HomeMy WebLinkAboutSHR2003-00013 Pier, Ramp, Float Hearing - SHR Letters / Memos - 6/29/2004 MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670
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
June 29, 2004
Notice of Decision
Case: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR 2003-00013), a permit revision
from an approved Shoreline Development Permit.
Applicant: Gordon Kauhanen and Edwina Bent
Notice is hereby given that Gordon Kauhanen and Edwina Bent who are the applicants
for the above-referenced action, has been granted the shoreline substantial development
permit revision modifying the permit condition that requires the removal of nine creosote
pilings, as described in the Hearing Examiner Decision. The condition is revised to allow
the removal of the nine creosote pilings and the replacement of four of the pilings, with
environmentally benign materials, waterward of the proposed pier, ramp and float
structure. The request was approved pursuant to the Mason County Code, specifically
Chapter 15.09.055 (H) (a) and (c).
This is a Final County decision. 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 Diane Marcus
Jones at 427-9670 x 363.
1
RECEIVED
FEB 2 4 2004
1 DEPT.
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MA Wd
2
Richard M. Sepler, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Edwina Bent FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 Gordon Kauhanen OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5 Shoreline Substantial Development
6 SHR 2003-00013
7 INTRODUCTION
8
The applicant has requested a shoreline substantial development permit to construct 6'
9 x50' pier, a 4' x 40' aluminum ramp and an 8' x16' float. The structure will extend 100'
10 into the Hood Canal. The Examiner approves the requested permit subject to
conditions recommended by staff.
11
ORAL TESTIMONY:
12
Staff Testimony: Diane Marcus Jones entered the staff report and accompanying
13 exhibits. Ms. Marcus Jones stated that a letter from the Army Corp of Engineers was
14 received on January 30, 2004. The letter was entered into the record as Exhibit 16.
15 Public Testimony: Bill Mathews, Marine Surveys & Assessments, representative of
the applicant, stated that he was available to answer questions on the project. In
16 response to a question from the Hearing Examiner regarding the applicant's
17 concurrence with conditions as proposed by staff, Mr. Mathews stated that the
applicant did not have any concerns regarding the proposed conditions.
18
19 EXHIBITS:
20 Exhibit 1: Staff reports dated January 27, 2004.
21 Exhibit 2: Biological Addendum Revised Dock Design dated October 27.
2003.
22
Exhibit 2A: Attachment A Revised Site Plan dated October 27. 2003.
23
24 Exhibit 3: Biological Evaluation dated June 13, 2003.
25 Exhibit 3A: Photographs of Project Site dated June 13, 2003.
Bent and Kauhanen P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Exhibit 4: Notice of Shoreline Management Permit Application dated
1
November 20 2003.
2 Exhibit 5: Affidavit of Publication dated November 20, 2003
3
Exhibit 6: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated November 20,
4 2003.
5 Exhibit 7: Letter from Mason County to Skokomish Tribe re: Biological
6 Evaluation review dated November 20, 2003.
7 Exhibit 8: Letter from Mason County to the Washington State Department of
Fish and Wildlife re: Biological Evaluation review dated
8 November 20, 2003.
9 Exhibit 9: Letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology re:
10 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated December 2,
2003.
11
Exhibit 10: Hydraulic Project Approval from the Washington State
12 Department of Fish and Wildlife dated December 24`h, 2003.
13 Exhibit 10 A: Letter to Applicants from Washington State Department of Fish
14 and Wildlife dated December 24th, 2003.
15 Exhibit 11: Application for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated
June 4'h, 2003.
16
17 Exhibit 11 A: Mason County Environmental Checklist dated June 4`h, 2003.
18 Exhibit 11B: Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application dated June 4th, 2003.
19 Exhibit 12: Letter from County Staff to Applicant re: proposal dated August
22, 2003.
20
21 Exhibit 13: Letter from County Staff to Applicant re: proposal dated August 2,
2003.
22
Exhibit 14: Letter from County Staff to Applicant re: proposal dated July 9,
23 2003.
24 Exhibit 15: Site Preinspection dated May 22, 2003.
25 Exhibit 16: Letter from the Department of the Army, Corp of Engineers dated
January 301h, 2004.
Bent and Kauhanen p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2 FINDINGS OF FACT
3 Procedural:
4 1. Ap lip cant. The applicants are Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen. Agent
and representative is Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys and Assessments
5
6 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on February 10, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mason County Board of
7 Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
8 Substantive:
9 3. Proposal Description. The proposed project is to construct a 6' x50' pier, a
10 4' x 40' aluminum ramp and an 8' x16' float. The structure will extend 100' into the
Hood Canal. The pier will have two-foot wide grating installed down its middle for a
11 60% open area. The float area will have 50% of its area grated. Float stops will be
installed on four float pilings to support the float at least 12" above the seabed at low
12 tides. The proposed structure will be supported by ten ACZA treated pilings. Nine
13 existing creosote treated pilings are located in the approximate area where the new
structure is proposed. The applicants propose to remove three of the aforementioned
14 existing pilings, cut into 4' lengths and dispose of them at an approved disposal site.
The remaining existing creosote treated pilings are located waterward of the proposed
15 new structure
16 4. Site Description. The subject site is located approximately 6 miles east of
17 Union and approximately 1.5 miles west of Twanoh State Park on the south shore of
lower Hood Canal. The street address for the site is 11170 East State Route 106. The
18 proposed project site is bisected by State Route 106. The primary residence is located
on a steeply sloping upland portion of the subject property. The upland portion of the
19 site also contains a designated Type V stream and is vegetated with mature Western
Red Cedar, Big Leaf Maple and Douglas Fir trees. The lower portion of the subject
20 property, which extends across the highway, and is the location of the proposed
21 project, provides a vegetative buffer at top of bank, sloping at an approximate angle
of 30 degrees for approximately 20 feet. At this juncture, the toe of the bank meets
22 the shoreline and is also determined to be the Mean High Water mark. This is a
natural stretch of shoreline, extending for approximately 235 feet with no evidence of
23 hard armoring.
24 As noted in the application, nine creosote pilings do exist, extending approximately
25 200 feet into the Hood Canal, remnants of a pre-existing nonconforming structure.
Although there is no official date as to when the pre-existing structure was built, they
are thought to have been built sometime in the late 1960's or 70's. Research of aerial
Bent and Kauhanen p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
photos dating back to the 1980's finds that a float system, ramp and pier material that
1 would constitute a completed structure were no longer present, although the pilings
2 still remain. At some point, within the past four years a float system, attached to the
existing pilings was re-established and subsequently destroyed by weather related
3 events. Documentation submitted by the applicant, in efforts to establish when the
floatation structure was destroyed and its configuration and size, do not provide
4 incontrovertible proof that this project should be considered a normal maintenance
and repair activity per the Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 7.08. (Please see
5 correspondence between staff and applicant Exhibits 17, 18 and 19). Further research
6 by County staff also questioned whether the original dock system was legally
permitted. The Mason County Assessor's and Community Development departments
7 have no record of a permitted pier, dock and float structure on the subject property.
Therefore, absent documentation and permits, the creosote treated pilings are
8 considered either remnants of a pre-existing use conjectured to have possibly been
built prior to the Shoreline Management Act or a pre-existing illegal nonconforming
9 use. (See Exhibit 3A and Exhibit 18). The current proposal for a pier, ramp and float
10 system as submitted by the applicant has been determined to be a new project subject
to the current regulations of the Shoreline Master Program and has been reviewed as
11 such.
12 5. Characteristics of the Area. In general, this area of the South Shore of
Hood Canal primarily consists of homes with waterfront docks. The homes can be
13 located upland of the State Route 106 or waterward of State Route 106. Many homes
14 extend out into the upper intertidal area and have hard armoring such as bulkheads,
although some do not, even if they have a dock and pier structure. Overhanging
15 vegetation is dense in a thin band between SR 106 and the beach along the natural
shoreline areas. Adjacent to the project site to the west, approximately 150 feet is a
16 residence with a concrete bulkhead and dock structure that extends 96' into the Canal.
