Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SHR2002-00019 ATF Fence Shoreline Variance - SHR Permit / Conditions - 8/21/2002
�oN-STgTFO� MASON COUNTY oP NMI o N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S N Planning Division o Y 0 P O Box 279, Shelton, WA 98584 1864 V6 (360)427-9670 SHR2002-00019 NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT Notice is hereby given that SCOTT P WOODWARD, who is the owner of the described property, has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the development of: Conditional Use/Variance After the fact shoreline variance for two (2) 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants property, extending into Lake Isabella approximately 10 feet. Site Address: 924 W DELIGHT PARK RD SHELTON Parcel Number: 319065100017 Location of Project: 924 Delight Park Rd on Lake Isabella Vv'ithin: (quarter section) of Section: 6 Township: 19 N N Range: 2 W W, W.M. in , Mason County Washington. Said development is proposed within Lake Isabella and/or its associated wetlands. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P O BOX 279 SHELTON, WA 98584 in writing of their interest within 30 days of the final date of publication given pursuant to WAC 173-14-020. The final date of publication, posting, or mailing of notice is 8/22/2002. Written comments must be received by 9/21/2002. A public hearing will be held on this permit request. Contact this office at(360)427-9670, ext. 295 for date and time of hearing. Mitigated A�etermination of Nonsignifrcance was issued on 8/22/2002 under WAC 197-11-340. Written comments regarding tfS ss determination must be received by 9/5/2002. SHR2002-00019 Shoreline Management Act Permit Data Sheet and Transmittal Letter From: Mason County -V/4 ' To: WaGh_ ctaf-P P.O. Box ATTN: Shoreline Permit levi wer Shelton, PIA 98584 Southwest Regional Office Date of Transmittal: Date of Receipt �'n'pl a P7A 9 s 5 0 4 Type of Permit: (indicate all that apply) (Dept of Ecology) Substantial Development Conditional Use Variance Revision Other Local Government Decision: Approval Conditional Approval Denial Applicant Information- Applicant's Representative-_(If primary contact) Name:_5 ` 1oocl)W41W Name: �C,A'L CAB L L)a-✓ Address: q o�� l� C�}�1 Address: I U-I S' tyLLt- POOL R F© at:�x Phone(s):_ 4a9- SQR( Phone(s): 4 q i - Ce(p to Lp Is the applicant the property owner- X Yes No location of Property: (Section,Township and Range to the nearest 1/4, 1/4 Section or latitude and longitude, and a street address where available) Pfn `�' (o J I q M Q3W Water Body Name: tAKF Wq_L-A Shoreline of Statewide Significance: Yes _� No Environment Designation: t)(�P,4rU Description of Project: (Summary of the intended use or project purpose) 40 II w�,l� LQk.� l&n Notice of Application Date- S 0 Z. Final Decision Date- gY Phone #: �teD t{-a-J ��"?� X 6(9 5 � ��7►'1-'�iva.�cL-.s?� -�-rzs►�, I I b�b2 0.Q-'�t�P,Q�'- � Ot��3��LS�,c�,�'S 1���� 0 -STA MASON COUNTY oCA N DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT } s Planning Division o v 0 P O Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 186A Case No.: SHR2002-00019 SHORELINE PERMIT STATUS: DENIED Received: 7/29/2002 Type of Permit: Conditional Use/Variance Applicant: SCOTT P. WOODWARD 924 W. DELIGHT RD SHELTON,WA 98584 Location of Project: 924 Delight Park Rd on Lake Isabella Within Lake Isabella and/or its associated wetlands. The project will not be within shorelines of statewide significance. Shoreline Designation: Urban Parcel Number: 319065100017 Address: 924 W DELIGHT PARK RD SHELTON Legal Description: SOMERS LAKE TRACTS TR 17-18 & S.L. Project Description: After the fact shoreline variance for two (2) 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants property, extending into Lake Isabella approximately 10 feet. This permit has been denied by Mason County persuant to the Shoreline Management Act of 1971. No permit authorizing construction shall extend for a term of more than five (5) years. If actual construction of a development for which a permit has been granted has not begun within two years after the approval of the permit by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board shall, at the expiration of the two-year period, review the permit, and upon a showing of good cause, extend the permit for one year. Otherwise, the permit terminates; provided that no permit shall be extended unless the applicant has requested such review and extension prior to the last regular meeting of the Board coming before the permit exipration date. Approved: ❑ /� Denied: Vj ,1710 3 Authorized Local Government Official Date THIS SECTION FOR DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY USE ONLY IN REGARD TO A CONDITIONAL USE OR VARIANCE PERMIT. Approved: ❑ Date received by Department of Ecology: Denied: ❑ This permit is approved by the Department of Ecology pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. Development shall be undertaken pursuant to the attached terms and conditions. Date Authorized Dept. of Ecology Official SHR2002-00019 2 of 2 BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 4, 2003 FINDINGS OF FACT: WOODARD SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE/VARIANCE APPLICATION (SHR2002-00019) 1. Under consideration is an after-the-fact shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 1Oft into Lake Isabella. Details of the project are contained in staff report dated November 18, 2002, prepared for the Planning Advisory Commission. The project requires review as a variance because it is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. 2. Provisions for the project's consistency with the Master Program are set forth in Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080, Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 and Variance Chapter 7.28.020 of the Shoreline Master Program. 3. Based upon the Shoreline Master Program Residential Development Chapter, the project is inconsistent with Policies#1, #6, and#9,relating to development over water and view protection. The project is inconsistent with Use Regulations#1, #8 and#9,relating to development over water, view protection, and height of structures waterward of the shoreline setback common line. 4. The project fails to meet the Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 requirement for authorization of projects when consistent with Use Regulations of the Master Program,because the project is not consistent with applicable Use Regulations. 5. Based on Variance Chapter 7.28.020, the proposal is inconsistent with the standards for granting a Shoreline Variance, because the project fails to meet variance criteria I through 6. 6. The Mason County Planning Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the project,because it failed to meet the applicable provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, and failed to meet the Variance Chapter criteria. 7. The Board of Mason County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the project, because as proposed it failed to meet the Shoreline Master Program Variance Chapter criteria. 8. Timing of fence removal: within 30 days of the final decision date for this case applicant shall meet with planning staff on site, on a mutually agreeable date and time, so that staff can establish the location of the shoreline setback common line in relation to the fence. Applicants are required to bring their fence into consistency with the Shoreline Master Program within 30 days of said meeting. 2� aff Board of Mason County Commissioners Chair Date Z-. a /7/0.3 Board of Wason C46ty Commissioners Date Mason County Commissioners Findings of Fact: SHR2002-00019 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 October 3, 2002 owl DZ WIE- a- Argal D Oberquell S Attorney at Law ' PO Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98509-8695 RE: Shoreline variance application SHR2002-00019, Woodward fences extending into Lake Isabella. Tax Parcel No 31906-51-00017 Dear Mr. Oberquell: Planning staff is contacting you regarding the project referenced above. This letter addresses the need for a complete site plan packet, and updates information provided to you in our phone conversation on October 2, 2002 regarding scheduling of the Planning Advisory Commission meeting. l. On September 6, 2002 staff contacted you regarding the need for your client to supply an accurate site plan which would meet the provisions of WAC 173-27-180. We also included a copy of the SEPA comment letter received from Department of Ecology on this project. Although we have received a fax (October 2, 2002) of what appears to be a partial site plan for the above proposal, we have not as yet received a complete site plan that conforms to the provisions of WAC 173-27-180. A second copy of the Department of Ecology letter has been enclosed. As discussed over the phone, contours may be estimated. 2. Subsequent to our phone conversation yesterday, staff further researched the question of your client's incomplete site plan. Your variance will not be scheduled for the October Planning Advisory Commission (PAC) meeting due to lack of a complete site plan. A complete site plan is due by October 31, 2002 to allow for timely provision of information to the PAC for the November meeting. However if an accurate site plan is not submitted by that date, the variance will be forwarded to the Planning Advisory Commission members regardless. Since your client has the burden to prove that they meet the variance criteria, the failure to submit a complete site plan does not help your efforts to obtain a variance. Because this case is required in relation to a Mason County Hearings Examiner decision, we look forward to receiving the necessary information in a timely manner. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I can be reached at (360) 427-9670 ext 295. Sipely, Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner Darren Nienaber, Mason County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SJ 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 September 6, 2002 Argal D Oberquell Attorney at Law PO Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98509-8695 RE: Variance application SHR2002-00019, Woodward fences extending into Lake Isabella. Tax Parcel No 3 1 906-5 1-000 1 7 Dear Mr. Oberquell: Planning staff is contacting you regarding the project referenced above. The project is currently undergoing the 30-day comment period per Mason County Shoreline Master Program requirements. To date we have received the attached comment letter from Department of Ecology, which is enclosed for you and your client to review. In order that we can continue review, and complete the necessary preparations to schedule the project for review by Planning Advisory Commission, and later public hearing before the Board of Mason County Commissioners, please provide a site plan which meets the provisions set forth in the letter. We look forward to receiving the site plan and continuing review. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. I can be reached at (360) 427-9670 ext 295. Sincer Pamela D Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT #A &JAA� 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 October 30, 2002 Argal D Oberquell Attorney at Law s� PO Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98509-8695 RE: Photos supplied with Woodard shoreline variance application No. SHW' '-0Q0l9 Dear Mr. Oberquell: ' ` �✓ Planning staff is contacting you regarding some materials submitted with the application materials for the project referenced above. Together with your application, you provided some photos of other sites,to bring what you believe to be violations of Mason County regulations to our attention. Mason County is unable to efficiently act on complaints that do not identify the specific location (address or parcel number) of the alleged violation. Additionally, the nature of concern must be specified with sufficient detail to provide County staff with the opportunity to evaluate the complaint. Some investigation report forms are enclosed with this letter for your use. Each complaint report form should have"PART A"completed to the best of the complainant's ability. If they wish to maintain anonymity,please fill out the information and put"Anonymous"next to the complainant's name. In each case,please provide as much information as possible including date of construction if known. Copies of your photos may accompany each complaint. The completed forms can be returned by mail to Mason County Planning Division, attn: Kristin French, PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98504, or in person to Mason County Building No. 3. If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Kristin French at(360) 427-9670 ext. 593. Sincerely,_, Pam Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION d R)""o 0ELl__. Cc: Kristin French, Enforcement Planner P,� LAW OFFICE OF ARGAL D. OBERQUELL 1415 COLLEGE STREET SE LACEY,WA 98503 PHONE (360)491-6666 FAX (360)456-3632 October 28, 2002 MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Ms. Pamela D. Bennett-Cumming, Senior Planner PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Re: SHR2002-00019 — Woodward Site Plan and Additional Photos Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming: Enclosed are four (4) copies of Woodward's Site Plan 18" x 24" and four (4) copies reduced to 8 '/2" x 14". As instructed by you, the elevations are estimates and consider the lake to be zero feet elevation. I believe these Site Plans show all the necessary information as required by WAC 173-27-180. 1 am also enclosing four (4) copies each of 16 additional photos (8 '/2" x 11") that illustrate the fences (old and new); the Woodward's — Kamin's and Flesner's homes, vegetation, trees, shrubs, docks, log booms and boathouse; and further illustrate the elevations of the various homes in relation to the fences and vegetation and trees. The significance of the Kamin's corkscrew willow that was moved approximately 20 feet closer to the Woodward line this spring is that it was done after your enforcement action began at the Kamin's behest and was clearly done to further obstruct the Woodward's view of the lake to the northwest. Lastly, I am enclosing a copy of the May 2, 2002 correspondence received from Carol Turcotte, Public Disclosure Officer for the State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlife. As you know, Exhibits M and N of my original submittals clearly show that the information imparted in that letter is totally incorrect. Thank you. Very truly yours, ARGAL D. OBERQUELL Attorney at Law ADO/js Enclosures: As stated above cc: Scott and Marjorie Woodward STA;f c � y, o Nay. :n State of Washington DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Mailing Address: 600 Capitol Way N-Olympia,WA 98501-1091 -(360)902-2200,TDD(360)902-2207 Main Office Location: Natural Resources Building- 1111 Washington Street SE-Olympia.WA May 2, 2002 RECw I V E 0 Mr. Argal D. Oberquell HAY G u 2007 Attorney at Law 1415 College Street S.E. P.O. Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98503 Dear Mr. Oberquell: Enclosed is a copy of your recent request for permit records regarding building and installing chain link fences at the boat launch area on Lake Isabella, Mason County. Your request was referred to several WDFW offices in an attempt to locate a copy of a fencing permit. It was determined that in August 1998, WDFW replaced an existing fence at the Lake Isabella access area. Shoreline requirements did not allow reconstruction of the fence into the water. The chain link fence ended about 50' back from the shoreline and continued to within a few feet of the water with barbed wire just to show the boundary. In 1998, because it was not a new fence being installed and because it was installed above the high water mark of the lake no permit was required from Mason County. In addition, no permits were located for construction of the original fence which was installed 20- 30 years ago. Please telephone me at (360) 902-2253 if you have any questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Carol Turcotte Public Disclosure Officer /ct cc: file - PDR#8055 LAW OFFICE OF ARGAL D. OBERQUELL 1415 COLLEGE STREET SE LACEY,WA 98503 PHONE (360)491-6666 FAX (360)456-3632 October 28, 2002 State of Washington Dept. of Ecology ATTN: Ms. Opal Smitherman PO Box 4775 Olympia, WA 98504-7775 Re: Mason County Department of Community Development — Woodward Variance Application SHR2002-00019 Dear Ms. Smitherman: In response to your August 20, 2002 letter to Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming (copy enclosed) and on behalf of my clients, Scott and Marjorie Woodward, I submit the following: 1. Photograph Exhibits C-S; 2. 8 '/2" x 14" Site Plan; In addition, I have additional photos showing docks, log booms, boathouses and fences extending out into Lake Isabella. As you can see, Exhibits M and N show the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife's identical fencing, built without a permit, extends out into the Lake. If you wish to examine any of these other photographs or discuss this application, please feel free to let me know. In particular, I would be happy to provide you with the complete Application for Variance/Conditional Use submittal if you so desire. Very truly yours, ARGAL D. OBERQUELL Attorney at Law ADO/js Enclosures: As stated above cc: Scott and Marjorie Woodward Pam Bennett-Cumming VVG/VVO MASON COUNTY D �� DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Courthouse Annex APR o 2302 PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 (360)427-9670 PERMIT ASSISTANCE CENTER THE SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT NO. KRbI79 SHORELINE SUBSTANITAL DEVELOPMENT C)OO SHORELINE VARIANCE X -eATE-RE-^-�-- SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE X a o C - Ia `3a I©� Th Washington ate Sh reline Management Act (RCW 90.58) requires that substantial developments within designated shorelines of the state comply with its administrative procedures (WAC 173-14)and the provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Management Master Program. The purpose of this Act and local program is to protect the state's shoreline resources. The program requires that substantial development (any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds $2,500 or materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the State) be reviewed with the goals, policies, and performance standards established in the Master Program. Answer all questions completely. Attach any additional information that may further describe the proposed development. Incomplete applications will be returned. APPLICANT: Scott and Marjorie Woodward ADDRESS: 924 W. Delight Park Road Shelton,WA 98584 TELEPHONE: (Home) (360)427-5991 (Business) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Argal D. Oberquell, Attorney at Law ADDRESS. 