HomeMy WebLinkAboutFence, PAC Findings, Exhibit 2 audio cassette archived below - BLD Letters / Memos - 1/4/2002 c-
F;jMASON 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
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Kristin Olbrechts
From: ` c
Kristin French
Code Enforcement Officer
Date: January 4, 2002
File: 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7
ENF2001-00128
Scott P. Woodward
Hearing
Information: January 16, 2002, at 10:00 am
Mason County Building One
Commissioners' Chambers
411 N. 5'
Shelton, WA 98584
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Defendant Information
1. Defendant: Scott P. Woodward
2. Site Location: 924 W. Delight Park Road Shelton, WA 98584
B. Violation
1. (SEE ATTACHMENT A) The violation consists of two, six-foot high,
chain link fences located along the western and eastern property lines.
The fences extend beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)
and into Lake Isabella. Both fences are forward of the required
common line setback. The location of the fences is in violation of the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 7.16.080.
C. Compliance Requirements
Based on the statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this
report,the County recommends that Mr. Woodward bring the fences
into compliance with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program by
completing the following action:
1. All portions of fence forward of the Ordinary High Water Mark must
be removed; and
2. All portions of fence forward of the common line must be removed or
reduced to a height of less than 30 inches.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Case Chronology
1. A complaint was received by the County. The complaint was
submitted by Matthew Kamin.
2. On April 17, 2001, Shoreline Planner Rick Mraz conducted a site
investigation on tax parcel number 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7.
3. (SEE ATTACHMENT B) On April 18, 2001, Mr. Mraz mailed a letter
to Scott Woodward. The letter was mailed certified, and detailed the
following:
(a) While on site, Mr. Mraz observed two, six foot high, chain link
fences running along the western and eastern property lines.
(b) The fences extend beyond the Ordinary High Water Mark
(OHWM) and into Lake Isabella. The fences also extend
beyond the common line.
(c) Options for compliance were listed.
(d) A response was requested within 20 days of the date on the
letter.
4. (SEE ATTACHMENT C) After receiving no response from the first
letter, Mr. Mraz mailed a second letter to Mr. Woodward. The letter
was mailed on May 10, 2001, was sent certified, and detailed the
following:
(a) The letter reiterated the information contained in the letter
dated April 18, 2001.
(b) A response was requested within 14 days of the date on the
letter.
5. Mr. Woodward refused to accept both certified letters.
6. Mr. Mraz followed his two letters with a phone message to Mr.
Woodward. The phone message reiterated the information contained
in the letters.
7. (SEE ATTACHMENT D) After Mr. Mraz left the phone message for
Mr. Woodward, Mr. Woodward left a message for Mr. Mraz. The
lengthy message is recorded on a tape attached to the file.
(a) Mr. Woodward indicated that he would not be responding to
any more calls or letters. He stated that there were several
other fences similar to his. He noted that he was a taxpayer
and inferred that he was not willing to remove the fence or
comply with the requirements of the regulations.
8. (SEE ATTACHMENT E) On November 8, 2001, Code Enforcement
Officer Kristin French conducted a"drive-by" site inspection. Ms.
French confirmed that the fences are still in a location forward of the
common line and forward of Ordinary High Water.
9. (SEE ATTACHMENT F) On December 20, 2001, Ms. French mailed
a Notice of Hearing and Notice of Civil Violation to Mr. Woodward.
The Notice was mailed first class and certified.
B. Law
1. (SEE ATTACHMENT G) Chapter 7.16.080 of the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program prohibits the construction of fences forward
of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Use Regulation 1 provides that
"residential development over the water is prohibited."
2. Chapter 7.16.080 of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program
prohibits the construction of structures greater than 30 inches in height
forward of the required shoreline setback. Use Regulation 9 provides
that"uncovered porches, decks or steps may project into the required
setback area, provided such structures are not higher than 30 inches
above the average grade . . ." Subsection (a) of Use Regulation 9
provides that the common line setback, where applicable, shall be
determined by drawing"an imaginary line between the roof lines of
adjacent residences . . ."
C. Application
Mr. Woodward's fences do not comply with the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program Chapter 7.16.080. The six-foot high chain
link fences are located forward of Ordinary High Water and forward of
the common line setback requirement.
D. Conclusions
(SEE ATTACHMENT H) Mr. Woodward has a history of
noncompliance with County regulations, dating back to 1987.