17 Further to the west, the two adjacent lots also have individual docks associated with
residences. The Biological Evaluation for the proposed project notes that for
18 approximately 1,400', approximately 89% of the shoreline is armored with concrete
or rock bulkheads and approximately 11% of natural shoreline. To the east of the
19 proposed project, approximately 85', a three-sided bulkhead exists that supports a
residence with no dock structure. (See Exhibit 3A at p. 31). Continuing further to the
20 west, approximately 180', along natural shoreline, there is a bulkheaded residence
21 with a dock structure. Again, as described in the Biological Evaluation for the
proposed project, this shoreline segment of 1300' is approximately 80% armored and
22 20% natural shoreline. (See Exhibit 3A at p. 29 aerial photograph of project location)
A total of nine pier, ramp and float structures and four single moorage floats may be
23 found within this 2,700-foot stretch of shoreline.
24 6. SEPA Compliance and Public Comment. A Mitigated Determination of
25 Nonsignificance was issued in November 20, 2003 for the proposal. Conditions of the
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are attached (See Exhibit 6). The SEPA
comment period ended December 4. 2003. The Notice of Shoreline Substantial
Bent and Kauhanen p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
Development Permit was issued on November 20, 2003. The comment period ended
I December 20, 2003. A single comment letter (see Exhibit 9) was received from the
2 Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and is attached. The letter references
that, " absent documentation, including permits, approving the dock described in the
3 submitted documents the previous structure is not considered a legal pre-existing use.
Therefore this proposal is a new dock and is not a replacement dock with reduced
4 impacts as seems to be stated in the Biological Evaluation." The letter also questions
whether a gate or some other structure will be required for the proposed dock
5 structure. If so, this should also be described in the proposed project. No gate has
6 been proposed. County staff received comment from the Margie Shirato, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, on December 241h, 2003 (via telephone) that
7 detailed a discussion she had with applicant's agent regarding the dates of the
vegetation survey. Verification was made by Ms. Shirato that the vegetation survey
8 was done in the summer. As described by Ms. Shirato, Hood Canal is a herring-
spawning habitat. Summertime is the only time an adequate assessment of herring
9 spawning can occur due to the presence of eggs on the vegetation. The applicant's
10 agent provided the dates of the vegetation survey. The first survey was done on
February 1, 2003 and the second dive was completed on June 3, 2003.
11
7. Other Permits and/or Approvals. The proposal will require a Mason
12 County Building Permit, Mason Environmental Permit, Mason Development
Regulations Administrative Variance and Washington Department of Ecology Water
13 Quality Protection Concurrence. The Department of Fish and Wildlife issued
14 Hydraulic Project Approval on December 24, 2003 (Exhibit 10). The US Army Corps
of Engineers issued a Letter of Permission (LOP) for the subject project on January
15 301h, 2004 (Exhibit 16).
16
17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
18 Procedural:
19 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the Examiner
20 with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits.
21
Substantive:
22
23 2. Shoreline Designation . The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per
the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline of
24 Statewide Significance; therefore Chapter 7.24.010 has application.
25 3. Permit Review Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a substantial
development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Bent and Kauhanen p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
MCC 15.09.055(F) requires that permit for substantial development permits be
I subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(F)(2)(c) provides that
2 the Examiner shall base a decision on a substantial development permit application on
the Shoreline Master Program for Mason County and the policies and procedures of
3 Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act. MCC 7.08 defines a substantial
development as any development of which total cost for market value exceeds $5,000
4 or any development which material interferes with any normal public use of the water
or shorelines of the state. The staff report implies that the project is worth over
5 $5,000. Given that there is no evidence to the contrary, the Examiner finds that
6 indeed the project is worth over$5,000 and, therefore, requires a shoreline substantial
development permit. The Mason County Shoreline Master Program is codified as
7 Title 7 to the Mason County Code. The applicable shoreline policies are quoted and
addressed below.
8
MCC 7.16.10 (Policy No. 1): Piers and docks should be designed and located to
9 minimize obstruction of views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fishermen.
10 4 The policy quoted above requires a minimization of view obstruction, not
I I the elimination thereof. The policy is not written in such a way as to prohibit anything
that would impact views, only to mitigate the impacts upon those views. There are
12 nine existing creosote treated pilings located in the vicinity where the proposed pier,
ramp and float structure is to be constructed. Six of the existing pilings are located
13 waterward of the proposed pier, ramp and float structure and extend further than
14 allowed by the current regulations of the Shoreline Master Program of 100' from the
Ordinary High Water Mark on saltwater shorelines. These pilings intrude into the
15 viewshed and pose a minor hazard to boating. In conjunction with the proposed pier,
ramp and float structure the pre-existing pilings would diminish views of the Hood
16 Canal. The removal of the nine pre-existing pilings would minimize obstruction of
17 views and conflicts with boaters and would adequately mitigate view and marine use
conflicts associated with the proposal thereby meeting the requirements of this Policy.
18
MCC 7.16.170 (Policy No. 3): The type, design and location of docks and piers
19 should be compatible with the shoreline area where they are located. Consideration
should be given to shoreline characteristics, tidal action, aesthetics, adjacent land
20 and water uses, water quality and the habitat offish and wildlife.
21 5. As noted b staff and the Department of Ecology,Y p this proposal is
22 considered a new pier, ramp and float structure and should not be compared with the
previous structure or remnants thereof, as described in the Biological Evaluation.
23 Revisions to the proposed structure should be considered only, in light of the
proposed project's reduction of length, thus triggering a Shoreline Substantial
24 Development Permit but not a Shoreline Variance. The proposed project type,
25 materials and design is consistent with the Best Management Practices guidelines as
enumerated by the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. The proposed
project is similar to other pier, ramp and float structures that exist on both sides of the
Bent and Kauhanen p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
proposed pier, ramp and float structure location. It is unlikely that this structure will
I have a significant negative impact on neighboring properties, shoreline characteristics
2 and adjacent land uses. The cumulative environmental effect of multiple similar
structures was considered during SEPA review and was determined not to be
3 significant. As discussed in Conclusion of Law No. 4, potential impacts to the
aesthetics and water uses of Hood Canal may be minimized by eliminating the pre-
4 existing nonconforming pilings that extend approximately 200' from the OHWM of
the Hood Canal. Given these factors, the proposal complies with the above-quoted
5 policy.
6 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 1): The location and design of docks and piers,
7 as well as the subsequent use, shall minimize adverse effects on fish, shellfish, wildlife
and water quality.
8
6. The Biological Evaluation, Exhibit 3, provides the most compelling and
9 thoroughly documented research and evidence on the environmental impacts,
10 including fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality. As concluded in the report, the
impacts are minimal, especially when mitigation measures as recommended in the
11 Biological Evaluation and recommended by staff are adopted. The proposal complies
with the above-quoted use regulation.
12
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 2): Docks and piers shall be located, designed
13 and operated to not significantly impact or unnecessarily interfere with the rights of
14 adjacent property owners, or adjacent uses. Structures shall be located at a
minimum of five feet from side property lines. Community use or joint use facilities
15 may be located on the property line.
16 7. The most significant impact of the proposal on adjoining uses is aesthetic,
17 and this is within the parameters authorized by applicable policies and use
regulations. Sideyard setback requirements are 5' and are met by proposal. This
18 project therefore does not necessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property
owners.
19
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 4): No.pier, dock, or float or similar device
20 shall have a residential structure constructed upon it.
21 8. No residential structure is proposed upon the proposed PRF facility.
22
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 7): Maximum overall length of a recreational
23 pier dock facility including floats shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three
feet of water as measured at mean low lower low water on a saltwater or a depth of
24 five feet as measured from ordinary low water on lakes. The length of any pier or
25 dock facility shall not extend the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from
ordinary high water mark on saltwater and 50 feet on freshwater shore lines.
