Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBLD2007-00906/GRD2007-00012 Hearing Appeal - BLD Letters / Memos - 1/11/2012 P6oN Cadti MASON COUNTY � ap Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 185f January 11, 2012 Michael D. Daudt, Esquire TERRELL, MARSHALL, DAUDT&WILLIE PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: Appeal of Permits B LD2007-00906/G RD2007-00012 Dear Mr. Daudt, I received your letter dated January 9, 2011 on January 6, 2012 representing an appeal to the above-referenced permits by your client, Mr. Chris Powell. The issuance of this permit occurred on December 19, 2011 and the appropriate 14-day appeal period as outlined under MCC Title 15, Section 15.11.020 expired on January 2, 2012. Therefore, we cannot accept your letter as a valid appeal and will not be scheduling it for hearing. I have enclosed a Request for Refund for you to complete so that we may refund you fees. Please note, however, that your original appeal filed on December 15, 2009 was timely and, by our records, is still an open case. Therefore, we have scheduled the 2009 appeal (HEX2009-00035) for a public hearing on March 20, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. before the Mason County Hearings Examiner. If you have any questions or comments at this time, please do not hesitate to reach me at (360) 427-9670, ext. 286 or at BarbarA@co.mason.wa.us. Sin ely, Barbara A. Adkins, AICP Director fan, 6. 2012 2: 08PM Terrell Marshall D a u d t & Willie No. 0929 P. 1 32, -�� - 130 14,P-x 2-0 t a - CCOa HimTerrell RECEIVED Marshall JAN 0 6 20V 93B N. 34th St, Ste 400 Daud9 L j Seattle, WA 98103 t 8 426 VV i EDIA T: 208,816.6603 ® F: 206,350.3528 Willie PLLC www.tmdwlgw com RECEIVED Michael Daudt BAN mike@tmdlegal,com 9 2012 Our File No. 1026-001.A Via Emalf, racslmile and Hand Delivery Mason County Commissioners January 9, 2011 Shannon Goudy, Clerk of the Board Barbara Adkins, Program Manager Board of Mason County Commissioners Community Development Department 411 North Fifth Street 411 North Fifth Street Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: Appeal of hermits purportely issued to Michael Griffith purportedly on December 19, 2011 BLD2007-00906 and GRD2007-00012 Parcel No. 323283100130 Dear Mses. Goudy and Adkins: We are attorneys representing Chris Powell in connection with the Griffith's proposed development located next to Mr. Powell's property at the end of Dewatto Beach Drive. Mr. Powell hereby appeals to the hearing examiner and requests departmental review of the above-referenced permits issued to Mr. Griffith on December 19, 2011. Pursuant to MCC 15.11.020, Mr. Powell states in support of his appeal: (1) Decision being appealed: building permit numbers BLD2007-00906 and GRD2007- 00012 issued to Mr. Griffith on December 19, 2011. (11) Name and address of'the appellant and his/her interest(s) in the matter Chris Powell resides at 26012 SE 25211d St., Ravensdale,'WA 98051 and owns property adjacent to the project site at end of Dewatto Beach Drive, Mr. Powell's property has been and will be affected by activities conducted by Mr. Griffith pursuant to the permits. (111) Specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong: 1.) The permits were issued in violation of a preliminary injunction order from Thurston County Superior Court that remained in effect on December 19, 2011, fan. 6. 2012 2 : 08PM Terrell Marshall D a u d t & Willie No, 0929 P. 2 Shannon Goudy Barbara Adkins January 6, 2012 Page 2 2.) On or about December 15, 2009 an Administrative Appeal was filed on behalf of Mr. Iddings representing the local community. This appeal (HEX2009-00035) was filed in accordance with Mason County Code, but no hearing has been conducted. Mr. Iddings's appeal is still open, and no further action should have been taken until that appeal was resolved. 3.) The current design that has been purportedly approved on 12/19/11 is not the same design that was submitted to the Hearings Examiner,nor to the State Shorelines Hearing Board. The "New" permit is based on a design that has been revised over 6 times and increases significant impacts to the conditions and mitigation requirements set forth by the Hearing Examiner and the Shorelines Hearing Board. The original design showed a road right-of-way 30' (15' from center line). The new design has set the actual right-of- way being over 45'wide (22.5' from center line). This increase pushes the construction activities farther into the embankment, changing the construction activities and impacts significantly. Under the new design and 6th revision,the overall project changes in scope far more than 10%and the permit must be resubmitted to all government agencies for review, including Mason County Planning Department. All engineering and biologist reports must be redone showing the design changes and project location changes. *The height of the wall now increases to