HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2008-00013 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 6/2/2009 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR MASON COUNTY
2
3 No. VAR2008-00013
4 RE: Michael McGraw
DECLARATION OF MAILING 5
Mason County Resource Ordinance 77-93
6 Section 17.01.150(E) Variance
VAR2008-00013
7
8
9
10 I, Tammi Wright, declare and state as follows:
11 On June 2, 2009, 1 deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage properly prepaid, the
12 documents related to the above cited Hearing Examiner Decision and to which this
13 declaration is attached to:
14 Michael McGraw
15 PO Box 429
Onalaska, WA 98570
16
Mara T. Oldroyd
17 526 S. W. Charlestown St.
Seattle, WA 98116
18
Irvin C. Herrmann
19 191 N. Canal Hideaway
20 Hoodsport, WA 98548
21 Lee A. James, P.E.
7429 Deerfield Park Dr. NE
22 Olympia, WA 98516-2154
23 Katie Taylor-Holland
150 N. Beach Drive
24 Hoodsport, WA 98548
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T"AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
1 Ronald & Susan Hizon
PO Box 186
2 Lilliwaup, WA 98555
3 Jennifer Roberts
4 803 Barclift Ln. SE
Tumwater, WA 98501
5
Marsha Matthiesen
6 1320 NW Alder Crest Ct.
Dundee, OR 97115
7
Bill McTurnal
8 PO Box 12048
9 Olympia, WA 98508
10 Zanna Kadoun
1160 SE Binns Swiger Loop Rd.
11 Shelton, WA 98584
12 Ray & Lisa Sifferman
80 N. Canal View Road
13 Hoodsport, WA 98548
14 Joseph & Sally Beynon
7306 235th Avenue NE
15 Redmond, WA 98053
16 John R. Harris
17 515 SE High St.
Pullman, WA 99163
18
Kathryn A. Williams
19 813 SW 347th Ct.
Federal Way, WA 98023
20
Cynthia Reid
21 15701 13 Avenue SW
22 Burien, WA 98166
23 Gwen Grumbois
50 N. Canal View Road
24 Hoodsport, WA 98548
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T"AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
1 1 declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington the
2 foregoing information is true and correct.
3
4 Dated this 2ND DAY of June, 2009 at Shelton, Washington.
5
6 `\
7 Tammi S. Wright
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DECLARATION OF MAILING MASON COUNTY
MASON COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5T" AVE. P.O. BOX 279
SHELTON, WA 98584
360-427-9670 TEL.
360-427-8425 FAX
�goN coa,4 MASON COUNTY 427-9670
� rp Shelton (360)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467
Planning Elma (360) 482-5269
Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th
P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584
54
June 2, 2009
Notice of Decision
Case: VAR2008-00013
Applicant: Michael McGraw
Notice is hereby given that Michael McGraw, who is the applicant for the above-
referenced variance, has been granted the variance. The request was approved
pursuant to the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for
the construction of a 1,350 square foot residence within the regulated buffer
Hood Canal. The proposal was exempt from SEPA review per WAC 197-11-800
(1), (i).
This is a final County decision. No further appeals to the County are available. Appeal
may be made to Superior Court or the appropriate administrative agency as regulations
apply. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal
process.
If you have questions or require clarification on these issues please contact Tammi
Wright, Land-Use Planner with Mason County at 360-427-9670 x295.
RECEIVED
J U N 01 zoo9
1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNT( C C D . PLANNLNG
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Michael McGraw
4
5 Resource Ordinance Variance FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS
(MCC 17.01.150) OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
6 VAR 2008-00013
7 INTRODUCTION
8 The applicant requests a variance from a 35 foot Resource Ordinance buffer/setback
9 to Hood Canal in order to construct a single-family residence within approximately
20 feet of the Hood Canal shoreline, as depicted in Exhibit 3. The variance is
10 approved subject to conditions.
11
12 ORAL TESTIMONY
13 Tammi Wright—Mason County Planning Department
14
The proposal is to build a single-family home within the 35-foot buffer/setback that is
15 required and, as such, requires a variance. Most of the concerns from neighbors
16 pertain to the reserve drain field, which is a state requirement that applicants have to
do. This drain field would be in the 50-foot landslide-hazard buffer area, but
17 construction in this zone is not under review. The only question before the Examiner
is regarding the Resource Ordinance Variance. There are houses above and below the
18 property, and that is why geotechnical analysis has been done so as to protect the
neighboring property owners. The geotechnical report has been provided in Exhibit
19 36, and staff had no problems with the report which addressed all of the requirements
20 of the resource ordinance. The County will likely approve the landslide hazard area,
unless another geotechnical report is received that is contrary to the report submitted
21 by the applicant. If that happens, a third party would be brought in to analyze the two
reports because the County staff are not geologists or engineers.
22
Michael McGraw-Applicant
23
24 This piece of property has been in his family for over 20 years, and Mr. McGraw and
his sister started this planning and building process about two years ago. The main
25 point of contention is the septic reserve system above the property, which is required
by the State but is likely to never be used because there is another system down below
that is monitored and approved. The reserve system would essentially be nothing
more than a 12-inch raised sand bed, which would be equivalent to a raised garden.
{PA0729698.DOC;1/13 009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
In regards to complaints about not having a turnaround on the dead end road, Mr.
1 McGraw pointed out that there is a-20 foot easement across the property which is
2 being obstructed by a neighbor at the time, but that there is sufficient space for
emergency access. The only solution that he sees as a compromise to this problem is
3 for the neighbor to vacate the easement and use an alternate route. In addition,
emergency vehicles would only be 60 feet away if needed, although he has yet to
4 contact the fire department on this issue. In regards to the stability of the hillside,
according to the geotechnical analysis, it is very stable, and the toe of the slope is
5 deep below where it actually appears to be. Also, neighbors have dug into the slope
6 in the past with only minimal stabilization necessary. Essentially, Mr. McGraw sees
this project as similar to the uses by his neighbors and is just trying to use the
7 property in the same manner that they currently use theirs.
8 Mr. McGraw pointed out that the neighbors that came onto his property to undertake
their measurements were trespassing and undertook their measurements without all of
9 the pertinent information. There will be construction of a 4 foot retaining wall which
10 will provide the room required. The site plan that many of the neighbors have
reviewed has been amended by the County and, as such, many of their comments
I I have been made without full knowledge of the project. In regards to the vacated
easement, no evidence has been found that such a vacation has ever been made; even
12 the County has been unable to find such a vacation. The vacation that the neighbors
have cited is a vacation of a different easement, not the pertinent one. As such, Mr.
13 McGraw believes that the easement is still in place and has not been vacated. There
14 are no trees on the hillside in question,just native vegetation. In regards to the size of
his lot, there are lots of similar sizes with older septic systems that are not as well
15 functioning as his has been designed to be. What will be escaping his system is
essentially potable water, and he believes that his system has been designed with the
16 best interests of the area in mind.
17 Bill McTumal—Neighbor
18
Mr. McTumal is a licensed septic installer in two counties. Mr. McTumal discussed
19 the reserve system as being on top of an unstable slope and that in his professional
opinion he would never place a septic system in such a location. In addition, he states
20 that the slope is unstable and has slipped in the past. He also measured the distance
21 from the bulkhead himself, and states that it is 45 feet to the system, not the 50 stated.