Bent and Kauhanen p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
9. As indicated in the staff report, the dock, ramp and float are proposed at a
1 total length of 100 feet, which is the maximum allowed length.
2 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 8): Only one dock is allowed per lot.
3
10. This is the only dock proposed for this lot.
4
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 9): The width of recreational piers and docks
5 shall not exceed eight feet.
6 11. The proposed width of the outer 50' is six feet. The inner 40' segment will
7 be 4' wide..
8 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 10): At the end of a dock or pier, afloat may be
attached. These floats may either be parallel to the dock or pier, or form a "T" or
9 "L. " In tidal water, the float shall not exceed 600 gross square feet with the boat
10 slip.
11 12. Per the project proposal the float is arranged parallel to the dock and pier.
The float is proposed to be 8' x 16' or 128 square feet.
12
MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 13): The recreational pier shall be no higher
13 than eleven feet above mean higher high water. Piers and docks shall have at least
14 an eight foot span between pilings.
15 13. Per the drawings and the project description provided, the recreational pier
shall be approximately 10 feet above the mean higher high watermark. There will be
16 an approximate 20' span between the first set of pilings and a 15' span between the
17 second set of pilings.
18 MCC 7.16.170 (Use Regulation No. 14): The surface of floating structures shall be
a minimum of eight inches above the surface of the water.
19
14. Float stops are proposed to be installed on the four float pilings to support
20 the float at least 12" above the seabed at low tides.
21 MCC 7.16.170 Use Regulation No. 15 : All( g ) floating structures shall include
22 intermittent supports to keep structures off the tidelands at low tide.
23 15. As discussed at Conclusion of Law 14, float stops and other associated
24 anchoring systems will be designed and deployed so that the seabed is not damaged.
25 RCW 90.58.020(1): Recognize and protect the state-wide interest over local interest.
Bent and Kauhanen p. 8 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
16. The applicant has conducted a thorough and compelling scientific
I evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposal and these have been fully and
2 adequately mitigated. Given that the proposal as conditioned is compatible with
surrounding uses at both an aesthetic level as well as environmental level, the state-
3 wide interest as required above has been adequately protected.
4 RCW 90.58.020(2): Preserve the natural character of the shoreline.
5 17. As indicated previously, the Biological Evaluation and staff conditions of
6 approval preserve the natural character of the shoreline, including habitat and species
such as the protection of eelgrass.
7
RCW 90.58.020(3): Result in long-term over short-term benefit.
8
18. In placing conditions that protect habitat and wildlife from harm, the.
9 proposal as conditioned satisfies the long-term protection goals of the Shoreline
10 Management Act in addition to providing the immediate benefit to the property owner
of pier use.
11
RCW 90.58.020(4): Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline.
12
19. As previously discussed, the natural features and ecology of the shoreline
13 are adequately protected through the mitigation measures recommended by staff and
14 in the Biological Evaluation.
15 RCW 90.58.020(5): Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the
shorelines.
16
17 20. The proposed dock has no relation to public access. It is a privately
owned shoreline area.
18
RCW 90.58.020(6): Increase recreational opportunities for the public and the
19 shoreline.
20 21. Mason County cannot constitutionally condition the proposed project on
21 increasing recreational opportunities for the public. The project will not decrease
recreational opportunities for the public.
22
23
24
25
Bent and Kauhanen P. 9 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
DECISION
1
2 The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development, as depicted
in the Exhibit No. 2 and 2A. The permit is conditioned as recommended by staff at
3 Page 8 and 9 of the staff report and also the conservation measures recommended in
the Biological Evaluation to the extent consistent with staff-recommended conditions
4 as well as conditions placed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and
5 other review authorities regarding permits for the proposal.
6 Dated this dq day of February, 2004.
7
8 a===, �#
Richa d M. Sepler, AI
9 Mason County Hearing Examiner
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bent and Kauhanen P. 10 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 08:39 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.02
` TO BE KEPT IN TFIC-
1 ' FILE
BEFORE THE HEARING E�MINER FOR MASON COUNTX
2
Richard M. Sepler, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Edwina Bent FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
4 Gordon Kauhanen OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION.
5
Permit Revision
6 Shoreline Substantial Development
SHR 2003-00013
7
g INTRODUCTION
9 The applicant has requested a permit revision for an approved Shoreline Substantial
10 Development Permit (SHR 2003-00013) pursuant to Mason County Code
15.09.055(H)(a) and (c). The applicants' request that they be allowed to replace four
11 of the outer existing creosote pilings slated for removal with environmentally benign
materials. The Examiner approves the requested permit revision.
12
13 ORAL TESTIMONY:
14 Staff Testimony: Diane Marcus Jones entered the staff report and accompanying
exhibits-
is
Public Testimony: Mary Winters, Harris, Mericle and Wakayama PLLC,
16 representing the applicant. Ms. Winters stated that the applicant supported the staff
17 recommendation. The requested revision was consistent with the requirements of
WAC 173-27-100 as it was within the scope and intent of the original permit. Ms.
18 Winters stated that project neighbors fully support the requested revision and that
letters had been submitted. Ms. Winters stated that modified permits reflecting the
19 proposed revision from the Army Corp of Engineers and the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife have been obtained. Ms. Winters stated that prior
20 SEPA review adequately addressed potential environmental impacts from the revised
21 proposal. Ms. Winters referenced the Settlement Agreement that addressed the
appeal to the State Shoreline Hearings Board.
22
Rita Bent, applicant. Ms. Bent stated that the timing of the permit revision was
23 critical, as there was a limited window when construction would be allowed. Ms.
24 Bent respectfully requested timely review of the subject application.
25 Amy Leitman, Marine Surveys and Assessments, representing the applicant. Ms.
Lietman stated that the proposed replacement pilings would not have an adverse
environmental effect. The proposed ACZA pilings would allow for marine growth.
Bent and Kauhanen Revision P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 09:54 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.02
a
s
1 EXHIBITS:
2 Exhibit l: Staff reports dated June 15, 2004.
Attachment A— Site Plan
3
Exhibit 2: Staff Report-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated
4 January 27, 2004.
5 Exhibit 3: Attachments A-E Dated Photographs of Pilings.
6 Attachments 1~-H Letters from neighbors describing pilings.
7 Exhibit 4: Modified Permit from Army Corps of Engineers dated March 26,
2004_
8
9 Exhibit 5: Modified Permit from Washington State Dept. Fish and Wildlife
dated March 18, 2004. Revised June 16, 2004 (submitted at Hrg.)
10
Exhibit 6: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated November 20,
11 2003,
12 Exhibit 7: Letter from Washington State Department of Ecology re: Original
13 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated December 2,
2003.
14
Exhibit 8: Settlement Agreement dated June 18, 2004.
15
FINDINGS OF FACT
16
Procedural:
17
18 1. Annlicant. The applicants are Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen.
19 2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on June 22, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mason County Board of
20 Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
21
Substantive:
22
3. Proposal Description. This is a permit revision request for an approved
73 Shoreline Substantial Development permit (SHR 2003-00013) pursuant to Mason
24 County Code l 5.09.055(H)(a) and (c). The Hearing Examiner approved the permit
February 24, 2004 for the construction of a pier, aluminum ramp and float system on
25 the South Shore of Hood Canal, subject to conditions recommended by staff. One of
the conditions, as specified in the Mason County Staff report states, that the proposed
pier, ramp and float (prf) structure should comply with all conditions of the
Bent and Kauhanen Revision p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
TOTAL P.02
JUN-25-2004 08:39 MRDRONR PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.03
1 EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1: Staff reports dated June 15, 2004.
Attachment A — Site Plan
3
Exhibit 2: Staff Report-Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated
4 January 27, 2004.
5 Exhibit 3: Attachments A-E Dated Photographs of Pilings.
6 Attachments F-H Letters from neighbors describing pilings.
7 Exhibit 4: Modified Permit from Army Corps of Engineers dated March 26,
2004.
8
9 Exhibit 5: Modified Permit from Washington State Dept_ Fish and Wildlife
dated March 18, 2004.
