Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAR2009-00001 Hearing - VAR Letters / Memos - 5/26/2009 �pB°N C 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 1 4 May 26, 2009 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION Case Number: Resource Ordinance Variance, 4VAR2009-00001 Applicant: Timothy Zimny Notice is hereby given that Timothy Zimny, applicant for the above referenced Resource Ordinance Variance, has been granted conditional approval of the project. The Decision was dated 5/13/09 and approves the permit by the Hearing Examiner subject to the conditions recommended identified in the habitat Management plan as well as those in the staff report; provided that recommended Condition#1 of the staff report is replaced with,the following: 1.No portion of the proposed development, including decks,patios,rooflines, structures or portions of structures shall be closer than the shoreline common line setback, as measured by MCC 17.01.110(D)(2). Once the building footprint has been marked on site, the applicant should request an inspection by the Planning Department staff to verify compliance with this condition. The request for the Resource Ordinance Variance was approved pursuant to the Mason County Development Regulations specifically for the proposed construction of a residence and garage within the shoreline jurisdiction of Case Inlet. If you have any questions or require clarification on this issue please contact Grace Miller, Planner with the Mason County Department of Community Development at(360) 427-9670, x 360. This is a final decision.No further appeals to the County are available. Appeals may be made to the appropriate state administrative agency or superior court pursuant to RCW 36.70C. It is the appellant's responsibility to meet all legal requirements of any appeal process. i n n M 1 n BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY --< �M Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner D N 3 Z CAD 4 RE: Timothy Zimny �I FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS V 5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (MCC 17.01.150) 6 VAR 2009-00001 7 INTRODUCTION S The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in order to build a 1,950-square-foot footprint, single-family residence, including attached garage and deck, which will be partially located within the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer of a Type I shoreline. The Hearing Examiner approves the project subject to specified conditions. ORAL TESTIMONY l� Patricia Sparks testified that her mother is the owner of a cabin located on the west 14 side of the subject property. She stated that her grandchildren currently enjoy the cabin property. Ms. Sparks read Exhibit 7 into the record. Ms. Sparks also noted that 1.5 the bulkhead is not stable and that dirt erodes through the blocks that comprise the bulkhead. 16 17 Tim Zimny, applicant, testified that the proposal, including the deck, would be at least 22 feet from the shoreline and the Sparks residence is seven feet from the 18 bulkhead and the house on the east side of the subject property is also closer to the shoreline than the Sparks residence. He noted no views would be impaired. He noted 19 that the Sparks cabin is about 650 square feet and the residence on the other side is 20 1,600 square feet with a 400-square-foot garage. Mr. Zimny purchased the lot last September. �I Gerald Sparks noted that the septic system on the subject property was built ten-to- fifteen years ago. He noted that the property on the west side of the Sparks property is a large home that is able to be located 35 feet from the shoreline. He testified that 23 the Plot Plan is inaccurate because the bulk head is curved and not straight as 24 depicted. He added that a drainage easement on the subject property dumps a lot of water across the bulkhead, further undermining its stability. He was concerned that 25 the proposed home would affect the setback of the Sparks property if the Sparks were to replace the cabin. {PA072861 LDOC;1/13009.900000/} Zimny Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Ms. Miller, staff, confirmed that the Plot Plan (Ex. 1) was a little inaccurate because 1 the bulkhead is not straight. She discussed revising the conditions of approval to set the setback at the common line setback. 3 Mr. Zimny clarified that the 22-foot setback was created by plotting a common line between the rooflines of the adjoining homes and measuring back from the Sparks 4 bulkhead. He also noted that his deck would extend ten feet back from the building setback. 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 See exhibit list attached to the April 16, 2009 revised Staff Report. The following 8 exhibits were added at the hearing: 9 Exhibit 7 Letter from Patricia Sparks 10 FINDINGS OF FACT 11 Procedural: 12 13 1. Applicant. The applicant is Timothy Zimny. 14 2• Hearin. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on April 29, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners 15 chambers, Building I. 16 Substantive: 17 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a single-family IS residence with attached garage and deck within approximately 22 feet of Case Inlet, a Type I shoreline with a 35-foot buffer. The foot print will be 1,950 square feet and 19 includes the residence, as well as a deck and garage. The house itself is only 20 proposed to be 1,350 square feet. The construction would leave approximately 585 square feet of structure within the buffer zone. The proposed home is as far from the 21 shoreline as the lot will allow, given that the remaining portion of the lot landward of the proposed home is occupied by a septic system and drain field. The topography of 22 the parcel is generally flat, with the exception of a steep bank to the shoreline, and the main vegetation is a large area of scotchbroom which transitions into the lawn. The 23 lot fronts Case Inlet with a rock bulkhead. 24 4. Characteristics of the Area. The surrounding area within the Mountain 25 Shores subdivision contains similar single-family residential lots with varying sized residences. There are residences located on either side of the proposal, with Case Inlet to the south and a road to the north. The residence to the west is smaller in size at 640 square feet, while the property to the east is 1593 square feet. In addition, the 1 PA0728611.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Zimny Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision residence to the west is located 15 feet from the OHWM, with a concrete bulkhead, 1 while the residence to the east is 28 feet from the OHWM and has a terraced concrete 2 and rock patio out to the bulkhead which projects several feet beyond the OHWM. 3 5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). As noted in the HMP, the proposed home 4 will be located in an area that is already cleared of vegetation and is just occupied by a lawn. In order to offset any impacts to endangered fish and other aquatic resources, 5 the HMP recommends removal of invasive vegetative species from the stream bank 6 area and replacement with native vegetation. As mitigated, the HMP finds that "no impacts to water quality or aquatic habitat are predicted." 7 The adjoining property owners to the west, the Sparks, testified against the proposal. 8 They were primarily concerned with view impacts. The Sparks home is located 15 feet from the Case Inlet shoreline. The proposed Zimny home will be located 22 feet 9 from the sparks bulkhead along the Sparks/Zimny property line. The home on the 10 adjoining property to the east is located 28 feet from the shoreline and the Zimny setback was created by connecting the rooflines of the adjoining homes as specified 11 in MCC 17.01.110(D)(2). Given that the Zimny home is set back further from the shoreline than the Sparks home at the Sparks/Zimny property line, it is clear that the 12 Zimny home is angled landward from the Sparks home. Further, for a distance of at least eight feet (as noted in the HMP) from the common line setback, the view 13 encroachment will be limited to the Zimny deck. Finally, the common line setback 14 process established by MCC 17.01.110(D)(2) was specifically adopted by the Mason County Commissioners to protect shoreline views and serves as a legislative 15 determination of adequacy for view protection. For all these reasons, the Examiner finds that the proposal. as conditioned to conform to a common line setback, does not 16 create any significant or materially adverse impact to adjoining views. 