1415 College Street SE, PO Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98503 TELEPHONE: (Home) (Business) (360)491-6666 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION General Location (include property address, water body and associated wetlands— identify the name of the shoreline): 924 W. Delight Park Road Southeast Shore of Lake Isabella Legal Description (include section, township, and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. Projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude location). Include all parcel numbers. See attached legal description Tax Parcel No.: 319065100017 OWNERSHIP Contract Applicant X Owner Lessee Purchaser (Identify) Other Owner: (Street) (City) (State) (Zip) -. ---• r .v .+vvs..+v.rv.�s a�. �/GO/GVV.: O:�Cf Yll 003/006 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION Development (identify and describe the proposed project, including the type of materials to be used, construction methods, principal dimensions, and other pertinent information): Two (2) 6' chain link fences with privacy slats easterly and westerly property lines of Applicants property; replacing an old barbed wire fence in approximately the same location including extending into Lake Isabella approximately 10 feet. Use (identify current use of property with existing improvements: Residence. The fences in question were erected in the summer of 2000. Reason for requesting development: See attached Declaration of Scott and Marjorie WoodwaFd Setting Out Reasons for a Variance or Conditional Use Permit to Allow Fences to Remain in Place as Constructed. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I hereby declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the foregoing information and all attached information is true correct. 41113 O Z (App ant or Authonzed esentative) (Date) ------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- TO BE COMPLETED BY LOCAL OFFICIAL Identify and describe existing features of the site and surrounding area. If proposed structures will exceed a height of 35 feet about the existing grade level, indicate the location of any residential units that will have no obstructed view. If a Conditional Use or Variance is requested, make reference to the appropriate section in the Master Program MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 (360)427-9670 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SHORELINE VARIANCE The purpose of the Variance Permit is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program, where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the polices set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variance Permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), except those areas designated as marshes, bogs; or swamps, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 1. Show that the strict application of the bulk, dimensional, or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with the reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program. See Applicant's Joint Declaration of Reasons for a Variance or Conditional Use Permit to Allow Fences to Remain in Place as Constructed for the application attached. 2. Show 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 Master Program, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Same as 1 above. 3. Show 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 shoreline environment. Same as 1 above. Shoreline Variance Page 2 4. Show 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. Same as 1 above. 5. Show that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. No view is obstructed by the fences and all of the neighbors on the east have no objection to either the height or the extension into the Lake. The only objecting neighbor is Matthew Kamin on the west of the Applicants. Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark or within marshes, bogs, or swamps, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1 through 5 above,that: 6. Show that the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. The adjacent docks extend further out into the water than the Applicants' fences and other fences including the State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife extend into the water. See Applicants'Joint Declaration of Reasons for a Variance or Conditional Use Permit. In granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional request for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variance should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.85.020 and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. I / MASON COUNTY TO: BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Reviewed: FROM: Pam Bennett- Cumming Ext. DEPARTMENT: Planning Monday Briefing Consent Agenda DATE: February 4, 2003 No. 10. ITEM: Public Hearing — Continued from December 10. 2002 &January 7, 2003. Review of an after-the-fact shoreline Conditional Use Variance permit application by Scott Woodward for two 6ft high chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants shoreline lot. Planning Commission: Recommended denial (November 18, 2002). Background: Permit review is the result of an enforcement on site. The after-the-fact shoreline conditional use/variance request by Scott Woodward is to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella. The fences waterward of the shoreline setback common line are nonconforming to the shoreline setback common line. Staff recommends denial based on inconsistency with Shoreline Master program Residential Development chapter and Variance chapter criteria. Recommended Action: Move that the Woodward Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance permit request #SHR2002-00019 for two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats located waterward of the shoreline setback line be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the variance criteria, and that we adopt findings of fact as prepared by staff. Alternative motion: Move to conditionally approve Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request #SHR2002-00019. Move to postpone decision until Attachments: See attached list. MASON COUNTY TO: Board of Mason County Commissioners Reviewed: FROM: Pam Bennett-Cumming DEPARTMENT: Planning Monday Briefing_ DATE: January 7, 2003 No. ITEM: Public Hearing — Review of an after-the-fact Shoreline Conditional Use Variance permit application by Scott Woodward for two 6ft high chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants shoreline lot. Planning Commission Recommended denial (November 18, 2002). Background: Permit review is the result of an enforcement on site. The after-the-fact shoreline conditional use/variance request by Scott Woodward is to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella. The fences waterward of the shoreline setback common line are nonconforming to the shoreline setback common line. Staff recommends denial based on inconsistency with Shoreline Master Program Residential Development chapter and Variance chapter criteria. Recommended Action I move that the Woodward Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance permit request #SHR2002-00019 for two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats located waterward of the shoreline setback line be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the variance criteria, and that we adopt findings of fact as prepared by staff. Alternate motions: I move to conditionally approve Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request # SHR2002- 00019 I move to postpone decision until later date Attachments: See list attached HAIZOREN BOCC COVER SHEETS\WOODWARD COVER SHEET#2 SHR2002-00019.dot ?, or MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Mason County Bldg.1411 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 4, 2002 Argal D Oberquell Attorney at Law PO Box 8695 Lacey, WA 98503-8695 RE: Faxed letter from you dated December 3, 2002 re: Woodard shoreline permit No. SHR2002-00019. Dear Mr. Oberquell: Planning staff is contacting you regarding your letter dated December 3,2002 relating to the Woodard Shoreline Variance application, in which you requested that the case be continued until after January 5, 2003 due to your scheduling conflict, and the need for your client to provide more to obtain release from his employment at Morgan Trucking. At the scheduled December 10, 2002 Board of Mason County Commissioners hearing, staff will provide your request to the Board, and request that the hearing be continued to January 7,2003. Following the hearing on December 10,2002 staff will notify you of the Board's decision on this matter. If you have any questions regarding this request,please contact Kristin French at(360) 427-9670 ext. 593. Sini. ly, Pam ennett-Cumming, Senior Planner MASON COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Cc: Scott &Marjorie Woodward Kristin French, Enforcement Planner MASON COUNTY TO: Board of Mason County Commissioners Reviewed: FROM: Pam Bennett-Cumming DEPARTMENT: Planning Monday Briefing_Yes, 12/2/02 DATE: December 10, 2002 public hearing No. ITEM: Public Hearing — Review of an after-the-fact Shoreline Conditional Use Variance permit application by Scott Woodward for two 6ft high chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants shoreline lot. Planning Commission Recommended denial (November 18, 2002). Background: Permit review is the result of an enforcement on site. The after-the-fact shoreline conditional use/variance request by Scott Woodward is to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella. The fences waterward of the shoreline setback common line are nonconforming to the shoreline setback common line. Staff recommends denial based on inconsistency with Shoreline Master Program Residential Development chapter and Variance chapter criteria. Planning has received letter (dated December 3, 2002) from the applicant's attorney requesting continuance till after January 5, 2002 (attached). Recommended Action: I move that the Woodward Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance permit request #SHR2002-00019 for two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats located waterward of the shoreline setback line be continued to January 7, 2003. (Alternate motions0 I move that the Woodward Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance permit request #SHR2002-00019 for two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats located waterward of the shoreline setback line be denied on the basis of inconsistency with the variance criteria, and that we adopt findings of fact as prepared by staff. I move to conditionally approve Shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request # SHR2002- 00019 I move to postpone decision until later date Attachments: See list attached HAZOREN BOCC COVER SHEETS\WOODWARD COVER SHEET SHR2002-00019.dot Jl SU rl, SHR2002-00019 WOODWARD CONDITIONAL USENARIANCE List of attachments in order . 1. Staff report. 2. Planning Advisory Commission findings of fact. 3. Letter from applicant's representative Argal Oberquell dated December 3, 2002, requesting the case be continued to after January 5, 2003. 4. Draft Board of Mason County Commissioners Findings of Fact. 5. Vicinity map. 6. Site plan. 7. Site plan enlargement. 8. Shoreline permit Notice of Application. 9. SEPA Determination . 10. Comment letter from Department of Ecology dated August 30, 2002. 11. Comment letter from Ruby Flesner dated September 10,2002. 12. Comment letter from Ronald and Susan Nelson dated September 17, 2002. 13. Comment letter from Shawna Gallagher and Matthew Kamin dated September 20, 2002. 14. Comment letter from Tom Kamin received September 23, 2002. 15. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated October 3, 2002. 16. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated September 6, 2002. 17. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated October 30, 2002 re: investigation of other alleged violations. 18. Argal Oberquell letter to Planning Department dated October 28, 2002. 19. WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife letter to Argal Oberquell dated May 2, 2002. 20. Argal Oberquell letter to Department of Ecology dated October 28, 2002. 21. Shoreline Conditional Use Variance permit application and joint declaration by applicants Scott and Marjorie Woodward. 22. Applicant's submitted list of exhibits together with exhibits A through S 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 December 10, 2002 TO: Mason County Commissioners FROM: Planning Staff—Pam Bennett-Cumming RE: Shoreline Conditional Use Variance Application no. SBR2002-00019 STAFF REPORT Summary: The after-the-fact shoreline conditional use/variance request by Scott Woodward is to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella. The fences waterward of the shoreline setback common line are nonconforming to the shoreline setback common line. Staff recommends denial based on inconsistency with both the Residential Development chapter, and the Variance chapter criteria. I Introduction. This report evaluates an after-the-fact conditional use variance application for two (2) 6ft high chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants. Permit review is the result of an enforcement action at the site. II Applicant. The applicant is Scott Woodward. The representative is Argal Oberquell. III. Property location. 924 Delight Park Road, Shelton, in Section 6, Township 19 North Range 3 West. (parcel no. 31906-51-00017). IV. Project Description. After the fact shoreline variance for two (2) 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants property, extending into Lake Isabella approximately 10 feet. Proposal requires variance because it extends waterward of the shoreline setback common line. The fence was part of an enforcement case. The hearings examiner order required,either modification of the fence to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program requirements, or application for and approval of a shoreline variance. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site: The site is a shoreline lot fronting Lake Isabella. The property is a developed site with a single family residence located approximately 100ft from the lake, with a garage behind it. This is a long lot(over 800ft long per applicant)with the majority of the side lot lines fenced with sight obscuring chain link fence, which extends approximately 10 feet into the lake. Although not shown on the submitted site plan, there is also a chain link cross fence extending from the side fences to each side of the house, effectively fencing off the area landward of the 1 residence from the area waterward of the residence. The lot is landscaped, with the area upland of the residence being grassy, with some trees and rhododendrons. B. Characteristics of the area. The area adjacent to the shoreline is mainly developed lots with single family residences, some shoreline lots have docks or floats. The area slopes gently upward from the shoreline to Delight Park Road. Closer to the road the area is wooded. C. Shoreline designation. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential. D. Mason County Development Regulations. The land use designation is Rural Residential 5. VI. SEPA Compliance. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on August 21, 2002. The comment period ended on September 5, 2002. A SEPA comment was received from Department of Ecology(attached)their comments included noting that the proposal was inconsistent with Residential Use Regulation#8 of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,and fails to meet the variance criteria. VII. Public Comments. Thus far comment letters objecting to the fence because of view obstruction have been received from Shawna Gallagher and Matthew Kamin, and from Tom Kamin. Comment letters in favor of the project were received from Ruby Flesner, and Ronald and Susan Nelson. Letters are attached. VIII. Analysis. The fence requires a shoreline Conditional Use permit because Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 provides that: uses which are not classified or set forth in the Master Program may be authorized as conditional uses provided that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth above,that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the Master Program. The project requires a Variance because it is violates Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080. Note: Staff understands that questions have arisen relating to whether the applicant's fencing is within or outside their property lines. The purpose of this staff report is to review the fencing in relation to provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,rather than to review or make any determination as to its location relative to any given property line. Below are listed the applicable Shoreline Master Program chapter provisions followed (in italics)by staff analysis of their applicability to this project. Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080 Applicable policies: 1. Over water residential development should not be permitted. Staff analysis: the portion of the fence in the water does not meet this policy. 