Mr. McTumal also stated that the slopes that have been given are much less severe
than in actuality which he measured himself. Mr. McTurnal also stated parts of the
lJ WAC that he believes apply to this project, and according to which he states that this
23 project can not be permitted. He states that a variance cannot be allowed less than 50
feet from surface water, and his measurements indicate that the septic system would
24 be only 42 feet from the water of Hood Canal. To place a septic system on such an
25 unsafe slope is irresponsible and places the County in a very difficult position
regarding future litigation. In addition, there is a great risk of untreated septic waste
to leak into the Canal which is already environmentally in danger. There is only 40
feet from the edge of the proposed residence to the toe of the slope, not the 49 feet
(PA0729698.DOC:1/1 3009.9000M)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
suggested on the site plan. The easement for emergency services is still in place,
1 because the easement which Mr. McGraw brought up has been vacated. In addition,
2 Mr. McTurnal believes that Mr. McGraw's septic designer is inexperienced and
foolish for placing a reserve system in the proposed position on the top of the hill. He
3 also finds it dangerous to place such a system so close to the open salt water.
4 Irvin Herrman -Neighbor
5 Mr. Herrman and other neighbors had a geotechnician observe the hillside in
6 question, and the conclusion from the testing is that the hillside is a result of a past
slide and is unstable. As a result, problems with the reserve system are likely to
7 occur. Mr. Herrman also pointed out that the easement which Mr. McGraw suggested
he use to access his garage has been vacated and, as such, cannot be used.
8
9 Lee James -Neighbor
10 Mr. James wanted to add that he has been on his property for 44 years. During that
time, he has seen many landslides on the hill in question. And in his opinion, as a
11 retired engineer,the hill on which the system is to be placed is not stable.
12 Cynthia Reed-Neighbor
13 Ms. Reed would like to note that all of the neighbors have been very supportive in the
14 past with new construction. However, the stability of the slope and the placement of
the backup system are a major concern. Additionally she wanted to point out that
15 even though the backup system may never be used, it is a State requirement and
should be analyzed and reviewed as though it will come into use.
16
17 Gwen Grumbois -Neighbor
18 Ms. Grumbois's brother was ready to buy the property above the hill in question.
However he chose not to because he realized that the hill and property were unstable.
19 In addition, she believes that the hill is simply unstable.
20 Zama Kadoun -Neighbor
21 Ms. Kadoun's property is located a few lots down from Mr. McGraw and has part of
22 the hillside behind her property. She intends to build a new home there in the future
and would never dream of either disrupting the hillside or ever placing a backup
23 system on that hill for her new home. Ms. Kadoun is very aware of septic system
installation, because that was the occupation of her ex-husband of 46 years. She
24 believes that the property in question is just too small to really do anything with, and
25 she finds it unfortunate that building will be undertaken. Building would threaten too
many property owners in the area, and there is just too little room for the McGraws to
do the building that they wish to do.
{PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Ray Sifferman - Neighbor
1
2 Mr. Sifferman lives atop the hillside. Mr. James allowed him to top certain trees on
his property in order to improve his view of the Canal. The view is very important to
3 him, but they do not want to remove trees because they are aware of the delicate
nature of the hillside and how removing trees for the improvement of the view would
4 be detrimental.
5 EXHIBITS
6 See the "Case Index" provided by Tammi Wright during the May 12, 2009 hearing.
7 All 38 exhibits of the Case Index were admitted.
8 FINDINGS OF FACT
9 Procedural:
10
1. Applicant. The applicant is Michael McGraw.
11
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
12 on May 12, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
13 Chambers.
14 Substantive:
15 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to construct a single-
16 family residence with a footprint of 1,350 square feet within the regulated setback of
Hood Canal. The project will also include an associated septic system and upland
17 retaining wall at the base of a steep slope. MCC 17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1)(a) requires
the buffer shall be no less than 20 feet in width from the OHWM. A minimum
18 setback from the edge of the buffer is 15 feet for lots created prior to December 5,
1996, located on saltwater where the common line setback (a line extended from the
19 roofline of adjoining homes) is 20 feet or less. Staff concluded that the lot qualifies
20 for this setback and there is no evidence to the contrary. The proposed residence will
be within the 35-foot buffer/setback as depicted in Exhibit 3. As evident from
21 Exhibit 3, the applicant proposes to place the home in the only portion of the lot that
could accommodate the home. The remaining undeveloped portion of the lot is
22 composed of slopes at a grade of approximately 73% and the septic system and drain
field are located landward from the home, as far from the shoreline as possible
23 without encroachment into the 73% slope.
24 4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject parcel is surrounded by lots that
25 are zoned Rural Residential 5 (Exhibit 30). There are some residences to the north
and heavy residential development to the west and south (Exhibit 30). Hood Canal is
to the east.
{PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
5. Adverse Impacts,
1
2 A. Shoreline Impacts. Potential adverse impacts have been identified in the
Habitat Management Plan ("HUT") (Exhibit#5). The HMP recommends mitigation
3 measures including wetland preservation involving removal of non-native bamboo
and replanting of native vegetation, removal of small manmade debris (such as
4 bricks) from Outlet Creek, removal of manmade debris from the stream buffer,
utilization of trees removed for construction purposes as nurse logs in the stream or
5 wetland buffers, and strict adherence to Washington State Department of Ecology
6 Best Management Practices (BMPs). Combined with additional conditions
recommended by staff, construction will likely not adversely impact the shoreline
7 environment. Because the proposed location for the replacement residence shall
utilize existing impervious surfaces including the existing cabin's footprint and an
8 access road for the 253 feet of expansion an a detached garage, the project is expected
to have less impact than a potential building site outside of the buffer/setbacks, which
9 would require significant vegetation removal and an increase in impervious surfaces
10 with the construction of a new access driveway.
11 B. Slope Stability. The primary concern of those who testified in opposition
was slope stability. The scope of the hearing before the Examiner was the proposed
12 encroachment into the shoreline buffer. As discussed during the hearing, slope
stability issues will be addressed in another application by the applicant seeking
1� authorization for the project to encroach into a landslide hazard area, as regulated by
14 MCC 17.01.100. Landslide hazard review involves a comprehensive assessment of
slope stability and, if necessary, mitigation. The lead staff person on the landslide
15 hazard application, Tammi Wright, was present at the hearing and will consider the
slope stability testimony provided by the public.
16
As noted by Ms. Wright, the geotechnical report provided by the applicant (Exhibits
17 24 and 36) concludes that, with recommended mitigation, the project will not create
18 any slope hazard. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory constructed a "worst-case"
scenario by raising the phreatic zone to correspond to the presence of water subjacent
19 to the reserve drain field field. The Factors of Safety are well above the safe minima
of 1.1 for dynamic and 1.5 for static conditions (Exhibit 36). The conclusion was that
20 the alternate septic drain field does not pose a hazard to the project or to surrounding
21 structures. A letter(Exhibit 34)was also received from William L. Russell, Licensed
Designer, which also speaks to the concerns of adjacent property owners. From his
22 point of view the only reason for a reserve drain field is that the State guidelines
require a reserve area. It is his view that this reserve area will never be constructed
23 because it would be far cheaper to rebuild the primary part. If constructed there would
be no digging on the hillside for a trench for the transport line to the reserve area on
24 top of the hill. The drain field itself would not be dug into the soil but instead would
25 be constructed into a bed of sand about 12 inches high.
Although the public concerns on slope stability are certainly understandable, the
geotechnical analysis provided by the applicant meets the review standards
(PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
established by Chapter 17.01 MCC. The applicant's geotechnical engineer provided
1 the only expert opinion on slope stability in the record. Consequently, his opinion is
2 the most persuasive. Ms. Wright offered the public an opportunity to provide their
own geotechnical engineer's assessment. If a contrary assessment is provided, Ms.
3 Wright will hire an independent geotechnical engineer for a final opinion.
4 C. Fire Access. Concerns were raised on the issue of fire access. It was
unclear whether the Mason County Fire Marshall has determined that there is
5 adequate fire access for the site. Fire access is thoroughly addressed by the
6 International Fire Code, which is implemented by the Fire Marshall. This issue is
normally addressed during building permit review and has questionable relevance to
7 the applicant's proposed shoreline buffer encroachment, which is the subject of this
variance request. To avoid any doubt on the matter, the project will conditioned upon
8 fire access approval by the Fire Marshall.