Planning staff have attempted to work with Mr. Woodward to resolve
this situation. Mr. Woodward has indicated an unwillingness to
cooperate with staff to resolve this matter. Mr. Woodward's fences
remain in violation of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The County recommends that action to achieve compliance be taken
by February 13, 2002. The County requests that a fine amount of
$2,000 be imposed, with $1,500 to be suspended if compliance is
achieved prior to February 13, 2002. The County requests that a
compliance hearing date be set for February 13, 2002.
`,� � :•,'yea� ` •
v.ti '
k
Ap
161T
PP
//Z
f
I
I
I
f�I
M1 i
f �r
)J-pf]]
1 illR
1 �, J�j
�,
�� �
t
n�a. �
�_ ,. � �.
�; ti �
,�
�, . � � �
:� - ,. _
*. � :� _.
y _ - � � � � _
� ".
���
�� '� r, � r
��;� N.
Via} ,� $ �` .y,� �
l�r ��;
8 9 � #��'l
�'�. '. +�y� �-.j'
t �}�{
.{�l_� "per
�' � +
tiM
��' � �
• �
.S
t �
y�.. kA � �i.�'; S
}
� ':C��
rs.
s� _�;
,.�. -,� .
•. '�'r.:x• .
.1, � e _
.. ';�
,+- .L•
or 4
r'•
��. V ..
�j!
. A s
ti a,
TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A Photo documentation of six-foot high fence forward of OHWM
and forward of common line
Attachment B Certified letter mailed to Scott Woodward April 18, 2001
Attachment C Certified letter mailed to Scott Woodward May 10, 2001
Attachment D Tape of Scott Woodward's voice mail message left on planner
Rick Mraz's voice mail
Attachment E Field notes from site visit conducted November 8, 2001
Attachment F Notice of Hearing and Notice of Civil Violation mailed first class
and certified December 20, 2001
Attachment G Mason County Shoreline Master Program Chapter 7.16.080
Attachment H Packet of correspondence from various County departments
regarding Scott Woodward's prior violations
ATTACHMENT
A
•�� �,,fy mot•,: au:��r �x. .• .. •.,:T-s•..
9�, I
f'.E9P v
AVA
.. �r •_r 't'r r
/ .
Jjj
Jjjj
�f jjjjjjjjj
1
fj/ l
/ 11
l
/
l 1 l �ll�Ji b�
I It
vi
t. „
!•S f�� 1
�.,l'��•. - ,�:Sri-,-y���1��i� ` - - -
y + `r
�,:."- jet[[.±±`;���'�y�y����J• 'I`�.x P r •_ - - -
r
1
1 �
i{ tIy tb1'4�•
S .fir-w►t►�1*�� � "`- � �
1
ATTACHMENT
B
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
April 18, 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
Scott P. Woodward
924 W. Delight Road
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Fence construction encroaching on the required Shoreline setbacks at 924 W.
Delight Road.
(Parcel No. 31906-51-00017)
Dear Mr. Woodward:
On April 17, 2001, a site investigation was completed on the above-mentioned
parcel regarding construction of a fence within two hundred (200) feet of a regulated
shoreline and encroaching into a required setback. The Mason County Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) requires a setback for certain types of construction along shorelines. The
shoreline designation in your area is Urban Residential. Urban residential shorelines
require a setback based on the two adjacent residences or"common line" setback, which
is calculated by approximating an imaginary line between the roofline of adjacent
residences. Structures over 30 inches in height, including fences, may not be constructed
waterward of this line without a variance from the SMP. A copy of the Residential
Development chapter with a figure that depicts common line calculation is enclosed.
Based Mason County planning staff observations, six-foot high, chain link fences
are near the western and eastern property lines. The fences extend beyond the Ordinary
High Water Mark (OHWM) and into Lake Isabella. Planning staff calculated that the
cornmon line setback for the western edge of your parcel to be approximately 129 feet.
Therefore, the portion of the western fence constructed waterward of the 129-foot
common line setback is not in compliance with the SW. The eastern fence common line
and encroachment was not measured but a portion of it is also out of compliance.
AIT. 3
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
According to the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 7.16.080,
Use Regulation No. 8, "no fence or wall shall be erected, placed or altered nearer to the
water than the building line setback, unless it is under 30 inches in height". In addition,
Use Regulation No. 1 of the same chapter of the Master Program states "Residential
development over water is prohibited". The fence constitutes residential development
and that portion beyond the OHWM of the lake would be considered over water. You
may pursue a variance for some of this construction or you may remediate this violation
of the SMP by removing the portion of the fences (west and east side) beyond the
common line setback or reducing the height of those portions of the fences to 30 inches
or less. County staff will provide a calculation if the section of eastern fence is to be
remediated or removed. All portions of the fence that are beyond the OHWM of Lake
Isabella must be removed as over water development is prohibited.
Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Please contact this department at 360-
427-9670 extension 577 within 20 days of the date on the letter to discuss any questions
and begin resolving this issue.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Mraz, Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
Enclosure
cc: Tami Griffey, Building Department
Grace Miller, Senior Planner, DCD
Robert Fink, Planning Manager, DCD
Deana Pavwoski, Code Enforcement, DCD
ATTACHMENT
C
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
May 10. 2001
CERTIFIED MAIL
Scott P. Woodward
924 W. Delight Road
Shelton, WA 98584
Re: Second Notice of illegal fence construction encroaching on the required Shoreline
setbacks at 924 W. Delight Road.
(Parcel No. 31906-51-00017)
Dear Mr. Woodward:
This letter shall serve as a "STOP WORK ORDER" and is effective
immediately. On April 18, 2001, a notice was sent regarding the above-mentioned
parcel. It required a response from you within 20 days. It stated that six-foot high, chain
link fences are near the western and eastern property lines. The fences extend beyond the
Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and into Lake Isabella. Planning staff calculated
that the common line setback for the western edge of your parcel to be approximately 129
feet. Therefore, the portion of the western fence constructed waterward of the 129-foot
common line setback is not in compliance with the Mason County Shoreline Master
Program (SMP). The eastern fence common line and encroachment was not measured but
a portion of it is also out of compliance.
According to the Mason County records, there was no permit issued for any of this
work. As of May 10, 2001, no contact with Mason County received and therefore, we are
pursuing further action.
According to the SMP, Chapter 7.16.080, Use Regulation No. 8, "no fence or wall
shall be erected, placed or altered nearer to the water than the building line setback,
unless it is under 30 inches in height". In addition, Use Regulation No. 1 of the same
Ate. C-1
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
chapter of the Master Program states "Residential development over water is prohibited".
The fence constitutes residential development and that portion beyond the OHWM of the
lake would be considered over water.
ACTION REQUIRED:
You may pursue a variance for some of this construction or you may remediate
this violation of the SMP by removing the portion of the fences (west and east side)
beyond the common line setback or reducing the height of those portions of the fences to
30 inches or less. County staff will provide a calculation if the section of eastern fence is
to be remediated or removed. All portions of the fence that are beyond the OHWM of
Lake Isabella must be removed as over water development is prohibited.
Please contact this department at 360-427-9670 ext. 593 within 14 days of the date on the
letter with what option you have chosen and when it will be completed. Failure to
comply with this order may result in further enforcement actions, including civil fines
and criminal penalties.
Sincerely,
Richard A. Mraz, Shoreline Planner
Mason County Department of Community Development
cc: Tami Griffey, Mason County Building Department
Grace Miller, Senior Planner
Robert Fink, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT
D
I plan to play a tape of Mr. Woodward's voice mail message left on planner Rick Mraz's
voice mail.
A-TT-. 7
ATTACHMENT
E
SAS �
-Tr c C
S
CASE INFORMATION
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7 (924 W. Delight Road, Shelton)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Scott Woodward
VIOLATION TYPE: (Chapter 7.16.080 SMP) Chain link fence, approximately six feet
high, located forward of the Common Line and extending forward of the OHW mark into
Lake Isabella.
ACTION TO DATE: (1) Enforcement letter from Planning Department sent 4/18/01.
Response requested within 20 days. Mailed certified with no evidence of return receipt
in file. No response. (2) Second enforcement letter from Planning Department sent
5/10/01. Response requested within 14 days. No response. ***verify content of voice
mail message***
SITE VISIT DATE 9-O
SITE VISIT NOTES:
& �C il� S C� v-K ;r rv--o
Tr. E
ATTACHMENT
F
oo �
MASON COUNTi
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
NOTICE OF HEARING
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT JANUARY 16, 2002 AT 10:00 AM
MASON COUNTY BUILDING ONE, COMMISSIONERS' CHAMBERS
411 N. 5Ttt SHELTON, WA 98584
December 20, 2001
Scott P. Woodward
924 W. Delight Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: NOTICE OF CIVIL VIOLATION 31906-51-00017
Dear Mr.Woodward:
This letter serves as a Notice of Civil Violation in accordance with section 15.13.035 of
the Mason County Development Code.