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. Staff analysis: as constructed the fence blocks views of adjacent residences. 2 1 Hof ; 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. Staff analysis: The fence obstructs views of the water from upland areas. Applicable Use Regulations: 1. Residential development over water is prohibited. Staff analysis: The residential development chapter definition includes the following language: "This chapter shall apply to all single family and multi-family dwellings, and any other accessory structure, including decks, garages and fences."As such the fence in the water cannot be approved through a conditional use/variance process because it is a prohibited use per Use Regulation 1. 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. Staff analysis: The portions of the fence waterward of the shoreline setback line exceed 30 inches in height and are inconsistent with Use Regulation 8. 9. Each shoreline environment has a setback requirement for structures from the ordinary high water mark. 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. a. 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 or adjacent residences;provided the minimum distance required by reason of slope or instability shall be required. 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 of 15 feet. Staff analysis: in the case of the applicant's site, the shoreline setback line would be a straight line drawn between the waterward roofline edge of the adjacent residence on each side, to the waterward roofline edge of the applicant's residence, unless the adjacent residences are closer to the water than the applicant's (but more than 1 Sft from the shoreline—in that case the line would be drawn between the neighbor rooflines directly across the subject lot.. All portions of the fence greater than 30 inches in height and waterward of the shoreline setback line are inconsistent with Use Regulation 9a. (note that in the second case, additional setback provisions apply in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, which must also be met.) Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 applicable provisions: The conditional use chapter provides criteria for reviewing proposals set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses. In addition, the chapter provides that uses which 3 STA 0 RECEIVED TE � y�$ OCT 2 2 2003 0 YH'�I889� STATE OF WASHINGTON MASON COUNTYPROSECUTOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE 4224-6th Avenue SE, Bldg. 2, Rowe Six PO Box 40903, Lacey, WA 98504-0903 Phone: (360)459-6327 FAX: (360)438-7699 e-mail. eho@eho.wa.gov Website: www.eho.wa.gov October 21, 2003 Argal D. Oberquell Darren Nienaber Attorney at Law Deputy Prosecuting Attorney PO Box 8695 Mason County Lacey WA 98509 PO Box 639 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: SHB NO. 03-007 SCOTT AND MARJORIE WOODWARD v. MASON COUNTY And ECOLOGY Dear Parties: Enclosed please find the Findings, Conclusions and Order of the Shorelines Hearings Board. This is a FINAL ORDER for purposes of appeal to Superior Court within 30 days, pursuant to WAC 461-08-570 and 575, and RCW 34.05.542(2) and (4). The following notice is given per RCW 34.05.461(3): Any parry may file a petition for reconsideration within 10 days and serve it on the other parties. The term "file" means receipt. Sincerely yours, Kay M. Brown Administrative Appeals Judge KB/jg/S 03-0071tr Enc. cc: Don Bales—7600 Mason County Dept of Community Development Tom Young, Assistant Attorney General, Ecology CERTIFICATION On this day,I forwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid to the attorneys of record herein. I certify under penalty of perjury under tie laws of the State of Washin on t the fore oing is true and correct DATED / at Lacey, , l E f 1 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 SCOTT &MARJORIE WOODWARD, 3 Petitioners, 4 V. SHB NO. 03-007 5 MASON COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 6 OF ECOLOGY, OF LAW AND ORDER , 7 Respondents. 8 9 A hearing was held in the above matter on September 25, 2003, in Lacey, Washington. 10 The Petitioners, Scott and Marjorie Woodward, filed a petition for review of Mason County's f 11 denial of their application for a shoreline Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Variance. The 12 purpose of their application was to authorize two six-foot high chain link fences extending into i 13 Lake Isabella which had already been built. 14 The Shorelines Hearings Board was comprised of William H. Lynch, Chair, Robert V. 15 Jensen, Member, and Judy Wilson, Member. Administrative Appeals Judge Kay M. Brown 16 presided over the hearing. Gene Barker and Associates of Olympia, Washington provided court 17 reporting services. The Woodwards appeared through their attorney, Argal D. Oberquell. The 18 County appeared through Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Darren Nienaber. Department of 19 Ecology chose not to participate in the hearing. 20 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 1 I ' i f 1� 1 I On the morning of the hearing, the Board conducted a site visit with all parties present. 2 The Board also received sworn testimony of witnesses, exhibits, and argument on behalf of the 3 parties. Having fully considered this record, the Board enters the following: i 4 FINDINGS OF FACT 5 I 6 The Woodwards purchased a shoreline lot fronting on Lake Isabella in Mason County in 7 1983. At the time of the purchase two four-foot barbwire fences ran the entire length of the 8 property lines on both the east and west side from the road atone end to Lake Isabella on the 9 other. The barbwire fences extended into the lake. Remnants of the barbwire fence were visible 10 When the Board visited the site; however much of the old fence had been removed. Over time, problems have developed between the Woodwards and their neighbor to the 12 west. One area of conflict involved dogs. In response to a complaint from the neighbor 13 3 triggering a visit from the County Sheriff, the Woodwards decided to install two six-foot chain 14 link fences to confine their dog on their property. Another purpose in building the fence was to 15 obtain additional privacy from the neighbor. ##! 16 111 I 17 In early 2000, the Woodwards contracted with Southgate Fence Company to build the fences. The fences were installed inside the old barbwire fence. The Woodwards were not 18 aware of any permit requirements for building the fence, nor any height restrictions for the fence, 19 nor did the Southgate Fence Company inform them of any such requirements. Portions of the 20 barbwire fences were removed sometime after the chain link fence was built. ? 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 2 i 1 i 1 1 IV 2 The fences are six-foot high,made of chain link, and have blue privacy slats. The fences 3 extend approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella on both the east and west property lines. The 4 Woodwards extended the fence into the Lake in an attempt to prevent their dog from wading 5 around the end of the fence and going onto the neighbors' property. There is ample room on the f 6 lot landward of the setback to contain a dog and create private space. 7 V 7 Numerous trees exist on the property to the west of the Woodwards that obscure the view 8 of the lake from that property. In addition, arborvitae cedar shrubs on both sides of the 9 Woodwards' property rise above the fences and further obscure the view of the water. Removal 10 of the fence, or reduction of the height of the fence will not enhance the neighbors' view of the I I water, so long as the existing vegetation remains. 12 VI 13 In the spring of 2001, approximately one year after the fences had been built, a neighbor complained to the County. The County, in response to the complaint, investigated and then 14 issued a Notice of Violation. After failing to appear and contest the enforcement action, an 15 Order was entered requiring the Woodwards to remove their fence from the water, lower the 16 portion of the fence waterward of the setback line to 30 inches, and pay a fine. The Woodwards 17 filed a petition for review of the County's decision in Mason County Superior Court. On June 18 13, 2002, an agreed order was entered staying the court case pending resolution of the 19 Woodwards' after the fact application for shoreline variance and conditional use permits for the fences. 20 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS i OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 3 1 { 1 VII 2 The Woodwards submitted their application to the County on April 30, 2002. The Mason 3 County Board of Commissioners denied the application. The Woodwards appealed the County's 4 denial to this Board. C 5 VIII 6 Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is adopted as such. Based on these 7 fmdings, the board makes the following: 8 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 9 1 10 The Board has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the case pursuant to 11 RCW 90.58.180. The Board reviews the case de novo. WAC 461-08-500. The burden of proof 12 is on the Woodwards to establish the criteria for a conditional use permit or variance have been 13 met. RCW 90.58.140(7). 1 11 4 I 15 The Woodwards are requesting they be allowed to keep their fences for the dual purposes 16 of dog containment and privacy. The Woodwards' lot is designated Urban Residential under the A 17 Mason County's Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP). The MCSMP considers a residential 18 fence as an accessory to a residential structure. MCSMP 7.16.080 Residential Development, 19 Definition. The policies and use regulations for residential development are set out in MCSMP 20 7.16.080. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 4 1 ' I i 1 1 I 1 III 2 MCSMP 7.16.080 sets out the following policies related to residential development: 3 1. Over-water residential development should not be permitted. 4 . . . 5 6. Residential development on shorelines and wetlands should be planned with minimum adverse environmental and visual impact. Structures should be designed 6 and located to not significantly block views of adjacent residences. 7 9. Residential structures should be located to minimize obstruction of views of the water 8 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 9 residential development of a shoreline lot simply because it may impact or eliminate views from upland property. 10 IV 11 The following residential use regulations pertaining to residential use are also found in MCSMP 7.16.080: 12 1. Residential development over the water is prohibited. 13 . . . 14 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 15 inches in height. 16 V 17 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18 The Woodwards applied for both a CUP and a variance. CUPS are required for uses which are classified or set forth in the Master Program as a conditional use. MCSMP'7.28.010. 19 CUPs may also be authorized for uses which are not classified or set forth in the Master 20 Program, but the applicant must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances which preclude 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 5 _ 1 i i i 1 reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the master { 2 program. MCSMP 7.28.010. Fences are included within the classification as residential use. MCSMP 7.16.080. Residential use,which includes fences, is an allowed use in an urban area. 3 MCSMP 7.16.080. Therefore, the Board concludes no CUP is required for the fences within the 4 setback. 5 VI Authorization of the portions of the fences in the water could not be lawfully achieved 6 through use of a CUP. MCSMP Conditional Uses regulations, Chapter 7.28.010, prohibit 7 issuance of a CUP for uses specifically prohibited by the Master Program.1 The master program 8 prohibits residential development over water. MCSMP 7.16.080; see also WAC 173-27-160(4), Lund v. Department of Ecology, 93 Wn. App. 329, 336-37, 969 P.2d 1072 (1998) (affirming 9 Ecology's denial of a shoreline conditional use permit for over-the-water residential use, where 10 the shoreline master program prohibited such residential construction with language identical to 11 that found in the MCCMP, under the criteria for conditional uses). Therefore, the Board concurs with the County's denial of a CUP for the portions of the fences in the water. I 12 VII 13 Variance in izeneral 14 The Woodwards also applied for a variance. Variances,pursuant to MCSMP 7.28.020, i are used to grant relief from: { 15 specific bulk, dimensional or performance standard set forth in the Master Program, 16 Where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master Program would impose unnecessary hardships on 17 the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020, 18 19 j In Fox v. Ecology, SHB No.00-025(2001),the Board addressed the issue of whether the MCSMP presented an 20 absolute bar to the enclosure of a pre-existing deck over the water. The Board concluded that it did not,based on the analysis that the deck was a pre-existing non-conforming use. In this case,the Board has concluded the fence 21 was not a prior non-conforming use. See Conclusions of Law X—XII. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 6 i i I 1 VIII 2 Variance for fences in lake 3 In analyzing whether a-variance should be approved for the fences, it is helpful to consider separately the fences in the lake and the fences within the setback taller than 30 inches 4 in height. The request to allow the fences in the lake is a request to allow a prohibited use, not a 5 request for relief from a bulk, dimension, or performance standard. Therefore issuance of a 6 variance to authorize this prohibited use is precluded by MCSMP 7.28.020 which states: "Requests for varying the use to which a shoreline area is to be put are not requests for variances, 7 but rather requests for conditional uses." On this basis, the Board affirms the County's denial of 8 a variance for the portions of the fences in the water. IX 9 � . Variance for over-height fences in setback 10 Threshold question: Is a variance required? 11 A threshold issue for resolution pertaining to the fences in the setback is whether a six- 12 foot fence which does not obstruct the view of the lake is inconsistent with MCSMP 7.16.080, Use Regulation 8.2 The Woodwards argue Use Regulation 8 prohibits fences over 30 inches 13 only if they obstruct the view. The Woodwards introduced convincing evidence, and the Board d 14 so found, that the neighbors' water view is obstructed by vegetation. The Board is not 15 convinced, however, the reading of Use Regulation 8 proposed by the Woodwards is correct. a The regulation on its face prohibits fences over 30 inches in the setback.3 The purpose of the 16 regulation is to protect aesthetic characteristics. However, the 30-inch requirement is not 17 dependent upon a showing of view obstruction. To conclude otherwise distorts the plain 18 19 2This was identified as Issue No.3 in the pre-hearing order. 'The Board does not favor the method of setback calculation selected by Mason County. MCSMP p. 51,chart 20 depicting setback calculations. The Board believes that this method of calculation leads to inconsistent setback requirements. However, since use of this method it is set out in Mason County's regulations,the Board must apply it in this case. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER I SHB NO. 03-007 7 s I I I language of the regulation. Therefore the Board concludes Use Regulation 8 does prohibit a 2 fence taller than 30 inches in the setback, even if it is not the only obstruction to the water view. 3 X The Woodwards make two additional arguments as to why a variance should not be 4 required. First, they argue a pre-existing four-foot high barbwire fence that ran parallel to the 5 fence they installed and extended into the water provides a basis for authorizing their new six- foot chain link fence.4 Although they do not characterize their argument as such, they are 6 essentially arguing the existence of a prior non-conforming use or structure. See MCSMP 7.08 7 Non-conforming Development,Normal Maintenance,Normal Repair; MCSMP 7.13.020; WAC 8 173-27-080(1). XI 9 MCSMP 7.13.020 provides: "`Nonconforming development' means a shoreline use or 10 structure which was lawfully constructed or established prior to the effective date of the Act or 11 the Master Program . . .." Non-conforming uses are disfavored under the law and the public policy of this state to phase out such uses. Jefferson Cy. v. Seattle Yacht Club, 73 Wn. App. 576, 12 591, 870 P.2d 987 (1994) rev. denied 124 Wn.2d 1029, 883 P.2d 326 (1994). The burden of 13 establishing the existence of a non-conforming use is on the Woodwards. Id. at 591. 14 XII The evidence offered at the hearing on the barbwire fence was limited, and does not 15 establish with specificity the date the fence was built and whether it was used continuously. 16 However, even if the Board concludes the Woodwards established the existence of a non- 17 conforming barbwire fence, the addition of a completely new,taller, chain link fence in addition to the old barbwire fence is not"normal maintenance or repair" of the old fence. MCSMP 18 7.13.020. Instead, it constitutes an expansion of the nonconformity. MCSMP 7.13.020 prohibits 19 expansion of nonconforming developments. See also, WAC 173-27-080(2). 20 ° This was Issue No.5 in the pre-hearing order. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 8 i 1 XIII 2 The Woodward's second argument for not requiring a variance to legitimize the fence is that other similar fences exist all over Lake Isabella. They contend enforcing the 30-inch limit 3 against the Woodwards is "selective enforcement"5. The County's response to this argument is 4 that because of budget issues, it only enforces shoreline requirements based on complaints. The 5 County explains that to research the history on all of the fences in Lake Isabella to see if they are legitimate prior non-conforming uses requires manpower the program doesn't have. Therefore, 6 they investigate only those potential violations which are the subject of a complaint. 