 31 500100 319045500124 319045500087 319045500132 319045500085 719045500099 319045500031 319045500028 314045500/13i0' 319045500086 319045500030 319045500098 319045500136 319045500029 3195�90134 f" 319045500088 04 319045500027 3190,15500097y' 31904�5500135. 3190455000 319045500,). 3190455od$dS 319045500089 319045500024 / �, `(t�P�`�p V' 7 379045500090 19045600002 319045WO623 / $1-�' 319045500021 YYY 3190b5500091 379045S00003 319045500021 31904550009Z 319045500019 31904S600004 ,319040060000 3141745500020 119045500094 319045600005 Q�,/1 319045500018 319045600012 31904560000(i S� 319045500017� 379045500093 31904-1600011 375045500016 319045600010 319045600007 319045600009 319045600008 315045500015 R 319045500014 319045500013"- 319051460000 `°r"" 319045500012 319045500010 119045500008 I, 319045500011 319045500009 119045500007 b. 71904236001 319045500005 319045500003 3190424600M DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: The data used to make this map have been tested for accuracy,and every effort has been made to ensure that these data are timely,accurate and reliable.However,Mason County LEGEND makes no guarantee or warranty to its accuracy as to labeling,dimensions,or placement or location of any map features contained herein.The boundaries depicted by these data are ff oads i odwat Lands approximate,and are not necessarily accurate to surveying or engineering standards,and are intended for informational purposes only.Mason County does not assume any legal liability r11gt"ayS City of Shelton or responsibility arising from the use of this map in a manner not intended by Mason County. Rivers S reams co'nty Beumary icNR) In no event shall Mason County be liable for direct,indirect,incidental,consequential, special,or tort damages of any kind,including,but not limited to,loss of anticipated profits Parcels Comnllss inrlirr Clstncts or benefits arising from use of or reliance on the information contained herein '+4cton5 Lakes cU'2009-Mason County GIS T 100 W.Public Works Dr c3ltshg2s ,' Puget SoundB Major lakes Shelton,WA 98584 http://mapmason.co.mason.wa.us/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=amason... 6/14/2016 1 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS VARIANCE CHECKLIST Application received and logged: 7 Legal notice delivered to Journal: Legal notice posted and mailed: Shelton UGA notice: SEPA: �K; Circulated on: ti,-k Other permits or variances: , Hearing date: 9110l u ak r w 0 0 i Packets to/BOM Decision: UKI Notes: _T�1240WA 17c..c C'ILZ-I/M0 SVt,_p aVt. ON G/3o&C,01Sifc.���. 5 r �e�orf oh gr, p�r ,M bau 340w� NCMc c�195 As L'( 66., G cw> 34 7 �310 s��f ���� /e.ccd S��(c�► (�*�-�-ua.�.E (cr �� b 7bb k"s &ot W la4 �i •���.a s��d-Fail !�- �'°`'. H:\N4y DocumentsTorms and Templates0ev. regs VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360) 275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING a PLANNING o FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. 8, 615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 1854} www.co.mason.ws.us NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that Jerry Delmert,applicant,has filed an application for a Development Regulations Variance for the following development:Construction of a garage to be located up to the road right of way of Crescent Drive,with a 0'setback. Legal Description: Fawn Lake#6,TR 18,Parcel No.31904-50-00018.Address:250 SE Crescent DR- A decision on this application will be made within 120 days.The proposed development is reviewed as a Development Regulation Variance under Ordinance No 82-96 Mason County Development Regulations as well as Mason County Development Code,Title 15.The project is SEPA Exempt under WAC 197-11-800 A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Wednesday,August 10, 2016 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Bldg I,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton.If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners Office,(360)427-9670,ext 419. Any person wishing to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should express their views or interest by July 29,2016 and/or at the public hearing.Please send comments to the Dept.of Community Services,Attn:Grace Miller,615 W Alder ST,Shelton,WA 98584. Please contact Grace Miller of the Planning Department at(360)427-9670,ext 360 or at the address listed above with any questions regarding this development and permit. ilia" y , I ~ �2a ntto- 066 ,r"ry— beef" LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR VARIANCE REQUEST Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor. C:\Users\mdrewry\Desktop\PUBLISH TO WEBSITEWariance from Standards.doc PLANNING FEES 15W Ndecs may` PLANNER: GRACE KELL MICHAEL REBECCA FEE TYPE: FEE AMOUNT: - 6cor7 1135.E co PLANNING FEE TOTAL: i qU . Uv 1 Grace Miller - garage/carport at Fawn Lake From: Grace Miller To: jerrydehnert@hotmail.com Subject: garage/carport at Fawn Lake Hello Mr Dehnert, I am writing the staff report for the up-coming hearing and am wondering if you can send me a copy of the portion of the survey that you recently had completed and refer to in your application.I am interested as it pertains to the road right of way, property line and garage/carport? The only site plan that I have with your variance application is the one that you submitted for your building permit when we approved the garage at the 10' setback. Thank you. Grace Miller about:blank 7/25/2016 