(1) This Notice is directed to Mr. Scott Woodward at 924 W. Delight Park Road Shelton,
WA 98584.
(2) The violation is located on tax parcel 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7 (924 W. Delight Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584). The violation consists of six-foot high chain link fences
located near the western and eastern property lines. The fences extend beyond the
Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) and into Lake Isabella. Both fences are
forward of the common line setback in violation of the Mason County Shoreline
Master Program, Chapter 7.16.080.
(3) This Notice is effective immediately upon posting at the site and/or receipt by the
person to whom it is directed.
(4) Any activity not in compliance with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program
must immediately cease.
A Tr. F
(5) This Notice serves as a "Stop Work" Order until the violation is corrected and/or
remediated as specified under number (6).
(6) You must immediately comply with the following requirements:
All portions of fence forward of the Ordinary High Water Mark must be removed
AND
All portions of fence forward of the common line must be removed or reduced to a
height of less than 30 inches
OR
A variance application must be submitted.
Documentation of removal of the portions of fence forward of the Ordinary High Water
Mark must be received by January 11, 2002. Documentation of removal of the portions
of fence forward of the common line (or reconfiguration to a height of less than 30
inches) must be received by January H, 2002. If you choose to apply for a variance, the
variance application must be received by January 11, 2002. Fees for"after the fact''
permits are tripled. Submission of an after the fact permit does not guarantee approval.
The requirements noted above were explained in correspondence mailed to you April 18,
2001 and in correspondence mailed to you May 10, 2001.
(7) Failure to comply with the requirements listed above may result in further
enforcement actions, including civil fines and criminal penalties.
(8) HEARING DATE: Per section 15.13.045 of the Mason County Development Code,
you are scheduled to appear before the Hearing Examiner as noted below. The
hearing will be canceled if the applicable Review Authority determines that the
required corrective action has been completed or is on schedule for completion
as set by the Review Authority at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled hearing.
Required corrective action is detailed in number six, above.
YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT JANUARY 16, 2002 AT 10:00 AM
MASON COUNTY BUILDING ONE, COMMISSIONERS' CHAMBERS
411 N. 5TH SHELTON, WA 98584
Sincerely,
Kristin French
Code Enforcement
ATTACHMENT
G
CHAPTER 7.16.080
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
DEFINITION
The development of land or construction or placement of dwelling units for
the purpose of residential occupancy.
This chapter shall apply to all single family and multi -family dwellings,
and any other accessory structure, including decks, garages and fences.
Although a Substantial Development Permit is not required for construction
on wetlands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single family
residence for his own use or the use of his family, such construction and all
normal appurtenant structures must otherwise conform to this Master Program.
Construction greater than 35 feet high requires a Substantial Development
Permit.
POLICIES
1 . Over-water residential development should not be permitted.
2. Sewage disposal facilities, as well as water supply facilities,
should be provided in accordance with appropriate state and local health
regulations. Storm drainage facilities should be separated, not combined with
sewage disposal systems.
3. Residential development in geologically hazardous areas or in areas
subject to flooding should not be permitted.
4. Residential development in shoreline areas should be designed to
preserve natural drainage courses.
5. Subdivisions should maintain usable waterfront areas for the common
use of all property owners within the development.
6. Residential development on shorelines and wetlands should be planned
with minimum adverse environmental and visual impact. Structures should be
designed and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences.
7. Residential developments created after the effective date of this
program should provide adequate common access to the shoreline and open space
along the shoreline for all residents of the development. The access and open
space should be of adequate size to provide for recreation land to ensure
against interference with adjacent properties.
8. A variety of housing types on land should be encouraged, provided
that they are consistent with the environment designation criteria.
9. Residential structures should be located to minimize obstruction of
views of the water from upland areas. The intent of this policy is to
encourage the retention of views in and through new residential developments.
This policy is not intended to prohibit residential development of a shoreline
lot simply because it may impact or eliminate views from upland property.
47
A� �
10. Residential development along shorelines should be designed and sited
to make shore protection measures unnecessary.
11 . New residential development should be encouraged to cluster dwelling
units in order to preserve natural features, minimize physical and visual
impacts and reduce utility and road costs.
12. The overall density of development, lot coverage and height of
structures should be appropriate to the physical capabilities of the site.
Particular attention should be given to the preservation of water quality and
shoreline aesthetic characteristics. Density should be consistent with density
provisions of local plans, codes and ordinances.
