Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHB98-003 Boathouse Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 8/25/1998 .dtiun Contr(`,'Hearings Board tv ST"ra o ` (360)459-6327 dorelines Hearings Board c� f (FAX) (360)438-7699 Forest Practices Appeals Board Hydraulics Appeals Board 188s c STATE OF WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL HEARINGS OFFICE 4224-6th Avenue SE,Bldg.2, Rowe Six ? 71998 P.O. Box 40903, Lacey,WA 98504-0903 � pip'. August 25, 1998 • Randy and Edna Crawford Michael Clift PO Box 561 Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Graham WA 98338 Mason County TO BE KEPT IN THE 411 North Fifth Joan M. Marchioro Shelton WA 98584 PARCEL FILE Assistant Attorney General Department of Ecology PO Box 40117 1 Olympia WA 98504-0117 Af1C� v� a?j `� - — RE: SHB NO. 98-003 RANDY AND EDNA CRAWFORD v. MASON COUNTY &ECOLOGY Dear Parties: Enclosed are 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 party may file a petition for reconsideration within 10 days and serve it on-thc-other parties. The term"file" means receipt. Sincerely yours, 67 Jam A. Tupper, Jr. Presiding , JAT/jg/crawford cc: Leann Ryser-Ecology Mason County Planning Department Don Bales -Ecology Enc. 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 Washin rat the or is true and correct. DA r at Lacey,WA. RANDY AND EDNA CRAWFORD MICHAEL CLIFT PO BOX 561 DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY GRAHAM WA 98338 MASON COUNTY 411 N FIFTH SHELTON WA 98584 JOAN M MARCHIORO LEANN RYSER - 7615 ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO BOX 40117 OLYMPIA WA 98504-0117 DON BALES - 7600 MASON COUNTY PLANNING PO BOX 186 SHELTON WA 98584 t ' 1 "= BEFORE THE SHORELINES HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON RANDY and EDNA CRAWFORD, ) 4 ) Appellants, ) SHB NO. 98-03 5 ) V. ) FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT 6 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MASON COUNTY and ) ORDER 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, ) 8 ) Respondents. ) 9 10 A final hearing in this matter was held on July 27, 1998, in Belfair, Washington. The 11 board was comprised of James A. Tupper, Jr., Presiding, Robert V. Jensen, Ann Daley, Dean R. 12 Foster, Phyllis Shrauger and Robert Schofield. Court reporting services were provided by Gene 13 Barker& Associates of Olympia, Washington. 14 Appellants appeared on their own behalf. Michael E. Clift, Chief Deputy Prosecutor, 15 appeared on behalf of Mason County. The Department of Ecology did not appear at the hearing. 16 On the morning of the hearing the board conducted a site visit. Thereafter witnesses were 17 sworn and exhibits received. Based on this record,the board enters the following FINDINGS OF FACT 18 I. 19 20 Randy and Edna Crawford timely appealed the denial of a shoreline variance permit by Mason County on January 13, 1998. The Crawfords own lot 52 on the shores of Lake Wooten FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (1) 1 near the town of Tahuya. Their parcel is 100' wide fronting the shoreline of the lake and 175' deep: The south end of the lot faces Lake Wooten. The lot is currently developed with a summer cabin and garage on the north side. The West Side of the lot adjacent to the lake is 4 currently used for a fire pit, volleyball,horseshoes and other recreational activities. The 5 Crawfords additionally have access to the lake with a staircase, pier and float. 6 IL 7 The Crawfords seek a shoreline permit to construct what has been described as a 8 boathouse within one foot of the Ordinary High Water Mark(OHWM) of the lake. The structure 9 would be 16' wide and 28' long. The appellants propose to excavate the high clay bank in front 10 of the cabin on the eastside of the lot for the boathouse. When completed, most of the structure 11 will be below existing grade. The front of the building, however, will be fully exposed to the 12 lake. This area of the lot is currently vegetated with an adjacent staircase leading to the water 13 III. 14 Mr. Crawford testified that it would be feasible for him to construct a boathouse for his 15 intended use on the west half of the property. He is reluctant to develop this area which is 16 currently used for a variety of recreational activities. The Crawfords also stated in their notice of 17 appeal a preference to reserve this area for future development of an accessory structure. 18 IV. 19 Appellants expressed their concerns that a boathouse constructed above grade on the 20 West Side of the property would be a greater visual intrusion on the lake than the proposed boathouse. In this regard, Mr. Crawford offered letters from his immediate neighbors who FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (2) 1 support the proposal. The county shoreline planner confirmed that he has not received any indication of opposition to the proposal by residents and property owners on Lake Wooten. It is evident that the Crawfords went to some effort to accommodate the concerns of their neighbors 4 and address their concerns as to the visual impact of a boathouse. The proposal would, for 5 example, cost in excess of$20,000 to construct. That cost is nearly ten times the estimated cost 6 of an alternate structure built above grade on the West Side of the property. 7 V. 8. Any conclusion of law deemed to be a finding of fact is hereby adopted as such. 9 Based on the foregoing findings of fact the board enters the following 10 11 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 12 I. 13 The board has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to RCW 90.58.180. The appellant 14 seeking review of a shoreline permit denial bears the burden of proof before the board. RCW 15 90.58.140. 16 IL 1 There is no dispute that the proposed development requires a variance. The Mason 18 County Shoreline Master Program (MCSMP) provides that any boathouse built on land, i.e., 19 above the OHWM, must comply with shoreline setback limitations. MCSMP § 7.16.170,Use Regulations,No. 23. In this case, the boathouse, proposed to be within one foot of the OHWM, 20 encroaches into the shoreline setback applicable to the parcel. FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (3) 1 III. The Crawfords must therefore satisfy the criteria for granting a variance under MCSMP § 7.28.020. All five criteria must be met in order to obtain a variance. MCSMP § 7.28.020. The 4 first criteria ask whether the strict application of dimensional requirements would preclude or 5 significantly interfere with a reasonable use of the property. MCSMP § 7.28.020(1). The 6 Crawfords have not shown that they are entitled to relief under this standard. Without the 7 proposed boathouse the Crawfords are able to make extensive use of their lot. The parcel is 8 already developed with a summer cabin, garage,dock and float. It is evident that the appellants 9 make extensive use of the property for recreational activities. The Crawfords, moreover, 10 understand that they would be more likely to obtain a shoreline permit for the construction of a 11 boathouse on the West Side of their lot. (This alternative is not, however,before the board and 12 we render no findings or conclusions that it would or would not be consistent with the Shoreline 13 Management Act, its implementing regulations or the applicable shoreline master program.) 