9 D. Site Measurements. Assertions were made that the measurements
10 provided by the applicant for the location of the proposal, most notably the septic
system, were inaccurate. Approval of the variance request is limited to the
Y PP q
11 measurements proposed in Exhibit 3. Any shoreline encroachments that exceed those
depicted in Exhibit 3 would be unauthorized and violate the Resource Ordinance.
12
13 No other significant adverse impacts are discernable from the record.
14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
15 Procedural:
16 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(9) provides the Hearing
17 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications.
1 s Substantive:
19 2. Comprehensive Plan and ZoningDesignations.tions. The Mason County
20 Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural
Residential 5 (RR-5). The Shoreline Designation for the property is Urban.
21
3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt
22 from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1)(b)(i). As noted in the staff
report, notice of the variance was given by newspaper, postings, posted onsite, and by
23 mail to adjacent property owners, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and
24 the Skokomish Tribe. A 28-day waiting period followed, and several letters were
received. The Skokomish Tribe determined that this project would not have any
25 negative environmental impacts to the Skokomish Tribe or their resources. Margie
Schirato, WDFW, did not have any problems with the project but would like to see
more vegetation planted in the near-shore area if possible. Additionally several
letters were received from neighboring property owners that were in opposition to the
(PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
project due mainly to the proposed location of the reserve drain field. These letters
1 have all been included as exhibits. In addition, many of the concerns raised in the
2 letters from the neighbors were also raised during the public hearing and are
summarized in the hearing testimony presented above.
3
4. Review Criteria and Application. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 3,
4 the applicant requests a variance to the 35 foot buffer/setback required by MCC
17.01.110(D)(2)(a)(1)(a). MCC 17.01.150 provides that MCC 15.09.057 governs
5 variance requests to buffers imposed by Chapter 17.01 MMC. A variance request to
6 Chapter 17.01 MMC is classified as a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC
15.09.050(C) imposes additional review criteria for all Type III applications. The
7 review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the Type III standards of
MCC 15.09.050(C) are quoted below in italics below and applied to the project via
8 Conclusions of Law.
9 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance
10 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property
not otherwise prohibited by county regulations.
11
5. A single-family home is a reasonable use of a lot zoned for residential use
12 and of sufficient size to accommodate a single-family home. The subject lot is more
than large enough to accommodate a single-family home and it is zoned for that use.
13 As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 3, the home can only be reasonably located in the
14 location proposed by the applicant. The proposed location encroaches into a buffer
imposed by the Resource Ordinance. The home is only 1,350 square feet in area, and
15 imposition of the Resource Ordinance buffer would significantly reduce size the
home even further, as shown in Exhibit 3. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance
16 significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property.
17 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the
18 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 in the
19 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or
the applicant's own action.
20
21 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by the combination of lot
size, steep slopes, and Hood Canal shoreline. The hardship is specifically related to
22 the property of the applicant and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's own
actions.
23
MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other
24 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
25 properties or the environment.
7. The project is compatible with other permitted activities in the area. It is
surrounded by single family homes and the site is zoned for single-family use. No
{PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/}
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
evidence was presented on any adverse view impacts, which is consistent with the
1 fact that the home will be placed five feet landward from the common line setback.
2 As discussed in the Findings of Fact, the project will create no significant adverse
shoreline environmental impacts. The most persuasive evidence presented establishes
3 no slope stability issues as mitigated. No other adverse impacts are discernable from
the record. Consequently, the project will not cause adverse effects to the adjacent
4 properties or the environment.
5 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special
6 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum
necessary to afford relief.
7
8. According to the staff report, other properties in the area are developed
8 with homes of similar or greater size. Also, the property is zoned for residential use.
Consequently, the property does not constitute a grant of special privilege. MCC
17.01.150(E) provides that the minimum area for reasonable use of a residence is the
to lesser of 40% of the area of the lot or 2,250 square feet. The applicant's home is less
than the minimum authorized by MCC 17.01.150(E). Consequently, the proposal is
11 the minimum to afford relief.
12 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
13 9. As previously discussed, there are no significant adverse impacts
14 associated with the proposal, and the proposal will allow minimum reasonable use of
property. Consequently, the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
15 effect.
16 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a
reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
17 Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
18 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only
shall not justify a variance.
19
10. Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a
20 reasonably sized residence on the parcel due to the critical area buffer/setbacks. The
21 property is zoned for residential development, and no reasonable use other than a
home could be constructed on the property. As previously discussed, the proposed
22 home is the minimum reasonable use available to the applicant. The project
✓✓ constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is fully mitigated to
23 protect environmental resources. As such, it is consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act.
24
25 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
proposed development according to the following criteria:
(PA07 29698.DOC;1/1 3W9.900M/)
Resource Ordinance Variance p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
1 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16.
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
3 in the public interest.
4 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
5 Comprehensive Plan.
6 11. As noted above, the project is consistent with the Mason County
7 Comprehensive Plan. It also meets the requirement and intent of the Mason County
Code. The applicant will have to acquire a Resource Ordinance variance from staff to
8 address landslide hazard issues, and building permit and septic permits will address
construction standards beyond the scope of this variance request. As noted
9previously, as mitigated and subject to the further review under landslide hazard
10 review, the project will not harm environmental resources. Therefore, the project
does not adversely affect public health, safety and welfare, and is in the public
1 1 interest. As noted in the Staff Report, the development will not lower the level of
service for transportation or neighborhood park facilities.
12
DECISION
13
14 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions
recommended and identified in the Habitat Management Plan (Exhibit#6), as well as
15 those in the Staff Report (Exhibit#1). In addition,the following conditions apply:
16 1. The applicant shall acquire a Resource Ordinance variance from staff for
encroachment into the site's landslide hazard area.
17
18 2. Fire access is subject to the approval of the Mason County Fire Marshall.
19
Dated this 27th day of May, 2009.
20
21
22
Phil A. Olbrec
23 Mason County Hearing Examiner
24
25
(PA0729698.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
Resource Ordinance Variance P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
January 15, 2009 (amended May 6, 2009-amended portions in red)
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Wright—tammiw(d).co.mason.wa.us—ext, 295
RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2008-00013)
STAFF REPORT
Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a
single-family residence with a footprint of 1,350 square feet within the regulated
setback of Hood Canal. The project will also include an associated septic system
and upland retaining wall (at the base of steep slope). The stairway proposed in
the Habitat Management Plan will not be constructed (per phone conversation
with applicant on 3/10/09).
The standard buffer from Hood Canal is 100 feet. However, the shore common
line is used where existing residences are on both sides of and within 150 feet of
the lot line of the subject lot. The shore common line in this case is approximately
15 feet. The Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D.2.a.1.a requires
the buffer shall be no less than 20 feet in width from the OHWM and a minimum
setback from the edge of the buffer is 15 feet. The proposed residence will be
within the 35-foot buffer/setback. The minimum setback from the Shoreline
Master Program is 15 feet. The residence will be sited 15 feet from the bulkhead
and will not require a Shoreline Variance. See site plan marked Exhibit 3.
I. Applicant: Michael McGraw.
II. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 183 N. Canal Hide A Way,
Hoodsport, WA. Parcel Number 32330-51-06007. PLAT OF LILLIWAUP FALLS
TR 7 OF LOTS 6, 12, & 13.
III. Date of complete application: September 22, 2008.
IV. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The subject property is located in the NW '/4 of
Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 03 West WM. The property is located
in an area of moderate residential development below the inland (upland)
ridgeline overlooking Hood Canal. The parcel is undeveloped with low bank
saltwater frontage. The parcel is triangular in shape with the eastern property
line forming the shoreline of Hood Canal. This is also the widest and most
developable portion of the parcel. Near the western portion of the property
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 1
are slopes that measure approximately 73% and the property lines intersect
at a point (extremely narrow).