2. "Submerged lands" (biological wetlands and those lands waterward of
the ordinary high water) within the boundaries of any waterfront parcel shall
not be used to compute required lot area, lot dimensions and required yards.
.Portions of land lying within marshes, bogs and swamps may be included as open
space.
3. Subdivision proposals shall identify areas of natural vegetation,
storm water retention and erosion control measures.
4. Landfill for residential development which results in the creation of
new dry land waterward of OHWM or in biological wetlands is prohibited. Fill
necessary for a normal erosion control bulkhead is exempt. Land fill in
biological wetlands (excluding bogs, marshes, swamps, marine and estuarine
shore) may be permitted. Such filling may be considered as a Conditional Use
PROVIDED the applicant can demonstrate the following: (1) Extraordinary or
unique circumstances relating to the property exist which require the proposed
shoreline location; and (2) No viable alternative using a different method or
structural solution exists.
5. Landfilling in flood hazard areas other than a floodway is allowed
only for flood protection of a structure(s) .
6. Storm drainage facilities shall be separate from sewage disposal
transport facilities and include provisions to prevent uncontrolled and
untreated direct entry of surface water runoff into receiving waters. Storm
drainage facilities shall include, but not be restricted to vegetated swales,
retention ponds and artificial and natural wetlands PROVIDED no adverse impacts
to the receiving wetlands would occur and shall be subject to Mason County
approval .
7. Subdivision developments and planned unit developments shall provide
areas sufficient to ensure usable access to and along the shoreline area for
all residents of the development except where the shoreline topography does not
permit the same.
8. In order to preserve aesthetic characteristics, no fence or wall
shall be erected, placed or altered nearer to the water than the building
setback line, unless it is under 30 inches in height.
48
Each shoreline environment has a setback requirement for structures
from the ordinary high water mark. (See chart at end of this section. )
Uncovered porches, decks or steps may project into the required setback area,
provided such structures are no higher than 30 inches above average grade
excluding railings required for reasons of public safety. The setback in each
environment may be increased or decreased by the Administrator in the following
ways:
;< Increased Setback Requirements. The setbacks may be increased
if the building area or setback area has a slope greater than 40
percent, severe instability, or the average setback of the two
adjacent residences is greater than the setback requirement for
that environment. In such cases, the setback shall be
determined by drawing an imaginary line between the roof lines
of adjacent residences; PROVIDED the minimum distance required
by reason of slope or instability shall be required. If there
is no residence on an adjacent lot, the next lot with a
residence will be considered, up to 150 feet away. If there is
no adjacent residence within 150 feet, the minimum default
setback shall be assumed on that side of the proposed residence.
In the Urban Environment, a residence setback over 120 feet from
the line of ordinary high water will not be considered in
determining the setback and the default setback will be used at
15 feet.
In cases of a pronounced curved shoreline or point, the setback
shall be established by determining proportionate setback
distances from the OHWM of adjacent residences.
Setback for any structure greater than 30 inches above average
grade shall be behind this common line (see figure) .
b. Decreased Setback Requirements. The setback may be relaxed
PROVIDED that at least one existing residence adjacent (within
50 feet) to the proposed structure infringes on the setback. In
such cases, the setback shall be determined in the same manner
described under " Increased Setback Requirement" where
applicable. This shall not be construed to allow residential
development over water or to allow a reduction of the default
setback in cases of pronounced cove or indented shoreline.
Setback relaxation is subject to approval by the Shoreline
Administrator (see illustration) .
Further deviation from setback requirements shall require a
Variance.
10. Clustering of residential dwellings in all environments except
Natural is allowed. The number of clustered lots or residential units in the
shoreline area shall not exceed the number of units which results from
multiplying the total acres (minus submerged lands) in the shoreline area by
the density allowed in the specific environment.
11 . Proposed residential developments adjacent to a water body supporting
aquaculture operations shall install drainage and storm water treatment
measures facilities to prevent any adverse impact to aquaculture operations.
49
Such measures shall include but not be restricted to vegetated swales,
retention ponds and use of artificial or natural wetlands PROVIDED no adverse
impacts to the receiving wetlands would occur. Measures utilized shall be
subject to Mason County approval .
12. Multi-family residences are permitted in the Urban environment, sub-
ject to a maximum projected output of 1,570 gallons of sewage per acre per day.
13. If marshes, bogs, swamps or other fragile features are located on a
development site, clustering of residential units shall be required in order to
avoid any development in such areas.