10 Exhibit 6: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated November 20,
2003.
11
Exhibit 7: Letter from Washington State Department of Ecology re: Original
12 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit dated December 2,
13 2003.
14 Exhibit 8: Settlement Agreement dated June 18, 2004.
15
FINDINGS OF FACT
16
Procedural:
17
18 1. Applicant. The applicants are Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen.
19 2. Hearing. The Dearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the subject
application on June 22, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. in the Mason County Board of
20 Commissioners Meeting Chambers.
21
Substantive:
22
3. Proposal Description. This is a permit revision request for an approved
23 Shoreline Substantial Development permit (SHR 2003-00013) pursuant to Mason
24 County Code 15.09.055(H)(a) and (c). The Hearing Examiner approved the permit
February 24, 2004 for the construction of a pier, aluminum ramp and float system on
25 the South Shore of Hood Canal, subject to conditions recommended by staff. One of
the conditions, as specified in the Mason County Staff report states, that the proposed
should comply pier, ramp and float (prf) structure p y with all conditions of the
Bent and Kauhanen Revision p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 08:40 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.04
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife hydraulic Permit (HPA). Approval of
1 the HPA was issued December 24, 2003 which included the removal of nine creosote
2 pilings, six of which were waterward of the prf. The applicants seek this permit
revision request solely on this particular condition. The applicants' request that they
3 be allowed to replace four of the outer existing creosote pilings slated for removal
with environmentally benign materials. An appeal of the Shoreline Substantial
4 Development permit to the Shoreline Hearings Board was filed on March 19, 2004 to
review this issue. A Settlement Agreement between the applicants and Mason County
5 was entered into on May 15th,2004 (see Exhibit 8).
6 4. Site Descri tion. The subject site is located approximately 6 miles east of
7 Union and approximately 1.5 miles west of Twanoh State Park on the south shore of
lower Hood Canal. The street address for the site is 11170 East State Route 106. The
8 proposed project site is bisected by State Route 106. The primary residence is located
on a steeply sloping upland portion of the subject property.
9
10 As noted, nine creosote pilings exist, six of which extend beyond 100' in length of the
proposed pier, ramp and float structure. It has been determined by Mason County
11 staff based upon photographic evidence and letters from neighbors, that the existing
creosote pilings pre-date the Shoreline Management Act and Mason County Shoreline
12 Master Program and therefore are considered existing nonconforming development
and subject to the requirements of MCC 7.13.020. The documentation is attached as
13 Exhibit 3, Attachments A-H. Attachments A-E are date stamped photographs which
14 show the pilings in the background. Attachments F through H are letters which
provide additional evidence that the pilings precede the Shoreline Master Program.
15 The materials submitted do not constitute proof of the floatation structure.
16 Consistent with the requirements of the Shoreline Master Program, "nonconforming
development may be continued provided that it is not enlarged, intensified or
1 increased or altered in any way which increases its nonconformity: provided
18 significant environmental damage does not result". As proposed, replacement of the
pilings as an existing nonconforming structure is allowed outright. The applicants
19 propose to remove the six creosote pilings waterward of the prf and replace the four
outermost pilings with ACZA treated pilings. Replacing pilings made of creosote
20 with environmental benign materials would provide a beneficial impact to the
21 environment. Two of the six existing pilings will be removed and not replaced.
22 5. SEPA Compliance and Public Comment. A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued in November 20, 2003 for the proposal. Conditions of the
23 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are attached (Exhibit 6). The SEPA
comment period ended December 4, 2003. A single comment letter was received
24 from the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and is attached (Exhibit 7).
25 The letter references the proposed floatation and dock structure and does not evaluate
the pilings per se. Mason County planning staff has determined that no additional
environmental review is necessary for the permit revision. Removal and replacement
Bent and Kauhanen Revision p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 08:40 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.05
A
of the pilings is within the scope of the original SEPA determination, which resulted
1 in an MDNS for the project.
2 6. Other Required Permits. The Army Corp of Engineers and Washington
3 State Department of Fish and Wildlife have both issued modified permits reflecting
this request. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a modified permit dated March 26,
4 2004, allowing the replacement of the outer pilings (Exhibit 4). The Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a modified permit dated March 18,
5 2004, which also allowed for the request (Exhibit 5).
6
7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
8 Procedural:
9 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(J) provides the Examiner
with the authority to review and issue a final decision upon Shoreline Substantial
10 Development Permit Revisions.
11 Substantive:
12
2. Revision Review Procedure and Criteria: MCC 15.09.055(A) requires a
13 substantial development permit for any substantial development within the shoreline
14 jurisdiction. MCC 15.09.055(F) requires that permits for substantial development
permits be subject to review by the Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.09.055(H)(a) and(c)
15 provides that.the Examiner shall base a decision on a revision to a substantial
development permit application on the following:
16
MCC 15.09.055(H)(a): The Review Authority shall determine if the revision is within
17 the scope and intent of'the original permit .set forth under WAC 173-27-100, as
18 amended
19 WAC 173-27-100 states that "within the scope and intent of the original permit"
means all of the following:
20
WAC 173-27-100(a): .No additional over water construction is involved except that
21 pier, dock or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten
22 percent from the provisions of the original permit, whichever is less;
23 3. The proposed revision does not involve additional over water construction.
Currently, there are nine pilings, six of which extend beyond the length of the pier,
24 ramp and float approved in the Substantial Development Permit. The removal of four
of the six that extend beyond the length of the pier, ramp and float will result in a net
25 decrease of pilings as compared to currently found.
Bent and Kauhanen Revision p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 08:41 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.06
WAC 173-27-100(b): Ground area coverage and height may be increased a
1 maximum of ten percent from the provisions of the original permit;
2 4. The proposed revision will not increase ground area coverage and height.
3
WAC 173-27-100(c): The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed
4 height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the applicable master
program except as authorized under a variance granted as the original permit or a
5 part thereof;
6 5. The proposed revision does not authorize development to exceed height,
7 lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of the Master Program.
8 WAC 173-27-100(d): Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any
9 conditions attached to the original permit and with the applicable master program;
10 6. The proposed revision does not require additional or revised landscaping.
11 WAC 173-27-100(e): The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not
changed; and
12
13 7. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit will not be changed.
14 WAC 173-27-100(f): No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project
revision.
15
8. Staff has concluded that removal and replacement of the pilings is within
16 the scope of the original SEPA determination, which resulted in an MDNS for the
17
project. In addition, replacing pilings made of creosote with environmental benign
materials would provide a beneficial impact to the environment. Therefore, no
18 additional adverse environmental impacts will be caused by the project revision.
19 MCC 15.09.055(H)(e): If said revision is determined to be within the scope and
intent of the original permit, the Hearing Examiner may approve the revision. The
20 revised permit shall become effective immediately. The approved revision along with
21 copies of the revised site plan and text, shall be submitted by certified mail to the
Department of'Ecology Regional Office, the Attorney General, and to persons who
22 have previously notified the County relative to the original application. If the revision
to the original permit involves a Conditional Use or Variance which was conditioned
23 by the Department oj'Ecology, local government shall submit the revision to the
Department of Ecology,for the WDOE's approval, approval with conditions, or
24 denial. The revision shall indicate that it is being submitted under the requirements of
25 WAC 173-27-100(6). The WDOF, shall render and transmit to local government and
the applicant its final decision within 15 days of`the date of'lhe department's receipt
of the satbmittal from local government. Local government.shall notify the parties of
Bent and Kauhanen Revision P. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
JUN-25-2004 08:41 MADRONA PLANNING 360 379 0131 P.07
•
record of the department's final decision. The revised permit is effective immediately
1 upon final action by local government, or, when appropriate under WAC 173-27-
2 100(7).