17 No other adverse impacts are discernable from the record, and the Examiner finds that 18 the project will not create any material or significant adverse impacts to the environment or adjoining uses. 19 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 20 21 Procedural: 22 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(I) provides the Hearing Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 23 24 Substantive: 25 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential 5 per the Mason County development Areas Map. The Shoreline Designation is Urban Residential. {PA0728611.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Zimny Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt 2 from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(1). As noted on page 2 of the revised Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings, and 3 U.S. mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW, and the Skokomish Tribe. A 28-day waiting period followed, and no comments were received. 4 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the 5 35 foot minimum building setback from Case Inlet, a Type I shoreline. The buffer 6 requirement is imposed through MCC 17.01.110. MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance 7 variances. Variance application from Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 15.09.050(C)requires compliance with review criteria for 8 all Type III permit applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 15.09.057 and the general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below 9 with applicable Conclusions of Law. 10 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance 1 1 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 12 5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of 13 residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to 14 accommodate them. Without the variance, the applicant would be left with insufficient buildable space for a SFR. Based on the HMP, the only area suitable for 15 building outside of the shoreline setback is currently occupied by an on-site septic system. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance significantly interferes with the 16 property owner's 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 a combination of the presence of critical areas and an on-site sewage system within the property. The strict application of the requirements would only allow for construction of a 765-square- foot building, which as noted above, would prevent the applicant from building a SFR 23 that would otherwise be permitted under the Mason County Resource Ordinance. As such,the hardship is directly related to this parcel's limited area, presence of the Type 24 I shoreline, and the on-site septic system, and not through any of the applicant's own 25 actions. {PA0728611.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Zimny Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 1 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent properties or the environment. 3 7. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the project will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties or the environment. 4 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 5 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 6 necessary to afford relief. 7 8. The property is zoned Rural Residential 5, a single-family residence is permitted in this zoning, and similar uses are present in the immediate area. On 8 December 27, 2006, the County Commissioners amended MCC 17.01.150(E) to provide that the minimum reasonable use for a residence is the lesser of 2,550 square 9 feet or 40% of the lot size. This is a minimum size requirement and was adopted in 10 response to Examiner decisions that generally limited home sizes to a smaller size when size was an issue. The minimum set by MCC 17.01.150(E) is larger than that 11 proposed by the applicant; assuch, the applicant meets this criteria. 12 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. 13 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and protection of the shoreline, 14 as well as in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property. As noted previously, the proposal will not create any significant or material adverse 1.5 environmental impacts. The proposal also enables the applicant to have a reasonable use of his property. For these reasons, the public interest will suffer not substantial 16 detrimental effect. 17 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 18 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other 19 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 20 21 10. Without the variance, the applicant would not be able to build a reasonably sized home, as defined by MCC 17.01.150(E). Given that the size of the 22 lot is suitable for an SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate SFRs and the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by SFR development, the property owner 23 would lack a reasonable use of his land with anything short of a reasonably sized SFR. The proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, 24 Comprehensive Plan, or the Growth Management Act. In addition, the project 25 through the HUT and conditions of approval will address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream and wetland. (PA0728611.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Zimny Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review 1 proposed development according to the following criteria: 2 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 3 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 4 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 5in the public interest. 6 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 7 Comprehensive Plan. 8 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report, the project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR 9 developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the 10 Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project will not harm environmental resources. Therefore, it does not adversely affect public health, safety, I I and welfare, and is in the public interest. As further noted in the Staff Report, the development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood 12 park facilities. 13 DECISION 14 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 15 recommended identified in the Habitat Management Plan, as well as those in the Staff Report; provided, that recommended Condition No. 1 of the staff report is replaced 16 with the following: 17 1. No portion of the proposed development, including decks, patios, rooflines, 18 structures or portions of structures, shall be closer than the shoreline common line setback, as measured by MCC 17.01.110(D)(2). Once the building footprint has been 19 marked on site, the applicant should request an inspection by the Planning Department staff to verify compliance with this condition. 20 21 Dated this 13th day of May, 2009. 22 �11nn 23 zY"�2 YL Phil A. Olbrechts 24 Mason County Hearing Examiner 25 1 PA0728611.DOC;1/13009.900000/I Zimny Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY Phil Olbrechts,Hearing Examiner 3 RE: Timothy Zimny 4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 5 Resource Ordinance Variance OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION (MCC 17.01.150) 6 VAR 2009-00001 7 INTRODUCTION 8 9 The application is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance in order to build a 1,950 square foot footprint single family residence, including attached 10 garage and deck, which will be partially located within the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer of a Type I shoreline. The Hearing Examiner approves the l l project subject to specified conditions. 12 ORAL TESTIMONY 13 Patricia Sparks testified that her mother is the owner of a cabin located on the west 14 side of the subject property. She stated that her grandchildren currently enjoy the cabin property. Ms. Sparks read Exhibit 7 into the record. Ms. Sparks also noted that 15 the bulkhead is not stable and that dirt erodes through the blocks that comprise the bulkhead. 