14. Storm drainage facilities shall be required by the County for
residential development projects excluding a single family residence.
Facilities shall include but not be restricted to vegetated swales, retention
ponds and use of artificial or natural wetlands PROVIDED no adverse impacts to
the receiving wetlands would occur and are subject to Mason County approval .
15. Lots created prior to the adoption of this ordinance which do not
meet the minimum lot size may be used for a single family residence when all of
the following criteria can be met:
(a) A permit for an on-site disposal system which meets all current
codes for setbacks and sizing, has been granted by the
Environmental Health Section.
(b) All side yard and shore yard setbacks can be met.
Exceptions from these criteria would require a Variance Permit.
16. Only one dock or pier is permitted in a new subdivision, planned unit
development, or short plat, when lot frontages on the shoreline do not exceed
an average of 150 feet. Prior to plat approval , a usable area with access
shall be set aside for the pier or dock, unless no suitable area exists.
17. Construction of new dwellings shall be required to comply with
current sewage system setback and design standards as per WAC 248-96.
18. Expansion of existing dwellings shall require strict compliance with
current sewage system setback and design standards as per WAC 248-96.
19. Normal maintenance and repair of non-conforming structures shall be
allowed, provided no material expansion is involved.
20. Residential development is prohibited within a floodway.
21 . Residential developers and individuals shall be required to control
erosion during construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any
areas disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental
impacts.
22. Waste materials from construction shall not be left on or adjacent to
shorelines.
50
Existing
House
Proposed
House i
ROOF
- �LINE
Existing I
House
i Imaginary Line Used To
Determine Setback
Shoreline (O.H.W. )
Existing
House
Proposed Vacant Vacant
I House
ROOF
LINE
I � ✓
I
Imaginary Line Used
Determine Setback \
15' Imagined
horeline H.W. Setback
51
ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS
DEFINITION
Separate living quarters, attached or detached from the primary residence
which contain less- habitable area than the primary residence.
POLICY
Accessory living quarters for the use of guests, employees or immediate
family members should be allowed as a Substantial Development, when minimal
impact would occur to the surrounding area. The cumulative impact of like
structures on neighboring properties must be considered.
USE REGULATIONS
Accessory living quarters may be allowed subject to meeting the following
criteria:
I . Only one accessory living quarter per lot. In an Urban environment,
a lot must be 1-112 the size required for a single family residence which
totals 18,750 square feet.
2. Strict compliance with current sewage setback and design standards as
per WAC 248-76-090.
3. Minimal impact on surrounding properties from view blockage, traffic,
parking and drainage.
4. Compliance with setback criteria set forth in the Table on Page 56.
5. Accessory living quarters shall require a Substantial Development and
shall not exceed 1,000 square feet.
52
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
SHORELINE DESIGNATION
(X=Prohibited)
REGULATION URBAN RURAL CONSERVANCY NATURAL
1 . Shore setbacks, in feet
(From OHWM or front of bulkhead. Side yard setbacks shall apply to
sides. )
a. Single family, duplex 15 25 50 X
b. Multi-family structures
less than 35' high 30 50 NA X
c. Multi -family structures
over 35' high 50 100 NA X
2. Side yard setbacks (in feet)
a. Single family, duplex 5 10 25 X
b. Multi-family structures
less than 35' high 20 20 X X
c. Multi-family structures
more than 35' high 30 30 X X
3. Height limits in feet
a. 0-49 feet from OHWM 35 30 25 X
b. 50-100 feet from OHWM 45 40 30 X
4. Site coverage - for:*
a. Single family, duplex 60% 50% 15% X
b. Multi -family structures 40% 40% 15% X
*Site coverage shall include all impermeable surfaces.
5. Minimum lot size 12,500 20,000 5 X
(per residential unit) square feet square feet acres**
Primary residence and 18,750 20,000 5 X
accessory structure square feet square feet acres**
(one per lot maximum)
Duplex 1,570 gallons 785 gallons 5 X
sewage per acre sewage per acre acres**
per day maximum per day maximum
Multi-family 1,570 gallons 785 gallons
sewage per acre sewage per acre NA NA
per day maximum per day
6. Minimum lot width 50' 100, 200'
measures at OHWM and
at building setback
**one residential unit is allowed per 200 lineal feet in the shoreline
Jurisdiction area.