07/26/2016 10:51AN FAX 2534738524 LAKEWOOD FORD lao001/0005 V Publication Cost Agreement 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. C) � j4p gnu of Property Owner Date Print Nam OR Signature of Applicant Date Print Name ScK copes , MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 �' TA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext. 352 BUILDING•PLANNING•FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Mason County Bldg. 8,615 W.Alder Street, Shelton, WA 98584 —854 www.co.mason.wa.us NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PUBLIC HEARING FOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATION VARIANCE Notice is hereby given that Jerry Dehnert,applicant,has filed an application for a Development Regulations Variance for the following development:Construction of a garage to be located up to the road right of way of Crescent Drive,with a 0'setback. Legal Description: Fawn Lake#6,TR 18,Parcel No.31904-50-00018.Address:250 SE Crescent DR. A decision on this application will be made within 120 days.The proposed development is reviewed as a Development Regulation Variance under Ordinance No 82-96 Mason County Development Regulations as well as Mason County Development Code,Title 15.The project is SEPA Exempt under WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(iii)• A Public Hearing will be held by the Hearing Examiner on the proposed project on Wednesday,August 10, 2016 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Bldg I,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton.If special accommodations are needed,contact the Commissioners Office,(360)427-9670,ext 419. Any person wishing to express their views or to be notified of the action taken on the application should express their views or interest by July 29,2016 and/or at the public hearing.Please send comments to the Dept.of Community Services,Attn:Grace Miller,615 W Alder ST,Shelton,WA 98584. Please contact Grace Miller of the Planning Department at(360)427-9670,ext 360 or at the address listed above with any questions regarding this development and permit. 1 Grace Miller - Re: Public Hearing schedule for Development Regulation Variance From: Grace Miller To: Jerry Dehnert Subject: Re: Public Hearing schedule for Development Regulation Variance Hi Jerry, The Hearing will be take place on Wed Aug loth at 1:00 PM. The location is within the Commissioners Chambers of Building 1,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton.If the courts move us out to another building that day of the hearing, we will be in the downstairs conference room of Building 8, at 415 N 6th St. Please let me know if you have any questions.Thank you. Grace >>> Jerry Dehnert <JerryDehnert@hotmail.com> 7/8/2016 6:10 PM >>> Hi Grace. I would prefer Aug 10th. Could you let me know what time it will be scheduled and the location. Thank you. Jerry Dehnert From: Grace Miller<Gbm@co.mason.wa.us> Sent: Friday,July 8, 2016 4:01 PM To:jerrydehnert@hotmail.com Subject: Public Hearing schedule for Development Regulation Variance Hello Mr. Dehnert, I am going to schedule a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner and wanted to check with you to see if you prefer August 10th or Aug 24th?You do not have to be present for the hearing. They occur on the second and fourth Wed of the month. Just wanted to check in case you plan to attend and there may a more convenient date for you?Thank you. Grace Miller 615 West Alder Street Shelton, WA 98584 about:blank 7/11/2016 07/27/2016 11:53AM FAX 2534738524 LAKEWOOD FORD I00001/0002 -47 1 z �' uD pan' �Xa Development Regulations Variance: $1,135.00 Mason County Permit Center Use: Z) ❑ Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,135.00 DDR a,0 1 IP -M-1 6 Public Hearing: $2,005 Date Rcvd Le'1'�' ZD L(V ❑ Habitat Management Plan Review: $445.00 Applicant will also be billed for advertising costs. MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES 615 W.Alder Street, Shelton,WA 98584 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Mason County Code Title 15, Section 1.5.09.057 VARIANCE CRITERIA states that variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development Regulations(zoning regulations)may be allowed if written findings show compliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to prove that each of the criteria is met. A public hearing accompanies Variances and application for a Variance does riot guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special"exception to the rule". Type of Variance Requested: ❑ Development Regulations ❑ Subdivisions and Plats Applicant Name �Q/' Email V ✓✓y �c�ia a,� /la�'�»c�i�.�►�►r Mailing Address I LI Se" 'I/'/1 /3/(14 /��c. 'c �-; ��U << )Phone Number 1 2)3 g,3 p2 9 Phone Number 2 0 � � ) �h6 6�q,6 ( J Site Address Tax Parcel# 3/ /q O Legal Description jFc-i-vn Property Owner Names y c Y✓ti ¢ �� ¢'�� Project Description CO �,*-4 c� o C, On a separate piece of paper,please address the following: 1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. 2. Describe the reasons for the variance. 