a height greater than 45' in order to successfully access the top of the bank. This also Increases the percent grade needed to reach the top of the bluff as the elevation also increases by nearly 10' but the horizontal distance stays the same. The project will be closer to a 35%grade. *Tile majority of the pigeon guillemot nests will now be destroyed as a result of moving the wall 12,5'farther to the south, From the Vector Engineering report, "Griffith's Slyd Impact Letter states that the fill will be used along the western portion of the driveway with minimal cut to the vertical slope, but if the right of way is moved to the south, more substantial cut will be required including removal of the nesting holes," Now, the new design shows a huge cut and a graded slope surface from the toe of the hill to the top of the embankment. This will ultimately destroy all the nests along this portion of the driveway. *There are no recent biologist reports Identifying any new nesting sites. The original biologist report was filed over 3 years ago and many new nesting sites are in the construction area and will be destroyed. i fan, 6. 2012 2 . 09PM Terrell Marshall D a u d t & Willie No, 0929 P. 3 Shannon Goudy Barbara Adkins January 6, 2012 Page 3 4.) There is still a discrepancy In the 40' right of way survey done by Agate Land Surveying and the documentation given to both public works and the planning department showing a 60' easement granted by both Mrs. Beebe and the Hanson family in 1957, *This greatly changes the entire project, and will expand the scope of work, project size, and the taking of guillemot nests from what was stated throughout the permitting processes. Mason County Planning, Department of Ecology, and the Shorelines Hearings Board approved of a much smaller, less destructive project. *Every pigeon guillemot nest will now be destroyed along with the natural overhanging bluff which is the primary habitat for these birds. The project would ultimately start 30'farther to the south from what was originally permitted, This would create a cut of significant proportions, potentially 7,000 cubic yards or more. *Because the design has been done within the right-of-way there is no room for a fire truck or other life safety personal to turn around. This could mean the difference between a life or death situation If a fire truck has to back over 2 miles out of Dewatto Beach Drive. To make things worse, the applicant has designed a drainage ditch in front of the proposed wall which would further limit turn around space to under 20'. 5.) The project has been pieced together to eliminate a storm water design under the required impervious square feet threshold by the Department of Ecology and minimal erosion control measures are in place to protect against erosion during the project. 6.) The Perinit is a "New" Permit and must follow the proceeding processes that the "Old" Permit followed, The ruling by the State Shorelines Hearing Board and the Hearings Examiner do not support the current design and "NIEW" permit. They are significantly different, 7.) The permit and design do not include any In-water work within the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal. Both Mr. Griffith and his neighbor to the east, Mr. Martinez, hired the contractor to first move the rock bulked farther into the shorelines and import hundreds of tons of rock to increase their usable land between Dewatto Beach Drive and the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal. There were formal complaints and a "Stop Work" order went into effect, but no further actions have been taken to legally fill-in the shorelines of Hood Canal and Dewatto Bay. I tan, 6. 2012 2 : 09PM Terrell Marshall D a u d t & Willie No, 0929 P. 4 Shannon Goudy Barbara Adkins January 6, 2012 Page 4 8.] Civil and Mechanical Engineers are currently reviewing the Tahja Designs to illustrate that the design dimensions were altered from the "Actual" dimensions at the site,showing a much larger cut into the vertical bank, contradicting the Seismic and Load Bearing Calculations for the Block(Nall, In addition,the Mechanical Engineers are reviewing the Structural Design for failure,as the east side of the block wall has no footing or stability and will erode and fail. *The wall has not been properly designed by a Mechanical Engineer. The East end of the wall will be over 20' blocks high, Each block weighs nearly 4,000 pounds and resides on native soils. That is 80,000 pounds covering a surface area of 6 square feet. Ultimately, the wall will settle within the sand and eventually fall over, `There are no armoring or protection measures illustrated to prevent the 56' vertical sand wall from falling on the construction workers below or neighbors accessing their properties. *The design has no load calculations for static and seismic conditions of the remaining bank behind the wall. The design only