9. The proposed revision is within the scope and intent of the original permit.
The revised permit shall become effective immediately. The original permit did not
4 involve a conditional use or variance that was conditioned by the Department of
Ecology-
5
DECISION
6
7 The Examiner approves the requested shoreline substantial development permit
revision modifying the Shoreline Substantial Development Pen-nit condition requiring
8 the removal of the existing nine creosote pilings. The condition is revised to allow
the removal of the nine creosote pilings and the replacement of four of the pilings
9 waterward of the proposed pier, ramp and float structure.
10 Dated this 25 day of June 2004.
11
12
13 Richa d M. Sepler,AICP
Mason County Hearing Examiner
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Bent and Kauhanen Revision p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
TOTAL P.07
CASE INDEX
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
(SHR 2003-00013)
Gordon Kauhanen
INDEX DATE DESCRIPTION
1 01/27/04 EXHIBIT 1 Staff Report
2 10/27/2003 EXHIBIT 2 BE Addendum Revised Dock Design
3 10/27/2003 Attachment A Rev4ed Site Plan
4 06/13/2003 EXHIBIT 3 Bioleecal Evaluation
5 06/13/03 Attachment A Pictures of Project site .29,30,31
6 11/20/03 EXHIBIT 4 Notice of Shoreline Management Permit
7 11/20/03 EXHIBIT 5 Affidavit of Publication
8 11/20/03 EXHIBIT 6 Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
9 11/20/2003 EXHIBIT 7 Letter to Skokomish Tribe re: Biological
Evaluation review
10 11/20/2003 EXHIBIT 8 Letter to Dept. Fish and Wildlife re:
Biological Evaluation review
11 12/02/03 EXHIBIT 9Letter from Dept. of Ecology re: Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit
12 12/24/2003 EXHIBIT 10 Hydraulic Project Approval from DFW
13 06/16/2003 Attachment A Letter to Applicant from DFW re: HPA
14 06/04/03 EXHIBIT 11 Application for Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit
15 06/04/03 Attachment A Mason Environmental Checklist
16 06/04/03 Attachment B Joint Aquatic Resources permit
application
17 08/22/2003 EXHIBIT 12 Letter from County staff to applicant re:
proposal
18 08/02/2003 EXHIBIT 13 Letter from applicant to County staff re:
proposal
19 07/09/2003 EXHIBIT 14 Letter from County staff to applicant re:
project
20 05/22/2003 EXHIBIT 15 Site preinspection
u�
s
Mason County
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 279
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
January 27, 2004
TO: Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Diane Marcus Jones
RE: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit(SHR2003-00013)
STAFF REPORT
I. Introduction. This report evaluates a proposal to construct a pier, aluminum
ramp and float system on the South Shore of Hood Canal. The structure will
extend 100' into the waterbody. The Shoreline Permit application number is SHR
2003-00013. The associated Mason Environmental Permit number is MEP 2003-
00032.
II. Applicant. Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen. Agent &representative Amy
Leitman,Marine Surveys and Assessments
III. Property Location. South Shore of Lower Hood Canal. 11170 East State Route
106, approximately 6 miles east of Union and approximately 1.5 miles west of
Twanoh State Park. Section 25, Township 22N,Range 3W, Tract 3 of Lot 1.
Parcel#322251400030
IV. Project Description. The proposed project is to construct a 6' x50' pier, a 4' x
40' aluminum ramp and an 8' x 16' float. The structure will extend 100' into the
Hood Canal. The pier will have two foot wide grating installed down its middle
for a 60% open area. The float area will have 50%of its area grated. Float stops
will be installed on four float pilings to support the float at least 12" above the
seabed at low tides. The proposed structure will be supported by ten ACZA
treated pilings. Nine existing creosote treated pilings are located in the
approximate area where the new structure is proposed. Applicant proposes to
remove three of the aforementioned existing pilings, cut into 4' lengths and
dispose at an approved disposal site. The remaining existing creosote treated
pilings are located waterward of the proposed new structure
V. Date of application. The planning department asserts that applicant is vested as
of the date of their revised application,November 7, 2003.
01
VI. Evaluations.
A. Characteristics of the site. The proposed project site is bisected by State
Route 106. The primary residence is located on the steeply sloping upland
portion of the subject property. The upland portion of the site also contains a
designated Type V stream and is vegetated with mature Western red cedar,
Big-leaf maple and Douglas fir trees. The lower portion of the subject
property,which extends across the highway, and is the location of the
proposed project,provides a vegetative buffer at top of bank, sloping at an
approximate angle of 30 degrees for approximately 20 feet. At this juncture,
the toe of the bank meets the shoreline and is also determined to be the Mean
High Water mark. This is a natural stretch of shoreline, extending for
approximately 235 feet with no evidence of hard armoring.
As noted,nine creosote pilings do exist, extending approximately 200 feet
into the Hood Canal,remnants of a pre-existing nonconforming structure.
Although there is no official date as to when the pre-existing structure was
built, it is conjectured to be built sometime in the late 60's or 70's. Research
of Aerial photos dating back to the 1980's finds that the float system,ramp
and pier material that constitute a completed structure were no longer present,
although the pilings still remain. At some point,in the early 2000's a float
system, attached to the existing pilings was re-established and subsequently
destroyed by weather related events. Documentation submitted by the
applicant, in efforts to establish when the floatation structure was destroyed
and its configuration and size, did not provide incontrovertible proof that this
project should be considered a normal maintenance and repair project per the
Shoreline Master Program, Chapter 7.08. (Please see correspondence between
staff and applicant Exhibits 17, 18, 19 and 20). Further research by staff also
questioned whether the original dock system was legally permitted. The
Mason County Assessor's and Community Development departments have no
record of a permitted pier, dock and float structure. Therefore, absent
documentation and permits, the creosote treated pilings are considered
remnants of a pre-existing use, conjectured to have possibly been built prior to
the Shoreline Management Act or pre-existing illegal nonconforming use.
(See Exhibit 3 Attachment A and Exhibit 18). The currently proposed project
of a pier, ramp and float system by the applicant is considered a newly
proposed project under the current regulations of the Shoreline Master
Program and reviewed as such.
�xhr,L►t � °�
9
B. Characteristics of the area. In general, this area of the South Shore of Hood
Canal primarily consists of homes with waterfront docks. The homes can be
located upland of the State Route 106 or waterward of State Route 106. Many
homes extend out into the upper intertidal area and have hard armoring such
as bulkheads, although some do not, even if they have a dock and pier
structure. Overhanging vegetation is dense in a thin band between SR 106 and
the beach along the natural shoreline areas. Adjacent to the project site to the
west, approximately 150 feet is a residence with a concrete bulkhead and dock
structure that extends 96' into the Canal. Further to the west,the two adjacent
lots also have individual docks associated with residences. The Biological
Evaluation for the proposed project notes that for approximately 1400',
approximately 89%of the shoreline is armored with concrete or rock
bulkheads and approximately 11%of natural shoreline. To the east of the
proposed project, approximately 85', a three-sided bulkhead exists that
supports a residence with no dock structure. (See Exhibit 3 Attachment A p.
31). Continuing further to the west, approximately 180', along natural
shoreline, there is a bulkheaded residence with a dock structure. Again, as
described in the Biological Evaluation for the proposed project,this shoreline
segment of 1300' is approximately 80% armored and 20%natural shoreline.
(See Exhibit 3 Attachment A p. 29 aerial photo of project location)A total of
9 pier,ramp and float structures and four single moorage floats may be found
within this 2700' stretch of shoreline.
C. Shoreline Designation. The shoreline designation of the site is Urban per the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program. This area is considered a Shoreline
of Statewide Significance;therefore Chapter 7.24.010 has application.
D. Comprehensive Plan Designation. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan
designation for the site is Rural. Zoning for the parcel is Rural Residential 5.