3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to these circumstances. a. That the strict application of the bulk,dimensional or performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations; 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 �/ a2 features and the application of the County regulations,and not,for example, from deed restrictions or the f 3) applicant's own actions; c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment; d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; £ 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. #of Pages Attached: A-� Applicant(s) Signature Date /y /� �Ofrctq--T�LU51MAL -f V pu4tiA n yet-Ord ere � ✓ � 0 I Jerry Dehnert Laura Stradling & Amos Nelson 214 Seattle Blvd S. 10633 SE 244th Street Pacific, WA 98047 Kent, WA 98030 Chung-Hsin Liao Jerry Simon Revocable Trust 150 SE Crescent Ave. P.O Box 66 Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 t sheer red �'I Danielle Yongue ET VIR Robert & Joanne Barton 25307 35th Pl. SO Sunsea Jack Cloutier 260 SE Crescent Dr. Kent, WA 98032 of,4J,q jtUtW T& 6f- ,,,�c,��a g s�� Shelton, WA 98584-8680 Michael Ragan ET AL Alton & Michiko White Richard Weaver 2102 V ST. NW 6205 139thy LN SW Auburn, WA 98001-3409 Rochester, WA 98579-9742 Pamela Hye Kyong Revoc. Trust Priscilla Bachtell 180 SE Crescent Dr. 1515 Ridge Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584-1539 Paul & Rhonda Greenough Richard & Carol Braunschweig 8613 32"d St. E 300 SE Crescent Drive Edgewood, WA 98371-1944 Shelton, WA 98584-8681 Raymond & Ariana Nicoli Michael & Pamela Craft 4004 13th Ave. S 502 Riverview Drive NE Seattle, WA 98108 Auburn, WA 98002 I Raymond & Connie Nicoli Harold Kruchek P.O. Box 174 175 Pecos Rd Olga, WA 98279 Tula Rosa, NM 88352-9665 Gerald T. Roling Living Trust Chere Kindred 116 Fairview Ave N- Unit 807 50 SE Clematis Rd. Seattle, WA 98109-5365 Shelton, WA 98584-7253 V 6,znId�( ✓ig -33 Melissa Siedentop Jason Sterba ET AL 60 SE Holly P1 Carri Mallgren Shelton, WA 98584-9302 60 SE Clematis Rd. Shelton, WA 98584-7253 Gerald & Mary Newcomb Brandon & Tara Smith 1081 SE Craig Rd 61 SE Clematis Rd. Shelton, WA 98584-9225 Shelton, WA 98584 Cecilio Guzman-Garcia ET AL Ryan Johnson 44 SE Holly PI 41 SE Clematis Rd. Shelton, WA 98584-9302 Shelton, WA 98584-7253 Steven & Shannon Walker Alan & Rhonda Farrar 1810 SE Cole Rd. 8721 Kimmie St. SW Shelton, WA 98584 Olympia, WA 98512-7640 Candace Bowker Aaron Collier ET UX 301 SE Crescent Dr. Dorian Colleen Kensok Shelton, WA 98584-8681 5709 Marilane St. Yakima, WA 98908-2363 Edwin & Hideko Szankiewicz Susan Calder 8716 Highland Ave. SW 50 SE Canna Pl. Tacoma, WA 98498-2538 Shelton, WA 98584-9210 Judy Brown Todd Ashborn 201 SE Crescent Dr. 60 SE Canna Pl. Shelton, WA 98584-8675 Shelton, WA 98584-9210 John & Danielle Cook Ricky & Nora Lanning 61 SE Canna Place 61 SE Canna P1. Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584-9210 Eddie & Linda Crumpton ✓ � �u� ����f 7/--,.1 lit) I 171 SE Crescent Dr. C•-esc�.t�2���d`�`�-�+t� Shelton, WA 98584-7708 �,, Louis & Luisa Gordon 71 SE Barberry P1. 9c Cat 72 Shelton, WA 98584-9208 �i O)k � $4 James Bullock ET UX 40 SE Mt. Washington Ct. -5 U-V� gsgy Shelton, WA 98584-9289 / 4 Faun Chad Sadlier 1380 Regatta St c 1gs�, Apt. 307 Fayetteville, NC 28301 V 31 C 154e,+r.wk gv%q d jn Axis Rt15k �� I o&15e Gem is A* C�.e,Il.nn 1.1A 4-XK-04 MASON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER AGENDA August 10, 2016 Mason County Building 1 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton 1:00 pm 1. Jerry Dehnert- Development Regulation Variance Permit (DDR2016-00079) Proposal: Construction of a single family garage/carport to be located 0' from a private road right-of-way :.Staff: Grace MMM 2. TNT Investments- Shoreline Conditional Use Permit (SHR2016-00004) Proposal: Development of a portion of the Bayshore RV Park located within the 200' shoreline of Oakland Bay. The development will include the following: The construction/upgrade of two entrances off SR 3 (one for emergency access only),portions of 4 RV pads, two parking stalls, removal of existing septic drainfields, landscaping and a split rail wood fence along SR 3. Staff: Grace M r 3. Richard Dyste—Resource Ordinance Variance (DDR2016-00075 & VAR2016- 00005) Proposal: Replace an existing 440 sq. ft. cabin and deck with a single family residence with a footprint of 400 sq.ft. plus a 180 sq. ft. deck(total 580 sq. ft.)within the marine shoreline buffer of Hood Canal and 7.5 feet from NE North Shore Rd. Staff: Kell McAboy 4. Chad M. McGraw—Enforcement Case(ENF 2016-00003) q JNJIWiolation: Property owner installed a five foot tall rod iron fence within a Fish& Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer and a shoreline setback. Staff: Kell McAboy T HEX ATTENDANCE ROSTER (Date) PHONE DO YOU WISH NAME (Please Print) MAILING ADDRESS TO TESTIFY? f 1 ✓Ca! �ii.a� 5 9S 5'£a 2 No r -�-� v 6 9 10 11 F"5p13 Cpp�'.. MASON COUNTY (360)427-9670 Shelton ext.352 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (360)275-4467 Belfair ext.352 BUILDING o PLANNING o FIRE MARSHAL (360)482-5269 Elma ext. 352 Y = — Mason County Bldg. 8,615 W.Alder Street, Shelton,WA 98584 J854 www.co.masonma.us August 30, 2016 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Case Number:DDR2016-00079— Development Regulation Variance for Jerry Dehnert. Notice is hereby given that Jerry Dehnert, applicant for the above referenced Development Regulation Variance,has been granted conditional approval of the Variance with the conditions listed in the Decision dated 8/25/16. If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue,please contact Grace . Miller,Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360) 427-9670,x 360. This is a final decision. This conditional approval of the Development Regulation Variance by the Mason County Hearing Examiner is final and subject to appeal to Superior Court.Appeal deadlines are short and procedures strictly construed. Anyone wishing to file an appeal of this decision should consult with an attorney to ensure that all procedural requirements are satisfied. Time Limit for Action. Per the Mason County Code Title 15 -Development Code-No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval,the Hearing Examiner shall review the permit and upon a showing of good cause,may extend the initial two year period by permit for one year. Otherwise,the permit terminates; PROVIDED that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension before the Hearing Examiner PRIOR to the expiration date.Expiration Date=August 30,2021. 