16 17 Tim Zimny, applicant, testified that the proposal, including the deck, would be at least 22 feet from the shoreline and the Sparks residence is seven feet from the 18 bulkhead and the house on the east side of the subject property is also closer to the shoreline than the Sparks residence. He noted no views would be impaired. He noted 19 that the Sparks cabin is about 650 square feet and the residence on the other side is 20 1,600 square feet with a 400 square foot garage. Mr. Zimny purchased the lot last September. 21 Gerald Sparks noted that the septic system on the subject property was built ten to 22 fifteen years ago. He noted that the property on the west side of the Sparks property is a large home that is able to be located 35 feet from the shoreline. He testified that 2 3 the Plot Plan is inaccurate because the bulk head is curved and not straight as 24 depicted. He added that a drainage easement on the subject property dumps a lot of water across the bulkhead, further undermining its stability. He was concerned that 25 the proposed home would affect the setback of the Sparks property if the Sparks were to replace the cabin. (BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Ms. Miller, staff, confirmed that the Plot Plan (Ex. 1) was a little inaccurate because the bulkhead is not straight. She discussed revising the conditions of approval to set the setback at the common line setback. 3 Mr. Zimny clarified that the 22 foot setback was created by plotting a common line between the rooflines of the adjoining homes and measuring back from the Sparks 4 bulkhead. He also noted that his deck would extend ten feet back from the building setback. 5 6 EXHIBITS 7 See exhibit list attached to the April 16, 2009 revised Staff Report. The following 8 exhibits were added at the hearing: 9 Exhibit 7 Letter from Patricia Sparks 10 FINDINGS OF FACT 11 Procedural: 12 13 1. Applicant. The applicant is Timothy Zimny. 14 2• Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application on April 29, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners 15 chambers, Building I. 16 Substantive: 17 3. Site/Proposal Description. The applicant proposes to build a single family 18 residence with attached garage and deck within approximately 22 feet of Case Inlet, a Type I shoreline with a 35 foot buffer. The foot print will be 1,950 square feet and 19 includes the residence, as well as a deck and garage. The house itself will is only 20 proposed to be 1,350 square feet. The construction would leave approximately 585 square feet of structure within the buffer zone. The proposed home is as far from the 21 shoreline as the lot will allow, given that the remaining portion of the lot landward of the proposed home is occupied by a septic system and drain field. The topography of 22 the parcel is generally flat, with the exception of a steep bank to the shoreline, and the main vegetation is a large area of scotchbroom which transitions into the lawn. The 23 lot fronts Case Inlet with a rock bulkhead. 24 4. Characteristics of the Area. The surrounding area within the Mountain 25 Shores subdivision contains similar single family residential lots with varying sized residences. There are residences located on either side of the proposal, with Case Inlet to the south, and a road to the north. The residence to the west is smaller in size at 640 square feet, while the property to the east is 1593 square feet. In addition, the {BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision residence to the west is located 15 feet from the OHWM, with a concrete bulkhead, 1 while the residence to the east is 28 feet from the OHWM and has a terraced concrete 2 and rock patio out to the bulkhead which projects several feet beyond the OHWM. 3 5. Adverse Impacts. Potential adverse environmental impacts have been identified in the Habitat Management Plan ("HMP"). As noted in the HMP, the proposed home 4 will be located in an area that is already cleared of vegetation and is just occupied by a lawn. In order to offset any impacts to endangered fish and other aquatic resources, 5 the HMP recommends removal of invasive vegetative species from the stream bank 6 area and replacement with native vegetation. As mitigated, the HMP finds that "no impacts to water quality or aquatic habitat are predicted." 7 The adjoining property owners to the west, the Sparks, testified against the proposal. 8 They were primarily concerned with view impacts. The Sparks home is located 15 feet from the Case Inlet shoreline. The proposed Zimny home will be located 22 feet 9 from the sparks bulkhead along the Sparks/Zimny property line. The home on the 10 adjoining property to the east is located 28 feet from the shoreline and the Zimny setback was created by connecting the rooflines of the adjoining homes as specified 11 in MCC 17.0 1.11 O(D)(2). Given that the Zimny home is set back further from the shoreline than the Sparks home at the Sparks/Zimny property line, it is clear that the 12 Zimny home is angled landward from the Sparks home. Further, for a distance of at least eight feet (as noted in the HMP) from the common line setback, the view 13 encroachment will be limited to the Zimny deck. Finally, the common line setback 14 process established by MCC 17.01.110(D)(2) was specifically adopted by the Mason County Commissioners to protect shoreline views and serves as a legislative 15 determination of adequacy for view protection. For all these reasons, the Examiner finds that the proposal. as conditioned to conform to a common line setback, does not 16 create any significant or materially adverse impact to adjoining views. 17 No other adverse impacts are discernable from the record and the Examiner finds that 18 the project will not create any material or significant adverse impacts to the environment or adjoining uses. 19 20 21 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 22 Procedural: 23 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(1) provides the Hearing 24 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon variance applications. 25 Substantive: 2. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Designations. The Mason County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Rural. The parcel is zoned Rural {BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision 1 Residential 5 per the Mason County development Areas Map. The Shoreline 1 Designation is Urban Residential. 2 3. SEPA Compliance and Other Requirements. The proposed use is exempt 3 from SEPA requirements pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(l). As noted on page 2 of the revised Staff Report, notice of variance was given by newspaper, postings and by 4 mail to nearby property owners, WSDFW and the Skokomish Tribe. A 28 day 5 waiting period followed, and no comments were received. 6 4. Review Criteria and Application. The applicant seeks a variance from the 35 foot minimum building setback from Case Inlet, a Type I shoreline. The buffer 7 requirement is imposed through MCC 17.01.110. MCC 17.01.150 provides that the general variance criteria of MCC 15.09.057 shall apply to Resource Ordinance 8 variances. Variance application from Resource Ordinance requires a Type III review. See MCC 15.15.010. MCC 15.09.050(C)requires compliance with review criteria for 9 all Type III permit applications. The review standards for variances under MCC 10 15.09.057 and the general review standards of MCC 15.09.050(C) are laid out below with applicable Conclusions of Law. 11 MCC 15.09.057(1): The strict application of the bulb dimensional or performance 12 standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property 13 not otherwise prohibited by county regulations. 14 5. As noted in prior hearing examiner decisions, a reasonable use of residentially zoned property is a single-family home for lots large enough to 15 accommodate them. Without the variance, the applicant would be left with insufficient buildable space for a SFR. Based on the HMP, the only area suitable for 16 building outside of the shoreline setback is currently occupied by an on-site septic system. Consequently, the Resource Ordinance significantly interferes with the 1 property owner's reasonable use of the property. 