B. Characteristics of the area. The subject parcel is surrounded by lots that are
zoned Rural Residential 5 (Exhibit 30). There are some residences to the
north and heavy residential development to the west and south (Exhibit 30).
Hood Canal is to the east.
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) per the Mason
County Development Areas Map.
E. Shoreline Designation: Urban
V. SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt
per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Public notice of the application and hearing date
was posted onsite on March 12, 2009 and notice was made in the Shelton-
Mason Journal on March 12, 2009 (Exhibit 4) to run on March 19, 2009. Due to
an address error a corrected notice was resent to neighbors and the Shelton-
Mason Journal on March 13, 2009 (Exhibit 4).
The proposal required review of the Habitat Management Plan and comment
opportunity by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Notification was sent on March 12, 2009 (Exhibits 7 & 8). A 28-day
comment period followed. A Notice to reduce the Landslide Hazard Area Buffer
to 49 feet was posted on site and mailed to adjacent property owners on March
12, 2009 (Exhibit 22). Comment letters were received from both WDFW and
Skokomish Tribe (Exhibits 9 & 10). The Skokomish Tribe determined that this
project would not have any negative environmental impacts to the Skokomish
Tribe or their resources. Margie Schirato, WDFW, didn't have any problems with
the project but would like to see more vegetation planted in the nearshore area if
possible.
Several letters were received from adjacent property owners that were in
opposition to the project due mainly to the proposed location of the reserve
drainfield (Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, &20). These letters were mailed to the
applicant with a request to have the geologist address the impacts if the reserve
drainfield area needed to be utilized (Exhibits 13, 15, 18, & 21). 1 also emailed
the geologist requesting this information (Exhibit 19). Other concerns listed were
issues regarding fire apparatus roads and setbacks to slopes. No response has
been received to date to address these concerns.
Three additional letters were received on May 1, 2009 and another on May 5,
2009 regarding the reserve drainfield area. They have been added to the
updated case index as Exhibits 31, 32, 33, and 35.
A response letter(Exhibit 37)was received by Michael McGraw regarding the
issues raised by the adjacent property owners. He has provided information
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 1
regarding the fire apparatus access issue and the slope stability issues raised by
the reserve drainfield area_
VI. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building
Permit for the construction of the single-family residence, geotechnical report
approval and septic permit.
VII. Analysis:
(All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.)
The required buffer for saltwater is 100 feet with no building setback. However
the minimum 20-foot buffer plus a 15-foot building setback applies when the
shore common line is used to determine the setback. The proposal is for the
construction of a residence with a footprint of 1,350 square feet and associated
septic system. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated
with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section
17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline
buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which
establishes variance procedures and criteria.
The location of the additions within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer.
Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that"new residential construction ...is not
permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or
reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use
exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted.
Section 17.01.120.M. states that"except when application from this Chapter
would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception
from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Title
15 Development Code Section 15.09.057."
Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) be
prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider
measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the
impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through
habitat mitigation.
Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance
shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the
following circumstances exist:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations.
Staff Response: Due to the presence of steep slopes, Hood Canal shoreline, and
access road within the property, the requirements listed in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate
residential use of the property without variance approval.
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of applicant, and is the result of unique
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 1
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the
application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions
or the applicant's own actions.
Staff Response:As described in criteria #1, the hardship is specifically related to
the property of the applicant and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's own
actions.
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
environment.
Staff Response: The property is zoned Rural Residential 5. A single-family
residence is a permitted use in this zoning. Per Mason County Resource
Ordinance 17.01.150 Variance from Standards Section E`in addition to the
review criteria in Mason County Code 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use
for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a)
40% of the area of the lot, or b) 2, 250 square feet."The applicant also meets this
criterion. As seen in the aerial photographs of the area there are numerous
residential structures surrounding this proposed development.
A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared and submitted which identifies
measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to
the environment. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The findings in
the HMP conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened
or endangered species are expected to occur.
A Geotechnical Report has been submitted to the County and has been reviewed
for consistency with the Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.100 Landslide
Hazard Areas. The proposal is within the required 50-foot Landslide Hazard Area
buffer and an application has been made to reduce the buffer to 49 feet. As
noted earlier in the staff report there have been several letters of opposition
received due to the proposed location of the reserve drainfield. Requests have
been made to both the applicant and the geologist to address the slope stability
issues if the reserve drainfield area were to be utilized. No response has been
received to date. This makes it difficult to determine if this project could have
adverse impacts. The hearing should be left open until information is provided or
if approved, this information should be provided, reviewed, and approved by the
County prior to issuing a building permit.
A letter was received from Curtis Cushman, Senior Engineering Geologist, which
addresses the reserve drainfield area. Geotechnical Testing Laboratory
constructed a `worst-case"scenario by raising the phreatic zone to correspond to
the presence of water subjacent to the septic field. The Factors of Safety are well
above the safe minima of 1.1 for dynamic and 1.5 for static conditions(Exhibit
tic drainfield does not se a
36). The conclusion was that the aItemate set M
hazard to the project or to surrounding structures.
A letter(Exhibit 34) was also received from William L. Russell, Licensed
From his point
Designer, which also speaks to the concerns of adjacent property. po
of view the only reason for a reserve drainfield is that the State guidelines require
a reserve area. It is his view that this reserve area will never be constructed
because it would be far cheaper to rebuild the primary part. If constructed there
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 1
would be no digging on the hillside for a trench for the transport line to the
reserve area on top of the hill. The drainfield itself would not be dug into the soil
but instead would be constructed into a bed of sand about 12 inches high.
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 afford relief.
Staff Response: Given the discussion in #3 above, granting of this variance
would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area. The proposed footprint is designed to all features
associated with a single-family residence. Review of the Mason County
Assessor's records show that residences in proximity to the project site are
comprised of similar footprints.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Staff Response: Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would
substantially affect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the
HMP will ensure that natural features associated with project site are preserved
and/or enhanced. As noted in #3 above, it is not certain if the public interest will
suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Once the required information is received
the slope stability impacts can be reviewed and a determination can be made at
that time.
Based on the new information provided by Curtis Cushman (GTL) and William
Russell, it appears that the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use
of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value
only shall not justify a variance.
Staff Response: The property is zoned for residential development. The lot is of
sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the
surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially
zoned area and is mostly consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all
environmental impacts associated with development near the shoreline through
the Habitat Management Plan. However, the project is lacking information
regarding the slope stability issues and the reserve draintield area.
Based on the new information provided staff feels that the slope stability issues
regarding the reserve drainfreld area have been adequately addressed.
Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a residence on
the parcel due to the critical area buffer/setbacks.
Vl/l. General Review Criteria Mason County Code 15.09.055(C)
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8,
and 16.
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 1
The proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan_ The planning
policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation and
protection of water quality, critical areas, Resource Lands, and open space
and the adoption of critical area regulations_ The project is categorically
exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). The proposal is being
reviewed under a Resource Ordinance Variance and has submitted the
required Habitat Management Plan and Geotechnical Report. More
information regarding the Geotechnical Report has been requested_ The
landslide hazard area issues regarding the reserve drainfield area have not
been adequate addressed. New information provided has addressed the
slope stability issues relating to the reserve drainfield area_ Based on this
information staff has determine that the proposal does not conflict the
Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason
County Code, especially Title 6 and 8.
The proposal meets the requirements of Title 6. Mason County Health
Department passed the design review for the septic system on 3123109
(SWG2008-00026)_ See Exhibit 27.
Title 16 does not apply.
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
Best management practices will be followed based on the submitted Habitat
Management Plan to ensure there is no impact to public health, safety and
welfare. Erosion and sediment control will be required as condition of
approval to prevent water degradation. Minimal vegetation disturbance will
occur. More information is needed to evaluate slope stability issues relating to
the reserve drainfield location.