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY 2 Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Jerry Dehnert FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION. 5 Development Regulation Variance 6 DDR2016-00079 7 INTRODUCTION ,t 8 9 The applicant requests a variance to the 25-foot front yard setback to Crescent Drive. The applicant proposes to construct a single family garage/carport on the right of way 10 line of the private road, approximately 10-13 feet from the pavement. The variance is approved subject to conditions. 11 12 ORAL TESTIMONY 13 Grace Miller, Mason County senior planner, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Miller clarified that the conclusion in her staff report that 14 the variance would not affect line of sight was based upon view impacts to the shoreline, i.e. line of sight to the shoreline. She noted that the Public Works 15 department has not reviewed the variance for safety because the adjoining road is not 16 public. Ms. Miller also clarified that the wall depicted in the Ex. 4 site plan is a retaining wall and the wall is why the garage can't be built closer to the home (away 17 from the road). The retaining wall retains a steep slope. 18 Jerry Dehnert, applicant, noted that his photographs (Ex. 8) show that many other properties are built to the property line. As to line of sight, there are more trees and 19 brush that obscure sight than his garage will. One picture shows a large tree trunk just 20 a couple feet from the road. There's plenty of room between the garage and road for persons to walk. 21 Mr. Huish lives 200 yards from the project site. He walks past the project site every 22 day. He's very comfortable with the proposal and believes that the situation is perfectly safe. Information from the homeowner's association is frequently incorrect. 23 There's no view obstruction. In response to examiner questions, there's no sidewalk 24 and the speed limit is 20 mph.Very few people speed. 25 Janice Charles, neighbor, noted that the project site is at the end of a T intersection. The garage will create blind spots on the two adjoining lots, which creates a Development Regulation Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision dangerous situation. It's totally false to say there's no problem with speeding. The 1 police don't ticket in the area because it's a private road. Mr. Huish responded that 2 the Sheriff s Office does come on the private road and does issue citations. 3 Steven Charles stated that he has lived in the area for eight years and he is on the watch program. He stated that police only visit the area on a very, very rare basis and 4 the HOA has considered hiring its own police protection. The T intersection is very dangerous and there's a dip in front of the proposed garage. 5 6 Mrs. Dehnert noted that the proposed garage will be 27 feet from the road. The neighbors on one side already have a blind spot because of trees and the neighbor on 7 the other side has 27 feet between their garage and driveway. The hill is not a great big hill. 8 EXI HITS 9 10 Ex. 1-6 identified in the staff report were admitted into the record. Google maps was added as Ex. 7. 12 8x11 photographs of the project site was admitted as Ex. 8. 11 FINDINGS OF FACT 12 13 Procedural: 14 1. Applicant. The applicant is Jerry Dehnert. 15 2. Hearing. A hearing on the applications was held on August 10, 2016 at 16 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners meeting room. 17 Substantive: 18 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant requests a variance to construct a 572sf garage with an attached 264sf carport (total 836sf)to be located up to the edge 19 of the road right-of-way of Crescent Drive, approximately 10-13 feet from the 20 pavement. 21 The property is 145' to 148' deep, with 57' of waterfront footage and 63' along the road. The lot has an existing residence and septic system. There is an existing upland 22 retaining wall between the residence with septic system and the proposed structure. 23 The subject property is located between the north shore of Fawn Lake on the south 24 and Crescent Drive (a private road) to the northeast. The property slopes downward from the road to the lake. The lot is located at the end of a T-intersection. 25 Approximately 26 home lie beyond the intersection along Crescent Drive which dead Development Regulation Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision ends to the west of the subject lot. Additionally, there are two other loop roads 1 servicing dozens of homes that funnel into this same intersection. 