7 XIV 8 This practice by the County leads to the unfortunate situation presented here. Because the Woodward's neighbor chose to file a complaint,the Woodwards are potentially being held to 9 the standards of the shoreline regulations while others are not. The Board agrees with the 10 Woodwards that this seems unfair. Further,the Board tends to believe the setback violation for 11 an over-height fence in this situation is a technical violation and nothing significant will be gained for the public,the neighbors,or the environment by requiring the fence to be reduced to 12 30 inches.6 However, the Mason County Code clearly prohibits fences over 30 inches.in height 13 within the setback. This is a policy decision made by Mason County and this Board must 14 enforce it. This Board has rejected the defense of selective enforcement in the past. H&HEgg Ranch, Inc. v. Ecology, PCHB No. 86-170 (1987). The failure of a government to pursue every 15 offender does not preclude it from enforcing its regulations altogether. Buechel v. Department of 16 Ecology,125 Wn.2d 196, 210-11, 884 P.2d 910 (1994) (holding a county's prior allowance of a 17 bulkhead on an adjacent property, did not foreclose the Shorelines Hearings Board from affirming a denial by the Department of Ecology of a variance to allow a similar structure on the 18 19 20 5 This was Issue No. 2 in the pre-hearing order. e The Board views the extension of the fences into the water differently. Fences in the water can cause adverse environmental impacts and negatively affect the public interest. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 9 a { ; t 1 subject property). A holding to the contrary would seriously undermine the purposes of the 2 Shoreline Management Act. XV I 3 Should a variance be approved? 4 Because a six-foot fence is prohibited within the setback, and because the Woodwards 5 fences are in the setback, a variance is required to allow the fences to remain. Based on MCSMP 7.28.020, variances may be authorized only if the applicant can demonstrate all of the following: 6 7 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the 8 property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; 9 2. 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 10 irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the Master Program, and not, for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; 11 3. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the 12 area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the shoreline environment; 13 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not 14 enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief; 15 � 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 16 Variance Permits for development that will be located either waterward of the ordinary 17 high water mark, or within wetlands, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to Items 1-5 above, that: 18 6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected 19 by the granting of the variance. 20 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 10 ' f I MCSMP 7.28.020 further provides: 2 In the granting of all Variance Permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were 3 granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and 4 should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. 5 XVI 6 The evidence put forth by the Woodwards fails to establish compliance with at least two 7 of the variance requirements. The restriction of the fence to 30 inches in the setback does not preclude or significantly interfere with the Woodward's ability to contain their dog or to have 8 privacy. The lot in question is deep,and there are many areas landward of the setback which 9 could be used for dog containment or private space. The Woodwards have also made effective 10 use of landscaping to enhance privacy. The Woodwards do not face any particular hardship because of the nature of their lot. Therefore,the Woodwards have failed to establish they meet 11 variance requirements 1 and 2. Failures o"comply with even one of the variances requirements 12 prohibits the granting of the variance. Gambriell v. Mason County and DOE, SHB No. 91-26 13 (1992). Therefore, analysis of the other requirements is unnecessary. XVII 14 The Woodwards have failed to meet their burden of proof in establishing that Mason 15 County should have approved either a CUP or a variance for their fences. Further,they have not 16 Put forth a legally sufficient argument that compliance with the 30-inch limitation is only required if a view obstruction is present. Finally, the Woodwards have not established the 17 building of the new chain link fence was normal repair or maintenance of the pre-existing 18 barbwire fence. Therefore, based on the evidence presented to it, the Board does not believe any 19 outcome other than affirming the County's decision is legally permissible. XVIII 20 j Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as such. 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 11 1 From the foregoing, the Board issues this: E 2 ORDER 3 The County s denial of the Woodwards application for a conditional use permit and 4 variance is affirmed. 5 Done this day of 0 CA 5 e r 2003. 6 7 SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD 8 9 William H. Lynch, Chair 10 11 t obert V. Jens Member i 12 13 Jddy Wildon, Member i 14 15 Kay M.f9own 16 Administrative Appeals Judge 17 18 19 20 21 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 12 IPollution Control Hearing Board F.sTATF (360)459-6327 Shorelines Hearings Board °� 4 � FAX(360)438-7699 Forest Practices Appeals Board E-Mail:EHO@EHO.WA.GOV Hydraulics Appeals Board INTERNET:http://www.eho.wa.gov Oy STATE OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE 4224- 6th Avenue SE, Bldg. 2, Rowe Six /-3kFCjEF1P.O. Box 40903, Lacey, WA 98504-0903 September 17, 2003 SEP 82003 ED MAS ON Argal D. Oberquell. Darren Nienaber PROSEC7. U VOR Y Attorney at Law Deputy Prosecuting Attorney PO Box 8695 Mason County Lacey WA 98509 PO Box 639 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: SHB NO. 03-007 SCOTT AND MARJORIE WOODWARD v. MASON COUNTY And ECOLOGY Dear Parties: Enclosed is the second pre-hearing order from today's conference. Please remember to submit an original and four copies of all briefs and exhibits (unless they are oversize). I appreciate your professionalism in working cooperatively to put this case on for the Board. Please, do not hesitate to call if you have any questions prior to the hearing. Sincerely yours, l Kay M. Brown Administrative Appeals Judge KB/jg/S 03-0071tr Encs. cc: Don Bales—7600 Mason County Dept of Community Development Tom Young, Assistant Attorney General, Ecology CERTIFICATION On this day,I forwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid to the attorneys of record herein. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washi to at the foregoing is true and correct. DATED —1 --03 at Lacey,WA. iRl18 �1r ' Pollution Control Hearing Board 4,sT.A (360)459-6327 Shorelines Hearings Board ` °` FAX(360)438-7699 Forest Practices Appeals Board ° `� E-Mail:EHO@EHO.WA.GOV Hydraulics Appeals Board ¢ INTERNET:http://www.eho.wa.gov n STATE OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE RECE/VE�D4224 - 6th Avenue SE, Bidn. 2, Rowe SixP.O. Box 40903, Lacey, INA 98504-0903 September 17, 2003 SEP 18 2003MAS O Argal D. Oberquell Darren Nienaber PRO ECU O T Y Attorney at Law Deputy Prosecuting Attorney R PO Box 8695 Mason County Lacey WA 98509 PO Box 639 Shelton, WA 98584 RE: SHB NO. 03-007 SCOTT AND MARJORIE WOODWARD v. MASON COUNTY And ECOLOGY Dear Parties: Enclosed is the second pre-hearing order from today's conference. Please remember to submit an original and four copies of all briefs and exhibits (unless they are oversize). I appreciate your professionalism in working cooperatively to put this case on for the Board. Please, do not hesitate to call if you have any questions prior to the hearing. Sincerely yours, Kay M. Brown Administrative Appeals Judge KB/jg/S 03-0071tr Encs. cc: Don Bales—7600 Mason County Dept of Community Development Tom Young, Assistant Attorney General, Ecology CERTIFICATION On this day,I forwarded a true and accurate copy of the documents to which this certificate is affixed via United States Postal Service postage prepaid to the attorneys of record herein. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washi to at the f regoing is true and correct. DATED —�/''n at Lacey,W G�LC_ 1 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 SCOTT & MARJORIE WOODWARD, 3 Petitioner, 4 V. SHB NO. 03-007 5 MASON COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT SECOND PREHEARING ORDER 6 OF ECOLOGY, 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioners, Scott and Marjorie Woodward, are challenging Mason County's denial of a 10 shoreline conditional use permit/variance for an after-the-fact approval of a chain link fence that 11 extends into Lake Isabella in Mason County. A pre-hearing conference in the case was held on 12 March 25, 2003. A second pre-hearing conference was held on September 17, 2003. 13 Administrative Appeals Judge, Kay M. Brown,presided for the Board. The Woodwards 14 appeared through their attorney, Argal D. Oberquell. Mason County appeared through Deputy 15 Prosecutor Darren Nienaber. Prior to the first pre-hearing conference Assistant Attorney General 16 Thomas J. Young submitted a letter to the Board indicating that Ecology would not be 17 participating in the case. 18 Based on the first and second conference,the following Second Pre-Hearing Order is 19 entered: 20 21 SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 1 I I. HEARING 2 The hearing is set for September 25,2003,commencing at 9:00 a.m. at the Board's 3 Office in Lacey, WA. Although two days are reserved, it is anticipated the hearing will be 4 completed in one day. The parties estimate that the testimony for both sides including cross- 5 examination should not take more than four(4)hours. 6 The attorneys should be available at 8:45 a.m. for a conference with the Presiding Judge. The hearing will begin with opening statements, which will be limited in length to 15 minutes for 7 each side. At 9:30 a.m. the hearing will adjourn, and the Board will conduct a site visit. No 8 evidence will be taken during this visit. Following the site visit,the hearing will be resumed at 9 the Board's Office in Lacey at approximately 11:30 a.m. 10 11 II. LEGAL ISSUES 12 1. Did Mason County violate the appearance of fairness doctrine and/or have a conflict of 13 interest by hearing and making apart of the review record, testimony from the husband of County Commissioner Jayni Kamin and her brothers-in-law, Matthew and Tom Kamin? 14 2. Did Mason County engage in selective enforcement by proceeding against the Petitioners and ignoring other adjacent violators because of past alleged violations by the 15 Petitioners? 3. Does Mason County Code 7.16.080 prohibit fences over thirty(30) inches in height if the 16 fence does not significantly block the adjacent residences' views of the lake? (Requires interpretation of 7.16.080 Policies 6 and 9 and Use Regulations 8 and 9:b.) 17 4. Is maintaining privacy and prevention of trespassing animals a legitimate function under Mason County Code 7.16.080? If so, is a thirty (30) inches height restriction arbitrary 18 and capricious on its face? 5. Does the existence of a parallel approximately four(4) foot high wire fence extending 19 into the lake have any affect on the thirty(30) inch height restriction and the variance requirements? 20 III. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS 21 Motion deadline: The dispositive motion deadline in this case has passed. SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 2 1 2 IV. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS 3 The parties have exchanged and filed final lists of witnesses and exhibits. Any witness 4 listed in final lists may be called by any party. The party calling a witness has the responsibility 5 to ensure his/her attendance at the hearing. 6 A witness's expertise shall be established by resume offered as an exhibit. When meeting with the Presiding Judge on the first hearing day, each party shall have 7 available for the Board, an original and four(4) copies of its exhibits and exhibit lists. An 8 original or one copy of any exhibit,which cannot be conveniently copied due to size, bulk, 9 reproduction difficulty, etc., should be available for the Board at the hearing. 10 Each exhibit shall be pre-marked by tab for identification(P-1, P-2, etc., for Petitioners; 11 R-1, R-2, etc., for Respondent), and so identified on the exhibit lists. The number given to an 12 exhibit does not limit the order of its introduction at hearing. Any exhibit listed by one party may be introduced by another party. 13 V. DISCOVERY 14 There has been no discovery cutoff set in this matter. An original and (1) one copy of 15 discovery motions and supporting documents must be filed with the Board. Any party filing 16 discovery motions shall also file a proposed order and shall accompany such filing with an 17 affidavit reciting efforts to resolve the discovery dispute. Depositions, interrogatories, requests 18 for production or inspection, requests for admission and the responses shall not be filed. It is the 19 initiating party's responsibility to maintain the original together with answers to interrogatories and to make them available for the proceedings. 20 21 SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 3 1 VI. BRIEFS 2 Pre-hearing briefs are optional. If submitted, they shall be filed and served no later than 3 September 18, 2003,with an original and four(4) copies for the Board. 4 Briefs are limited to 25 pages in length, absent an order granting a motion to lengthen. If 5 a citation is made to other than a Wn.App. or Wn.2d case, a complete copy of the referenced citation must be filed. 6 The County will be including in its pre-hearing brief legal arguments on the Board's 7 jurisdiction to address some of the issues identified in this order. The Petitioners may submit 8 responsive briefing to the legal arguments made by the County up to the day of the hearing 9 (original and four(4) copies.) 10 11 VII. COMMUNICATION 12 All correspondence and filings with the Board shall be sent to the attention of the 13 Presiding Judge with copies sent at the same time to all other parties. Except as prohibited above,telefax may be used to communicate with the Board for single copies only and limited to 14 9 pages in length. 15 VIII. MISCELLANEOUS 16 "Filed" and "served" means the date received by the Board. 17 IX. STIPULATIONS 18 The parties have made the following stipulations prior to the hearing: 19 1. The applicable local code is the Mason County Code adopted in 1975, and _10 amended in 1988. 2. The parties stipulate to the admission of all of the proposed exhibits. ?1 SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 4 1 1 ORDER 2 This Order shall govern the proceedings,unless subsequently modified by Order of the 3 Board for good cause upon a party's motion or the Board's volition.. 4 SO ORDERED this?day of 2003. 6 SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD 7 8 �` Kay M. Br wn, Presiding 9 Administrative Appeals Judge 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 5 1 BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON 2 SCOTT & MARJORIE WOODWARD, 3 Petitioner, 4 V. SHB NO. 03-007 5 MASON COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT SECOND PREHEARING ORDER 6 OF ECOLOGY, 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioners, Scott and Marjorie Woodward, are challenging Mason County's denial of a 10 shoreline conditional use permit/variance for an after-the-fact approval of a chain link fence that 11 extends into Lake Isabella in Mason County. A pre-hearing conference in the case was held on 12 March 25, 2003. A second pre-hearing conference was held on September 17, 2003. 13 Administrative Appeals Judge, Kay M. Brown, presided for the Board. The Woodwards 14 appeared through their attorney, Argal D. Oberquell. Mason County appeared through Deputy 15 Prosecutor Darren Nienaber. Prior to the first pre-hearing conference Assistant Attorney General 16 Thomas J. Young submitted a letter to the Board indicating that Ecology would not be 17 participating in the case. 18 Based on the first and second conference, the following Second Pre-Hearing Order is 19 entered: 20 21 SECOND PREHEARING ORDER SHB NO. 03-007 1 Enviro entj'1 Hearings Office Page 1 of 2 Ot *4j I 45"'X Offi C mnvironmental Hezlflndc--.� i , , Driving Directions Directions from North Take Exit 109 ( first Lacey exit). Turn right on Martin Way. Left at EHO Home first light onto College Street. Right at second light onto 6th Avenue. Right on Golf Club road. We are behind Olympia Federal News Savings, Building No. 2, upstairs. Information Directions from South Take Exit 108. Keep to the right. Turn right onto Sleater Kinney. Calendar Turn left at first light onto 6th Avenue. Turn left on to Golf Club Road just after next stop light. Building behind Olympia Federal Research Savings, upstairs - Building No. 2. Feedback ,MAftVE'SX== y soaff Decisions Ent NE �, - 15th u e NE AtEM Case Data �� b ,.° . ' n a Etdiattir1 a . s yy r� bd t a A is i4th Au E sC0,6Par ks r Z l.$ ,r 01997 GeoSystems Gbbal Corp.;01997 Nav?ech EHO Case Privacy Home Information Calendar News Research Decisions Data Feedback Notice http://www.eho.wa.gov/default2.asp?Page=driving_directions.htm 9/22/2003 SHR2002-00019 WOODWARD CONDITIONAL USENARIANCE List of attachments in order 1. Staff report. 2. Planning Advisory Commission findings of fact. 3. Letter from applicant's representative Argal Oberquell dated December 3, 2002, requesting the case be continued to after January 5,2003. 4. Draft Board of Mason County Commissioners Findings of Fact. 5. Vicinity map. 6. Site plan. 7. Site plan enlargement. 8. Shoreline permit Notice of Application. 9. SEPA Determination . 