VII. SEPA Compliance and Public Comment. A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance was issued in November 20, 2003 for the proposal. Conditions of
the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are attached(See Exhibit 6). The
SEPA comment period ended December 4. 2003. The Notice of Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit was issued on November 20, 2003. The
comment period ended December 20, 2003. A single comment letter was received
from the Washington Department of Ecology(WDOE) and is attached. The letter
references that, " absent documentation, including permits, approving the dock
described in the submitted documents the previous structure is not considered a
legal pre-existing use. Therefore this proposal is a new dock and is not a
replacement dock with reduced impacts as seems to be stated in the Biological
Evaluation."The letter also questions whether a gate or some other structure will
be required for the proposed dock structure. If so,this should also be described in
the proposed project. (At the present time, January 2004,no additional structure
r
has been proposed by applicant nor agent). A telephone call was received, 12-24-
2003, from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Margie Shirato, that
detailed a discussion she had with applicant's agent regarding the dates of the
vegetation survey. Verification was made by Shirato that the vegetation survey
was done in the summer. As described by Shirato,Hood Canal is a herring-
spawning habitat. Summertime is the only time an adequate assessment of herring
spawning can occur due to the presence of eggs on the vegetation. The applicant's
agent provided the dates of the vegetation survey. The first survey was done on
February 1, 2003 and the second dive was completed on June 3, 2003
VIII. Other Permits. The proposal will require a Mason County Building permit,
Mason Environmental Permit, Mason Development Regulations Administrative
Variance,Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Protection
Concurrence, and US Army Corps of Engineers NWP approval. The Department
of Fish and Wildlife issued hydraulic Project Approval on December 24, 2003
(Exhibit 10).
IX. Analysis.Per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program(SMP),this proposal
requires a Shoreline Substantial Development due to the cost exceeding $5,000
per Section 7.13.010 and by reference to the Project Classifications matrix,
Chapter 7.16. The proposal is for a pier and dock structure on an Urban
designated Shoreline.
Applicable Piers and Docks Policies are:
1. Piers and docks should be designed and located to minimize obstruction of
views and conflicts with recreational boaters and fisherman.
The project proposed is similar to pier, ramp and float (PRF)structures in the
immediate area. As noted in the Biological Evaluation and described in
Characteristics of the area,for approximately 1400'south of the site, seven pier,
ramp and float structures exist along this shoreline segment. Two pier, ramp and
float structures and four single moorage floats exist to the east of the proposed
project.
There are nine existing creosote treated pilings located in the vicinity where the
proposed pier, ramp and float structure is to be constructed. Six of the existing
pilings are located waterward of proposed prf structure and extend further than
the current regulations of the Shoreline Master Program of 100'from the
Ordinary High Water Mark on saltwater shorelines. These pilings may be
diminishing views of the Hood Canal. As a mitigation, the applicant has proposed
to remove three of the existing nine pilings. The three pilings slated for removal,
are the closest ones to the shoreline, and in the immediate area of the proposed
project location. Visually, the location of the newly proposed structure provides
an added structural dimension and is basically in the same alignment as the
existing pilings. Staff suggests, in order to minimize obstruction of views and
conflicts with boaters, that the remaining pilings that extend beyond 100'into the
Canal also be removed.
2. The type, design and location of docks and piers should be compatible with
the shoreline characteristics,tidal actions, aesthetics, adjacent land and water
uses.
As noted by staff and the Department of Ecology, this proposal should be
considered a new pier, ramp and float structure and should not be compared with
the previous structure or remnants thereof, as described in the Biological
Evaluation. Revisions to the proposed structure should be considered only, in
light of the proposed project's reduction of length, thus triggering a Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit but not a Shoreline Variance. The proposed
project type, materials and design is consistent with the Best Management
Practices guidelines as enumerated by WashingtonState Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
The proposed project is similar to other pier, ramp and float structures that exist
on both sides of the proposed prf structure location. It is unlikely that this
structure will have a significant negative impact on neighboring properties,
shoreline characteristics and adjacent land uses, although the cumulative effects
of multiple similar structures should be a consideration in reviewing this project.
As noted in #1, impacts to the aesthetics and water uses of Hood Canal may be
minimized by eliminating the pre-existing nonconforming pilings that extend
approximately 200'from the OHWM of the Hood Canal.
Applicable Piers and Docks Use Regulations are:
1. The location and design of piers and docks, as well as subsequent use, shall minimize
adverse effects on fish, shellfish,wildlife, and water quality.
As noted in the Biological Evaluation, 35 shoots of eelgrass were found in a narrow band
between 175'and 185'along transect 7. This location is approximately 30'east of the
proposed structure's centerline and approximately 75'waterward of the float. Shading
caused by overwater structures and float grounding can reduce or eliminate eelgrass,
macroalgae and other organisms.The pier, ramp and float system should be designed
and located to avoid shading of eelgrass and other macroalgae. No macroalgae or
eelgrass was found in the proposed footprint of the 100'long structure. As detailed in
the BE as mitigation, the pier will have two foot wide grating installed down its middle
(60%open area) and the float will have 50%of its area grated, in order to allow light
penetration and reduce shading impacts. Float stops and stub pilings should be
incorporated to minimize float-grounding impacts. .
C h� �
The BE also provides mitigation measures in order to minimize any direct effects on the
listed species caused by pile driving and pile removal. Construction should take place
from July 16 to September 14, in order to minimize direct impacts on migrating salmon,
bull trout, wintering bald eagles and forage fish spawning activities. As noted, mitigation
measures involve the removal of three of the creosote treated pilings. Creosote treated
wood does not meet the current standards established in "Best Management Practices for
the Use of Treated Wood in the Aquatic Environments"developed by Western Wood
Preservers Institute. Creosote treated wood has also been documented to have adverse
environmental impacts to the aquatic environment. In order to offset any environmental
impacts the newly proposed project may effect, staff recommends the additional six (for a
total of nine) creosote treated wood pilings be removed and disposed of upland such that
they do not enter the waters of the state.
Cumulative impacts of pier, dock and float structures is an issue that has received limited
consideration in permit review. At issue, at least in part, is where and how to establish a
threshold for density of structures without proposing an action that is not supported by
scientific or planning theory and thereby,potentially arbitrary. Staff currently has no
standard to reference that would identify excessively developed waterfront and its degree
of impact on fish, shellfish, wildlife and water quality.
2. Docks and piers shall be located, designed and operated to not significantly impact or
unnecessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners or adjacent water uses.
Structures shall be located a minimum of five feet from side property lines, or community
or joint-use facilities may be located on the property line.
Sideyard setback requirements are 5'and are met by proposal. This project does not
necessarily interfere with the rights of adjacent property owners.
7. Maximum overall length of a recreational pier or dock facility including float
shall be only so long as to obtain a depth of three feet of water as measured at mean
lower low water on salt water. The length of any pier or dock facility shall not exceed
the lesser of 15 percent of the fetch or 100 feet from the ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) on salt water. Joint or community use facilities may be an additional 15 feet in
length and shall not exceed a depth of minus 5 feet.
The total length of the currently proposed dock, ramp and float structure is 100 feet from
the Ordinary High Water Mark.
8. Only one dock is allowed per lot.
This is the only dock proposed for this lot.
9. The width of recreational piers and docks shall not exceed eight feet.
The proposed width of the outer 50'is six feet. The inner 40'segment will be 4'wide.
10. At the end of a dock or pier, a float may be attached, arranged parallel to the dock
or pier,or to form a"T"or"L". In tidal water,the float shall not exceed 400 gross
square feet without a boat slip or 600 gross square feet with a boat slip.
Per the project proposal the float is arranged parallel to the dock and pier. The float is
proposed to be 8'x 16'or 128 square feet.
13. Recreational piers shall be no higher than 11 feet above the mean higher high
water mark. Piers and docks shall have at least an eight-foot span between pilings.
Per regulations, the recreational pier shall be approximately 10 feet above the mean
higher high watermark. There will be an approximate 20'span between the first set of
pilings and a 1 S'span between the second set of pilings.
14. The surface of floating structures shall be a minimum of eight inches above the
surface of the water.
Float stops are proposed to be installed on the four float pilings to support the float at
least 12"above the seabed at low tides.
15. All floating structures shall include intermittent supports to keep structures off of
the tidelands at low tide.
See #14,float stops and other associated anchoring systems shall be designed and
deployed so that the seabed is not damaged.