2 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area is characterized by single-family 3 residential development in a typical subdivision layout lying adjacent to the north shore of Fawn Lake. There is an existing single-family residence on each side of the 4 subject property. Many houses in the subject area have similar garage/carport 5 structures to the one proposed. 6 5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, no significant adverse impacts can be attributed to the requested variance. The front yard setback involves building closer 7 to Crescent Drive,but there will still be a minimum of 10 feet of separation between the proposed home and the road pavement at its closest point. Other developed lots in 8 this area have fences and carports developed on the right of way/property line or very close to it(Ex. 7 and 8). As far as can be discerned from the record this very limited 9 additional proximity to the road will not cause any line of sight problems for 10 adjoining driveway or any other safety hazards. However, for future front yard setback applications it is imperative that staff provide more information on safety 11 issues pertaining to front yard variance, preferably with comment from the Public Works department. In an abundance of caution, approval of the variance will be 12 conditioned on a finding from Mason County Public Works showing the County has reviewed the proposed setback and determined that there will be no site distance 13 issues that may present a hazard to the public safety. 14 As to shoreline view impacts, impacts are highly marginal given that existing 15 vegetation and structures already impair views. Given the subjective nature of view impacts and the dubious legal authority to restrict development on the basis of such 16 impacts in the absence of specific view standards, view impacts are found to be 17 nonsignificant. Beyond safety and view issues, there are no other potential adverse impacts associated with the front-yard setback request. 18 6. Necessity of Variance. The applicant would not be able to build a 19 functionally sized garage without the variance. The lot width, existing home, retaining wall and septic system preclude the applicant from being able to construct 20 the garage outside of the setback or anywhere else on the lot. The garage cannot be 21 reduced in size because it is already the minimum necessary to park a car and allow a person to walk around the vehicle. 22 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 23 Procedural: 24 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 3 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) provides the 1 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon development regulation variance 2 applications. 3 Substantive: 4 2. Zoning Designation. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 ("RR-5"). 5 3. Review Criteria and Application. The variance criteria for the front yard 6 setback variance is governed by MCC 15.09.0571. Applicable criteria are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. 7 8 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance 9 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 10 4. A single-family home is the primary use authorized in the RR-5 zoning 11 district and is therefore considered a reasonable use of property in that zoning district. Garages and carports are typical and customary structures associated with single 12 family residential development. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the south 13 side of Crescent Drive is the only portion of the applicant's property that can be reasonably developed with a functionally sized and placed garage/carport. Since strict 14 application of the front yard setback completely precludes the development of a garage/carport except within the front yard setback, it is concluded that the 15 dimensional standards preclude a reasonable use of the property.The proposed garage is considered to be the minimum reasonable use as determined in Conclusion of Law 16 No. 7. 17 18 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant, and is the result of 19 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 20 the applicant's own action. 21 22 1 Front yard setbacks can normally be addressed under the administrative variance 23 standards of MCC 17.05.034(C). However,those standards only authorize a variance up to ten feet from the road. Since the applicant is proposing the elimination of the 24 setback from the road right of way, the variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 must be 25 applied. Development Regulation Variance p.4 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 5. The need for the variance is completely attributable to the unique features 1 of the property, i.e., the size, width, existing house placement, existing septic system 2 placement and the existing retaining wall placement. Additionally, the lot was approved prior to the roadway alignment and therefore the applicant took no action to 3 create the hardship. 4 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 properties or the 5 environment. 6 6. The property is surrounded by single-family homes. As determined in 7 Finding of Fact No. 5 and as conditioned, the requested variance will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjacent uses or the environment. 8 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special 9 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 10 necessary to afford relief. 