Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandfill/Land Modification Work within Shoreline - GRD Letters / Memos - 1/11/2003 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 January 11, 2003 Steven L. Shineman PO Box 1838 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Case Closure; Parcel Number 32135-43-00110 Dear Mr. Shineman: This letter shall serve as notification that enforcement case number ENF2000-00173 has been closed. The case file was forwarded to me for review, and I reviewed your response letter dated November 30, 2000. No further action will be taken with respect to the berm in question. For your reference, I have enclosed a copy of Mason County Resource Ordinance section 17.01.110. This ordinance became effective June 1, 2002, and in certain respects includes more restrictive provisions than the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. If you have any questions about work that you may plan to initiate in the future, please contact the Mason County Planning Department at (360) 427-9670 ext. 281. Sincerely, �� Kristin French Code Enforcement • .r H'NENAN :21 $HINEMAN 128 Sale V�Sj � .'? w a, 4 t� Al a Y ` C �'• r1 .y MASON COUN-1 r DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 Belfair (360) 275-4467 Elma (360) 482-5269 Seattle (206) 464-6968 December 7, 2000 GERALDINE SHINEMAN PO BOX 1838 SHELTON WA 98.584 RE: Landfill /land modification work within shoreline buffer on parcel # 32135 43 00110. Dear Mrs. Shineman, I have reviewed the situation regarding the unpermitted excavation/landfill work done within the shoreline buffer, and discussed the situation with senior planning staff and the Director of Community Development. I also met on site with Mr. Steven Shineman on 12/07/2000, and he explained the nature of the work that occurred this past summer, moving an existing road berm down the shoreline. At this time it was explained to Mr. Shineman that permits should have been obtained for land modification, excavation or grading work within the shoreline buffer. Given that there was likely no awareness that permits would be required for this type of work, and no other violations are on file regarding this parcel it is the decision of the Mason County Planning Division that the triple fee, after the fact permits will not be required at this time. If this situation can be resolved quickly (within the next 30 days), only the normal permit fees will be required, (outlined below). ► Shoreline Conditional Use Permit ($600) ► SEPA, Environmental Checklist ($200) ► Inspection/ Investigation Fee ($70) It does not appear that the volume of material exceeds 200 cubic yards, so a Land Modification Permit would not be required. As mentioned in the first letter I sent, you still have the option of removing the fill material from it's present location to an area outside of the 150 foot shoreline buffer. If you choose to do this, no permits would be required by our department. If you do choose to remove the fill we simply request a written plan giving a time frame for accomplishing the task, and a description of how the fill material is being disposed of. This work should be completed within 45 days from the date of this letter. If you have any questions you may contact this department at (360) 427-9670, ext. 363. Thank You for your attention. Sincerely, �C Scott Longanecker, Planning Enforcement Mason County Department of Community Development, Planning Division �r MASON COUNTY PLANNING D kRTMENT Mason Cour wilding 1 411 N. 5th St. P.O. Box 578 Won,WA 98584 (360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8425 LAND USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING Warning Notice November 9, 2000 GERALDINE SHINEMAN PO BOX 1838 SHELTON WA 98584-5015 RE: Unpermitted landfill within shoreline buffer on parcel #32135 43 00110, located directly on Ecler Rd, Shelton WA. This letter shall serve as a"Stop Work Order" with regards to continued landfill within 150 feet of the shoreline without the necessary permits. This department has determined that the landfill that is apparently being used for road blocka has been placed on this parcel without the a pt- +.- dts. ge be a of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Chapter�7.16.130, titled Landfill ids is consideredt(enclosed). violation) The fill material on this parcel is within approximately 20 feet of the shoreline. A Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, SEPA Environmental Checklist (enclosed) are required for fill within 150 feet of shorelines. It is Mason County policy that "any permitted fills or shoreline cuts should be designed so that no significant damage to existing ecological values or natural resources...will occur". Action required within 20 days of receipt of this letter: In the short term silt screen fencing needs to be installed between the fill pile and the shoreline in order to inhibit future erosion of fill material into Oakland Bay. Also the following permits are needed for landfill within 150 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of designated shoreline. These permits should be submitted to the Mason County Planning Division, ATTN: Scott Longanecker, PO Box 279, Shelton WA 98584. After-the-fact Shoreline Conditional Use Permit ($1800) After-the-fact SEPA Environmental Checklist ($600) From consultation with the Mason County Building Department an after-the-fact Grading Permit may