18 MCC 15.09.057(2): The hardship which serves as the basis for the granting of the 19 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 20 application of the County Regulations, and not,for example,from deed restrictions or 21 the applicant's own action. 22 6. The hardship suffered by the applicant is created by a combination of the presence of critical areas and an on-site sewage system within the property. The strict 23 application of the requirements would only allow for construction of a 765 square foot building, which as noted above,would prevent the applicant from building a SFR 24 that would otherwise be permitted under the Mason County Resource Ordinance. As 25 such,the hardship is directly related to this parcel's limited area, presence of the Type I shoreline, and the on-site septic system, and not through any of the applicant's own actions. {BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/} Resource Ordinance Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 15.09.057(3): The design of the project will be compatible with other 1 permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent 2 properties or the environment. 7. As noted in the Findings of Fact, the project will not create any significant adverse impacts to adjoining properties or the environment. 4 MCC 15.09.057(4): The variance authorized does not constitute or grant special 5 privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum 6 necessary to afford relief. 7 8. The property is zoned Rural Residential 5, and a single family residence is permitted in this zoning, and similar uses are present in the immediate area. On 8 December 27, 2006 the County Commissioners amended MCC 17.01.150(E) to provide that the minimum reasonable use for a residence is the lesser of 2,550 square 9 feet or 40% of the lot size. This is a minimum size requirement and was adopted in 10 response to Examiner decisions that generally limited home sizes to a smaller size when size was an issue. The minimum set by MCC 17.01.150(E) is larger than that 11 proposed by the applicant; as such, the applicant meets this criteria. 12 MCC 15.09.057(5): The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. I 9. The public interest is in the maintenance and protection of the shoreline, 14 as well as in applicant's opportunity to have reasonable use of his property. As noted previously, the proposal will not create any significant or material adverse 15 environmental impacts. The proposal also enables the applicant to have a reasonable use of his property. For these reasons, the public interest will suffer not substantial 16 detrimental effect. 17 MCC 15.09.057(6): No variance shall be granted unless the owner otherwise lacks a 18 reasonable use of the land. Such variance shall be consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan, Development Regulations, Resource Ordinance and other 19 County ordinances, and with the Growth Management Act. Mere loss in value only shall not justify a variance. 20 21 10. Without the variance, the applicant would not be able to build a reasonably sized home, as defined by MCC 17.01.150(E). Given that the size of the 22 lot is suitable for an SFR, the property is zoned to accommodate SFR's and the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by SFR development, the property owner 23 would lack a reasonable use of his land with anything short of a reasonably sized SFR. The proposal is not inconsistent with any other Mason County Ordinance, 24 Comprehensive Plan, or the Growth Management Act. In addition, the project 25 through the HMP and conditions of approval will address all environmental impacts associated with development near the stream and wetland. (BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/) Resource Ordinance Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review proposed development according to the following criteria: 2 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets 3 the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Title 6, 8, and 16. 4 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is 5 in the public interest. 6 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the 7 Comprehensive Plan. 8 11. As noted above as well as in the Staff Report,the project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan because the Comprehensive Plan allows SFR 9 developments at the subject location. It also meets the requirement and intent of the 10 Mason County Code. As noted previously, as mitigated the project will not harm environmental resources; and therefore, does not adversely affect public health, safety 11 and welfare, and is in the public interest. As further noted in the Staff Report, the development will not lower the level of service for transportation or neighborhood 12 park facilities. 13 DECISION 14 The Hearing Examiner approves the requested variance subject to the conditions 15 recommended identified in the Habitat Management Plan, as well as those in the Staff Report, Provided, that recommended Condition No. 1 of the staff report is replaced 16 with the following: 17 1. No portion of the proposed development, including decks, patios, rooflines, 18 structures or portions of structures shall be closer than the shoreline common line setback, as measured by MCC 17.0 1.11 O(D)(2). Once the building footprint has been 19 marked on site, the applicant should request an inspection by the Planning Department staff to verify compliance with this condition. 20 21 Dated this 12th day of May, 2009. 22 23 Phil A. Olbrechts 24 Mason County Hearing Examiner 25 {BFP688838.DOC;1/13009.900000/1 Resource Ordinance Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision April 16,2009 EXHIBIT 1 TO: Phil Olbrechts,Mason County Hearings Examiner FROM:Grace Miller,Senior Planner,(360)427-9670,ext 360.E-mail:gbm@co.mason.wa.us RE: Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2009-00001 request by Timothy Zimny STAFF REPORT I. INTRODUCTION.The request is for a variance from the Mason County Resource Ordinance. The single family residence is proposed to be partially located within the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer of a Type 1 shoreline. II. APPLICANT. The applicant is Timothy Zimny. III. PROPERTY LOCATION.The property is located in Grapeview,Tract 4 of the Mountain Shores subdivision.The address is 571 Rauschert Road,Grapeview. Sec 18,Twn 21 N,R 1 W.Parcel No.22018-50-00004. IV. EVALUATION. PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a reduction within the regulated saltwater shoreline buffer, 1,350 square feet of deck and building will be constructed 22 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point.There will be approximately 585 square feet of building within the regulated setback or 13' of encroachment into the minimum 35'building setback. A Habitat Management Plan has been submitted for the proposal.The site plan indicates a building footprint that includes a deck. A. Characteristics of the site.The property is 0.28 acre in size,60 feet wide and approx.200 feet deep from road to shoreline.East Rauschert Road borders the parcel to the north.The lot is roughly rectangular in shape and is oriented to the south.Case Inlet is located south of the property.There is an existing rock bulkhead along the shoreline.The northern half of the parcel is dominated by a dense community of scotchbroom which abruptly transitions to a lawn area extending south to the shoreline bank.With the exception of the steep bank to the shoreline,topography within the parcel slopes is relatively flat,sloping at a low gradient southerly toward the shoreline. There is an existing septic system near the road,located approximately 86' from the OHWM.The site plan indicates there is a 10'wide drainage easement along the west side of the parcel,from the road to the shoreline. B. Characteristics of the area. The surrounding area within the Mountain Shores subdivision contains similar single family residential lots with varying sized residences.The view from the site is to the south,across Case Inlet.There are residences located on either side of the proposal.The residence to the west is smaller in size at approximately 640 square feet in size.The residence to the east is similar to the proposed residence and larger in size at 1593 square feet. The adjacent residence to the west is located 15 feet from the OHWM and has a concrete bulkhead The adjacent residence to the east is 28 feet from the OHWM and has a terraced concrete and rock 1 \\CLUSTERI_HOME SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm patio out to the bulkhead which projects several feet beyond'the OHWM.There are also residences on the upland parcels above the applicants where the lots go up the hill to another road to the north. It appears that the lot immediately above the applicants is vacant at this time. C. Zoning:The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5. D. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Rural. E. Shoreline Designation.The shoreline environment is Urban Residential. F. SEPA Compliance.The proposal is SEPA exempt per WAC 197-11-800(1),(iii). G. Other Permits.The proposal also requires a Building Permit that will be evaluated by the Mason County Environmental Health Department because there is an existing septic system on the site. H. Habitat Management Plan. A copy of the Habitat Management Plan was sent to the Squaxin Island Tribe and the Dept of Fish and Wildlife.Comments have not been received to date.The HMP states that the residence and deck will encroach into an area occupying 800 square feet within the regulated buffer of a saltwater shoreline,Case Inlet.The total proposed development entails the SFR and deck occupying 1,350 and a 600 square foot attached garage for a total of 1,950 square feet. The proposed SFR will be located 30 feet from the OHWM of Case Inlet and the uncovered deck will extend to 22 feet(HMP corrected by staff per applicant)from the OHWM of Case Inlet.Given the existing septic and drainfield location coupled with the size and configuration of the parcel this is the farthest distance from the shoreline that is feasible while meeting project objectives. Mitigation Measures and Best Management Practices have been identified to avoid,minimize and mitigate for impacts associated with the proposed construction. III. ANALYSIS: A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW: Type III review for permit applications require that the Hearing Examiner evaluate the proposal for consistency with the County's Development Code,adopted plans and regulations.The Hearing Examiner shall review the proposal according to the following criteria: 1)The development does not conflict with he Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code,especially Title 6,8 and 16.2)The development does not impact the public health,safety and welfare and is the public interest.3)The development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code. The Mason County Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110(DX 1)of the Resource Ordinance details buffers on Type I waters such as this.The setbacks for the proposed structures were determined by Planner,Allan Borden,on 8/11/08 during a requested site pre-inspection,#SPI2008- 00136. Allan determined the setbacks to be the minimum 20'of vegetated buffer with an additional 15'to the building setback,a total of 35' from the OHWM for the residence.Allan also determined that the shoreline common line setback drawn between the adjacent residences is 22 feet.It appears this measurement was taken"at its nearest point"because the shoreline is curved with the rock bulkhead projecting out further on the east side. 2 \\CLUSTERI HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm A Shoreline Variance is not required because under the Mason County Shoreline Master Program setback requirements. Staff used the minimum shoreline setback of 22',drawn between the adjacent rooflines and considered the"common line."The average of the neighbor's residences is 22' from the OHWM.The variance is required under the Resource Ordinance because of the minimum 35'building setback with a minimum 20'buffer requirement.The existing septic system is located approximately 86' from the shoreline. A Habitat Management Plan was prepared by Heather Lane and Lee Boad of The Wetland Corps,dated January 2009.The Habitat Management Plan meets the requirements of the ordinance but contains some discrepencies as to the proposed location of the deck in relation to the shoreline.The HMP states that the deck will be located 15' from the shoreline but staff clarified with the applicant that the deck,as well as the residence,are being proposed at the minimum 22' from the shoreline.The HMP contains recommendations for minimizing impacts which include limiting the footprint of the SFR to 960 square feet.The proposed structure is located 22 feet from the bulkhead at its nearest point.This is the greatest possible distance from the OHWM given the size of the lot and the existing septic system location. VI. VARIANCE CRITERIA. The Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter 17.01.110 details buffer requirements and the content of the Habitat Management Plan.The Variances from Standards Section 17.01.150(E)and the Mason County Code review standards Section 15.09.057 provide 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 and performance standards precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwise prohibited by County regulations. Due to the presence of critical areas within the property the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would not allow adequate space to accommodate the proposed residence.The applicant is actually asking for a footprint of 30 by 45 feet(1350 sf)which would contain both a residence(960 sf)and a deck(390 sf).The applicant is also asking for an attached garage(24'X25',600 square feet).The area outside the shoreline setback is currently occupied by an on-site septic system. 2. That the hardship which serves as a basis for the granting of the variance is specifically related to the property of the applicant,and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape,size or natural features and the application of the County regulations and not,for example from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions. Due to the presence of critical areas and an on-site sewage system within the property,the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would only allow for construction of a 765 square foot building.This is far less than what is defined as reasonable use for residential construction under the Mason County Resource Ordinance.The hardship is specifically related to this parcel due to the limited area,the presence of the type 1 water buffer requirements and the location of the on-site septic system. 3 \\CLUSTERI HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm 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. A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid,minimize and compensate for potential negative effects to the environment.The applicant is seeking compliance with the county regulations,specifically,FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated shoreline buffers.It does not appear that view corridors will be obstructed or modified.One of the neighbors has stated that it will impact their view. The shoreline"common line"setback is used to protect adjacent property owners view corridors. The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur.All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will restore and preserve the buffer area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. 4. That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the area and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief. The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate a 1,350 square foot single family residence with an attached deck and an attached garage.The resulting overall footprint has been proposed under the guidance of the reasonable use criteria described in chapter 17.01.150 Section E of the Mason County Resource Ordinance.Residences in proximity to the project site are comprised of similar footprints in similar proximity to the saltwater. 5. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect. Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearby residences.The application of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the project site are restored and preserved.There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the proposed project. 