11 7. The variance enables the construction of a functionally sized garage with a placement similar to many of the surrounding lots. Since other surrounding lot 12 owners have had the opportunity to build similarly placed garages and carports (Ex. 8),the granting of the variance in this instance would not constitute a grant of special 13 privilege. 14- The variance is also the minimum necessary to afford relief in that the proposed 15 footprint is the minimum size to accommodate a typical vehicle with room to walk around it. Since the applicant's proposed building footprint is the minimum required 16 to create a functional garage, the requested variance is considered the minimum 17 necessary to afford relief. 18 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 19 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, as conditioned the variance will not adversely affect the environment or adjoining uses while allowing for a 20 reasonable use of the subject property. The public interest will suffer no substantial 21 detrimental effect. 22 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County 23 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only 24 shall notjustify a variance. 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 9. As previously noted, the proposed garage is the minimum footprint necessary to 1 permit construction of a functional garage. The garage cannot be constructed on any 2 other portion of the subject lot. Consequently, the applicant currently has less than minimum reasonable use, which is construed as lacking a reasonable use. Further, 3 other than the regulation subject to the variance request, the proposal is consistent with all applicable regulations and the Growth Management Act. Staff have 4 determined that the proposal is consistent with the shoreline master program because the proposal does not involve construction closer to the shoreline. 5 6 Generic Permitting Criteria 7 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: S 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 9 the requirements and-intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 10 2 Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 11 in the public interest. 12 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 13 Comprehensive Plan. 14 12. The project complies with all of the County regulations specified in the 15 criteria above except for the setback regulation subject to the variance request. No subdivision of land is proposed, consistency with health regulations will be assured 16 during building permit review and the proposal is exempt from the State 17 Environmental Policy Act. Since the proposal has no adverse impacts as mitigated, it does not impact the public health, safety and welfare. The proposal will not lower 18 level of service standards for transportation and neighborhood park facilities. As previously noted, staff have determined the proposal to be consistent with the 19 County's shoreline master program. 20 DECISION 21 The front yard setback variance meets all applicable variance criteria for the reasons 22 identified in the conclusions of law above. The variance is approved subject to the following conditions: 23 1. Development shall comply with the Rural Residential 5 Provisions of the 24 Mason County Development Regulations. 25 2. Erosion control to be installed and maintained tlu•oughout construction. Development Regulation Variance p. 6 Findings,Conclusions and Decision 1 3. Approval is contingent upon a finding from the Mason County Public Works 2 Department that the proposed setback will not create any vehicle safety hazards. 3 Dated this 26th day of August, 2016. 4 7'hi�.'1.t711xvrly� 6 7 Mason County Hearing Examiner 8 APPEAL 9 The variance decisions are final and may be appealed to superior court as outlined in 10 the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. 11 CHANGE IN VALUATION 12 Notice is given pursuant to RCW 36.70B.130 that property owners who are affected 13 by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes 14 notwithstanding any program of revaluation. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Development Regulation Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision _ VVV +__._.._._...�..r.->�•^.a"^ 7t oN av a _4Z z l9 � �' p� rlanfiQ. DD�2alb�0(�1 • � � � �t � [� I �✓r��'tea•. '�T'P �4 4ri• i !„In,<, D € LAIN uk-1 I nnrr �� /� �+ /�y-� pp ppCC l!yy���� APPROVED L !'eLl. E I BACKS Film fAilE SURE© RECEIVED I. FROM, _,.F�-�. ��� f t t COUNTY DCD PLANK-ING Y t1,�F✓IIC1�S Of Ti�1:. FEB 0 2 2016 AWf1 SQUIRED TO BE ON SITE CHANGES SUBJECT TO APPROVAL MCCD - B —=� Date a y � -_. 11� ri "o �1 PLANN4 s� �r, V L - �A. �Te cx$Vic. „_ `',•:... �� - � PROJECTION OF tC IE f w� � Wl\fG' P ,E 51�UP UJrl_' ,.. ..�'i:.,,{14�w.:4Ut.i'+ ,r..� ,`4 w.. •., -..� -'�;�� 7nnni7nnri (T)Ln.T RnnAArJVV'T T77CRf'lbf'C7 VV..T TiWf'C:TT QTn7/1.7/1.11 BUILDING A 1 8" ROOF OVERHANG ALL SIDES RECEIVED I I CTES FEB 0 2 2016 1 . CODE : 2012 IBC (V5 C D I 2. DESIGId LOADS: 24" OC. @ 48" OC. Aft @ , � ROOF SNOW = 25 PSF I @ 24" OC. t @ 48" CC. I , O VVIND SPEED (EXP B) = ! 