10. Comment letter from Department of Ecology dated August 30,2002. 11. Comment letter from Ruby Flesner dated September 10,2002. 12. Comment letter from Ronald and Susan Nelson dated September 17, 2002. 13. Comment letter from Shawna Gallagher and Matthew Kamin dated September 20, 2002. 14. Comment letter from Tom Kamin received September 23,2002. 15. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated October 3,2002. 16. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated September 6, 2002. 17. Planning Department letter to Argal Oberquell dated October 30,2002 re: investigation of other alleged violations. 18. Argal Oberquell letter to Planning Department dated October 28, 2002. 19. WA Dept of Fish and Wildlife letter to Argal Oberquell dated May 2, 2002. 20. Argal Oberquell letter to Department of Ecology dated October 28, 2002. 21. Shoreline Conditional Use Variance permit application and joint declaration by applicants Scott and Marjorie Woodward. 22. Applicant's submitted list of exhibits together with exhibits A through S 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 December 10, 2002 TO: Mason County Commissioners FROM: Planning Staff—Pam Bennett-Cumming RE: Shoreline Conditional Use Variance Application no. SHR2002-00019 STAFF REPORT Summary: The after-the-fact shoreline conditional use/variance request by Scott Woodward is to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 10 feet into Lake Isabella. The fences waterward of the shoreline setback common line are nonconforming to the shoreline setback common line. Staff recommends denial based on inconsistency with both the Residential Development chapter, and the Variance chapter criteria. I Introduction. This report evaluates an after-the-fact conditional use variance application for two (2) 6ft high chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants. Permit review is the result of an enforcement action at the site. II Applicant. The applicant is Scott Woodward. The representative is Argal Oberquell. III. Property location. 924 Delight Park Road, Shelton, in Section 6, Township 19 North Range 3 West. (parcel no. 31906-51-00017). IV. Project Description. After the fact shoreline variance for two (2) 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats on easterly and westerly property lines of applicants property, extending into Lake Isabella approximately 10 feet. Proposal requires variance because it extends waterward of the shoreline setback common line. The fence was part of an enforcement case. The hearings examiner order required either modification of the fence to be consistent with the Shoreline Master Program requirements, or application for and approval of a shoreline variance. V. Evaluations. A. Characteristics of the site: The site is a shoreline lot fronting Lake Isabella. The property is a developed site with a single family residence located approximately 100ft from the lake,with a garage behind it. This is a long lot (over 800ft long per applicant)with the majority of the side lot lines fenced with sight obscuring chain link fence, which extends approximately 10 feet into the lake. Although not shown on the submitted site plan, there is also a chain link cross fence extending from the side fences to each side of the house, effectively fencing off the area landward of the 1 residence from the area waterward of the residence. The lot is landscaped,with the area upland of the residence being grassy, with some trees and rhododendrons. B. Characteristics of the area. The area adjacent to the shoreline is mainly developed lots with single family residences, some shoreline lots have docks or floats. The area slopes gently upward from the shoreline to Delight Park Road. Closer to the road the area is wooded. C. Shoreline designation. The shoreline designation is Urban Residential. D. Mason County Development Regulations. The land use designation is Rural Residential 5. VI. SEPA Compliance. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on August 21, 2002. The comment period ended on September 5, 2002. A SEPA comment was received from Department of Ecology(attached)their comments included noting that the proposal was inconsistent with Residential Use Regulation#8 of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program, and fails to meet the variance criteria. VII. Public Comments. Thus far comment letters objecting to the fence because of view obstruction have been received from Shawna Gallagher and Matthew Kamin, and from Tom Kamin. Comment letters in favor of the project were received from Ruby Flesner, and Ronald and Susan Nelson. Letters are attached. VIII. Analysis. The fence requires a shoreline Conditional Use permit because Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 provides that: uses which are not classified or set forth in the Master Program may be authorized as conditional uses provided that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth above, that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the Master Program. The project requires a Variance because it is violates Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080. Note: Staff understands that questions have arisen relating to whether the applicant's fencing is within or outside their property lines. The purpose of this staff report is to review the fencing in relation to provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program,rather than to review or make any determination as to its location relative to any given property line. Below are listed the applicable Shoreline Master Program chapter provisions followed (in italics)by staff analysis of their applicability to this project. Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080 Applicable policies: 1. Over water residential development should not be permitted. Staff analysis: the portion of the fence in the water does not meet this policy. 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. Staff analysis: as constructed the fence blocks views of adjacent residences. 2 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. Staff analysis: The fence obstructs views of the water from upland areas. Applicable Use Regulations: 1. Residential development over water is prohibited. Staff analysis: The residential development chapter definition includes the following language: "This chapter shall apply to all single family and multi-family dwellings, and any other accessory structure,including decks, garages and fences."As such the fence in the water cannot be approved through a conditional use/variance process because it is a prohibited use per Use Regulation 1. 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. Staff analysis: The portions of the fence waterward of the shoreline setback line exceed 30 inches in height and are inconsistent with Use Regulation 8. 9. Each shoreline environment has a setback requirement for structures from the ordinary high water mark. 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. a. 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 or adjacent residences;provided the minimum distance required by reason of slope or instability shall be required. 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 of 15 feet. Staff analysis: in the case of the applicant's site, the shoreline setback line would be a straight line drawn between the waterward roojline edge of the adjacent residence on each side, to the waterward roojline edge of the applicant's residence, unless the adjacent residences are closer to the water than the applicant's (but more than 1 Sft from the shoreline—in that case the line would be drawn between the neighbor roojlines directly across the subject lot.. All portions of the fence greater than 30 inches in height and waterward of the shoreline setback line are inconsistent with Use Regulation 9a. (note that in the second case, additional setback provisions apply in the Mason County Resource Ordinance, which must also be met.) Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 applicable provisions: The conditional use chapter provides criteria for reviewing proposals set forth in the Master Program as conditional uses. In addition,the chapter provides that uses which 3 are not classified or set forth in the Master Program(as conditional uses)may be authorized as conditional uses provided that the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth above,that extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable use of the property in a manner consistent with the use regulations of the Master Program. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the Master Program may not be authorized. The applicant states that the fence is built high and into the water to confine their dog and for privacy concerns relating to neighbors; their application includes an anti- harassment petition relating to a neighbor, and an anti-harassment petition by a neighbor relating to them. The application materials also include photos of other fences which do not meet Shoreline Master Program provisions. Analysis:Any portion of the owner's fencing as installed waterward of the shoreline setback line is inconsistent with the residential development use regulations of the Master Program because of being greater than 30 inches in height. Any portion waterward of the ordinary high water mark of Lake Isabella is prohibited per this chapter and as such could not be allowed as a conditional use.. The site is over 80ft wide and over 800 feet deep per the applicant's site plan, and there is ample space on the lot to construct a dog containing fence landward of the shoreline setback line, including by partially utilizing existing fence and cross fence landward of the shoreline setback line. A privacy fence which is inconsistent with the shoreline setback line is not consistent with the Conditional Use chapter provisions for meeting the use regulations of the Master Program. There are other legal means for addressing issues of alleged neighbor harassment. The planning department has provided the applicant with blank complaint forms and a letter detailing how to provide information to the County so we can work to address other instances where development is inconsistent with the Master Program. Variance Chapter 7.28.020 provisions: Variance Chapter 7.28.020 provides that the purpose of a Variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief to the specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program,where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of the Master program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variance permits for development landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with all variance criteria #145. In addition,development waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark must also meet criterion#6. The criteria are listed below, then staff s analysis of the project's consistency with criteria. 1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the Master Program precludes or significantly interferes with reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the Master Program; Staff analysis: The parcel is large enough that there is space on the property to address the applicant's concerns relating to dog containment and privacy without reasonable use being precluded. Dog containment could occur landward of the 4 residence; there are other areas of the property landward of the setback line where a private area could be established without a shoreline variance, and there are other legal means to address concerns relating to neighbor harassment. 2. 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 Master Program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions; Staff analysis: There are portions of the lot landward of the setback line suitable for privacy and dog containment. Because there are other areas on the lot where these conditions could be met consistent with the Master Program regulations, there is no hardship. If anything there appears to be more area landward of the shoreline setback line on which to have a dog containment and privacy area. There are other legal means to address concerns relating to neighbor dispute. 3. 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 shoreline environment; Staff analysis: The existing fence waterward of the shoreline common line and in the lake is not compatible with permitted activities in the area. Fences are required to be 30 inches or less waterward of the common line to provide for view protection per the Master Program. Fences are not permitted to extend into the water. While the applicant has provided photos of other activities which are alleged to be inconsistent with the Master Program, such complaints are handled through enforcement, rather than being grounds for allowing further development which does not meet the provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. (see also attached staff letter to applicant's representative requesting information about alleged violations). 4. 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 grant relief, Staff analysis: Other shoreline properties are required to meet the applicable regulations; in cases where the county is provided with specific information relating to alleged violations of county regulations so they can be investigated. It would be a grant of special privilege to allow a variance in this case simply because violations to the regulations are alleged on other sites, when the requirements of the Master Program are that the regulations be met. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect; Staff analysis: It is in the public interest to provide for consistency with the Master Program regulations in cases such as this where the applicant has other means consistent with the regulations to achieve the goals of dog containment and privacy. 6. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected by the granting of the variance. 5 Staff analysis: Because the fence is inconsistent with the Master Program's provisions and extends into the water it is inconsistent with Variance provision #6. In addition, the cumulative impact of granting a given type of variance must be taken into account. The cumulative impact of allowing fences inconsistent with the Master Program provisions would be to negatively affect shoreline views provided to be protected in the Master Program and the Shoreline Management Act, and negatively affect the aquatic environment due to intrusion into the water. Again, there are other approaches consistent with the Master Program which will allow the applicant to contain their pet and to achieve privacy landward of the shoreline setback line.. X Planning Advisory Commission: In their regular meeting on November 18, 2002 the Mason County Planning Advisory Commission reviewed this case and voted unanimously to recommend to the Commissioners that the variance request be denied (PAC findings attached). IX Conclusion: A Conditional Use/Variance was applied for to request that the fence be retained in areas where it is inconsistent with permittable uses within the Master Program. Based on staff analysis the application is inconsistent with provisions of the Conditional Use chapter. Variances are required to be consistent with all variance criteria. Based on analysis of the project (above), it appears that the proposal is inconsistent with any of the variance criteria. Staff recommends denial of the proposal based on its inconsistency with the Variance chapter. Findings of Fact prepared for this case include language relating to timing for removal of the portions of the fence which are inconsistent with the Shoreline Master Program, as follows: Timing of fence removal: within 30 days of the final decision date for this case applicant shall meet with planning staff on site, on a mutually agreeable date and time, so that staff can establish the location of the shoreline setback common line in relation to the fences in question. Applicants are required to bring their fence into consistency with the Shoreline Master Program within 30 days of said meeting. XI Should the board instead vote to conditionally approve this variance application, staff recommends the following condition: 1. Applicant shall remove all portions of the fences lying waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark of Lake Isabella. 6 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 MASON COUNTY PLANNING ADVISORY COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2002 FINDINGS OF FACT: WOODARD SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE/VARIANCE APPLICATION (SHR2002-00019) 1. Under consideration is an after-the-fact shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 1Oft into Lake Isabella. Details of the project are contained in staff report dated November 18, 2002,prepared for the Planning Advisory Commission. The project requires review as a variance because it is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. 2. Provisions for the project's consistency with the Master Program are set forth in Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080, Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 and Variance Chapter 7.28.020 of the Shoreline Master Program. 3. Based upon the Shoreline Master Program Residential Development Chapter, the project is inconsistent with Policies#1, #6, and#9, relating to development over water and view protection. The project is inconsistent with Use Regulations #l, #8 and#9,relating to development over water, view protection, and height of structures waterward of the shoreline setback common line. 4. The project fails to meet the Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 requirement for authorization of projects when consistent with Use Regulations of the Master Program,because the project is not consistent with applicable Use Regulations. 5. Based on Variance Chapter 7.28.020, the proposal is inconsistent with the standards for granting a Shoreline Variance,because the project fails to meet variance criteria 1 through 6. 