also be required if the fill material exceeds 200 cubic yards. As an alternative to completing a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and SEPA Environmental Checklist, at this time you may submit a written plan which would include removing all fill material currently being used for road blockage. In order to remove the fill from parcel # 32021 53 01048 you may need to submit a completed grading permit to the Mason County Building w Department. Your plan for removal of the fill and completed Grading Permit (if necessary) needs to be submitted within 20 days and the fill removal should be completed within 60 days. It is recommended that you contact the Mason County Building Department, at (360) 427-9670 ext 284 regarding grading permit requirements. If you have any questions you may contact this department at (360) 427-9670, ext. 363. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, cott Longan er, Planning Enforcement Mason County Department of Community Development, Planning Division cc: Tami Griffey, Building Code Enforcement Mason County Building Department Scott Longanecker November 30, 2000 Steven L. Shineman R E C E I V E D Mason County Planning P.O.Box 1838 P.O.Box 578 Shelton,WA 98584 D E C 0 6 2000 Shelton,WA 98584 MASON CO. pLgNNING DEpr, RE: Geraldine Shineman,November 9 Warning Notice, Parcel No.321354300110 Mr. Longanecker: I have received a Warning Notice from your department to my mother concerning allegations that her home is an unpermitted landfill. Why you addressed this to me I don't know, but you're in luck--I am fairly unformed about the property involved. I write this letter to tell you that the allegations you are making are considerably inaccurate and appear to be based on misinformation of mysterious origin. I now try to set the record straight for you and your department with some facts that you can verify if you choose. I would like to briefly point out: 1. The header of your notice says that it concerns my mother's `unpermitted landfill within shoreline buffer on parcel#32135 43 00110,located directly on Ecler Rd, Shelton WA." Well,my mother does own Parcel No.32135 43 00110, and she has a home there. But there is no landfill and as far as I can tell there has been no deposit of material of any kind on the parcel since at least 1980—three owners and some 18 years before my mother purchased it. The parcel's closest boundary to Ecler Road is some 270 yards away and separated from it by an eight-acre parcel of land she has never owned. State Highway 3 is actually the nearest public roadway to the site. 2. in the third paragraph of your notice,you say that my mother has 20 days to remedy this situation by acquiring a permit"to remove the fill from parcel#320215301048." According to public record,this waterfront parcel is five miles away and owned by people we don't know. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my mother. 3. In your first paragraph,you say that your notice"shall serve as a`Stop Work Order'." My mother has no ongoing outdoor activity of any kind happening or being performed for her there,and that is obvious to anyone who visits the site. She has had no landscaping done since last summer, when the construction of her house was completed and she moved into it in August. There is no work or sign of work or preparation for work for you to stop unless you count her flower bulbs. 4. In the second paragraph, you say "this department has determined that the landfill that is apparently being used for road blockage has been placed on this parcel without the appropriate permits," and that "the fill material on this parcel is within approximately 20 feet of the shoreline." Again, there is no road to block, there is no landfill, and nobody contacted my mother or anyone else who would know the facts prior to this erroneous"determination." Let me tell you some of what I know about this matter: Parcel No.32135 43 00110 is a 1-1/4 acre waterfront lot on Oakland Bay that was previously occupied by Bayshore School #3, then closed down and sold to a private party in i 952. At some point, the structure of the one-room schoolhouse was removed or destroyed, but some artifacts of it remain today: You can still find part of the foundation, some landscaping bulkheads and some concrete embankments meant to keep the children from the public road running through the parcel. That road ran between the school and the waterfront. Since the first wagon trail was surveyed there in 1892,the public road running through it has had different names: Bayshore Road,Mason County Public Highway No. 8, and State Route 3. The latest version running through Parcel No. 32135 43 00110 was State Highway 3. Because Highway 3 curved so abruptly nearby, a number of careless drivers were injured and died when their vehicles ended up in the bay. In 1979,the state Department of Transportation decided that section of Highway 3 was unsafe for modern vehicle traffic, and they plotted a straight bypass route upland from the water. When they were done constructing it, some half mile of the old highway became obsolete. Parcel No. 32135 43 00110 was purchased by Pickett & Bjorkmann Construction for their convenience while contracting on that new segment of Highway 3. A berm was constructed to block traffic and protect private property, and an asphalt pad was paved, enlarging the turnaround space in front of that berm. After the