10 IVIPH c I , 1 501L BEARING PRE55URE = 2000 PSF �- 5EI51vlIC DE5IGN CATEGORY D H 00 I Ox! O' OVERHEAD I Z 0k0 DOOR LL z THESE PLANS MUST BE �/ W ION THE JOB SITE W :HEM-FIR# ! FOR INSPECT10r•, — — RIDGE — p . :HEM-FIR u 2 ' LO :DOUG-FIR# 2 Q ^ :DOUG-FIR# 2 U Z TREATED LUMBER. ALL LUMBER WITH GROUND CO1dTACT SHALL BE FRESSURE TREATED O w O I I 1 Ox I O' OVERHEAD CHANGES vnt 1 O � �RiBO O PCF RETEhdTIOPI � N � DOOR SUBMIT CHANGES FOP,APPRO I t17 m ARD5 : .40 PCF RETENTION PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK , I °U} I 5. COI,!CRETE : Fc = 2500 P51 @ 28 DAY5. 3000 PSI FOR CONC SLAB ' l G. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON U1-.0I5TUR5ED 0 s NATIVE FIRM 501L WITH MIN. BEARING CAPACITY 3xG OF 2000 P5F AND LATERAL BEARING CAPACITY U J DOOR , I OF 150 PCF. BUILDER TO VERIFY 501L CONDITION J N 1 I PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CD 1 ti c _ G I I I O 7. ROOFING ; 29 ga CORRUGATED STEEL Z co�_ N I _ 511ED I cU U✓ITH 5/8" HIGH R o "' �t I I IBS @ 9` OC WITH # !0 X ! I/2° N ' SCREWS @ 9" OC. J o Q 10 51DfHG : 29 9a CORRUGATED STEEL = 0) m Lu w Q ' I a — — — — — — — — — — — — — I WITH 5/8" HIGH RIBS @ 9" OC WTH # 10 X !" > y 4 5CRnv5 @ 9" OC. U Q J L — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 51DING ; CEDAR SIDING BY OV✓rlER ON 7/1 G" 055 511EATHIIIG � N W N W/8d GALV NAIL5 @ G" OC AT PANEL EDGES 4 1 2" OC ui 4'-0" 1j _0" AT INTERMEDIATE MEMBERS J N � LU 28'-0" /�iid 1 � l���i�� 6192 REGIS T E R E D All ITECT FLOOR PLAN ROOF FRAMING PLAN 5CALE 3/. = 1'-0. gr TN�.F1 c1tTR� STP,iE GF 1Y4,4F.I GTG::' ® G " x 8" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED POST V✓/ 28" 0 x 4' - 0" CONC. FTG. 71: �� 1 ❑ G " x G" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED POST W/ 1 8 0 x 4' - O MUST MEET ALL CURRENT CONC. FTG. vlJ 0 4 " x G" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED DOOR POST W/ 18" 2) x 3' - 0" CONC. FfG. WASHINGTON STATE CODES CHANGES SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL I'R`OR 70 PF[;FORK iIN G JORK THESE PLANS MUST BE ON THE jOB SITE t �--OR INSPECTION d- iv,�� ==�,z_ _ � ;IRENT kn P� C. t N, (3)1 Ga.I , w Nj ) 3j ,.. WAS HINGTOIN STAT 0 E CODES � �ET O ` @ D 48" .J 2x1 G RAPIERS_ w \ 12 12xo"iR1{N CLEAI- 21 ++ --I2 W/731,'TG-T.AT LA:S(DE j + slow" f w + + 6x24° CLEAT Q + 42x&CVERdAAG P.AFTER lN/(4)1 Gd.NAILS AT EA.SID + �2x6x21?"CLEAT. + O _24"cLEAr' ►� cv cI� °:2xGx24"CLEAT + Ln O r 2xG tIRTS 2 13),]6d. AT EA. DID _ N ;< 2xG S T IF, 484�.ab :W/ T O P05?Y I Gd. NAILS C�2 OC. TO GIRT 6xB_.PT_ POSv' 'WT CIS GxG FT. FOSTS G ,-T_ P05T5 U J ® J 2x6 BJARD' CONC SLAB BY OWNEP. � U) c\I ( NOT SHOWN) 5 0 00 0 11 1 I I I I I l l l 11 1 1 Lr> ,d i L I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I Q ! II � 3'-0 I I I I o ii i IILI - N 3—0 1 —f 2'-011 I I I O J co rn ¢ J 1 I I I I I i l Q LLul pO L_ J ¢ 8" -^ W 4 g ! O x .'-O` CONC. FTG. 25"0 x 4'-O" CONC. FTG. � 1 8" 0 x 4'-0" COPJC. FIG. o� J � cz O itn SECTION A 0uj ui _j cv gqg? fiE ISTERED ARCHITEOT R+,eRi'O"T''* -TOR PIDGE CAP CHANGES 4x4 TPfM CEDAR,51DING ( BY OVVI,IEK) SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL OPi 7/1 G.; OSB 5HEATHII.IG PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK DE I 2 =� THESE PLANS MUST BE � ON THE.'C3 171T W o '-OP INS- Ln N - 0 OPEi l 3 w I�flla! tL?EETALL CUjnj.- 0'-0" 01_011 WASHINGTON STATE CODES � N � END ELEVATION SCALE U RIDGE CAP STEEL P•,00FItAG �/J O O z Lo I co � O Q �] WAN - I � w - > >w< _j J 0 Di OPEN II Q -0 (R N o Rc"GISrEfiS�� q < w °} rn s A�G�y 1 u t � � N I A n LL q f�. SIDE ELEVATION SCALE S,/1 G'_ . -0' RIDGE CAP 12 �4x4 T RI1\4 D ET. 20 C H/-3 N G F-"'-) SUB191T CHANGES FOR AP{'ili" PRIOR TO PERFORN/!'.3N(--,Wf)f :' 00 THESE PLANS MUST BE � Z kn -)N THE J013 SITE O ( =nR INSDE I 'Of-,'. LEI � fTl OPEP1 � rFn-�/J 4x4 TRIM Q � Q 5TEEL 51DII IG ✓- CJ� WAS HINGTOjr�j STATE CODES END ELEVATION U RIDGE CAP 5TE1=L R001 lHG co Lo O t` V O m Q Imw2LL w Ao 'r U Q LU 4 I� J � ( N Q o I I O n N rLU N a Fes-- }� F tiCi: n I 17, R•.� 51DE ELEVATION - 53AL E 3i:r'= I' j 2xG EDGE PURLIN �.gt ... 51MP50N LU2G HANGER ' 2xG OVERHANG RAI=TER W/(4)1 Gd 18"MIN.OVERLAP W/ LU 2G HANGER 8 _ (3)I G d. MAILS RAFfEP.S PER PLAN TO PURLIN CLEAT PURLIN5 PER 3/4" O MD. (3)1 G J. NAILS AT EA. PLAN � (4) 2x 12 RAFTEP. END OF OVERLAP 00 IL W/ (4)1 Gd.HA1L5 kn AT EA.CONhd ° PURLIN5 PER PLAN w00 (2)I Gd.NAILS AT EA.END w PURLIN CLEAT ' : 3/4" 0 MB. 24 PURLIN CLEAT \N/(4)1 Gd. 91 NAILS AT RAFTERS Q U O 2x x24" CLEAT RAFTERS W/ (2)1 Gd. DETAI L 4 W/ (C)I Gd NAILS NAILS AT EA. SIDE. SCALE I` = I'- O"' w G x P05T DETAIL 3 ( PURLIN CONN. @ RAFTERS) ti o SCALE 1" = 1' - O ( TOP VIEW) ( PURLIN OVERLAP @ P.AFTERS) DETAi L I iL , SCALE 1 " = 1' - O" WASHING TON STATE COMES 2x6 EDGE PURLIN - PT POST PER PLAN W/(3)1 Gd NAILS ' U 2xG BLOCKING W/ (37797i-TAILS CHANGES. w� N 1 q 4 SUBMIT CHANGES FOR Ai''%?;i';-'•' vw o PRIOR TO PERFORMINGco 4 I I'yti' THESE pLANI'S MUST BE ...r1 A' 3/4': 0 MB. I•.4 . ,4 i .� z �N -r'� lob S1T,: = coo Q in 6 +LI 4 w > }. I--,(2) 2x 12 RAFTER A. q y 4 „I n (� ?_' � � �, co Vk//(4)I Gd.NAIL5 (L � � ¢ AT EA.COI'1Pl ° I ti I q .I N Lu N 4 i:r f --- - W - - J 2x x24 CLEAT CONC. FOOTING !�.,- x _ _ 1 co ¢ w W/(G)I Gd NAILS I ',, -' J N �- 6 x POST s CONC. F G 0 PEPS PLAN �? 8!. corJc. PAD DETAIL 2 DETAIL 5 SCALE I " = I '- O" SCALE I ' = I - O" - A 18'' ROOF OVERHANG ALL SIDES BUILDING RECEIVED 0TE5 FEB 0 2 2016 Id N I . CODE : 2012 15C MCCD - 2. DESIGN LOADS: @ 24" OC. t @ 48" OC. , I ROOF 51,10W = 25 P5F @ 24" OC. t 48" OC, VvlND 5PEED (EXP B) = ! !0 MPH p I 501E BEARIPJG PRESSURE = 2000 PSF d' 5EI5IvIIC DESIGN CATEGORY D H 00 I Ox l O' OVERHEAD ( Z Oo0 DOOR . THESE PLANS MUST BE p� W G1 ON THE JOB SITE W U — , — — — — :HEM-FIR# I FOR INSPECTION, ' RIDGE � p :HEM-FIR# 2 um ' - - - - - - - N :DOUG-FIR# 2 Q Z :DOUG-FIR# 2 �. TREATED LUMBER: ALL LUMBER WITH GROUND h� I - CONTACT SHALL BE PRE55LIKE TREATED O w O 1 Ox! O' OVERHEAD CHANGES ' POST : .GO PCF RETEIJTIOP!co N DOOR SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPRO` /ki ! m cr) 5KIKTBOARDS : .'