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. The property is zoned as Rural Residential 5.Residential development is an allowed use under these regulations and policies.The lot is of sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area.The project is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act.It appears that the project has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the shoreline. VII. CONCLUSION. The review Standards of the Mason County Resource state that"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)2,550 square feet."Forty percent of the lot size is approximately 4,956 square feet and the footprint of the residence and garage is 1,950 square feet, assuming it is a one-story residence.Therefore,both are under the maximum size allowed under reasonable use. 4 \\CLUSTERl_HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm It appears to staff that if the permit is approved by the Hearings Examiner with the recommended conditions,the proposal meets the County criteria and regulations for approval of a Variance. The conditions require incorporation of the Habitat Management Plan into the site development.The Habitat Management Plan was developed for this proposal by the Wetland Corps and offers mitigation.The mitigation includes a proposed 800 square foot Enhancement Zone within the buffer because the biologist stated that this would compensate for the proposed total displacement of shoreline buffer.The numbers for the displacement cannot be completely accurate because the biologist also stated that the deck would be 15' from the shoreline and the applicant has said that even the deck will meet the minimum 22' common line shoreline setback. It appears that the only area that the parcel has available for construction of a residence is the building area footprint shown on the site plan. Without this approved variance,the applicant would need to propose a smaller footprint for a smaller residence and/or forego the proposed garage in order to be outside the required 35'building setback with the residence and deck. To date,two comment letters opposing the approval of the variance,have been received from adjacent property owners.The letters are attached.If approved,staff recommends that the following conditions be placed on the permit. 1) No portion of the proposed development,including decks,patios,rooflines,structures or portions of structures shall be closer than the shoreline common line setback f`om-t#u� '661esest point.Thi&4nersumment nlay_incr:ea&-_ftowrzz= across the parcel but ha,.b c oses po t.Once building footprint has been marked on site,applicant should request an inspection by the Planning Department staff to verify compliance with this condition. 2) Owner shall be required to control erosion during construction.Any disturbed areas should be restored to prevent erosion and other environmental impacts.Erosion and best management practices must be incorporated during all development for the residence. 3) Owner shall implement all Mitigation Measures and Buffer Enhancement Recommendations that have been proposed within the Habitat Management Plan prepared by the Wetland Corps dated January 2009.The bank that is between the shoreline and the proposed development be removed of invasive species and planted with native vegetation.The total area recommended for native planting occupies 800 square feet and will be identified as the Enhancement Zone. 4) The applicant/owner is to have a Title Notification of Habitat Management Plan recorded with the Deed to the property in the Mason County Auditor's office.A copy of the HMP Notification Form has been provided by Planning staff. The Title Notification statement indicates that the property is subject to conditions,mitigation and/or conservation measures as contained within the HMP submitted to the MC Dept of Community Development and approved under Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2009-00001. 5) The three-year Monitoring Plan specified in section 7.0(page 10)of the Habitat Management Plan must be implemented.The information gathered by the applicant's biologist must be submitted as an annual report to the Director of Mason County Dept of Community Development for three years following the first fall after plantings are done in enhancement area. CHOICE OF ACTION: 1. Approve permit request with conditions. 2. Approve permit request without conditions. 3. Deny(reapplication or resubmittal is permitted.) 4. Deny with prejudice(reapplication or resubmittal is not allowed for one year.) 5. Remand for further proceedings and/or evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 15.09.090 of Title 15. 5 \\CLUSTERI HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm LIST OF EXHIBITS for Timothy Zimny's VARIANCE REQUEST,VAR2009-00001: 1. Staff Report,site plan and vicinity map. 2. Variance Permit Application 3. Legal Notice of Application,affidavits of posting and publication. 4. Habitat Management Plan with site plan and vicinity map. 5. Shoreline pre-inspection findings. 6. Letters from adjacent property owners -7. 6 \\CLUSTERl HOME_SERVER\HOME\GBM\ROvarstf7.doc.gbm A variance from standards may be appropriate where a lot is exceptionally narrow or shallow or contains unusual topographic conditions, but only when strict application would result in hardship on the owner of such property. C. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Application requirements shall be the same as for a Mason Environmental Permit in Section 17.01.120, as well as the following: 1. A description of the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required; and 2. A description of the reasons for the variance. D. REVIEW PROCESS The review process for variances from standards shall be the public review process set forth in Section 17.01.120. E. REVIEW STANDARDS See Mason County Code 15.09.057 for the review criteria. 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) 2,550 square feet. 1. Included in the total allowed area for a residence is a)the area of the first floor of the residence, b)the area of any covered or uncovered decks or patios proposed, except for the area of landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements, c)the area of roof overhangs greater than two feet, and d)the area of any living space or decks on any floor other than the first floor that extend beyond the walls of the first floor unless its area is already included in b)or c) above, and d)the area of any accessory structure. The area should be the same as the area covered by structures as seen in a birds-eye view of the site looking directly / down, with the exceptions of not counting the roof overhangs of not more than two feet and of not counting the landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements. 2. This provision does not allow wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers to be converted to lawn or residential landscaping. 17.01.160 TEMPORARY USES The Director shall authorize by administrative decision temporary uses pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section. A. PURPOSE This section provides a process for authorizing certain uses or activities of a non- permanent nature for a limited duration. B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The application shall contain those requirements the Director deems appropriate based on the duration of the use and its potential for environmental impact. Mason County Resource Ordinance 96 Revised December 27, 2006 l • /�yr �O �it°a1+Wot�C i�'S�•f Gr�wc at Q e G��•1 q/► i} t ,A Z L-X 17 Ar , 0001 I VARIANCE APPLICATION MASON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 411 N. 5"' Street! P.O. Box 279, 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 crdena. 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 Timothy Zimny Telephone No.360-340-" rtailinh address . Pt) Box 4135 South Colby,WA 98384 Site address: NA Ovnier Nwne: Timotfhv Zimnv Owner Addres : Same as Applicant Tax Parcel # 1211850t?(OM Legal Description: INIOUNTAIN SNORES Tit a& I'SO INT TR 41 Type of Variance Requested: Mason County Resource Ordinance X _ Mason County Development Regulations Subdivisions and Plats 1 Describe the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required. Construction of single family residence within regulated Saltwater Shoreline buffer. 