6. The Mason County Planning Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the project, because it failed to meet the applicable provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, and failed to meet the Variance Chapter criteria. < G a oo2- Diane Edgin, dhair ate Mason County Planning Advisory Commission Findings of Fact: SHR2002-00019 LAW OFFICE OF ARGAL D. OBERQUELL 1415 COLLEGE STREET SE E ' LACEY,WA 98503 V PHONE (360)491-6666 FAX (360)456-3632 FDEC 0 4 2002 December 3, 2002 MCCD - PLANNIi .MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTN: Ms. Pam Bennett-Cumming PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 MASON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTN: Ms. Rebecca Rodgers 411 NQrth 5" Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Woodward Application S H R2002-00019 Dear Ms. Bennett-Cumming and Ms. Rodgers: I received your notice setting the hearing in Case Number SHR 2002-00019 for December 10, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. This notice dated November 22, 2002, was mailed to me on November 25th and received by me on December 2, 2002. My office was closed on Thanksgiving, November 28th and Friday, November 29th and the weekend of November 30th and December 1st It is requested that the hearing on this matter be continued until after January 5, 2003, for the following reasons: 1 . I am City Attorney for Tenino and am scheduled to be attending depositions all day on December 10th on behalf of Tenino; and 2. My client cannot be released from his employment with Morgan Trucking on such short notice. Your consideration of this request would be appreciated. jtto truly yours, G D. OBERQUE rney at Law ADO/js cc: Scott and Marjorie Woodward 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 BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 10, 2002 FINDINGS OF FACT: WOODARD SHORELINE CONDITIONAL USE/VARIANCE APPLICATION (SHR2002-00019) 1. Under consideration is an after-the-fact shoreline Conditional Use/Variance request to retain two 6ft chain link fences with privacy slats at easterly and westerly property lines and extending approximately 1 Oft into Lake Isabella. Details of the project are contained in staff report dated November 18, 2002,prepared for the Planning Advisory Commission. The project requires review as a variance because it is inconsistent with certain provisions of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. 2. Provisions for the project's consistency with the Master Program are set forth in Residential Development Chapter 7.16.080, Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 and Variance Chapter 7.28.020 of the Shoreline Master Program. 3. Based upon the Shoreline Master Program Residential Development Chapter, the project is inconsistent with Policies#l, #6, and#9, relating to development over water and view protection. The project is inconsistent with Use Regulations #1, #8 and#9, relating to development over water, view protection, and height of structures waterward of the shoreline setback common line. 4. The project fails to meet the Conditional Use Chapter 7.28.010 requirement for authorization of projects when consistent with Use Regulations of the Master Program,because the project is not consistent with applicable Use Regulations. 5. Based on Variance Chapter 7.28.020, the proposal is inconsistent with the standards for granting a Shoreline Variance,because the project fails to meet variance criteria 1 through 6. 6. The Mason County Planning Advisory Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the project, because it failed to meet the applicable provisions of the Shoreline Master Program, and failed to meet the Variance Chapter criteria. 7. The Board of Mason County Commissioners voted unanimously to deny the project, because as proposed it failed to meet the Shoreline Master ProgramVariance Chapter criteria. 8. Timing of fence removal: within 30 days of the final decision date for this case applicant shall meet with planning staff on site, on a mutually agreeable date and time, so that staff can establish the location of the shoreline setback common line in relation to the fence. Applicants are required to bring their fence into consistency with the Shoreline Master Program within 30 days of said meeting. Board of Mason County Commissioners Chair Date Mason County Commissioners Findings of Fact: SHR2002-00019 'RAIR1E RD. D Sanderson 9 Field 11 m 12 7 8 o Timber k Lake c� S tn mF II GrO r 16 15 14 13 Q 13 17 J; Cr eek •! a I '1 � 23 19 20 21 SOU XIN 1.6 Nn NDIAN G 3 ESERVA7 ARCADIA RD.28 27 28 27. 26 Ar.rY'diCl: : f, V Forbes Lake _ 33 35 36 31 33 34 - Creek 36 31 I 32 ���"► 3 Creek s lla 5 C��E 2 s,.. I Fawn d O .0 Lake : 9 m 10 11 12 7 8 1Q1 ?o �o5c �YNCN i6 15 14 13 18Q� 15 . .� K milche �G 14 21 22 23 24 19 I OAF E 28 Skookum. 108 �� 1J 33 34 35 36 31 32 Mason Co. Thurston Co. Miles �.I,y'tPrK lPo.d �tl,fl� ork Wodfo ��' I • CIS dbw��� � I • SftR�Z00.,-._ (Do olq 1 9' 4 f 3; t•.1lOC��1JpPp�r�/ ! yy�ti / ,R1a�i� 4rca !I 5_4 j ox, 6oYx 3:Ldii�ire s p,,�_.�4 �nr� e� "'T 7� f i.ss;Jt Propwtry r;ec iS a�xl'}- 5F5' q�ov[ Lake ! 4�•C L"rN7.al� / FTCSyttr S%de AJ !t Fi.K AN 7 Fiesnxrs 4/(0.1Kiu1 sa* o4E, �o ar a h'�*{!+��/oiy5 arc 4 is)' ! 7 y -I rtt �tJ fiJ JCr 7 UP f! Ya'� X f-- ys abw+ Z'S/ aL•K- Lake-. II! o*� v .tc' 4Jo.Kes e� I wl` ��• c� kf/ 11 of v. Wo•��rd5 ! Karn re ' f1 -rFie ^� w F 2 + • I O c� • ooz • Off/I.t�� �fmrrY r- 4" or, Now/ls b v 10 Fr/ 04 V ! r ° ! /00 . • • •to ! • �� Usr , • A •/ W I•� :1" V Ss,y�al�a O � iaK� tir,:_Ps OCT- 2-02 WED 11 : 05 AM ADAMS & SGHEFTER FAX H0, 360 456 3632 F, l E'er •�p . � �`'��ti� � � � too TT D o �'� ��� sue•- .� ar Oita f' ILI ` _51 MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Division P O Box 279,Shelton,WA 98584(360)427-9670 Affidavit of Publication NOTICE OF SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SHR2002-00019 Notice is hereby given that SCOTT P WASHINGTON, SS. WOODWARD, who is the owner of the de- Y OF MASON scribed property,has filed an application for a Shoreline Management Permit for the develop- ment of: Conditional Use/Variance Ju 1 i e G Orme being first duly sworn After the fact shoreline variance for two(2) Eft chain link fences with privacy slats on east- ses and says that she is the clerk erly and westerly property lines of applicants property,extending into Lake Isabella approx- LTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL,a weekly newspaper.That said news imately 10 feet. ;al newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six months prior to the Site Address:924 W DELIGHT PARK RD ublication hereinafter referred to,published in the English language continu- SHELTON eekly newspaper in SHELTON, Mason County, Washington, and it is now Parcel Number:319065100017 ill of said time was printed in an office maintained at the aforesaid place of Location of Project:924 Delight Park Rd on of said newspaper.That the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL _ake Isabella ith day of August,1941,approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court Within: (quarter section) of Section: 6 :)n County. township:19 N N Range:2 W W,W.M. in,Mason County Washington. sexed is a true copy of a Notice of Shor 1 i ne Mgmt Said development Is proposed within Lake sabella and/or its associated wetlands.Any t — Scott P Woodward Jerson desiring to express their view or to be iotified of the action taken on the application should notify: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF blished in regular issues(and not in supplement form)of said COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P O BOX 279 >nce each week for a period of t wn SHELTON,WA 98584 weeks,commencing on the in writing of their interest within 30 days of ie final date of publication given pursuant to day of August 20 0 2 and ending on the VAC 173 14 020.The final date of publication, osting,or mailing of notice is 8/22J2002. Written comments must be received by _day of ALgu s t 20 02 both dates inclusive, /212002 h newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of the said A public hearing will be held on this permit t the full amount of the fee charged for the iquest.Contact this office at(360)427-9670, XL 295 for date and time of hearing, ublication is the sum of$ 94 _ 26 A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignifi- ance was issued on 8/22/2002 under WAC 16 97-11-340.Written comments regarding this atermination must be received by 9/5/2002. 8115-22 A and swom to before me this 2 2n d day of •;�o�• P� •• �% August 20 02 ��TANY gyp: —S Notary Public in d for the State of Washington •:• -'IiBi. a Residing at Shelton,Washington O: a ,/ 4 r•2 r4 a�, �`� My commission expires a-Y' 20 Q _ �''i��OF►W A S"N""\\\� \\\\\llllllllllll, I�Oz' -�o sal►dxo uo!ss!wwoa dyv O O d • U01BU14seM`u01104S w 8ulp!sa-d = 2 : y•'• se 0 10 = 8n uoi2u! Or 4 M aiul a i 3 S 4 3 P u!o!Ignd,C�e1oN z p oz` s n b n� Jo Cep sigl otu aio3aq of woms pue paq!uosgnS',,/ J 11 rll�i*a```` 96 ' 17(1 $;o wns a4i si uolleoggnd 2ulo2aj0; a4i lo;paftgz)aa;aql jo iunowu lln;aql leg,l,-pouad p!us aql jo Ile Suunp sjaquosgns sp of palnquis!p Alieln2ai sum jadudsmau Bons iu41 pue `aAlsniou!salup 41oq----6U—OZ` 30 tCup--P7CPZ-Z-- a4l uo gulpua puu` Z o OZ` -4 s n n V 30 (up LP 5 T a4i uo 8ulouaww0o'salaam aApnoasuoo jo pouod a jo3 laom 43ea aouo iodedsmau p!us 3o(uuo;luowalddns ut iou puu)sonssi juln2aj ui pags!lgnd sum 1!su PJPMPOOM d gg03S - gTWJad qWDW u T T J T ON e;o,Cdoo anjl u si poxouuu oql lu4,L -�iunoO uoseW p!es;o l.ino0 iouadnS aql�q jadudsmou le801 a se panadde`lb6l `IsnBnV;o,Cep gi6 041 uo sum -IVMSf10f,I.LNf100 NOSVW-NO.L"IgHS p!us a4i ieq,i,•iodedsmau p!us jo uo!ieollgnd ;o aoeld p!esajo;u a4i it,pau!eiuluw oog;o uu ui paluud sum awp p!es;o Ile 2uunp put, mou st it puu 'uoi$ulgseM`,ClunoO uosuW `NO.L'IgHS u!jadudsmou ,Cijaam a se,Clsno -nu!luoo oiNn2uel gsll2ug a4i u!pags!lgnd`ol palia;a>>aijuumiaq uolluallgnd a4i 3o olep oql of joud sgiuow xis uu4i ajow io;uaaq seq puu mou si it puu jadedsmau Ie2al a s!jaded -smou p!es ieq,L•jadudsm3u,C13laam u`-IVN2If10f A.LNfIOD NOSVW-NO.LigHS HHJ.3o NJa T O aqi s1 a4s le4i s,Cus puu sasodop 41uo uo woms,Clnp isn3 ftoq those objections if they bring a lawsuit to re- strain the sale pursuant to RCW 61.24.130. Failure to bring such a lawsuit may result in a' 'SS NOStt W AO A waiver of any proper grounds for invalidating `NO,LJMHSdM the Trustee's sale. X. NOTICE TO OCCUP- ANTS OR TENANTS The purchaser at the trustee's sale is entitled to possession of the property on the 20th day following the sale,as uoijewlignd jo J1AVP JJV against the grantor under the deed of trust(the owner)and anyone having an interest junior to the deed of trust,including occupants and ten- ants. After the 20th day following the sale the purchaser has the right to evict occupants and tenants by summary proceedings under the unlawful detainer act,Chapter 59.12 RCW. XI. . A list of the persons this Notice was sent to is attached hereto as exhibit "A" EXHIBIT A James N.Weaver,71 East Watson Lane,Bel- fair,WA 98528,Linda J.Weaver,71 East Wat- son Lane,Belfair,WA 98528,James N.Weav- er,71 East Watson Lane,Belfair,WA 98528- 9331,Linda J.Weaver,71 East Watson Lane, Belfair,WA 98528-9331,Occupant, 71 East Watson Lane,Belfair,WA 98528,'Jane/John Doe Weaver, 71 East Watson Lane, Belfair, WA 98528,John/Jane Doe Watson,71 East Watson Lane, Belfair,WA 98528-9331. De- partment of•Social and Healt,Office of Finan- cial Recovery, P.O. Box 9601,Olympia,WA 98507-9501 XII. FAIR IDEBT COLLECTION { PRACTIQGS ACT NOVGE: Professional Foreclgsuorati0itr. fi:Washgigton I .ai.. 41" A:LJ AAAr- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF MASON ) I, Qtn� do hereby certify that I posted kP-4-1copies of the attached lib r - in public places as follows: one at &Wj— fQA-L QZd one at M r �0 i � ? LJ �(n �CVUr�I one at (PC-0 t-04'lc_e J In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this ? t�day Of UM�•y'� , 20 0Z . By: Address: JOINT DECLARATION OF SCOTT AND MARJORIE WOODWARD SETTING OUT REASONS FOR A VARIANCE OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FENCES TO REMAIN IN PLACE AS CONSTRUCTED Matthew Kamin, our neighbor on the west, after demanding that we build a fence to confine our dog onto our property, then complained to the County about the existence of the fence. In fact, barbed wire fences have been in place along the property lines and into the water for approximately thirty (30) years. The new fences complained about do not extend into the Lake any further than the old barbed wire fences. The six-foot (6') height is for both privacy reasons and to assure that our dog does not go over the fence. The extension into the water is to assure that our dog does not go around the fence. Our dog could jump over a thirty inch (3(Y") fence, HISTORY OF CONTROVERSY WITH NEIGHBOR MATTHEW KAMIN AND NECESSITY OF FENCE We purchased our property in 1983 and have lived there ever since. At the time we purchased, barbed wire fences ran the length of our westerly (Kamin side) and easterly (Flesner/Patterson side) property lines from the road into Lake Isabella. Apparently, Matthew Kamin purchased Tracts 19 and 20 from his brother, David Kamin, on November 26, 1993, although we believe he moved onto the property in 1994 or 1995. From the time Matthew Kamin became our neighbor on the west, he began a program of harassment and intimidation. He constantly was asking what we were doing on our property and telling us we could not do what we were doing, i.e., planting trees and shrubs. On more than one occasion, he walked or drove over to our house, rang the doorbell with some question regarding what we were doing with our property. He would be asked to leave and often would refuse. He would just stand there and verbally 1 harass us. He always appeared to be high on drugs and was very frightening to us, particularly to me, Marjorie, because Scott drives for Morgan Trucking and is often not home in the evenings. The problem came to a head in early 2000 when Matthew Kamin accused our female Rottweiler, "Heidi", of killing his cat. Heidi is not a vicious dog and, in fact, grew up as a pup with Kamin's Labrador Retriever, "Zack". She gets along without any problems with our two (2) cats. As a follow-up to this accusation, Matthew Kamin called the Sheriff. The Sheriff's Department ordered us to confine Heidi; post "Beware of Dog" signs; purchase a vicious dog license, and GET A FENCE PUT UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. We immediately contacted Southgate Fence Company and contracted for the fences in question. We wanted the fences for two (2) reasons — to keep our dog in and obtain privacy from Matthew Kamin. While the fence crew was working, Matthew Kamin called the Sheriff and either Matthew Kamin or the Deputy Sheriff told the crew to stop work, claiming the property line was not surveyed. In fact, the property has been surveyed more than once and the fence was being installed approximately one foot on our side of the barbed wire fence which is located on the property line. In short, we were giving property to Matthew Kamin. When we came home from work, we found out what had happened from a message on our answering machine from the fence company. Scott called Matthew Kamin's brother, David, whom had sold the property to Matthew Kamin and whom still owns Tracts 21 and 22 to the west of Matthew Kamin's Tracts 19 and 20. David Kamin came to our house and apologized for Matthew Kamin's conduct and stated, "Matthew should be happy you are putting up this fence." After 2 that, the fence building resumed and was finished without further incidents. However, soon after the fences were finished, we came home from work and found that Matthew Kamin had been digging on the other side of the fence, undermining the cement that the posts were set in. A picture was taken of this trespass and damage. It was because of this and other problems that we filed an Anti-Harassment Complaint and Restraining Order against Matthew Kamin. A copy of the Application and final Order is attached as Exhibit A (7 pages). The Order was applied for on July 3, 2000, and entered for three (3) years on July 19, 2000. Matthew Kamin retaliated by applying for an Anti-Harassment and Restraining Order on July 20, 2000, alleging many things, none of which are true. After being served with the Temporary Protection Order and Notice of Hearing, we contacted a local attorney who advised us not to respond as we had no intention of harassing Matthew Kamin and his family anyway, and we already had the fences up to keep our dog in as previously ordered by the Sheriffs Department. Consequently, we did not appear at the hearing on August 3, 2000, and an Order was entered with a ten (10) year term. A copy of the Matthew Kamin Application for and Temporary Protection Order and a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Order for Protection are attached as Exhibit B (7 pages). Having failed to get at us by filing for and obtaining an Anti-Harassment Restraining Order, Matthew Kamin next decided to utilize Mason County Development Services to go after our fence. Subsequently, on April 18, 2001, at Matthew Kamin's behest, a letter from Richard A. Mraz of Mason County Department of Community 3 Development was mailed to Applicant Scott Woodward only ordering the removal of portions of the fence (over water) and modification (lowering) of other portions. That is why the Application for Variance and/or Conditional Use Permit is being filed. REASON FOR THE FENCES BEING EXTENDED INTO LAKE ISABELLA The first reason is that these two (2) fences are simply replacements for the existing barbed wire fences approximately thirty (30) years old that extended into the Lake the same distance. The second reason is more complicated. Our Rottweiler, "Heidi", will not swim but she will wade into the water. By extending the cyclone fence into the Lake, Heidi will not go over to the Matthew Kamin property to play with Matthew Kamin's Labrador Retriever, as it would require that she swim around the fence which she will not do. Ironically, Matthew Kamin's Lab, to this day, swims around the fence and visits Heidi on our property—which does not bother us. In summary, Matthew Kamin, through his actions, has required us to construct a fence and now through his subsequent actions is asking the County to force us to tear it down. ADDITIONAL REASONS THE FENCING SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN The complaining neighbor, Matthew Kamin, has numerous trees growing next to the westerly fence that are approximately 12' x 20' high that obscure his view to the east and our view to the west. Within the past two (2) weeks, Michael Kamin moved a Corkscrew Willow tree between 15' — 20' tall directly alongside the westerly fence, further obscuring his and our views of the Lake. Portions of that tree encroach onto our 4 ;r - !ia �.