14 IV. 15 The applicants nonetheless contend that their use is unreasonably limited because the 16 proposed site would enable them to continue use of the west half of their lot for recreational 17 activities and reserve that area for future development. This greater convenience to the 18 appellants does not constitute a significant interference with a reasonable use under the variance 19 criteria. Buechel v. Department of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196 (1994). 20 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (4) 1 V. 2 The final issue before the board is whether the proposed development achieves the goals of the shoreline setback requirements by an innovative design. As such,the question is whether 4 the shoreline setback should be applied if it results in greater adverse impact on the shoreline. In 5 support of this proposition appellants offer that an above grade boathouse in compliance with the 6 MCSMP would have a greater aesthetic impact than the proposed development. Appellants also 7 established that their neighbors believe that their views would be best protected by a below grade 8 boathouse. Whatever merit this argument may have, the intrusion of a boathouse at the water's 9 edge,the front of which would be fully exposed to the lake, is the type of development that 10 should be subject to a shoreline setback and the variance criteria. A shoreline setback exists to 11 preserve the views of adjacent property owners as well as the general public. A principle goal of 12 the Shoreline Management Act is to avoid a concentration of development on shorelands of the 13 state. RCW 90.58.020. This board must be mindful of the precedent and potential adverse 14 cumulative impact that would be established by granting relief in this case. Hayes v. Yount, 87 15 Wn.2d 280 (1976). A proliferation of boathouses constructed at the OHWM around Lake 16 Wooten or other shorelands of the state would not be consistent with the basic policies of the 17 Shoreline Management Act. Moreover, approving a permit in this case would be inconsistent 18 with the variance criteria prohibition against a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other 19 property owners in the area. MCSMP 7.28.020(4). 20 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (5) I VI. In reaching this conclusion we are mindful of the sincerity with which the Crawfords have pursued this project. The proposal is an innovative attempt to use property in a manner 4 compatible with the Shoreline Management Act and the Mason County Shoreline Master 5 Program. Mr. Crawford testified to the support of neighboring property owners and to his 6 willingness to bear the considerable expense of the proposed underground structure in order to 7 develop what they believe to be a compatible and environmentally sound use of the Lake 8 Wooten shoreline. The Crawfords have pursued their application with great sensitivity to their 9 neighbors and concern about good environmental stewardship. They have conscientiously 10 sought a solution that accommodates their neighbors and causes the least environmental harm. I I Unfortunately what may work best in this situation is not consistent with the applicable 12 regulations or the public interest under the Shoreline Management Act. 13 Nevertheless, this case raises a major policy issue: whether the strict application of the 14 variance criteria inadvertently proscribes any innovation in the shoreline environment. As the 15 shoreline environment inevitably faces greater and greater development pressures, it would be 16 wise for the legislature and state and local regulators to explore new options for allowing 17 innovative structures that are protective of the overall goals of the SMA even if they don't meet 18 each of the five strict variance exemption criteria. Perhaps an amendment could be crafted to the 19 Mason County Shoreline Master Program that would recognize special circumstances and allow a limited new category of structures to be exempt from the setback requirements and thus avoid 20 the strict and inflexible variance exception criteria. FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (6) 1 It is worth noting that the review conducted by the Mason County Shoreline Advisory 2 Board resulted in a recommendation to approve the proposed variance on the condition that the j proposed structure receive all other required permits. The Board of County Commissioners, 4 according to the record of its proceedings (Exhibits R-6 and 7), also appears to have had some 5 sentiment for approval, although the final vote on January 13, 1998 was to deny the variance. 6 The Crawfords should be commended for the care and commitment that has characterized 7 their effort to develop their Wooten Lake property. Unfortunately neither current state law nor g the local master program has the requisite flexibility to support granting the proposed variance. 9 VII 10 We accordingly conclude that the appellants have failed to satisfy the criteria for a 11 variance and that the appeal should be denied. 12 VIII. 13 Any finding of fact deemed to be a conclusion of law is hereby adopted as such. 14 Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law the board enters the 15 following 16 17 18 19 20 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (7) 1 ORDER 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal by Randy and Edna Crawford is DENIED. ' DATED this day of , 1998 4 5 SHORELIN HEARINGS BOARD 7 ES A. TU DR., Presiding 8 9 KL6BERT V. JEtAN, Member I 10 Al 4 A")��'�"- -- 11 ANXbAftY, Member 12 fi C - -5 ' 13 ROBERT SCHOFIELD, Member 14 15 �HYL, S SHRAUbER, Member 16 17 DEAN R. FOSTER, Member 18 19 S98-03F 20 FINAL FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER SHB NO. 98-03 (8)