retains the backfill material in static conditions, based on the first design back in May of 2005. The new additional height of the wall and weight behind it increases drastically, and if there is an earth quake the native bank could push the wall over because the wall is not tied in any way to the ground or the native bank. *The geotechnical report done by GTL does not mention anything about the seep or spring coming out of the bank. Because the design does not show calculations to support the ground water, the material could become over saturated and cause the wall to blow out. The Civil Designer is not a Geotechnical Specialist and a "New" geotechnical report should be done to address the water seeps, Both Mason County Department of Planning and Mason County Department of Public Works overlooked all the recommendations made by both Krazan and Associates and Vector Engineering, Both agencies were independently hired, unknown to each other, have commented how Mr. Griffith's current block wall design will fail, and discussed what else was needed in order to issue a permit to prevent catastrophic failure. All these recommendations were ignored, or have not been presented to the Public for Review. ,Lan, 6. 2012 2 ; 10PM Terrell Marshall D a u d t & Willie No, 0929 P. 5 Shannon Goudy Barbara Adkins January 6, 2012 Page 5 (1V)The desired outcome or changes to the decision: revoke the existing permits and require Mr. Griffith to resubmit his redesigned project for SEPA and shorelines review of all permits. (V) The appeals fee as provided for in the applicable ordinance: the applicable fee for this appeal is submitted herewith, For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Iddings also requests departmental review of the permits pursuant to MCC 15.13.070. Very truly yours, TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC Michael D. Daudt cc: Chris Powell i I BLD o /OOWGCRb o /0001 y000ss_ z TERRELL 3600 FREMONT AVENUE N. MARSHALL SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 &L DAU DT T: 206.81.6.6603 P L LC F: 206.350.3528 ATTORNEYS&COUNSELORS D C 1520 WWW.TMDLEGAL.COM Michael Daudt (��p mike@tmdlegal.com MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Our File No. 1026-001.A Via Email, Facsimile and Hand Delivery December 15, 2009 Shannon Goudy, Clerk of the Board Barbara Adkins, Program Manager Board of Mason County Commissioners Community Development Department 411 North Fifth Street 411 North Fifth Street Shelton, WA 98584 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: Appeal of Permits issued to Michael Griffith on December 3, 2009 BLD2007-00906 and GRD2007-00012 Parcel No. 323283100130 Dear Mses. Goudy and Adkins: We are attorneys representing Earl Iddings in connection with the Griffith's proposed development located next to Mr. Iddings' property at the end of Dewatto Beach Drive. Mr. Iddings hereby appeals to the hearing examiner and requests departmental review of the above-referenced permits issued to Mr. Griffith on December 3, 2009. Pursuant to MCC 15.11.020, Mr. Griffith states in support of his appeal: (1) Decision being appealed: building permit numbers BLD2007-00906 and GRD2007-00012 issued to Mr. Griffith on December 3, 2009. (II) Name and address of the appellant and his/her interest(s) in the matter: Earl Iddings, 4791 NE North Shore Road, Belfair, WA 98528. Mr. Iddings owns property adjacent to the project site at end of Dewatto Beach Drive. Mr. Idding's property has been and will be affected by activities conducted by Mr. Griffith pursuant to the permits. (111) Specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong: 1.) The site plan recently submitted on 11/20/09 was the 3rd revision and illustrates a new 40' road right of way for Dewatto Beach Drive. Under this revision, the overall project changes in scope far more than 10%and the permit must be resubmitted to all government agencies for review, including Mason County Planning Department, Department of Ecology, and also Shorelines Hearings Board. All engineering and biologist reports must be redone showing the design changes and project location changes. *The majority of the pigeon guillemot nests will now be destroyed as a result of moving the wall 10'farther to the south. From Vector Engineering report, "Griffith's Bird Impact Letter states that the fill will be used along the western portion of the driveway with minimal cut to the vertical slope, but if the right of way is moved to the south, more substantial cut will be required including removal of the nesting holes." Now, the new design shows a huge cut with also a graded slope surface from the toe of the hill to the top of the embankment. This will ultimately destroy all the nests along this portion of the driveway. *The height of the wall now increases to a height greater than 45' in order to successfully access the top of the bank. This also increases the percent grade needed to reach the top of the bluff as the elevation also increases by nearly 10' but the horizontal distance stays the same. The project will be closer to a 35% grade. 