�0 PCF RETENTIOIJ I I I I f PRIOR TO PERFORMINGV='J4?;� , 0I 5. COHCRETE : fc = 2500 P51 @ 25 DAYS. 3000 P51 FOR CONC 5JA13 G. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON UIJDI5TUR5ED 0 5 NATIVE FIRM SOIL WITH M111. BEARING CAPACITY 3xG OF 2000 P5F APJD LATERAL BEARING CAPACITY DOOR I ( OF 150 PCF. BUILDER TO VERIFY 501E CONDITION N 1 I PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIOPJ � o co I1 O 7. ROOFING : 29 ga CORRUGATED STEEL ? ul SHED ` I I cV WITH 5/5" HIGH RIBS @ 9" OC WITH # 10 X 1 1/2" N co c ' I 5CREV✓5 @ 9-1 OC. I o " 51DRIG : 29 ga CORRUGATED STEEL = ' I I m Lo o — — — _ — — — — — — — — — WITH 5/8" HIGH RIBS @ 9" OC WITH # 10 X l" j _4 SCREVS @ 9" OC. Q-j Z L ' Q N a s — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SIDIPIG ; CEDAR SIDINGBY 01NIlER Ohl 7/1 C." 055 5HEATHING rn N J C W/8d GALV !JAILS @ G" OC AT PANEL EDGE5 t 1 2" OC LLJ ¢ w 4'-O" 4°_0" AT INTERMEDIATEiviEMBERS J N � � 28'-0" 6192 REGISTERED� AR I i EGT R FLOO PLAN ROOF FRAMING PLAN gr TN�.N c�rTRlJ STP;TE OF Vi,4S"I GTO,'',l ® G " x 8" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED POST V✓/ 28" Q x 4' - 0" CONC. FTG. 0 G " x G" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED POST W! 1 8" 0 x 4' - 0" CONC, PTG. MUST MEET ALL CURRENT 0 4 " x G" ROUGH SAWN PRESSURE TREATED DOOR POST W/ 18" 0 x 3' - 0" CONC. FTG. WASHINCT(JN STATE CODES CHANGES SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR T"O PERFORMING WORK THESE PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE MR INSPECTION Q 4) 2x)2 RAFTE<S "2xG PURLtN3 @ 2- ' t `` -`x6x2 +' 3LOCK P'UST I ALL CURRENT � kn C ' oc. �,,� ;�} 6d.r a.lw ��!{2} 3!�° M.E. WASHINGTON STATE CODES w 00 DET. lO + H � 00 2x 10 RA.f i ERS W U 12 12 �i� Ll N CLEAT S 2�- „ --12 VG'/ 3;TCd.A-EA.SDE , w + + 2x8x24' CHEAT 2x6 -, Q Q 1h//(4)1 Ga.NAILS AT EA.SIDE w �-•+ + 2xGx24"CLEAT •F cn + c w 2xGx2-4"CLEAT kf) O JL? 4�'C-LfA , + Un O 2 x G G-1 27r tik' (3)!6d. AT EA. El ID N 2x6 Sa7E@ 48"O 'W/(31) TO POST$I Gd. NA!'-5 ig 24 OC. TO GIR Gx(5 FTj_ PC>S I GxG PT- POST S GxG FT. P0,5T5 _ 2x6 _S :RBOARD CONIC SLAB BY OWNER. � � N ( NOT S`10k!NN) o � v I I I I co III iII 1I I � - N -o' 2 co qT � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CD X W Iw W Q LL cn � u, L_ J �- > � 8° 0 x 4:-o` CONC. FTG. 28' 0 x 4'-C CONIC. FTG. 18'; 0 x 4'-9' C0HC. FT& --�/'� () ¢ -j o Q 04 SECTION A Lu SCALE i/4 = t J J N Lu cS F- sT^z PEGIST El:RrD AFiu;;l T E07 �TpkrrT>,rI 0T',TEyr t-tA:;`i11 vTQ:Q 2 RIDGE CAP CHANGES LxU —P'lm CEDAR 51DIl IG ( 5Y 00/11ER) SUBMIT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL Ohl 7/1 6'' 055 5HEATI-IIHG PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK N 00 THESE PLANS MUST BE F., 2 00 ON THE JOB SITE N W o POR INSPECT'O!\`Ln W O O OPE11 �� Q I�tlr i tLiEt r fa�i CURRENT 'NASMIPJGTON STATE CODES 0'-0" 0-0� W WO END ELEVATION SCALE U RIDGE CAP 5TEEL s;00�lIdG 'w N O [Ti Z co U7 N fD � I - M L I W Lo c 4 >- > > � w a 'c'o o r n CV LLJ N o' Iff � bl:�? (DJ w o nc+ iS7�^t� J N 51 DE ELEVATION RIDGE CAP �--4,4 TRIM DET.� CHANGES ,z 2 — SUBMIT CHANGES FOR Aili=iti PRIOR TO PERFORMING V, THESE PLANS MUST BE 00 Z � ON THE JOB SITE MR INSPECTION C4 c� OPEFI 4x4 TRIM Q O 57EEL 51D11lG it uS i r.LL WASHINGTON STATE CODES _ Sow N � END ELEVATION U RIDGE CAP 5TEEL ROOFII,JG -w N V, O O Z co co M co m Q Rl�/J7' n L0 UQ Q � c Lo 1' N LU N W ?�? _ N F- Khv:: r K --r- - i i i:v I 51DE ELEVATION 5 C.A,_ _ 4 ` 2xG EDGE PUKUN 5IMP5014 LU2G HANGER 2xG OVERHANG RAFTER W/(4)! 6d 18"tv11PI.OVEP.IAP W/ LU 2G HANGER �;J 8 (3)16 d. NAILS RAFTERS PER PLAN TO PURLIN CLEAT 3/4" 0MI5. (3)16 d. NAILS AT EA. PUKLINS PEP, END OF OVERLAP (4) 2x 12 RAFTER 00 W/ (4)1 Gd.NAIL5 ° Z kn AT EA.CONtd ° PURLIN5 PER PLAN 00 (2)1 6cl.NAIL5 w J � AT EA.END Z un PURLIN CLEAT Lx 24 PURLIN CLEAT W/(4)1 Gd. 3/4 OMB. NAILS AT RAFTERS Q 0 2x x24" CLEAT RAFTERS W/ (2)I Gd. DETAIL 4 Al/ (G}I Gd NAILS NAILS AT EA. SIDE. SCALE I` = P - 0" O w 6 x POST DETAIL 3 ( PURUN CONN. @ RAFTERS) N SCALE I` = I' - O" ( TOP VIEW) ( PURLIN OVERLAP @ RAF T ER5) DETAIL I SCALE I " = I' - O" WASHING TON STATE CODS 2xG EDGE PURLIN < PT POST PER PLAN Vv/ (3)1 Gd NAILS U J 2xG BLOCKING \V/ (3 7rd 1.1 IL5 CHANCE J N 4 4 SUBMIT CHANGES FOR Af} 'i •'. 0 o PRIOR TO PERFORMING 'w' _.`.:l Z co �=--- o C, 8 4.� i 14ti THESE PLANS MUST P�- _jco �. O 3J4'. MB. `' ON rHE!OG S) E o z -OR 1PJSPE('T€Of\1 m i Lo >_ > r; (2) 2x 12 RAFTERa I A. 4 4:I U ¢J 11/ (4)! Gd.P�AILS NO > e AT EA.CON r! N J v ti 2x x24 CLEAT 4 4 I I ` , - J N ti h_ ' _, r0) COtdC. FOOTIPlG W/(G)I Gd NAILS14 �• y I T 4 l CONC. FfC-0 PcP.PLAN 8' CONC. PAD DETAIL 2 D ETA I L 5 5 SCALE I " = I' - 0° SCALE 1' = 1 ' - 0" 7,o O f 3 90 . ems fILE COPY REVIEWED FOR �OC4T 'SBint -r.�; i � r a ;: CODE COMPLIANCE Siteplan:___�__ MASON COUNTY Plan review ui7cis : Y�c� R= --- BUILDING DEPARTMpff, Eng neering: ON -r p Date -Z- '- �T4c. IVLn:��erof pages CHANGES SUBMPT CHANGES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK ..✓JJ f�� y/ IV,USi 1�11CCi ALL CU WAS HINGTON ST,,NTE C S THESE PLAJNJ5 r01 :7ON THE jov, t • FOR INSPECTo , • __�DATE i