As note earlier the slope stability issues relating to the reserve drainfield area
have been adequately addressed.
3_ Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within
the Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within
the Comprehensive Plan_ The transportation service is from Canal View Hide
A Way(private easement) that is accessed off of Canal View Road (#48070)
and the existing Level of Service (LOS) is A (Comprehensive Plan VIII-1.10)_
The trips per day would not exceed 10 so this does not change the LOS_ This
project does not lower the LOS for neighborhood park facilities below the
minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan Table V1.5-2.
In most cases the population would have to more than double to exceed
these standards_
IX. Conclusions. Upon the above discussion the construction of a single-family
residence is not consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section
17.01.150 (more geotechnical report information is needed to evaluate slope
stability issues relating to the reserve drainfield location). after review of the
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 1
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton, Washington 98584 * (360) 427-9670
January 15, 2009
TO: Mason County Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Tammi Wright —tammiw(c-)co.mason.wa.us — ext, 295
RE: Variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance (VAR2008-00013)
STAFF REPORT
Introduction. This report evaluates a request for a variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically for the construction of a
single-family residence with a footprint of 1,350 square feet within the regulated
setback of Hood Canal. The project will also include an associated septic system
and upland retaining wall (at the base of steep slope). The stairway proposed in
the Habitat Management Plan will not be constructed (per phone conversation
with applicant on 3/10/09).
The standard buffer from Hood Canal is 100 feet. However, the shore common
line is used where existing residences are on both sides of and within 150 feet of
the lot line of the subject lot. The shore common line in this case is approximately
15 feet. The Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.110.D.2.a.1.a requires
the buffer shall be no less than 20 feet in width from the OHWM and a minimum
setback from the edge of the buffer is 15 feet. The proposed residence will be
within the 35-foot buffer/setback. The minimum setback from the Shoreline
Master Program is 15 feet. The residence will be sited 15 feet from the bulkhead
and will not require a Shoreline Variance. See site plan marked Exhibit 3.
I. Applicant: Michael McGraw.
II. Property Location. Site address and Project Location: 183 N. Canal Hide A Way,
Hoodsport, WA. Parcel Number 32330-51-06007. PLAT OF LILLIWAUP FALLS
TR 7 OF LOTS 6, 12, & 13.
III. Date of complete application: September 22, 2008.
IV. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The subject property is located in the NW '/4 of
Section 30, Township 23 North, Range 03 West WM. The property is located
in an area of moderate residential development below the inland (upland)
ridgeline overlooking Hood Canal. The parcel is undeveloped with low bank
saltwater frontage. The parcel is triangular in shape with the eastern property
line forming the shoreline of Hood Canal. This is also the widest and most
developable portion of the parcel. Near the western portion of the property
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit 1
are slopes that measure approximately 73% and the property lines intersect
at a point (extremely narrow).
B. Characteristics of the area. The subject parcel is surrounded by lots that are
zoned Rural Residential 5 (Exhibit 30). There are some residences to the
north and heavy residential development to the west and south (Exhibit 30).
Hood Canal is to the east.
C. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural.
D. Zoning. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential-5 (RR-5) per the Mason
County Development Areas Map.
E. Shoreline Designation: Urban
V. SEPA Compliance, public and agency comment. This activity is SEPA exempt
per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). Public notice of the application and hearing date
was posted onsite on March 12, 2009 and notice was made in the Shelton-
Mason Journal on March 12, 2009 (Exhibit 4) to run on March 19, 2009. Due to
an address error a corrected notice was resent to neighbors and the Shelton-
Mason Journal on March 13, 2009 (Exhibit 4).
The proposal required review of the Habitat Management Plan and comment
opportunity by the Skokomish Tribe and Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Notification was sent on March 12, 2009 (Exhibits 7 & 8). A 28-day
comment period followed. A Notice to reduce the Landslide Hazard Area Buffer
to 49 feet was posted on site and mailed to adjacent property owners on March
12, 2009 (Exhibit 22). Comment letters were received from both WDFW and
Skokomish Tribe (Exhibits 9 & 10). The Skokomish Tribe determined that this
project would not have any negative environmental impacts to the Skokomish
Tribe or their resources. Margie Schirato, WDFW, didn't have any problems with
the project but would like to see more vegetation planted in the nearshore area if
possible.
Several letters were received from adjacent property owners that were in
opposition to the project due mainly to the proposed location of the reserve
drainfield (Exhibits 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, & 20). These letters were mailed to the
applicant with a request to have the geologist address the impacts if the reserve
drainfield area needed to be utilized (Exhibits 13, 15, 18, & 21). 1 also emailed
the geologist requesting this information (Exhibit 19). Other concerns listed were
issues regarding fire apparatus roads and setbacks to slopes. No response has
been received to date to address these concerns.
VI. Other Permits or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason County Building
Permit for the construction of the single-family residence, geotechnical report
approval and septic permit.
VI 1. Analysis:
(All references to County codes are with respect to those codes as adopted.)
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 2 of 7 Exhibit 1
The required buffer for saltwater is 100 feet with no building setback. However
the minimum 20-foot buffer plus a 15-foot building setback applies when the
shore common line is used to determine the setback. The proposal is for the
construction of a residence with a footprint of 1,350 square feet and associated
septic system. This proposal requires a variance per the requirements associated
with Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section
17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, which details shoreline
buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from Standards, which
establishes variance procedures and criteria.
The location of the additions within the buffer effectively reduces that buffer.
Section 17.01.110.G.c. states that "new residential construction ...is not
permitted within FWHCA or its buffer, except...as approved through a variance or
reasonable use exception." Staff has been instructed that the reasonable use
exception may only be pursued after the variance option has been exhausted.
Section 17.01.120.M. states that "except when application from this Chapter
would deny all reasonable use of a site, an applicant who seeks an exception
from the regulations of the Chapter shall pursue a variance as provided in Title
15 Development Code Section 15.09.057."
Section 17.01.110.G.1 requires that a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) be
prepared in association with the proposed development. The HMP shall consider
measures to preserve and protect wildlife habitat and shall identify how the
impacts from the proposed use or activity will be avoided or mitigated through
p p p Y 9 9
habitat mitigation.
Section 17.01.150 (E), Review Standards for a variance states that no variance
shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that the
following circumstances exist:
1. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards
precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not
otherwise prohibited by County regulations.
Staff Response: Due to the presence of steep slopes, Hood Canal shoreline, and
access road within the property, the requirements listed in the Mason County
Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate
residential use of the property without variance approval.
2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is
specifically related to the property of applicant, and is the result of unique
conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the
application of the County regulations, and not, for example from deed restrictions
or the applicant's own actions.
Staff Response:As described in criteria #1, the hardship is specifically related to
the property of the applicant and not from deed restrictions or the applicant's own
actions.
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
environment.
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 3 of 7 Exhibit 1
I
Staff Response: The property is zoned Rural Residential 5. A single-family
residence is a permitted use in this zoning. Per Mason County Resource
Ordinance 17.01.150 Variance from Standards Section E "In addition to the
review criteria in Mason County Code 15.09.057, the minimum reasonable use
for a residence in a residentially zoned area shall be defined by the lesser of a)
40% of the area of the lot, or b) 2, 250 square feet." The applicant also meets this
criterion. As seen in the aerial photographs of the area there are numerous
residential structures surrounding this proposed development.
A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared and submitted which identifies
measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to
the environment. No view corridors will be obstructed or modified. The findings in
the HMP conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened
or endangered species are expected to occur.