1,350 s uare feet of building will be constructed 22-feet from the shoreline at the nearest_point. There will be 585 square feet of building within the regulated setback. l awn Cotwt} Variame Apphation 2 Describe the reasons for the variance. The regulated shoreline buffer coupled with the presence of an on-site sewage system do not leave enough space on the lot to accommodate the proposed structure. 3. No variance shali 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; Due to the presence of critical areas and an on-site sewage system within the property,the strict application of buffer and setback requirements listed in the Mason County Resource Ordinance would only allow for construction of a 765 square foot building. This is far less than what is defined as reasonable use for residential construction under the Mason County Resource Ordinance. 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; The hardship is specifically related to the parcel due to the limited size, presence of natural features, and the location of an on-site sewage system. The regulated buffer associated with the shoreline substantially limits the area of the lot available for residential construction. 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: A Habitat Management Plan has been prepared which identifies measures necessary to avoid, minimize, and compensate for negative effects to the environment. The applicant is seeking compliance with county regulations, specifically, FWHCA standards. Similar projects have been approved in Mason County allowing residences to be constructed within regulated saltwater shoreline buffers. No view corridors associated with nearby residences will be obstructed or modified. The findings of the Habitat Management Plan conclude that no impacts to habitat or the use of the site by threatened or endangered species are expected to occur. All recommendations listed in the HMP will be followed which will preserve and enhance the marine riparian area within the property and minimize potential for long term environmental impacts. 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: I ansn C.mnty Vona=Ap{-1uati m I eX_';L The proposed footprint is designed to accommodate both a single family residence and covered parking. Residences in proximft to the project site are comprised of similar footprints in similar proximi!y to the water. e.. .That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect, - ,Increased traffic and noise will not be of a magnitude that would substantially effect nearbv residences. The avolication of standards listed in the Habitat Management Plan will insure that natural features associated with the projec site are preserved and/or enhanced. There will be no detrimental effect to the public interest resulting from the Proposed proi2ct. 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. The site is within an area zoned for residential use. The I is 2f sufficient size to accommodate residential development consistent with the surrounding area. The proiect constitutes in-fill development in a residentially zoned area and is consistent with the Mason County Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act. The proi2ct has been proposed to address all environmental impacts associated with development near the shoreline. Applicant S '-i)al re -6ate Owner Signal �: Da4teq�. FEES, 5 ZO'00 Resource Ordinance Variance. $,1-420-ITO Hearings Examiner. Habitat Management Plan (HMP) Review Fee.- $41 . J+15100 NOTE: Applicant will also be billed for all advertising costs (See attached). )Y%son Cowtv Vtwianvc AppficAbcai r6oN Cot, F r MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Permit Processing/Inspections/Addressing Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. III 426 W.Cedar °8s* P.O.Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that Timothy Zimny, who is applicant for the following proposal,has filed an application for:Request for Variance from Setback Requirements within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, specifically for the construction of a single family residence that will be located approximately 22' from the Type I Water. Project Location: Mountain Shores TR 4, Rauchert RD., Shelton.Parcel No. 12118-50-00004. Date of Complete Application: 02/19/09 The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance FWHCA Chapter 17.01.110 and Title 15,Mason County Development Code.Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: Mason County Planning Dept,PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 in writing of their interest. A Public Hearing will be held by the Mason County Hearings Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday,April 28,2009 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioner's Chambers of Building I,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. Please contact Grace Miller of the Mason County Planning Department at(360)427-9670, ext 360 with any questions regarding this Variance request. 6000 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON )� ss. I, do hereby certify that I o _ p sted _3 copies of the attached D�IAB�-iov, f-qY COSLY -� �jj ,/�L r r on = day of 20g_ in�_ public places as follows: one at one at one at Qom Q In witness whereof, the party has signed this Affidavit of Posting Notice this day of_ P 20 oy By: Address: �2- 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF MASON ss. Subscribed and sworn to me this �sr dayof 20.L� o:' 40R1.. Notary Public or a State of Washington APR so, 2011 ; Residing at •z Commission• Expires •pL'RLIG • • O: ii •�4 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that Timothy Zimny, wh Affidavit of Publication applicant for the following proposal,hasfiled an applies for Request for Variance from Setback Requirerr within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation specifically for the construction of a single 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON 1 SS. residence that will be located approximately 22'fro COUNTY OF MASON 1 Type I Water. Project Location: Mountain Shores TR 4, R, RD.,Shelton.Parcel No. 1 21 1 8-50-00004. Koleen Wood being first duly sworn Date of Complete Application:02/19/09 The proposed development is reviewer on oath deposes and says that she is the clerk Variance under the Mason County Resource C of the SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL, a weekly newspaper. That FWHCA Chapter 17.01.110 and Title 15, Maso m said newspaper is a legal newspaper and it is now and has been for more than six Development Code.Any person desiring to exF m months prior to the date of the publication hereinafter referred to, published in view or to be notified of the action taken on the s should notify:Mason County Planning Dept,P( F, the English language continuously as a weekly newspaper in SHELTON,Mason Shelton,WA 98584 in writing of their interest. a County, Washington,and it is now and during all of said time was printed in an A Public Hearing will be held by the Ma! �F office maintained at the aforesaid place of publication of said newspaper. That Hearings Examiner on the proposed project r s the said SHELTON-MASON COUNTY JOURNAL was on the 9th day of April 28, 2009 at 1:00 PM within the Cor n August, 1941, approved as a legal newspaper by the Superior Court of said Chambers of Building I, 411 North Fifth Str Mason County. Please contact Grace Miller of the Mr h Planning Department at(360)427-9670,ex E, questions regarding this Variance request. That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice of Development Applicatino 205C I for Variance-Zimny,Timothy 2050 as it was published in regular issues and not in supplement form of said newspaper once each week for a period of three consecutive weeks,commencing on the 19th day of March 20 09 and ending on the 2nd day of April 12009 ,both dates inclusive, and that such AN An, 1�j ����o the saidnewspaper was regularly distributed to t subscribers during all of period.That the full amount of he fee charged for he e Np 90 foregoing publication is the sum of$ 3 0 sr9c�f►0�l Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 20 SHI Notary PAWic in and for the State of Washington Residing at Shelton,Washington My commission expires ,20�. �l THE WETLAND CORPS - Wetland Delineation Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation • Biological Evaluation ZIM NY HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Parcel# 121185000004 East Rauchert