2.) There is a huge discrepancy in the recently recorded 40' right of way survey done by Agate Land Surveying and the documentation given to both public works and the planning department showing a 60' easement granted by Mrs. Beebe and the Hanson family in 1957. *This greatly changes the entire project, more than new design with the 40' right of way, and will expand the scope of work, project size, and the taking of guillemot nests from what was stated throughout the permitting processes. Mason County Planning, Department of Ecology, and the Shorelines Hearings Board ruled for the approval of a much smaller, less destructive project. *Every pigeon guillemot nest will now be destroyed along with the natural overhanging bluff which is the primary habitat for these birds. The project would ultimately start 30'farther to the south from what was originally permitted. This would create a cut of significant proportions, potentially 7,000 cubic yards or more. *Because the design has been done within the right-of-way there is no room for a fire truck or other life safety personal to turn around. This could mean the difference between a life or death situation if a fire truck has to back over 2 miles out of Dewatto Beach Drive. To make things worse, the applicant has designed a drainage ditch in front of the proposed wall which would further limit turn around space to under 20'. 2 3.) The project has been pieced together to eliminate a storm water design under the required impervious square feet threshold by the Department of Ecology and no erosion control measures are in place to protect against erosion during the project. 4.) There is no road access permit granted from public works and therefore there should be no work being done within the right of way. No permit should have been granted from the planning department until after approval of a road access permit. 5.) The permit and design does not include any in-water work within the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal. Both Mr. Griffith and his neighbor to the east, Mr. Martinez, hired the contractor to first move the rock bulked farther into the shorelines and import hundreds of tons of rock to increase their usable land between Dewatto Beach Drive and the ordinary high water mark of Hood Canal. This is substantially out of scope and now must be addressed. Mr. Griffith went as far as to remove rocks from his neighbors' bulk head to build up steps to the beach. 6.) There is no architectural engineering design of the block wall showing how the block wall is to be built and how the wall is to be interlinked to keep from falling over. *The wall has no footing to support the weight of the wall. The east end of the wall will be over 20' blocks high. Each block weighs nearly 4,000 pounds. That is 80,000 pounds covering a surface area of 6 square feet. Ultimately,the wall will settle within the sand and eventually fall over. *There is no armoring or protection measures illustrated to prevent the 50' vertical sand wall from falling on the construction workers below or neighbors accessing their properties. The embankment has already started to fall as witnessed by Mr. Allen Borden, Mason County Senior Planner. *The design has no load calculations for static and seismic conditions of the remaining bank behind the wall. The proposal is designed to only uphold the backfill material. If there is an earth quake, the native bank could push the wall over because the wall is not tied in any way to the ground or the native bank. *The geotechnical report done by GTL does not mention anything about the seep or spring coming out of the bank. Because the design does not show calculations to support the ground water, the material could become over saturated and cause the wall to blow out. Both Mason County Department of Planning and Mason County Department of Public Works overlooked all the recommendations made by both Krazan and Associates and Vector Engineering. Both agencies were independently hired, unknown to each other, have 3 i commented how Mr. Griffith's current block wall design will fail, and discussed what else was needed in order to issue a permit to prevent catastrophic failure. All these recommendations were ignored. (IV)The desired outcome or changes to the decision: revoke the existing permits and require Mr. Griffith to resubmit his redesigned project for SEPA and shorelines review of all permits. (V)The appeals fee as provided for in the applicable ordinance: the applicable fee for this appeal is submitted herewith. For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Griffith also requests departmental review of the permits pursuant to MCC 15.13.070. Very truly yours, TERR RSHA ,LL& ichael Daudt cc: Earl Iddings 4