A Geotechnical Report has been submitted to the County and has been reviewed
for consistency with the Mason County Resource Ordinance 17.01.100 Landslide
Hazard Areas. The proposal is within the required 50-foot Landslide Hazard Area
buffer and an application has been made to reduce the buffer to 49 feet. As
noted earlier in the staff report there have been several letters of opposition
received due to the proposed location of the reserve drainfield. Requests have
been made to both the applicant and the geologist to address the slope stability
issues if the reserve drainfield area were to be utilized. No response has been
received to date. This makes it difficult to determine if this project could have
adverse impacts. The hearing should be left open until information is provided or
p g p
if approved, this information should be provided, reviewed, and approved by the
County prior to issuing a building permit.
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 afford relief.
Staff Response: Given the discussion in #3 above, granting of this variance
would not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area. The proposed footprint is designed to all features
associated with a single-family residence. Review of the Mason County
Assessor's records show that residences in proximity to the project site are
comprised of similar footprints.
5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Staff Response: Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would
substantially affect nearby residences. The application of standards listed in the
HMP will ensure that natural features associated with project site are preserved
and/or enhanced. As noted in #3 above, it is not certain if the public interest will
suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Once the required information is received
the slope stability impacts can be reviewed and a determination can be made at
that time.
6. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use
of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County
Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 4 of 7 Exhibit 1
I
county ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value
only shall not justify a variance.
Staff Response: The property is zoned for residential development. The lot is of
sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the
surrounding area. The project constitutes in-fill development in a residentially
zoned area and is mostly consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan
and the Growth Management Act. The project has been proposed to address all
environmental impacts associated with development near the shoreline through
the Habitat Management Plan. However, the project is lacking information
regarding the slope stability issues and the reserve drainfield area.
Without the variance the applicant would not be able to construct a residence on
the parcel due to the critical area buffer/setbacks.
Vlll. General Review Criteria Mason County Code 15.09.055(C)
1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8,
and 16.
The proposal does conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The planning
policies in the Comprehensive Plan encourage the preservation and
protection of water quality, critical areas, Resource Lands, and open space
and the adoption of critical area regulations. The project is categorically
exempt from SEPA per WAC 197-11-800 (1)(b)(i). The proposal is being
reviewed under a Resource Ordinance Variance and has submitted the
required Habitat Management Plan and Geotechnical Report. More
information regarding the Geotechnical Report has been requested. The
landslide hazard area issues regarding the reserve drainfield area have not
been adequate addressed.
The proposal meets the requirements of Title 6. Mason County Health
Department passed the design review for the septic system on 3123109
(SWG2008-00026). See Exhibit 27.
Title 16 does not apply.
2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is in
the public interest.
Best management practices will be followed based on the submitted Habitat
Management Plan to ensure there is no impact to public health, safety and
welfare. Erosion and sediment control will be required as condition of
approval to prevent water degradation. Minimal vegetation disturbance will
occur. More information is needed to evaluate slope stability issues relating to
the reserve drainfield location.
3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within
the Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal will not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within
the Comprehensive Plan. The transportation service is from Canal View Hide
A Way(private easement) that is accessed off of Canal View Road (#48070)
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 5 of 7 Exhibit 1
and the existing Level of Service (LOS) is A (Comprehensive Plan V111-1.10).
The trips per day would not exceed 10 so this does not change the LOS. This
project does not lower the LOS for neighborhood park facilities below the
minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan Table V1.5-2.
In most cases the population would have to more than double to exceed
these standards.
IX. Conclusions. Upon the above discussion the construction of a single-family
residence is not consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section
17.01.150 (more geotechnical report information is needed to evaluate slope
stability issues relating to the reserve drainfield location). Approval of this
variance is subject to the conditions listed below.
1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed
should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.
2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any
construction and/or development activities on the parcel.
3. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing
or straw matting).
4. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan
recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate
that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by
Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance
#VAR2008-00013 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Agua
Tierra Land and Water Services, Inc. dated March 2008 contains required
mitigation measures for future development.
5. Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures and native plantings proposed
by Habitat Management Plan prepared by Agua Tierra Land and Water Services,
Inc. dated March 2008.
6. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
7. Monitoring of the installed vegetation will be performed annually for three years
following installation. Monitoring will entail inspection of each planted specimen
for survival and vigor, and will be performed in August or September of each
monitoring year. In addition, two photo points will be established that portrays
the planting area from each side of the property. A brief letter report
summarizing monitoring findings will be submitted to Mason County Planning by
1 Oct of each monitoring year.
8. The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications
outlined in the attached geotechnical report. All applicable recommendations and
specifications shall be applied to the development on this site. Any deviation
requires stamped written approval from the registered design professional
responsible for the report, and may require special inspection by same.
Structures and / or land modifications (grading, cuts, fills, etc.) required in the
geotechnical report, may require a separate permit. The geotechnical report shall
remain attached to the approved building plans.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the Variance request.
2. Denial of the Variance request.
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 6 of 7 Exhibit 1
3. Conditional approval of the Variance request.
4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 1
additional information from Curtis Cushman (GTL)and William Russell staff
believes that the construction of a single-family residence and associated septic
system is consistent with the variance criteria detailed in Section 17.01.150.
Approval of this variance is subject to the conditions listed below.
1. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation shall be avoided and any areas disturbed
should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.
2. The existing natural vegetative buffer shall remain undisturbed by any
construction and/or development activities on the parcel.
3. All upland areas disturbed or newly created by construction activities shall be
seeded, vegetated or given an equivalent type of erosion protection (silt fencing
or straw matting).
4. The applicant shall have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan
recorded with the Deed in the Auditor's office. The Notification should indicate
that development of the property is encumbered by conditions placed on it by
Mason County Department of Community Development under this Variance
#VAR2008-00013 and that the Habitat Management Plan prepared by Agua
Tierra Land and Water Services, Inc. dated March 2008 contains required
mitigation measures for future development.
5. Applicant shall implement all mitigation measures and native plantings proposed
by Habitat Management Plan prepared by Agua Tierra Land and Water Services,
Inc. dated March 2008.
6. No degradation of water quality shall occur as a result of this project.
7. Monitoring of the installed vegetation will be performed annually for three years
following installation. Monitoring will entail inspection of each planted specimen
for survival and vigor, and will be performed in August or September of each
monitoring year. In addition, two photo points will be established that portrays
the planting area from each side of the property. A brief letter report
summarizing monitoring findings will be submitted to Mason County Planning by
1 Oct of each monitoring year.
8. The approval of this project is subject to the recommendations and specifications
outlined in the attached geotechnical report. All applicable recommendations and
specifications shall be applied to the development on this site. Any deviation
requires stamped written approval from the registered design professional
responsible for the report, and may require special inspection by same.
Structures and / or land modifications (grading, cuts, fills, etc.) required in the
geotechnical report, may require a separate permit. The geotechnical report shall
remain attached to the approved building plans.
X. Choices of Action.
1. Approval of the Variance request.
2. Denial of the Variance request.
3. Conditional approval of the Variance request.
4. Remand the case to staff for further information and/or clarification
McGraw VAR2008-00013 Page 7 of 7 Exhibit 1
CASE INDEX
Michael McGraw
VAR2008-00013
Index # Date Description
1 September 22, 2008 Exhibit 1: Staff Report
2 September 22, 2008 Exhibit 2: Resource Ordinance Variance Permit
Application
3 September 22, 2008 Exhibit 3: Site Plan
4 March 12, 2009 Exhibit 4: Notice of Variance Application and
Public Hearin
5 March 13, 2009 Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Posting
6 March 2008 Exhibit 6: Habitat Management Plan HMP
7 March 12, 2009 Exhibit 7: HMP Letter to Skokomish Tribe
8 March 12, 2009 Exhibit 8: HMP Letter to WA Dept. Fish &
Wildlife
9 March 13, 2009 Exhibit 9: HMP Comment Letter from WDFW
10 March 31, 2009 Exhibit 10: HMP Comment Letter from
Skokomish Tribe
11 April 7, 2009 Exhibit 11: Letter of Opposition from Mara T.
Oldro d
12 April 7, 2009 Exhibit 12: Letter of Opposition from Irvin C.
Herrmann
13 April 9, 2009 Exhibit 13: Letter from Planning Dept. to Mike
McGraw
14 April 8, 2009 Exhibit 14: Letter of Opposition from Lee James,
P.E.