53
ATTACHMENT
H
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton,Washington 98584
(360)427-9670
BUILDING PARKS& RECREATION FAIR/CONVENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATION
.30C41 - 5/ - 000J I
�n ers LC ke /rae
June 6 , 1996 " 7-/9
Scott Woodward
W 924 Delight Park Rd
Shelton, WA 98584
RE : Permit Application BLD96-0442
Dear Mr. Woodward,
In reviewing your application for the above permit there was
some question regarding exactly what your project entailed. Once
a determination was made that this was to be a garage addition to
an existing non-conforming house, another issue was raised.
Our file records indicate that in 1988 a permit was applied
for that included an addition and alteration. The records also
indicate that on February 8, 1989, a Stop Work Order was placed on
site and notification was mailed to you that the permit had been
rescinded due to exceeding authorized work. Photos in the file
show that there were several structural inadequacies noted at the
time that the Stop Work Order was posted. The file records do not
demonstrate that the permit was ever reinstated and therefore, any
work done after the Stop Work Order was posted is in violation.
The policy of the Mason County Building Department is to not
permit any expansion or alteration to structures which are
considered to be "Existing Non-Conforming" . Since the residential
structure is there and exists in violation of the rescinded permit,
it has been classified as such. This department can not issue a
permit to allow for the proposed garage addition unless steps are
taken to bring the existing structure into compliance .
It would appear that there is also some question regarding the
septic system which is on site . This concern has been forwarded to
Kim Lincoln of the Environmental Health Department after speaking
with the initial inspector, Will Satak.
Page 1 of 2
Other notations in the file include a 1987 notice to you that
required either fill and riprap to be removed to the OHW mark or a
Substantial Development Permit for the placement of the fill and
riprap within the shorelines area.
As you can see, the parcel file has numerous issues which
appear to still be in violation. There are no records that
indicate any of the above items have ever been resolved and to
clear up the property file, a statement from each department would
need to be recorded in the file stating the violations have been
corrected.
If you should have any further questions, please contact me at
(360) 427-9670 ext 364 .
Sincerely,
e---9 A , (ccF>tj
Mi�kte Byrne
Building Official
CC : Property File
Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Pam Bennett-Cumming, Department of Community Development
Kim Lincoln/Will Satak, Environmental Health Department
Rocky Nutt, Contractor of record
Page 2 of 2
1-
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
January 31, 1990
Mr. and Mrs. Woodward
924 Delight Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Non-Compliance With Washington State Code 248-96
and Mason County Article VI
Based on the meeting you had the 23rd of January with the Director of
General Services, Mike Byrne, you were given a list of certified installers.
With this list you must complete the following:
1.) Contact an installer and set up a date for new system to be installed.
The system must be installed no later than March 15, 1990. (Your septic
permit is valid and a design system is not required. This should help
expedite the process.)
2.) Contact this office by February 9, 1990 and provide the following
information:
a.) The installer you decided to employ.
b.) The date the system will be installed.
Please be reminded that the citation order is still in effect and we expect
you to meet these deadlines.
Respectfully,
William J. Satak
Environmental Health Specialist
cc: Gary Burleson
Prosecuting Attorney
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
TO: Scott Woodward
924 Delight Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE : Non-compliance with Washington State
Code 248-96 and Mason County Code
Article VI
I am aware of your refusal of a certified letter from
Mason County Department of General Services. In short,
the certified letter stated that you have not installed
an adequate septic system at your residence, 924 Delight
Park Road. If, in fact , you have installed a septic
system, the burden of proof is your responsibility.
Please understand the importance of the situation. By
not complying to County code you are posing a health
hazard to yourself and the public. Therefore, if you
have not contacted this office by January 8th to begin
code compliance, your premises will be posted for
non-occupancy and the case turned over to the Prosecuting
Attorney.
WILLIAM J. SATAK
Environmental Health Specialist
cc: Gary Burleson, Prosecuting Attorney
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
December 28 , 1989
TO: Mr. & Mrs . Scott Woodward
924 Delight Park Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Non-compliance with Washington State
Code 248-96 and Mason County Code Article VI
Your letter does not constitute proof of an adequate
septic system. As I explained before, if a system exists,
you must prove such by uncovering it for our inspection.
The time schedule I layed out in the last letter still
applies . You must initiate code compliance by January 8th
or your premises will be posted for non-occupancy and the
case turned over to the Prosecuting Attorney' s office.
Also, if you would like further correspondence referred to
your attorney then you must supply this office with his
name and address.