Highway 3 bypass was completed, the old highway was vacated and deeded to Pickett & Bjorkmann to make the parcel whole. The artifact of that old roadbed, the concrete highway embankments, the schoolhouse foundation, the guardrail, the asphalt pad, and the berm on the parcel persisted intact and were now entirely private property. That's the way it was when my wife and I sought to purchase Parcel No. 32135 43 00110. Before we bought it,we contacted the Department of Community Development and reminded them of the nearby eagle nest tree. We wanted to know what environmental and construction restrictions might apply to the parcel, and if the would conflict with our development plans. gh PP Y p Y p On May 28, 1998, Grace Miller wrote us that the eagles posed no special requirements in this particular case, and in June we closed the purchase of the parcel. In the closing papers, we transferred that title to my mother. 2 Parcel No. 32135 43 00110 is adjacent to the eight-acre parcel (32135 43 00030) where my family and I have lived since 1992. The plan was to build my mother a handicapped- accessible home in a natural, wooded setting overlooking the bay,where she could live closer to us in her retirement years. After minimum-impact clearing of the parcel,we drilled a well in November 1998. When we applied for a septic permit, the environmental health inspector said the sandy soil was "ideal" for a drainfield. We had intended to begin construction of the home in 1999,but my mother's health took a bad turn. Last year, she had four spinal surgeries and a brain operation and was not expected to live; she spent three months in Harborview Hospital in Seattle, several months in a nursing home, and lived in an assisted living residence until her house on the parcel was finally completed in August 2000. During the course of that construction, we had to partially demolish some old schoolyard landscaping bulkhead to pour the foundation of the house. We had to locate the septic tanks so they would not be obstructed by the old schoolhouse foundation. We had to make the usual h and driveway. And in order to install permanent cut and grades for the footprint of the house y telephone service,we were required by Qwest to install underground service from the house to a terminal located on an adjoining property to the west. The path of shortest distance and least excavation to install my mother's telephone service ran through the berm that had existed on that abandoned roadbed for 20 years. It was impossible to install telephone service without the total excavation of half of that berm. The location of that berm also provided landscaping difficulties. The southern boundary of Parcel No.32135 43 00110 extends into the tidelands of Oakland Bay. The berm as it existed sat approximately in the middle of the parcel, blocking the only level, graded route (the old roadbed) from east to west. The berm was an obstruction that made it difficult for anyone— impossible for an elderly handicapped woman--to travel from one side of the lot to the other along the waterfront. Its location prevented the normal and peaceful enjoyment of her property. But there were good reasons that the berm had been left intact all those 20 years. It served as a visual barrier between neighbors but did not block anyone's waterfront view. It prevented motorized trespassing and—in the case of my mother today—provides a needed barrier from criminal activity. The parcels on the other side of the berm are accessible by traffic from Highway 3, and those properties have been repeatedly trespassed,burglarized, and vandalized in recent years. So when the telephone company required the excavation and relocation of half of that berm to install service, we pushed that material out to the western property line by backhoe. We then pushed the remainder of the berm along the roadbed, reconstructing it. We moved all this material 90 feet west, locating it on the old highway roadbed exactly as before, not one inch closer to the ordinary high-water mark. The berm we moved was 140 cubic yards in volume and consistent in appearance with other material native to the parcel. 3 Once the berm had been pushed to the property line, we then made another landscaping decision. The berm was functional and necessary, but it was not as aesthetically pleasing as my mother wanted. It had previously been overgrown with brown scrub grass and scotch broom, and did not resemble natural topography as much as it could. We then added an additional 45 yards to the berm by backhoe, running a flat, even grade at the top to the bank away from the water. This material came from landscape cutting around the new house, and consists entirely of beach sand that has been naturally deposited on the parcel. This new, larger berm was then graded for slope by machine and by hand rake and shovel. Throughout the months and Autumn monsoons since,the berm shows no signs of slough, no signs of erosion, and no signs of hydraulic impact except compaction. This material is totally inorganic,porous, and has nothing to leach. Not one tablespoon of material or single ounce of leachate has entered Oakland Bay as a result of pushing this material, and it is physically impossible for that to occur in the future. If the polar icecaps were to melt and this parcel were to flood by ocean tide around the world,the worse thing that could happen is that the beach material in