Applicable guidelines for Shorelines of Statewide Significance in the following order of
preference are:
1. Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest:
The proposal avoids shading of eelgrass beds and other macroalgae, the design and
material configuration minimize beach impacts, removal of the creosote treated
nonconforming pilings will be a positive benefit environmentally as well as visually.
Cumulative impacts of piers and docks on the Hood Canal,,as addressed in #1 Use and
Policy regulations, is an issue that needs further evaluation, however barring the lack of
scientific data or planning theory to support a standard threshold, is beyond the scope of
this report.
2. Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
The project limits disturbance of native vegetation along the bank of the shoreline to that
of the access point of the pier, ramp and float structure. No hard armoring is proposed
along the shoreline segment of the subject property. The proposed project minimizes the
potential environmental impacts, as also noted above, by using Best Management
Practices guidelines and avoiding eelgrass beds and other aquatic organisms. Eelgrass
provides food, shelter and protection from predators for many juvenile fish and shellfish
or ecological, commercial and recreational importance. As eelgrass decomposes, it
becomes an important part of the base of the food web for the coastal marine ecosystem.
In addition, removal of the nonconforming creosote treated pilings will provide a benefit
to the aquatic environment by eliminating a toxic component to many of the aquatic
organisms.
4. Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
The pier, ramp and float system configuration, design, materials, and placement has been
focussed to avoid and or minimize any impacts to the resources and ecology of the
shoreline. Mitigation measures described for the proposed project will further minimize
potential impacts to the resources and ecology of the shorelines.
Project Analysis: Based upon these policies and regulations,the project is consistent
with the Mason County Shoreline Master Program. Impacts to sensitive habitats have
been reduced and/or avoided. The proposed dock structure is the maximum width
allowed. With the removal of the old pilings, remnants of a nonconforming use, the
proposed structure will be the only over water development on the parcel.
X. Conclusions. As designed,the project is consistent with the Mason County
Shoreline Master Program Chapter 7. 16.170. The project complies with the
Mason County Shoreline Master Program use regulations that require minimal
impacts to fish and wildlife. Planning staff considered this project a newly revised
project and conducted its assessment as such. Staff is satisfied with the veracity of
the vegetation survey and its purported impacts. Field inspections conducted by
staff confirm this view. The project also complies with the guidelines that instruct
development along shorelines of statewide significance.
1. The proposal shall be constructed as designed and demonstrated in the
addendum site plan(EXHIBIT 2 Attachment A).
2. The pier,ramp and float centerline shall be re-established during the
construction phase using the same methodology employed to establish the
centerline during the vegetation survey to ensure protection of the
eelgrass/herring spawning habitat.
3. The pier,ramp and float structure shall not exceed 100 feet in total length
4. The proposed pier,ramp and float structure shall comply with all conditions
of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Permit
approval including removing the existing 9 creosote pilings and disposed
upland such that they do not enter waters of the state.
5. Developers and individuals shall be required to control erosion during
construction. Removal of vegetation should be minimized and any areas
disturbed should be restored to prevent erosion and sedimentation and other
environmental impacts. Beach area depressions created during project
activities shall be reshaped to preproject beach level upon project completion.
i"x A,
i
6. Pressure treated wood must be completely dry prior to placement in water and
shall be sufficiently cured to minimize leaching into the water or tidal bed.
Use of creosote or pentachlorophenol is prohibited.
7. All manmade debris shall be removed and disposed of upland such that it does
not enter waters of the state.
8. Construction work shall take place only at the times specified in the hydraulic
permit approval, so as to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife. Work may
not occur from February 15 through July 14 of any year for the protection of
migrating juvenile salmonids, and from September 15 through December 31
and January 1 through March 1 of any year for the protection of surf smelt
spawning beds.
9. All other necessary permits from Mason County, Washington State and/or
Federal agencies that are required for this proposed development and
construction must be obtained PRIOR TO SAME DEVELOPMENT AND
CONSTRUCTION AND ADHERED TO UPON COMPLETION OF THE
DEVELOPMENT.
XI. Choices of Action.
1. Approval
2. Approve with conditions
3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted
4. Deny with prejudice (reapplication or resubmittal not allowed for one year).
5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with
Section 15.09.090 of Title 15.
Mason County TO BE KEPT IN THE-"
Department of Planning
Building I * 411 N. 5th Street * P.O. Box 27PA R C E L FILE
Shelton,Washington 98584 * (360)427-9670
June 11, 2004
TO: Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner
FROM: Planning Staff—Diane Marcus Jones
RE: Permit Revision for Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SHR2003-00013)
Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen, applicants
STAFF REPORT
Introduction. This is a permit revision request for an approved Shoreline Substantial
Development permit(SHR 2003-00013)pursuant to Mason County Code
15.09.055(H)(a) and (c). The Hearing Examiner approved the permit February 24, 2004
for the construction of a pier, aluminum ramp and float system on the South Shore of
Hood Canal, subject to conditions recommended by staff. One of the conditions, as
specified in the Mason County Staff report states, that the proposed pier, ramp and float
(prf) structure should comply with all conditions of the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife Hydraulic Permit (HPA). Approval of the HPA was issued December 24,
2003 which included the removal of nine creosote pilings, six of which were waterward
of the prf. The applicants seek this permit revision request solely on this particular
condition. The applicants' request that they be allowed to replace four of the outer
existing creosote pilings slated for removal with environmentally benign materials. An
appeal of the Shoreline Substantial Development permit was filed on March 19,2004 to
review this issue.
Applicant. Edwina Bent and Gordon Kauhanen. Agent&representative Amy Leitman,
Marine Surveys and Assessments
Property Location. South Shore of Lower Hood Canal. 11170 East State Route 106,
approximately 6 miles east of Union and approximately 1.5 miles west of Twanoh State
Park. Section 25, Township 22N, Range 3W, Tract 3 of Lot 1. Parcel#322251400030
Evaluations and Analysis.
Incorporated by reference is the staff report dated January 27, 2004 for evaluation and
analysis of proposed pier, ramp and float project (Exhibit 2). This discussion only
involves the permit revision request to allow the applicants to replace four of the existing
six pilings located waterward of the prf project.
�kh,b f l
As noted, nine creosote pilings do exist ix of which extend beyond 100' in length of the
proposed pier, ramp and float structure. tthhas been determined by Mason County staff
based upon photographic evidence and letters from neighbors, that the existing creosote
pilings pre-date the Shoreline Management Act and Mason County Shoreline Master
Program and therefore are considered existing nonconforming development (7.13.020).
The documentation is attachedlas Exhibit 3 Attachments A-H. Attachments A-E are date
stamped photographs which show the pilings in the background. Attachments F through
H are letters which provide additional evidence that the pilings precede the Shoreline
Master Program.1`117he materials submitted do not constitute proof of the floatation
structure. Please see original staff report, Evaluations A. Characteristics of Site, for
discussion regarding pier, ramp and float.
Per the Shoreline Master Program, "nonconforming development may be continued
provided that it is not enlarged, intensified or increased or altered in any way which
increases its nonconformity: provided significant environmental damage does not result".
As proposed, replacement of the pilings as an existing nonconforming structure is
allow d outright. The applicants propose to remove the six creosote pilings waterward of
the pr� and replace the four outermost pilings with ACZA treated pilings. Replacing
pilings made of creosote with environmental benign materials would provide a beneficial
impact to the environment. Two of the six existing pilings will be removed and not
replaced
i Other required permits from the Army Corp of Engineers and Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife have both issued modified permits reflecting this
request. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a modified permit dated March 26, 2004,
allowing the replacement of the outer pilings (Exhibit 4). The Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife issued a modified permit dated March 18, 2004, which
also allowed for the request (see attached Exhibit 5). A 4N -C•• ttb,n&X
Ju^trjb, 3tro� , �pe�tu l_�y ,ti-`-(`,I P.e. �° +v 'Gp+aiceL CCno. ,o, �► c3)
A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued in November 20, 2003 for the
proposal. Conditions of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance are attached
(Exhibit 6). The SEPA comment period ended December 4. 2003. A single comment
letter was received from the Washington Department of Ecology(WDOE) and is attached
(Exhibit 7). The letter references the proposed floatation and dock structure and does not
evaluate the pilings per se. Mason County planning staff has determined that no
additional environmental review is necessary for the permit revision. Removal and
replacement of the pilings is within the scope of the original SEPA determination,which
resulted in an MDNS for the project.