15 April 13, 2009 Exhibit 15: Letter from Planning Dept. to Mike
McGraw
16 April 23, 2009 Exhibit 16: Letter of Opposition from Irvin
Herrmann
17 April 18, 2009 Exhibit 17: Letter of Opposition from Katie
Taylor- olland
18 April 23, 2009 Exhibit 18: Letter from Planning Dept. to Mike
McGraw
19 April 27, 2009 Exhibit 19: Email to Curtis Cushman, Licensed
Geologist
20 April 22, 2009 Exhibit 20: Letter of Opposition from Ronald &
Susan Hizon
21 April 29, 2009 Exhibit 21: Letter from Planning Dept. to Mike
McGraw
22 March 10, 2009 Exhibit 22: Notice of Buffer Reduction
23 October 9, 2008 Exhibit 23: Letter of Incompleteness from
Planning Dept.
24 October 13, 2008 Exhibit 24: Geotechnical Report
25 March 26, 2009 Exhibit 25: Memo to Environmental Health
regarding variance request
26 March 30, 2009 Exhibit 26: Response from Environmental Health
27 June 10, 2008 Exhibit 27: Septic Design Review Approval
28 September 22, 2009 Exhibit 28: Letter of Incompleteness from
Planning Department
29 September 2, 2008 Exhibit 29: Administrative Variance Approval for
reduction in side and front yard setbacks
30 April 29, 2009 Exhibit 30: Aerial Photos
31 April 29, 2009 Exhibit 31: Letter of Opposition from Joseph &
Sally Be non
32 April 28, 2009 Exhibit 32: Letter of Opposition from Ray & Lisa
Sifferman
33 May 4, 2009 Exhibit 33: Letter of Opposition from Zanna
Kadoun
34 May 2, 2009 Exhibit 34: Letter (reserve septic) from William L.
Russell, Licensed Designer
35 May 5, 2009 Exhibit 35: Letter of Opposition from Jennifer
Roberts
36 April 30, 2009 Exhibit 36: Response letter from GTL (Curtis
Cushman, Geologist)
37 May 7, 2009 Exhibit 37: Response letter and exhibits from
Michael McGraw
38 May 11, 2009 Exhibit 38: Letter of support from Marsha
Matthiesen
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 N. 5th Street/ P.O. Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584
Variance from Standards
As stated in Mason County Code Title 15, Section 15.09.057. VARIANCE CRITERIA,
variances from the bulk and dimension requirements of the Resource Ordinance or the Development
Regulations (zoning regulations) may be allowed as follows. The County must document with written
findings compliance or noncompliance with the variance criteria. The burden is on the applicant to
prove that each of the following criteria is met.
Application for a variance does not guarantee approval. A variance is an application for a special
"exception to the rule". The proposal must undergo public review and must meet the specific variance
criteria listed below.
Applicant name /�/G�fi��9FL /e, /yf cC Telephone# f,5
Mailing address
i°o• fox �9 arU.��A , wA 9�'�
Site address
Tax Parcel# 3233C) - /O - Koo
Legal Description
PINT- a-/ G/Z-UW—,*6Q ��ZZ c lie , 12gn113
Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance _X
Mason County Development Regulations
Subdivisions and Plats
On a separate piece of paper, please state your reasons for requesting a variance. In your responses, be
sure to address all criteria. Your request will be evaluated based on these criteria.
1. Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required.
2. Describe the reasons for the variance.
3. No variance shall be granted unless the County makes findings of fact showing that certain
circumstances exist. Please address each of the following standards and how the proposal pertains to
these circumstances.
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards precludes or
significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by
County regulations;
\\CLUSTERl_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
aPP..doc (04
b. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related
to the property of the applicant, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot
shape, size, or natural features and the application of the County regulations, and not,for
example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
c. That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted activities in the area and
will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment;
d. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the
other properties in the area,and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief,
e. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
f. No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a reasonable use of the land.
Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan,
Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other county ordinances,and with the
Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance.
Signature Dd to
Development Regulations Variance: $1,060.00 - Hearings Examiner: $1,875.00
Subdivision and Plats Variance: $1,060.00 -Hearings Examiner: $1,875.00
Resource Ordinance Variance: $1,420.00 -Hearings Examiner: $1,875.00
Habitat Management Plan: $415.00
Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs.
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
app..doc
E/hb,l �- , I v r
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Publication cost is the responsibility of the applicant. Final permit processing will not occur
until advertising fees have been paid to the newspaper by the applicant. The Shelton-Mason
County Journal will bill the applicant directly.
I/WE understand that I/WE must sign and date the attached acknowledgment indicating and
that I/WE understand that is MY/ OUR responsibility. I/WE must submit the signed page as
part of application in order for it to be considered as complete.
z4810
DATE
O ER
/�0�1�1 /mil• ��L
APPLICANT
\\CLUSTERI_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County Variance
app..doc 4, 3 l
� 9
f C� LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' MAILING ADDRESSES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
i_� Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor.
ROBERT MCGRAW ROBERT E. & DIANNE WEST IRVINE C.&RAMONA HERRMANN
2917 60T" LN. SE APT. C 332 FIRST STREET NE 191 N. CANAL HIDE-AWAY
OLYMPIA,WA 98501-5356 AUBURN, WA 98002-5049 HOODSPORT,WA 998548-9702
THRYN A. WILLIAMS ET AL MARA T. OLDROYD TRSTEE wILLIAM&JANET MCTURNAL ET AL
JOHN RALPH HARRIS MARA T. OLDROYD TRUST FLOYD & MARY JANE DUGGER
813 SW 347 CT. 5216 SW CHARLESTOWN ST. PO BOX 12048
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-8431 SEATTLE, WA 981 1 6-31 53 OLYMPIA, WA 98508-2048
ZANNA A. KADOUN JAY HANVILLE DAVID W.& MARY GARMAN
PO BOX 35 2349 HARBOR AVE. SW#706 19978 CERRO PEDREGOSO
LILLIWAUP,�q 98555-0035 SEATTLE,WA 98126 ESCONDIDO, CA 92029-5904
I IUC) �!5'� r�.g 5_. 35D N. �rJ S�. � 120
I+2nny a Ilc, �,e �U 1- 3511
ROBERT K. &JULIE A. JOHNSON /WILLARD & JANENE BANDES WALTER R. &JUNE C. FRANKS
4115 N. STEVENS ST. PO BOX 1751 100 N. CANAL VIEW ROAD
TACOMA, WA 98407-4938 HOODSPORT,WA 98548-1751 HOODSPORT,WA 98548-9762
RAYMOND F. & LISA SIFFERMAN GODAT LLC LEE A. & CAROLYN JAMES
80 N. CANAL VIEW ROAD 1907 MARION STREET NE 7429 DEERFIELD PARK DR. NE
HOODSPORT,WA 98548-9743 OLYMPIA,WA 98506-3432 OLYMPIA,WA 98516-2154
-'o 3oy 11 Z 3
t�ocd s uf+"' g5 Lai—ll 1
RONALD & SUSAN HIZON JENNIFER E. ROBERTS BARBARA ESZENYI ETAL
PO BOX 186 REBECCA ROSALIE ROBERTS SUSAN LARSEN,ANNE TAYLOR
LILLIWAUP,WA 98555-0186 803 BARCLIFT LANE SE C/O KATHARINE HOLLAND
TUMWATER, WA 98501-4021 6200 53RD AVENUE NE
SEATTLE,WA 98115-7718
MIS
GEORGE G. BAKER H I-P
1.,3 NW Aldtr e0tiPO BOX 55 0 4� -A- �69 e,4 �3 ��� -77 Sk)
LILLIWAUP,WA 98555 Q 1�5 � g8590 C1711�j
�so3
na a s
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUR PROPERTY BOUNDARIES
FOR VARIANCE REQUEST
Addresses are to be obtained from the Mason County Assessor's Office, Bldg. 1, Second Floor.