* f'' "hi; �.: is�. ).�. Vic•- str. wt . rt ..A property and he damaged our fence in numerous areas with his heavy equipment used in the transplanting operation. In addition, as Exhibits D through L show, the Arborvitae Cedar on our property adjacent to both fences in the set-back area is taller than the fences and to a large degree obscures the fences particularly on the Kamin (westerly) side. (Exhibits D and L) The easterly fence borders the Ruby S. Flesner property. This property owner is pleased with the fence, both as to its location and height. (Exhibits K and L) Neither of the Applicants' fences encroaches upon nor impedes navigation on Lake Isabella. The fences, while they extend into the water a few feet, are many feet shoreward of the dock on the Kamin property and the dock and boathouse on the Flesner property. David Kamin owns Tracts 22 and 21 and Michael Kamin owns Tracts 19 and 20. These four (4) Tracts were formerly Delight Park. The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife owns Tracts 23 and 24 which is dedicated to a public boat and fishing launch area. Both side boundaries of Tracts 23 and 24 have six-foot (6') cyclone fences with slats that come within ten feet (10') and fifteen feet (15') of the high water mark and have barbed wire fences that extend into Lake Isabella approximately as far as our fences. (Exhibits M and N) The State installed its cyclone fences approximately three (3) years ago. 5 Tracts 12 and 13 are owned by Shirley E. Anderson. The Anderson property has cyclone fences on both sides that extend into Lake Isabella. These fences were granted a permit in the late 1960s. (Exhibits O and P) In addition, across the Lake from Applicants, is a property owned by Mr. and Mrs_ .lames Pierson that has fences that extend into the Lake and a boathouse that is on the Lake. These improvements were installed approximately ten (10) years ago. (Exhibits Q and R) WE DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE STATEMENTS IN THIS DECLARATION ARE TRUE. DATED: Ai7r' L-3& 2002 PLACE_ Lacey, WA SOTT WOODWARD RIE WOODWARD 6 EXHIBT- DESCRIPTION: Order No. : Q-96190 PARCEL 1 The West 80 feet of the East 740 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 6, Township 19 North, Range 3 West, W.M. , in Mason County, Washington, lying North of the North line of the Old Fredson Bros. , Logging Company, logging road right of way, which extends Northeasterly from a point 84 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the East line of said Lot 2, 924 feet North of the Southeast corner of said Lot 2; (Also known as Tracts No. 17 and 18 of the unrecorded plat of . Somers Lake Tracts) . ALSO, all shorelands of the second-class as defined by Chapter 255 of the session Laws of 1927, formerly owned by the State of Washington, situate in front of, adjacent to or abutting upon the above described upland. PARCEL 2 TOGETHER WITH AND SUBJECT TO a 20 foot easement for road and utility purposes in Government Lot 2, Section 6, Township 19 North, Range 3 west, W.M. , in Mason County, Washington, the centerline being described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of a lire which is 20 feet West of and parallel with the West line of the East 640 feet of said Government Lot 2, said Section, Township and Range (Also the West line of Tract 16 of the unrecorded plat of Somers Lake Tracts) and the Northerly right of way line of Delight Park Road, said point hereinafter known as Point A"; thence North 3 degrees 44, 57" West 538 feet to the terminus of said line. LIST OF EXHIBITS . A Applicants' Anti-Harassment Pleadings and Order B Matthew Kamin's Anti-Harassment Pleadings and Order C Photo of Woodward Home from Air and Lake D Photo of Arborvitae Cedar fronting Kamin Line E Photo of Kamin House and Fence and Fir, Arborvitae and Kamin Trees F Photo of Arborvitae Cedar and New Fence and Old Barbed Wire Fence G Photo of Fence Going Around Maple Tree Primarily on Woodward Property H Photo of New and Old Fence Next to Kamin Shed Upland of House I Photo of Trailer House and Old and New Fences— Kamin Side J Photo of Upper Property Showing old and New Fence K Photo of Flesner Boathouse Showing Fence and Arborvitae L Photo of Flesner House, New Fence and Arborvitae M Photo of Fish and Wildlife Boat Launch Fence Bordering Kamin Property N Photo cf Fish and Wildlife Boat Launch Fence Opposite Side of Kamin Property O Photo of Shirley Anderson Property Showing Chain Link Fence into Lake P Photo of Shirley Anderson Property Showing Both Chain Link Fences Q Photo of Pierson Property Showing Fence and Boathouse in Water R Photo of Pierson Property Showing Fence and Boathouse in Water S Photo of Property Adjacent to Pierson's with Mesh Fence in Water DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON ll NO. � lam\—V �C Petitioner ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM I UNLAWFUL CIVII.HARASSMENT (ORAH) Respondent _ �-j—�, (Clerk's action required) F TO THE RESPONDENT: Violation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its riminal offense under chapter 10.14 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violatorto lful disobedience of the terms of this order may also be contempt of court and subject you to der chapter 7.21 RCW. 1. Notice of this hearing was served on the respondent by Apersonal service❑service by publication pursuant to court order ❑ other 1.Minors addressed in this order: Name Birth Date Age Sex Name Birth Date Age Sex (First, Middle Initial, Last) (First, Middle Initial, Last) Based upon the petition, testimony, and case record, the court finds that the respondent committed unlawful harassment, as defined in RCW 10.14.080, and was not,acting pursuant to any statutory authority, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Respondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts to keep under surveillance petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. Respondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts t contapt petitioner and any minors named inparagraph 2 above. Q 5, L`rf CIF, ►�.�� X CLI- Respondent is RESTRAINED from entering or bein�within .)V (distance) of petitioner's residence �, .place of employment other: At present petitioner's address is ❑confidential Athe following: LJ ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL CIVIL HARASSMENT- 1 of 2 ' UH-04.0500(11/98) RCW 10.14.080 (4) wwr K A " r Other: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to: MASON / SHELTON Sheriff's Office, MASON / SHELTON Police Department, WHERE PETITIONER LIVES which shall enter it in a computer-based criminal intelligence system available in this state used by law enforcement to list outstanding warrants. ❑The Clerk of Court shall also forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to: ❑ MASON / SHELTON County Sheriffs Office, ❑ MASON / SHELTON Police Department, WHERE RESPONDENT LIVES which shall personally serve the respondent with a copy of this order and shall promptly complete and return to this court proof of service. OR ❑Petitioner has made private arrangements for service of this order. OR es ondent appeared; further service is not required. w THIS ANTIHARASSMENT ORDER EXPIRES ON 3 If the duration of this order exceeds on year, the court finds that re ondent is lik6ly to resume unlawful harassment of a petitioner when the order expires. , DATED '(7 `c, CV at AMfi'M �4 4 , „ JUDGE/C MISSIONER I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: 7-lel Petitioner Date Respondent Date ne document to which this VC ti; is ttached is a full, true and correct copy of �—eo ;he original on file and of recoi my office. A WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this \'-', day of ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL CIVIL HARASSMENT—2 of 2 7 _ UH-04.0500 (11/98) RCW 10.14.080(4) Clerk of the his ict Justice Court a� a a'qo._ _Z of the State of Washington in and ----� ,,.r the Countv of klasor .. ....;c�,?� ..{+r„* _.:{-r�.�t. ,��YS�`C�-.ti..•�r+ ,y..r-:. „Y.a:,r..b��'`" :*i�'3�""�_..x..�. ..h��.! .g""�: _ �,�.! c _ ���� ��. ,. uvye DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON NO. (-OE> G� Petitioner TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER AND vs. r NOTICE OF HEARING (UNLAWFUL Respondent HARASSMENT)(TMORAH) (Clerk's action required) . Next Hearing Date and Time: At: SEE PAGE 2 F NING TO THE RESPONDENT: Violation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its is a criminal offense under chapter 10.14 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violator to. Willful disobedience of the terms of this order`may also be contempt of court and subject you to ies under cha ter 7.21 RCW_ 1. Notice of this hearing was served on the respondent by❑personal service Q service by publication pursuant to court order ❑other 2. Minors addressed in this order: Name Birth Date Age Sex Name Birth Date Age Sex (First, Middle Initial, Last)- - (First,Middle Initial, Last) Based upon the petition, testimony, and case record, the court finds that the respondent committed unlawful harassment as defined in RCW 10.14.080, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Respondent is RESTRAINED frbm making any attempts to keep under surveillance petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. Respondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts to contact petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. Respondent ' RESTRARl ED from entering or bein within (distance) of petitioner's residence place of employment El other:: . At present petitioner's address is 0 confidential Ethe following: TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER/ NOTICE OF HEARING(UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT) - 1 of 2 , UH-03.0200(11/98)CR 65(b),RCW 10.14.080(1), (2) ,�.i,.,s.at-. 'a :i',.iT^` ;:j •.�7'�E �-r+�iPi�{' .x.`�:;,► j�yt�,�+""!�T1'261.''4�ry�lr.�''�`-..� �np•rr .,' E`����'+r'. _ •r�•"�. fir,' - 4�Y,. 4 ' l Other: `v ss i 1 G i d It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to MASON / SHELTON County Sheriff s Office�Police Department WHERE PETITIONER LIVES which shall enter it in a computer-based criminal intelligence system available in this state used by law enforcement to list outstanding warrants. KThe Clerk of Court shall also forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to ASON / SHELTON County Sheriffs Office Police Department WHERE RESPONDENT LIVES which shall personally serve the respondent with a copy of this order and shall promptly complete and return to this court proof of service. OR ❑ Petitioner-has made private arrangements for service of this order. OR ❑Respondent appeared; further service is not required. The respondent is directed to appear and show cause why this temporary order should not be made effective for one year or more, and why the court should not order the relief requested by the petitioner or other relief which may include electronic home monitoring, payment of costs,and treatment. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING MAY RESULT IN THE COURT GRANTING SUCH RELIEF. THE NEX1 HEARING DATE AND THAE IS Slit`3iTviv BELOW TliE CAP i 10N ON PAGE ONE. Other: - LOCATION OF HEARING: MASON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 4m AND ALDER SHELTON, WA. 98584 _ This Temporary Order for Protection is effective until_ the next hearing date and time shown below the caption on page one. DATED J at I Z% 13 waw C� 1 csf JUDGE/CO NER I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: Petitioner Date Respondent Date TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER/ NOTICE OF HEARING (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT) -2 of 2 UH-03.0200(11/98) CR 65(b), RCW 10.14.080(1), (2) DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON NO. PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION UJ _ (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT)(PTORAH) Petitioner vs. Re ndent 1. II une petitioning for an Order for Protection against Unlawful Harassment-- 2. U I am the victim of unlawful harassment committed by respondent, as described in the statement below. ❑ I am the parent or guardian of child(ren) under age 18 and seek to restrain a person 18 or over from contact with my children)because contact is detrimental, as described in the statement below. 3. The harassment took place in this judicial district, or Respondent lives in this judicial district. 4. Identification of the Petitioner 5. Identification of Respondent: _ Name Name Date of Birth (- / ][ tW;of Birth Driver's License � rs� � D " 's License or Identicard or Id6i ticard (# (#and State) and State) or, if unavailable, home address 6. Identification of Minors: Name How Related to Resides (First, Middle Initial, Last) Birth Date Age Sex Petitioner Respondent with 1. Other court cases or any other protection, restraining or no-contact orders involving me, the minors and the respondent: CASE NAME AND NUMBER COURT/COUNTY PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT)- 1 of 2 UH-02.0200(11/1999) RC W 10.14.040 �� Q1� — .`. _ ,s.`_ j3'r:J"�. �.�•T„y.'#`x+��f`�� ���'T"';�,T:�7+LL"?4'i....J!'',i.,�r• 4 .,'#, W f'"�`' }�•7 �'C i' '-`aA rt '�'.r�f .e=..t9rs'Y ._ _�='+,, ' l � 7 - - � ., �' �:��:. .,.. REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ORDER: AN EMERGENCY EXISTS as described in the statement below. I need a temporary restraining order issued immediately without notice to the respondent until a hearing to avoid great or irre arable harm. I request a Temporary Order for Protection that will: I REQUEST AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION following a hearing THAT WILL: RESTRAIN respondent from making any attempts to keep under surveillance, me the minors named in paragraph 6 above. RESTRAIN respondent from making any attempts to contact, except for mailing of court documents, me the minors named in paragraph 6 above. EXCLUDE respondent fr an plat I ay esid This ad ess a present p confidential the followingt — JRESTRAIN respondent from entering or being within (distance) of my residence workplace other: OTHER: REMAIN EFFECTIVE longer than one year because respondent_ is likely to resume acts of unlawful harassment against me if the order expires in a year. Unlawful harassment means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses, or is detrimental to such person and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner or when the course of conduct is contact by a person 18 years of age or over that would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child. Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of act:over a perod of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. "Course of conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally protected activities are not included within the meaning of"course of conduct." STATEMENT: The respondent has committed acts of unlawful harassment as follows. (Describe specific acts of harassment and their approximate dates, beginning with the most recent act. You may want to include police r ponces.) it cc, (Continue on separate page if necessary I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED-7-3 at a Washington. Petitioner My residential address is confidential. Direct legal service by mail to: PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT)-2 of 2 UH-02.0200 (11/1999) RC W 10.14.040 W11BIT a W . - G STATEMENT: (Co timed) QUJ fz�k�4 ^ N� � t - -.. (Continue on separate page if necessary) I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct_ DATED_?-3' &I __ at Washington. Signattul� of Petitio PETITION FOR ORDER FOR PROTECTION - Statement page of_ (6/96) - RCW 26.50.030 1BIT N0, DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON N0. C V 77� etitioner ORD R FOR PROTECTION FROM vs. UNLAWFUL CIVIL HARASSMENT (ORAH) Res and t (Clerk's action required) F TO THE RESPONDENT: Violation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its riminal offense under chapter 10.14 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violaterto lful disobedience of the terms of this order may also be contempt of court and subject you to der chapter 7.21 RCW. 1. Notice of this hearing was served on the respondent byp personal service❑service by ubli ation pursuant to court order ❑ othery-'�- S +0 N\a k �oo a t.�,1c�,� 'S r,D � (�-I 10,, OL S t D a_rc� a F 1.Minors addressed this order: 1-5 --� tic Name Birth Date Age Sex Name `� Birth Date Age Sex ctS ' (First, Middle Initial, Last) (First, Middle Initial, Last) - ►10 0 -sr-0-Pt Were, ��ra Based upon the petition, testimony, and case record, the court finds that the respondent committed unlawful harassment, as defined in RCW 10.14.080, and was not acting pursuant to any statutory authority, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: Respondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts to keep under surveillance petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. ,Respondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts to contact petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. No `Y -11-O L 3A wyA 4f t L Respondent is RESTRAINED rom entering or beinhwithin b r�distance) of .� petitioner's�esidence J_, place of employment lJ other. ►V-4,W At present petitioner's address is ❑ confidential 0the following: �Sb1 i Icy-�\L aj S � n 7- ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL,CIVIL HARASSMENT- 1 of 2 UH-04.0500(11/98)RCW 10.14.080(4) -r t s e . � � ...