Based on evidence that the four outermost pilings predate the Shoreline Master Program
and are legal nonconforming uses, the Planning Department recommends approval of the
permit revision request.
Choices of Action.
1. Approve: the permit revision request modifying the Shoreline Substantial
Development permit condition that incorporates the removal of the existing nine
creosote pilings to specify to remove the nine creosote pilings and allow for
replacement of 4 of the pilings waterward of the proposed pier, ramp and float
structure.
2. Deny: the permit revision request modifying the Shoreline Substantial Development
permit condition that incorporates the removal of the existing nine creosote pilings.
FIGURE 2
REVISED SITE PLAN
NORTH
96' Propomd redesigned
dock
150'
Concrete
buMead
Concref
100 bubhead
72' Natural shoreline
with overhanging 854
vegethbon
F4�
SR IN
�xti,6t f � /�faaz fn..�} � �t�riA.i:�r►cv.
• ••�•�.,�� r�cv�.Xu rl-MM Hrvu rJ r-VA I IUN MEM
6 by W pier 4'by40r 8!by 16'float
liz .
29 ,
alfloatpings Nlim
oa
lw
t
NORTH
. wN be removedi
•Sk adsft i
136 andlW
7 - 50g6 99
in float
I. -/• ,!.- `,^ iI I l ✓,r. .I`. I�llll. i.�./ y)� !\9� -!s°nr5r'.'� t'- ou <,1 /.;/ 1\/•. .k '3op _t)I{\�,,L
i/' ..1 f I / I r r+ !r 1 / % 'xT.r p T'—:� ��,._// (� �' ..,�'.- fir•
�;I• I~ '� �r '( .. .,..
{ > •1 'l ,. , � .q } `�4aj y��. ,•t.4��f :gin?�,, I •//., � ���-.. -`� ,i )`('�l ` � !._V
i t> �` ! I t .t. I •��i` ;E .•)Il v`�. + a/ 1 (I II� ., I � f-�-.. I'r" 1 'i-,� 1
/rI I -�_ t I .a x et I(�' (/1)t '� 'I: lj • I�i 111'`t � y� d0( r` �' r J �/I 'd
• I � ,• , j , .. r �/: ``' ► ! .�+r '` ' /v `�I �` j�' ', ��1 ! ;x� li�? t� I r •4 rax _ �� i- cl
f74�10! }� `.�, ('t � I / �t � �/i � � � k f, � ,11x I I}r�l; -� IS' 11t�"�i ttl�FS;� .y' ,g• i...:�'
4417 -�� t I I k , / -' yt• .s ,-f _'3 ci
/ S,r
•x
'' •'IiK tiuul 1 �1 /n,t -� -..t �..`.C�' � ' II I l :.� v,- .,+ °• (`.,`\1.. }..✓
I
rr `1�1 1 1' +-I� ft% '� i,�/ !F•�ZT • �i /(.9 � r/ �.!`._� ' � } M1 %f�
,/l - - � It.l.;`` ;.r �!/.i t �qQ`l. •t•'�'
� r/"�,{ �,��r 111 •.17�i:Yl.,
e*ir
-" ) �\ r,. ! � °��t y s �r`' � e , ir' �y,. J (/� �li o. ! -' / It� �✓!�i I / t1
u fdb•nY LuAe .\ t _ I S / i, i I (, r:, y 0'_ 5Y 'r i 1 /
� ,? .; - r,1 i '1'(•� l I, ,1 .���$fix ,�' _�f -�t �� 1 N ;*,I a�i. ,. � / r y + , �, f�li Jsf.',^t Y 0
4,.
t / ,.. / / 11J I-ri —ter x -:r. Q �,, ,•, s•. .. ry. bo%�" r �/°.
t , � �. C r i lt.,Irf r95Li�•I � { j:'!1 (,/!I I ,.i ��pa / i t. 1k , 9 f/I, •''
1 'x.• / I . � r �t � t /, �I t/ ..lY~ h » /,r• �f tIl.� x �/t i;/! /r 4,.�' 1�
-1W7� 1' •I1�•, 74r /1 / �_ � �,.f !�x I -���1/r / '/r _r ✓P p'i 1
�. : �" I�. I� �� / I �,dhtt �,,�•': FA /, s+� i�. i 7;4 9v(Ix a'1>' ',.I tpr��e..
�)
t ' vC l.._• / 1 r rii -�f�� 2.3sr _ � r��r �1'� ,+ }, M �f� l4
�..I' �/� �{I{I(til,�/ I;J I�: i I,t:,a� �iCr�'lI >'�,•r�� � �'a,rl4 r,.1:x j{�av-. �r,�°'• `1P i � ✓ /Y" '
,y'4 U17,
..I (1� C1C UwlRemp
% r r y '/1O( •. {, f '/ •c ((/ i 1
IllA 1l 1I q ��
r a
II l { t � z !(' 1 1,l�(� N��r• S, �). SltodY Bnucf _ Y�ry7�.1--/ '�' I! /1 /,' ,! .,?r�r J'. 1.
J7
II Yf I �_' 0 1 ,: -!�'S rl'� .i- / - ! r%i--/•),I�--'ll_ - ,
TT
f'� rime. 65.Ars-c ,z
r�fu ; (� / — _:•r, ,,• ,,✓ ,. i f P -/t! „I u 1/!�� -J/ `.• ,rJof mil..
�" GP a'-' (a�{ I'.._.,• Jll�(�"ij /J I/�..`J,
f' �^C ��e��`J � ��i1�• x��, � �/�� � � ��i ) �_) J/��/•�u,..v. f f�� t(� /�t_..� ,�,� I \ , !7r Y� I r
- � + .�/ ir'"�� ..�.•.It., J t/% �i `°1 c F Q eo°/ter-�/`/�'� 1.��_. ._� _�L"';'�..:
hu
Project site
I I: b�(Sl.-.% (j' uk' -i% ..�°_jam�, i,51� �-'�..��i(�r!• :1 ..0 r��/'S /, ..%) r°°= i C� l i•.'`v ./ ' j (.
,.. .�•I \l\t`h\t���-,� t'�C.'1 �`-/ `-x771)i �-y�l�)�1 �1 �� ram% <� J Q /..)� j� //�� rJ�l� �f �°�, ; �A '(� /i�\./../�
- '�1��,.,'t�����,.. '��. ♦ L�,�.•/.-� < r� � �. e t. �r f _�l/� � .9 n�x � .-1 r ♦� t / lr�;.' r 1 .
r
S,teI's
points s Y�:II� � �' '� ' f(�1 S1r. !' ,� l.�0 SIR
T 1A (/I /; 6
Yff1lj r fore
� /_.�✓✓ RC nce:Bent,Edwina
APP:Marino Surveys and Assessments
In:Hood Canal near Union I r
` )3.•-•'ti, r y'...� / '•'yam x '�� y i)jr� { 5f/r•/ r- 1 � i� r y'/.• �l Purpose: Recreational use of pier,ramp&
kA
,float
J
rT� = � �L� Datum:MLLW
r' '' t...l i i_, "p•': �!"11�>!w`IS .�.
Bent Project Location• Adjacent Property Owners:
1) Lyle&Helen Stokes
Section 25,Township 22N,Range 03W 2) William&Annette Simmons
Scale: 1 inch equals 2857 feet It 170 E SR 106 Union,WA
Let:N 47.36982 bong:W 122.99396 Sheet I of 3 Date: 31 July 2003
Cowrioht(C)1997•Maptech.Inc.