the berm would return from whence it came. Mr. Longanecker, given the facts as I know them, and the county regulations as I understand them, I don't see how any of the directives in your Warning Notice are appropriate or apply in this case. Specifically,sir: • The material in question is not landfill as Mason County defines it. Landfill is "the creation of or addition to a dry upland area by depositing materials. Depositing topsoil for normal landscaping purposes is not considered as landfill." In your Warning Notice,you claimed that"landfill. . .has been placed on this parcel." This is totally untrue—no landfill has been placed or deposited on the parcel. As I said before,the material of the berm, especially that which we recently added, is quite distinct in composition and appearance. You can find many, many hundreds of yards of identical material evident around the parcel,and it is obviously native. On Monday, November 27 at 3:45 p.m., I spoke anonymously with you by phone from the Mason County Permit Center. You confirmed that "landfill" is only material that is imported not preexisting stuff already on the parcel. Because no landfill exists, your demand that my mother now apply for a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit and a SEPA Environmental Checklist are not warranted by regulation or statute. 4 • Your claim that the berm is"located directly"on Ecler Road is pure error. Your claim that the berm is on Parcel No. 3202153 01048 is pure error. What you maintain is a road is not a road at all—it is a landlocked dead-end artifact of old state highway that has been private property for twenty years—and the county enjoys no special jurisdiction or rights to it. While the Mason County Shoreline Master Program is mandated to preserve public uses of waterfront,there is none involved here. Parcel No. 32135 43 00110, and all the shoreline for many acres and thousands of feet around it,are strictly private property with no public use for the county to protect. • In your Warning Notice, you said that "an after-the fact Grading Permit may also be required if the fill material [sic] exceeds 200 cubic yards." You are quite right in your assessment that the total material of the berm approaches 200 yards of displacement. As I said earlier, I calculate that the preexisting berm was 140 cubic yards—we moved that 90 feet, and then moved another 45 yards for the final grade. Now, this berm is somewhat irregular in configuration because it is landscaped for site compatibility and structural soundness. If you manage to get somebody to guess that the material moved instead calculates out to 202 yards or some such borderline amount, please consider: Half of the original berm--70 cubic yards—were absolutely required to be excavated for the installation of telephone line. And excavations for utilities are unconditionally exempt from Mason County grading permit requirements. • Existence of the berm going back twenty years can be verified by Department of Transportation aerial photographs, state highway survey maps, documentation in the county vacation of Ecler Road of 1991, and the testimony of dozens of local witnesses. Don't take my word for it,check it out for yourself. • Mason County grading regulations are supposed to be guided by their purpose "to safeguard life, limb,property, and the public welfare." I fail to see how pushing this berm 90 feet along old roadbed threatens the life or limb of any citizen. This material has no impact on public use. Your order that "short term silt screen fencing needs to be installed between the fill pile [sic] and the shoreline in order to inhibit future erosion of fill material [sic] into Oakland Bay" has good intentions that we fully support. But your remedy does nothing to accomplish these goals in this case. We've already seen major, massive hydraulic impact on the berm for months now—and there are no signs at all that your fears are warranted. Simply put,the material in question has no more chance of reaching the bay than I have of longjumping 60 feet. This is not surprising to anyone familiar with the material and the site. Perhaps you should have consulted local people who know that could have advised you. I encourage you to coordinate your information and re-think your action in this matter. If you care to visit the site or consult for the first time, you can reach me at my non- published telephone number,426-3415, anytime day or night. 5 Please be advised that neither you or I have contacted my mother about this. My mother is in precarious health, has suffered multiple strokes, and does not need the unnecessary stress of bureaucratic error. I suggest that you seek no further notification unless you are positive it is required. When I spoke with you on the telephone, you seemed to be a reasonable man. I don't believe you intended to make the mistakes I've addressed in this letter, but nevertheless your actions have profound consequence for real flesh-and-blood people. Ordering a handicapped senior citizen to cough up thousands of dollars under threat of fine and imprisonment is a very serious matter. Poorly-considered actions by public employees do not serve the goals of the county in individual cases, and in the long-term undercuts support for policies that would ordinarily find favor with the citizens. I hope you contact me if you wish to pursue this further. 1 Re§pectful , STE L. SHINEMAN 6