-- � r i Other: Y'J sak:A11 SLa n P4 LJ 16 1 �'�a 0, -fn el� CIAN'?IA44 1 . -p- Nm tj &�Idiwp'rxz 14 is ir IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order on or before next judicial day to: MASON / SHELTON Sheriff's Office, MASON / SHELTON Police Department, WHERE PETITIONER LIVES whi shale ter it in a computer-based criminal intelligence system available in this state used by enforce��ment to list outstanding warrants. The Clerk of Court shall also forward a coy of this order on or before the next judicial day to: k / SHELTON County Sheriffs Office, / S Police Department, WHERE LIVES which shall personally serve the respondent with a copy of this order and shall promptly complete and return to this court proof of service. OR ❑Petitioner has made private arrangements for service of this order. OR ❑Respondent appeared; further service is not required. THIS ANTIHARASSMENT ORDER EXPIRES ON If the duration of this order exceeds on year, the court finds tha espondent is likely to resume unlawful harassment of the petitioner when the order expires. DATED 3�aoc �- M/PW �P JUDGE/CO - ER I acknowledge rrFeipt of a copy of this Order: I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: Petitioner 77 Da a Respondent !r Date The a tachgr,'J;gsa! 11 which this certificate is tfue the ori;�inei rr, filet and of record cordnd s incur copy of IN V�lNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto ysetflmy hag and aQthpate seal of said Co �d s ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM UNLAWFUL CIVIL HARASSMENT—2 of 2 i Ict justice Court UH-04.0500 (11/98) RCW 10.14.080(4) of Washington in and fty of Mason. DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTON R`CEE�, �" FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON 00 JUL 2 0 PM 12: 11 + S1 Aw ry AL-vx NOYL� CU 77� lnSu141 CO. DISTRICT COURT Petitioner TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER AND vs•sC D+� -1 VI�I A�Qc,L (,J Oy tt)�4✓z C NOTICE OF HEARINGUNLA HARASSMENT)(TMO1U+M—' 221�� Respondent (Clerk's action required) ?`3 0 itm Next Hearing Date and Time: zooc At: SEE PAGE 2 E G TO THE RESPONDENT: Violation of the provisions of this order with actual notice of its riminal offense under chapter 10.14 RCW and RCW 10.31.100 and will subject a violatorto lful disobedience of the terms of this order may also be contempt of court and subject you to nder chapter 7.21 RCW. 1. Notice of this hearing was served on the respondent by❑personal service❑ service by publication pursuant to court order ❑other 2. Minors addressed in this order: Name Birth Date Age Sex Name _ Bi o Date Age Sex (First, Middle Initial, Last) (First, Middle Initial, Last)': - o La- _U Based upon the petition, testimony, and case record, the court finds that the respondent committed unlawful harassment as defined in RCW 10.14.080, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: XRespondent is RESTRAINED from making any attempts to keep under surveillance petitioner and any minors named in paragraph 2 above. �/ Respondent is RESTRAINED from making anxg atte pts t con ct pp titioner and y minors named ^ in ara ra h 2 above.Uo }�,'� 1` me`� l SK If e� �!H a }�io� Pv_9g%k MAi Respondent is RESTRAINED from entering or be within Py , oA X I".q e 5 (distance) of petitioner's residence M place of employment Li other: At present petitioner's address is❑confidential 0 the following: LAD 80 ul')C�40 %P K (J 5�,.MLN, TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER/ NOTICE OF HEARING(UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT) - 1 of 2 UH-03.0200(11/98) CR 65(b), RCW 10.14.080(1), (2) Other: /� rn It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to MASON / SHELTON County Sheriff's Office VPolice Department WHERE PETITIONER LIVES which shall enter it in a computer-based criminal intelligence system available in this state used by law enforcement to list outstanding warrants. 1 The Clerk of Court shall also forward a copy of this order on or before the next judicial day to MASON / SHELTON WCounty Sheriffs Office P/Police Department WHERE RESPONDENT LIVES which shall personally serve the respondent with a copy of this order and shall promptly complete and return to this court proof of service. OR ❑Petitioner has made private arrangements for service of this order. OR ❑Respondent appeared; further service is not required. The respondent is directed to appear and show cause why this temporary order should not be made effective for one year or more, and why the court should not order the relief requested by the petitioner or other relief which may include electronic home monitoring, payment of costs, and treatment. FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING MAY RESULT IN THE COURT GRANTING SUCH RELIEF. THE NEXT HEARING DATE AND TIME IS SHOWN BELOW THE CAPTION ON PAGE ONE. Other: LOCATION OF HEARING: MASON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 4m AND ALDER SHELTON, WA. 98584 This Temporary Order for Protection is effective until the next hearing date and time shown below the caption on p e one. DATED 00 at� `z�— 4/PM JUDGE/COUR=FG6la NGSSIONER I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: I acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order: Petitioner Date Respondent Date e document to which this certificate is attached is a full, true and correct copy of the original on file and of record in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court this —�N day of v TEMPORARY PROTECTION ORDER/ Clerk of a District Justice Court NOTICE OF HEARING(UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT) -2 of 2 of the State of Washington in and for the County of Mason. UH-03.0200(11/98) CR 65(b), RCW 10.14.080 (1), (2) i�;� ;,{' , , `_� — DISTRICT COURT OF WASHINGTOIT`C I V r FOR THE COUNTY OF MASON 00 JUL 2 0 PM 12 00. � e v 774 �.�SOJ: CO. DISTRICT ON FOR AN RDER FOR PROTECTION AWFUL HARASSMEN'1)(PTORAH) Petitioner vs. 1 '� 4t W Respond t 1. I am petitioning for an Order for Protection against Unlawful Harassment. 2. 5 I am the victim of unlawful harassment committed by respondent, as described in the statement below. PqI am the parent or guardian of children)under age 18 and seek to restrain a person 18 or over from contact with my child(ren)because contact is detrimental, as described in the statement below. 3.10 The harassment took place in this judicial district, or Respondent lives in this judicial district. 4. Identification of the Petitioner: 5. Identification of Respondent: Name mtWtyz ,n Qzira w Name Date of Birth Date of Birth Driver's License rY�tr rJ�Lo� ��3 A Driver's License q� or Identicard or Identicard (# -7- (# and State) and State) or, if unavailable, home address 6. Identification of Minors: Name How Related to v Resides (First, Middle Initial, Last) Birth Date Age Sex Petitioner Respon(il with 1. Other court cases or any other protection, restraining or no-contact orders involving me, the minors and the respondent: �,, CASE NAME AND NUMBER bLU t to which this cortifleate is t d is a full, true and correct copy o COURT/COUNTY 11 a 1 or Vinal on file and of record in my office. hand and affixed the s al of said Court this \day of PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION ark of the Distnct Justice Court (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT)- 1 of 2 of the State of Washington in and � ,-y S for the County of Mason. UH-02.0200 (11/1999) RCW 10.14.040 r°� '" '«r -= REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY ORDER: AN EMERGENCY EXISTS as described in the statement below. I need a temporary restraining order issued immediately without notice to the respondent until a hearing to avoid great or irre arable harm. I request a Temporary Tempor2ry Order for Protection that will: I REQUEST AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION following a hearing THAT WILL: RESTRAIN respondent from making any attempts to keep under surveillance, me the minors named in paragraph 6 above. RESTRAIN respondent from making any attempts to contact, except for mailing of court documents, me the minors named in paragraph 6 above. EXCLUDE respondent from any place I may reside. This address at present is confidential the followingK L� V l/ RESTRAIN respondent from entering or being within ( (distance) of my residence workpIace other: OTHER: 1'1') In r REMAIN EFFECTIVE lon r than ne year because respondent is likely to resume acts of unlawful harassment against me if the order expires in a year. Unlawful harassment means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses, or is detrimental to such person and which serves no legitimate or lawful purpose. The course of conduct shall be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and shall actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner or when the course of conduct is contact by a person 18 years of age or over that would cause a reasonable parent to fear for the well-being of their child. Course of conduct means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. "Course of conduct" includes, in addition to any other form of communication, contact, or conduct, the sending of an electronic communication. Constitutionally protected activities are not included within the meaning of"course of conduct." STATEMENT: The respondent has committed acts of unlawful harassment as follows. (Describe specific acts of harassment and their approximate dates, beginning with the most recent act. You may want to include police responses.) ,t Gt �Al TA,—PS. kE!��jjo4Zk — V, C O U X 6h Yl 11�e�U t�S CCG.S iovS( ontmue on separate page if necessary) I certify under ''penalty `of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED 1 J�t at .,��t��'1 Washingto Petitioner My residential address is confidential. Direct legal service by mail to: L) PETITION FOR AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION (UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT)-2 of 2 UH-02.0200 (11/1999) RCW 10.14.040 f�j STATEMENT: (Continued)1 ed) r me - ' d' •� clpnot^ 1 e yes CU-a� GI' 6 LVISL2 Q-e— Nr, ek,�- =-ac e o 1n� (JLA-� 'P V�t(5 '\A 'Q_ Qjnj ��j-e kn!24 L4 � ev C7 1� 2✓ t' The docufngnt to Which this certifirato is Bttdnhe�p - fileUe the original on and ofa ct correct copy of IN WITNESS WUFa€0F y office n and affixed the seav� reunto set my day of of said Court this lark of K--- Ot the State of Washington in and for the County of M�snn (Continue on separate page if necessary) 1 certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. 1 ,^ DATED X � at 1 �'l► 1 Washington• cry---� ignatnre' of Petitioner PETITION FOR ORDER FOR PROTECTION-Statement page of (6/96) - RCW 26.50.030 MIK N01 J t• 1 'je - ,x, ..4 � `• •+4'tKt'• tl!Ytti .A�",. F 4 .�� I. � dT'_Y• J • ., -•�' ��I t. � .j t� J�f P - r `'t ,�'`., .. //\: i+'''tyr77 i,. •'�My l�z'i4�:iiej'C!'r '*t'.••, - �-.' - •. • � .. .� i t�j 1' ,I L�•� � (� �p�1`�",J�•>t'�14.,.4 t'Yd,y ,;.f • ` / f `• `�• \�� � L� J "d��-' ��.� tit �St�j1 '�,,�..� ,•-.i5'a,bJJ'.:�i6, � - • p At tA - y ..ay f �'� }ti ram•' J , j: ab /J r i t• 'i T •ice � r ,. r ,�", � 1 � �� ui too '� � _ �. ... ,✓�Y ,fir. ' ' .. 3 r- ,1• � � 1�r�,, �; 7t, r,,"^" /+ �f4 lr• .�i. '♦,�tr. y '�5 -r1 •f;��..,�•. '• -� �, .J�''�•` `!F Ole,+' -.,' \•`. `^�- �• tM ;ro'• 'i'4S'"t��g yT•• ♦ •. '1C�-�N, y' .i�. '' ` �•_. .a ..' 'ts4 4 sm•.i j 7� ��l 1' /� '•,� ). �TjTx��!•'� ._ rsf. y� r .• .,•' �f.h •'• ! i '' T 11 � 1 , �l.�w l,• •� ��•'•p•�'ht���p' �y..!�..]]];:L��1f1 C..•k ,�1�1�'., i%.r' {..►.'•�.fi it r �•� ` �. j�t ~x !k• is r�,. 'i. �I r '� err. � cr �i. �a !%'i:.v\ � i• ',''{91 . IVE ►�{.► ' �' � ]�a Or y,� IrY/. ��� �tL•�ija� j N. -` 1{1�•• tt �• r V d • "�l\{7 Jf •'!�}Y mot•-t;�•", f%w•� 1't,K~� IV tip' n y :�r fir. ,�..� r.,, f ,.,. `"t� ,''�.'g'N•� ^I:, �.,• �a��.,t e7r_ IT - - , ��yli �,P�a� s .^yaa� � '•i� . .'1h'�y�. �1 Mom^ �• .w�'•�, � t'`lam��•• •�,. •�^M 11 ••. .a `lh a�i .. r r t^^ "' a• ` t1 �. ' .- . �• .+� � - �iM/r�4'• *�"�-' `!•:R. S.'�'V�i'.'�e.al' ''4��F�� :. •• �}�it�f�� , � •;yam+ ��,y•i.,'� �yy 1 �.��wl7.a t � i 1 ',n- � (�' . .� s �, J� �••. d��'I +i "-•1 �'� ♦ I M r • • I�� 1.• .. r •ffff,', f�f111lOfry»nff•fh -,• ' a- ~' ` - '` •,I•`rF�• ' Al j1 � SI � •' n. r.,�..n•Hr.ww►• 't.' � ��f�I�{, �, � _ � ,,,;� /'.,�. ;:�f ff�rp�r„ i;rye•rr)ry .t+�=. ♦ ^� r •w i '•fir • <�_ ` -A � � I i � ' �/� ... ram,,,,, t•� � � • �- •� •' r Tk -, hT • ' f •t - 'A,, 1.-� +' � / I J J t • f l / / I I r r f/� /, /i i� I ✓ � l y.�_.e �y '�•�'� '�7� it >SS.. r fir`! . c't �, lit `*,war .,'�' �[ •+.. +1•r7.�' ' t�+`.r'y7�'�"Fw+�h,'�, .ar. _1 ��, ��� \1 S' .. ,. t ��, �f.•_� i� fy>„ 'ter f�H ^.�_ y ♦ ,": ' ., -4 ..: ` ,,.tii.+'+ Y f� �,... !. l� � , ! ,r. � �r A rn �w ' �• r' �` r:, _yJ�� Y. ".•'',i.,,.l.•�.N��wty +��t pis+• ., +'!1�� 'i nls � ' r, ' n a► ..v •r.vt �, M �r, 3c 1 y '. N �„E.,�jui" r-�'',, .7 r�,,� �NYAAA i �••t, .`' �`�., �� � . its . � � , � ,_ �• � � rr r <. , " ► a ' "..+� ' ,�' . ►,,*'� - 'w,�,,�y�► !' It-of Ivr" Of lb n t`7f'ritEff�1,�. __ 7� /�1Lu14�-acol �rl/uc�S vtF�'t 7v �She,al c p�a�,-cc� o� Kan�t,`�v �- �vJao c�r.�t hpusC.S r � � • � ,V.'`�\fit — :r �:ti �\ �* e �.,-. -� r *t ,` •;., •Vic, ;•. . — .1 \ __ • 1'j• •t 1 ' do ry� • I r ` � ,�a • o 1 i i A •� � � 6�fit �' •r t • s !I; 1 ' • 7^ 1 + _ :,' •:^may • • ♦� y .� '`" •4 ��� ... • •...� {.�.�T.fy��,ty •���l 9¢•, ,L� 1"•�� �r,%+.i ��M�•Jt�Sp��. �i�:.f��� ���. �P�.. • . . y� i . .r .w w!• w,.� � • �• a �: y�,R '. f . _ -�_'-'.ar�G�.'Z a�t•�'^ t• - --SL~..ice' `'r •� ---._- - .:yr•. -_ �.._ + � �«��„ ��-_3`. `tom.- •• '� ,-.- . -. �`" ,�.x"��.., - �� "" � � : - � .tea►- _,- ' . _ ._•r -• �,,,«...,iZ�� - �1r .���y- �..� ! --�'` •s• _ •fir"�iYoga�la.'r��.��'�• _ _- .•A- r .`-• ....+a7K�r• 6C ��- a. ,����`'t7.•'��'�-:,� �' •-�L's � «iL_ L - '�-- wr-.��r r +►- s - q .� ,����.'�,�..• +i ,'�+.� ,,i. � I i.•� i;� +`1, I;j iili !I � i I!1 jt(l ILI JN it �i .�; �, ��•.i } 1 .' , Tv 4 lkw. - 11 t - - age � }vim � � �•� �. _ ---- tip•• � - A _., ,_....sr r.�..+nin"irir�'1''�a+Yir'if^•�a+ �. i '• "''" Y � 'f3"�'? wr•�;..:..a..w _ - _ .�-•-.:. .�.�iwrrGiK'^'�..�- .'._•- . .y.,�� :� •'. '''�?i�:i-�`'=._• ." . ':.....—'' -_:r�-mac.�,G:..S..•.-��:'�.� —_• r . _ :�: -' =tom��•--- .'n'„' '• __ .a4t..•�.rr+ L �„►=+rt'"�`a�^S_'".•.w..- .. - 77 gap -46 ipww _ i- •► .r• .tee �.s�.�t _ - ..�.. _'..°'+i.►. _ JI WO low �!��'r�,+ram�":i�,���./'i. •' ^"•''�'� _ _ '�""_ i R • + fir: r• _. _. M1 r o �. .try�g`"��v`�'Y~ '• - �«ty V_ � - j� '� �•S �}�►>'Y`'�,'�t l�'��r Kr •-M1 ..I� I.1..�• ,1 V M'.'. a�,y�rC r... -'�' � =�'_•P rli.^•�I.�t R' .Fi 1 -� .•y„ .ter f.�l�,I.• f-.. �mil.. rirY1 .I.r �![� y v �Vt (�i{TJ.� .y1�f,(. .r•t 1i+ -y�k�i�-MY..14T •l.Y.,q�e [ � �1 '' �,Il •�:J1 N..J __.. - F - �_•"'-�;�.,.� ,� T:�'��-yam��..�ate'.'~ -.`- � �fir' '-. .. '. '. . . - `r,.,�'�.ar+s•"'.:-:w..rrww�� ^.r-.. _ "r _� � __ T_r. � s^ �c � `��T� � :s ':-1 �, ' �Z ai .;� --. ,i. •r •�-- ^-��_ '�"'�I,I�,Ri�l•r'�.` 'yam� �. �„+��.sr _ �; ,+—. �_ ��Zv_rAY� r�.7� -`^'_.-._.7.F�.:•w:.r^••. � �/��.'.^y'.���_'3`'� ."�w!�r�r.'�.� .,r _ �a: � 'ac.:�\/�': . •'` J'r►'s...�^�f-nZr-'..R�-�•' _•r+��, � �"�II"�•Row`� �,c•• +��-.,�.r.• """'..��,� - r�}�►tilA"..«• -'—s�..�'.=-,......'�— 1 _, 1 • 1 `.�y.` , '-:Y' M�Lj�"j{��� .t(��{j,�rl'Ih� �� 1.. ,� t��t�1 -..- .ter -�.r,` �� � r . - � �•• �•y„�?� .r:�! - r r ism r !► -. LOW i t #" ► ,.., w ® � , � h i ,I fit ,t ' .l l�:'..�._.. `1• �• � � 4- .. .... - .., - � �•' •+• .• !;yam a!+ .� i � � ' � �,1 i� i it, .........__`._.... � .•w,• ,�"i ....i�Y...b.3=�3'-_.�....,. .arY.w+a...�v._ '', -��ws.•. mow.•. • it is � � •� "y;�;' ..- .. ...":'o+V'iG.+�Rsy-•.ten-."-�„``+'•= -.�;. �� i RECEIVED SEP 13 2002 MCI) - PLANNING September 10, 2002 Mason County Department of Community Development P.O. Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 To Whom It May Concern; An application for variance of the fence Scott Woodward, 924 W. Delight Park Rd. has erected is posted. I would like to express my view regarding this fence. I live next to this property on the eastward side. The fence does not limit my view, does not extend into the water except during high water periods, and serves to keep their dog penned in. It does not limit the view of anyone on either side of it. I think the fence should be allowed to remain as it is. I have lived next door at 922 W. Delight Park Rd. for 19 years. I do not think the fence should bother anyone as it is. If it were shorter it would not keep the dog in. Although I have never seen the dog even attempt to hurt a person(even my small grandchildren), it does chase cats and small animals and should be kept on their property. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Ruby S. Flesner 922 W. Delight Park Rd. Shelton, WA 98584 September 17th. 2002 To: Mason County Community Development Planning DivisionAE C finA E D P.Q. Box 279 SER 18 2002 Shelton, Wa. 98584 �.ACCD - PLANNING Re: Notice of Shoreline Management Permit of Scott Woodward's Fence Scott Woodward resides on the lake shore on Isabella Lake at 924 W. Delight Park Rd. and we reside on the lake shore on Isabella Lake at 830 W. Delight Park Rd., fifth lot to his east side. The Woodward's fence does not obscure or limit our view of Lake Isabella as it is now. It seems to be doing a very good job of containing their dog on their property. Sincerely, Ronald and Susan Nelson 830 W. Delight Park Rd. Shelton, Wa 98584 360-426-7643 rl Y� —F Zuv� e Z c35 � I I � j I I f ! � ! I I I I '� � I I i I , I I' �� . I � f I I i ' i j i i I i I { 'I j ; � I j I j I I f i f I �� � , , I � � I I � � I � C ! ! i I � I I i i ' � I C� � f � I 1 I I 11 f 1` I i 'i I 1 ' I I 1 � i ' I ,� f I � 4 I � � I � I i I � �� I '• j I j � ; I I � i II�� � j I I f i ', i I � i I - I I � � ,i i � i 1 I t i I I 1 ; I I � � I f j i i I � i I f I I ! f I I I � i l � � � � '� I � � 'i I� , � I l l i � I �: { � j I I I ', .�� � ; i � I �, � � � � l �' i � f � , i I � � i f j i �. i i I I I i � � I �' i I i i �; 'o�•i 1, `� �� R•t��._ ._mot:. ��1 h -✓� +fir- "� %ti1A 41 RECEI " Fnj E--.- - , Ep MCCF. l000- 6 � p