/V C q",q4 yioE.9 w,9y
/-/0o,0-�oa,�- u1A. 985�8
yo SGr,weZG RD
.<Yez7j1N, WI. 98580
/ncTU.PNAG� u/ic.aiq�� Ail-NET
�oY,o�/l�,gey SANE' ��tfER
PO. do x /ZO,/B
OLy/q&4 i a,4 98506F
011,41,91n5-1 k-4ro eyAl A.
7Wa .e44Ay .yes
913 S.W.34,/7 Ce..
ra-er4z, a4 ci/A
197 9AO23
4c.9 T aGD.PoyD ?•�ir�
SE''�izF. �• 9ei/6
�9kF�, G�a�e6� err
P.O. .Qax 55
U44.,&1oue ul�4 9ff555
\\CLUSTERl_HOME_SERVER\HOME\COMMON\PLANNING\PAC\VARIANCES\Mason County
Variance app..doc
DATE: 9/8/2008
FROM: Mike McGram-
PO Box 429 Onalaska, WA 98570
TO: MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
411 n. 5`" Street/PO Box 186 Shelton. WA 98584
I am requesting the setback from the waterfront bulkhead be reduced to fifteen feet(15')
as my site pre-inspection(SPI) suggests is possible on page 3 of the attached SPI.
The lot is a legal residential lot that I will be able to build on with the 15 foot setback.
Water is available, and I have a Mason County and Washington State Health Department
approved septic design, a geo-tech report- it is very favorable to my building a house,
and a Habitat Management Plan(HMP)that supports the development of the lot.
Minimal side yard setbacks of N.5', S.5' and W.10' have been granted by an
administrative variance.
The hardship is specifically related to this lot because of the irregular triangle shape. It is
68 feet on the bulkhead and 45 feet at the slope of the hill(see attached site plan). It also
incorporates a 20 foot easement for ingress/egress/utilities. In order to fit the house
footprint, approved septic system and easement we will need the setback..
A review of the attached site plan will reinforce the necessity of this 15' setback from the
bulkhead. The residences to the north and south are 10 feet to 15 feet-at the most from
their bulkheads and are considered existing non-conforming structures. My new structure
will not obstruct anyone's view of the canal.
I appreciate your consideration on this matter and look forward to the hearing date.
Respectfully,
K.K , l
Mike McGraw
G��1�_b 0�
I
r ' r
43
S
L6
N
Plot ]Plan for T&-.hael R Mct Traw Pavcel # 32330 5106007
Showing re vis ed primary dr.ignf eld w ith an bottom-It ss sand :ilter
Scale I inch = %1;0 ff eet _ 370'-011
'09 �o' ,40' �0'6�' o so' 90' 00'
i� designer oOm_ _ - -
°��1qL___
"the _---- 25 1 -N" -
e instru Al I - -
Jrt plp -
g®e tree;p
LAW
rit y� is 105'-5
61'-1„
73a�,9>oae H )od
10-0 Concrete Retain ng Wall
- - 5-
R 3sen a dri Infield
TRD 1000 Tr satm,>nt system I ---
� 363'-0"
Primary Dri iinfield Propos)d home ------ ` i
R
,, :vise Designed �1
�:.
By Nilliam L Russell j l 2 10 E Areliem Rd
L lion WA 98592 I
i l LICENSEDO M-898-3773ESiGNER Nay 19,2008
;I
;;x
MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mason County Bullding.1 411 N. 6th St.
P.O. Box 578 Shelton,WA 98684
(360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8426
LAND.USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
DATE:
Please publish the attached
V r
V
460-
On the following day(s)
Please keep the Affidavit of Publicati n for the Mason County Planning Department to
pick up from your office and send copies to the following:
ey i-I,1
Please send a bill for publication costs to:
Thank you,
, s Mason County Planning Staff ��
,ON CoUm MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Shelton(360)427-9670
Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467
411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269
F PO Box 279
Shelton,WA 98584
HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us
Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance and
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Michael McGraw, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has
filed an application for a Variance (VAR2008-00013).
The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the
construction of a single-family residence occupying a total are of 1,125 square feet within the
regulated buffer/setback of Hood Canal. Property location is 183 N. Canal View Road,
Hoodsport, WA. Parcel #32330-51-06007.
Date of complete application: March 10, 2009.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from
Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat
Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed
project on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg.
I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact Tammi Wright of the Mason County Department of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance.
` '
MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Mason County Bullding.l 411 N. 6th St.
P.O. Box 678 Shelton,WA 98684
(360) 427-9670 FAX (360) 427-8426
LAND.USE PLANNING SHORELINES CODE ENFORCEMENT FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING
TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL
FROM: MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF
DATE: 3 - 13 —O9
Please publish the attached f co
oru f7)x-kd e-n 3 '- ).;i-Dq
M I cha 0 �C � �Ori �,t na hc� &5
On the following day(s) ��� �tdd'rz!s5
-)-o 01 1�/lt 5[ �l5r�c�rd OAK �� nvl�lcc
Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Mason County Planning Department to
pick up from your office and send I copies to the following:
Please send a bill for publication costs to:
Thank you,
.
Mason County Planning Staff
01ia S cf 5
MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Shelton(360)427-9670
Mason County Bldg.I Belfair(360)275-4467
411 N 5th Street Elma(360)482-5269
PO Box 279
1854 Shelton,WA 98584
HOME PAGE—www.co.mason.wa.us AAire-ss 6��Aon
Notice of Application for a Variance from the Mason
County Resource Ordinance and
Notice of Public Hearing
Notice is hereby given that Michael McGraw, who is the applicant for the following proposal, has
filed an application for a Variance (VAR2008-00013).
The request for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance No. 77-93 is for the
construction of a single-family residence occupying a total are of 1,125 square feet within the
regulated buffer/setback of Hood Canal. Property location is 183 N. Canal Hide-Away,
Hoodsport, WA. Parcel #32330-51-06007.
Date of complete application: March 10, 2009.
The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource
Ordinance No. 77-93, specifically Section 17.01.110, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation
Areas, which details shoreline buffer requirements and Section 17.01.150, Variances from
Standards, which establishes Variance procedures and criteria. The proposal requires a Habitat
Management Plan and Hearing Examiner approval.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held by the Mason County Hearing Examiner on the proposed
project on Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the County Commissioners Chambers, Bldg.
I, 411 N. 5th Street, Shelton, WA.
Please contact Tammi Wright of the Mason County Department of Community Development at
(360) 427-9670, ext. 295, with any questions or comments on this development and variance.
EA,W d , 4I o f s
03/13/2009 09:43 FAX z001
TX REPORT
TRANSMISSION OK
TX/RX NO 0474
CONNECTION TEL
SUBADDRESS
CONNECTION ID
ST. TIME 03/13 09:41
USAGE T 01'15
PGS. SENT 2
RESULT OK
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
1, to , do hereby certify that I posted copies of
the attached p l '>
ff
on a day of I�at- h 20 in �3 public places as follows:
one at
one at }'CXSC0 inF Chi f ca"'i oleo FQ .
one at L I Post.
In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of PostingNotice
e this day
of MarCO P , 20_
BY: tat C
Address: L111 Jl,'. Uyi-,
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF MASON )
Subscribed and sworn to me this day of 20 0
�:•'�01 AR y ' -, Notary Public fo tate of Washington
Residing at
N: APR 30, 2011 ;�^ Commission Expires 36 � l
•PUBLIC' •''���