�_j
William J . Satak
Environmental Health Specialist
WJS/njp
cc : Gary Burleson , Prosecuting Attorney
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
December 1, 1989
Scott Woodward
924 Delight park Road
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Non Compliance with Washington State Code 248-96
and Mason County Code Article VI, (Inadequate septic
tank and drainfield) .
Mr. Woodward,
Upon investigation of your premisis and sewage system permit that was
required due to a complaint, I found that you have not installed a
sufficient septic system. Further investigation determined that all that is
in the ground is a fifty gallon capacity tank and a undetermined, maybe
non-existant, length of drainfield installed in the 1950's by an early owner
named Mr. Davis.
The Humphrey's who owned it after the Davis's had a site inspection but
never installed the proposed system. They sold to you which leads to the
current permit inspected by John G. Denison, May 17, 1988, but never
installed. If a system was installed, that is adequate for your two bedroom
house, the burden of proof lies with you. This means you will need to
exposed the system's tank and drainfield for our inspection.
Please understand the importance of the situation, you are posing a health
risk to yourselves and the public. For this reason you must contact this
office within ten working days or legal action will be initiated.
Your immediate response is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Will Satak
Envirorimental Health Specialist
WS/pb
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
February 8, 1989
CERTIFIED
Scott Woodward
2429 Laurel Street
Shelton, WA 98584
RE: Building Permit Applicaion No. 22814 dated September 29, 1988; addition
and alteration
Dear Mr. Woodward:
A STOP WORK ORDER was posted on the structure for the above referenced
Building Permit Application on February 8, 1989. The structure is in
violation of exceeding authorized work.
Please contact me between the hours of 8:00-9:00 a.m. (427-9670,
Extension 357) to discuss the violation. Your cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
l�f/��Cyrie,
Wayne Krause, Inspector
DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES
WK/jh
427-9670 MASON COUNTY
BUILDING DEPARTMENT N- 1237
ALL PERSONS ARE* Y ORDERED TO AT ONCE
On these Premises at
-7"Z.L)...........
.......... ..........
................................................................................ ................. ........................... ...... .............--............
On ORK
..........................................................
This order is issued because ......... ......
..............I..............................................................................
Posted
AA--
osted ........4/0..................P.M. ...._...... ....
..I..... By ...........
RNINGThe failure to Stop work. the resuming Of work without permission from the
Building Official, or the removal, mutilation, destruction or concealment of
this Notice Is punishable by fine and imprisonment.
v/
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT of GENERAL SERVICES
Courthouse Annex I N. Fourth & W. Cedar
P.O. Box 186 Shelton, Washington 98584
(206) 427-9670
building environmental health maintenance landfill parks&recreation fair/convention center planning sewer&water
July 28, 1987
Scott Woodward
2429 Laurel
Shelton, WA 98584
Dear Mr. Woodward:
This letter is to confirm our previous conversations. I told you that
a Substantial Development Permit is necessary for the project which you have
embarked upon at your property on Lake Isabella.
Although the value of fill and riprap is less than $2,500 the project
is inconsistent with the exemption criteria found in the Shoreline Master
Plan. An exempt erosion control bulkhead would be located at the Ordinary
High Water mark. The filling and riprapping which you have done goes beyond
that which would be necessary to provide erosion control . In order to be
exempt from Substantial Development Permit requirements the fill and riprap
would need to be removed to the OHW mark.
I have discussed the situation with Barry Wenger of DOE and have his
backing on the information I have provided you. Fill must be removed to OHW
mark or a Substantial Development Permit applied for within the next 30
days. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely
Patti Miller Crowley, Planner
DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES
PMC/jw
'��r ,rs✓� MASON COUNTY
�h 426-5593 g ILDING DEPARTM ENT N° a o a
ALL PERSONS ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO AT ONCE
ST P WORK
101"911-59e, '
On these Premises at ........ '�QI� . ...................... ....... ....
�..:: �.t .... ...:..................................................................................................
_ ..
;� - -
This order is issued because .... .1� ..... - CC�...._.\'QQ�I�O � _ 1
4 ......._...._..
......-�1111n 5.........V s�D.........
Posted .......................... .- -...... -------------- - �............ 19..� .. By ._.....F.M-(............----..........
WARNING The failure to stop work, the resuming of work without permission from the
Building Official, or the removal, mutilation, destruction or concealment of
this Notice is punishable by fine and imprisonment.
Fail+ d-o ca�uc� Planni ,�e PY)atq res�« in c1 60