Road Mason County,Washington Prepared for: Timothy Zimny PO Box 4135 South Colby,WA 98384 Prepared by: Heather Lane and Lee Boad January 2009 i PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com I THE WETLAND CORPS Wetland Delineation • Habitat Management Plans • Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation ZIMNY HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT DF.SCRIPTION...................................................................................................1 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................2 3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS..................................................................................................3 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES.................................................................3 5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS....................................................................................................5 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES.................................................................................................7 7.0 MONITORING ....................................................................................................................10 8.0 SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................10 F_ig_ures Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 4. Mason County Soil Survey Map Figure 5. Department of Natural Resources Water Resource Map PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com boy THE WETLAND CORPS Wetland Delineation - Habitat Management Plans - Riparian Restoration - Mitigation - Biological Evaluation January,2009 Page 1 ZIMNY HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN Grapeview,Washington 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The details of a Habitat Management Plan requested by Tim Zimny for the property located off of Rauschert Road (Parcel No. 121185000004) are discussed in full in this report. The site is found in the NW 1/4 of Section 18 Township 21 North, Range 1 West(See Figure 1. Site Vicinity Map). The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan (HMP) is to address potential impacts resulting from the proposed construction of a portion of an SFR to encroach within the regulated shoreline buffer associated with Case Inlet. The Common Line Setback for this property would provide a shoreline buffer of 22-feet; however, Mason County requires an undisturbed buffer of no less than 35 feet (20-foot buffer with 15-foot building setback). Given the existing septic and drainfield location occupying the northern portion of the property, the proposed building will have to be pushed south of the septic and drainfield, encroaching into the 35-foot shoreline buffer. The proposed SFR Will be 30 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point, and the attached deck will extend to' `feet from the shoreline. This is the furthest distance from the shoreline that is feasible given the nature of the proposal, size and configuration of the lot, and septic requirements. The objectives of this HMP are as follows: ■ To evaluate the potential adverse effects to critical area functions as well as fish and wildlife habitat resulting from the construction of an SFR within the regulated buffer of a shoreline (Case Inlet) within the parcel. The SFR will be placed 30 feet from the OHWM of the shoreline and the uncovered deck will extend tfeet from the shoreline. Emphasis is placed on the possible loss of habitat for any listed species found to be residing in the vicinity of the parcel. ■ To identify possible mitigation measures that could be implemented to offset the adverse effects resulting from the proposed project. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com v�Y Zimny HMP January,2009 Page 2 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The ownership is approximately one-quarter acre in size, roughly rectangular in shape, and is oriented north to south. Case Inlet is located south of the property and residential lots of similar size and shape border the parcel to the east and west. East Rauschert Road borders the parcel to the north. The northern half of the parcel is dominated by a dense community of scotchbroom, which abruptly transitions to a lawn area extending south to the steep shoreline bank. The lawn area contains several mature fruit trees, but lacks any native vegetation. The steep bank grades down to the OHWM of Case Inlet, and is occupied by a dense vegetative community of ivy and himilayan blackberry, with lesser amounts of rhododendron, and Oregon grape. With the exception of the steep bank to the shoreline,topography within the parcel slopes is relatively flat, sloping at a low gradient southerly toward the shoreline. Photo 1. Southern portion of the property,containing the steep bank down to the shoreline of Case Inlet. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com �k'y Zimny HMP S �� January,2009 Page 3 l r Photo 2.Northern portion of the property occupied by scotchbroom,transitioning to lawn area and fruit trees. 3.0 APPLICABLE SETBACKS The project site is within the jurisdiction of Mason County. Ordinance 17.01.110 identifies Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas adopted by Mason County. The applicable setback for this project is as follows: Habitat T e Buffer BuildingSetback from Buffer Saltwater Shoreline(Case Inlet) 20' 15' 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF HABITAT AND SPECIES 4.1 Puget Sound Chinook(Oncorhynchus tshawytsha)-Threatened Listed as threatened since March 24, 1999 adult Puget Sound Chinook spawn in several rivers and streams flowing into Puget Sound. The shoreline of Case Inlet is listed as a Final Designation on the Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington - August 2005. No work is proposed within the shoreline. The proposed project will not require any shoreline modification or native vegetation removal within the shoreline buffer. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have impacts on Puget Sound Chinook. This is primarily due to absence of spawning habitat within the project site and the fact that no shoreline modification or native vegetation removal within the shoreline buffer is proposed. - 4.2 Bull Trout(Salvehnus malma) Threatened � Bull trout typically inhabit very cold, clear headwater streams at high elevations that are supported by snowmelt. For spawning and early rearing, bull trout require loose, clear gravel, PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Zimny HMP y January,2009 Page 4 relatively free of fine sediments. The nearest population of bull trout occurs as three subpopulations in the Skokomish Basin. No bull trout habitat is in proximity to or will be affected by the proposed project. 4.3 Puget Sound Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)-Threatened Listed as Threatened since May 2007, Puget Sound Stealhead spawn in several streams throughout Puget Sound. Spawning usually occurs in moderate to steep gradient sections of streams, usually in heads of riffles or the tails of pools where hydraulic conditions are conducive to intragravel flow. Side channels and the anterior portions of islands are also used. Spawn timing for summer steelhead runs typically ranges from mid May through October while winter run steelhead are present from December through May. Adequate cover from predation, water temperature, and spawning gravel are important factors for instream habitat, while little is currently known about specific marine habitat requirements. As no modifications to any aquatic habitat are necessary for this project, no adverse impacts to Puget Sound Steelhead are predicted. There will be no functional riparian habitat displaced. 4.4 Bald Eagle(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)- Threatened Habitat areas associated with Bald Eagle include uneven aged coniferous stands with some old- growth components. Nests are typically constructed in larger trees with dead or broken tops providing an unobstructed view of nearby water. Snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs, or dead tops are used as perches and defense stations. There are no documented Bald Eagle nesting sites in the vicinity of the project area. Currently there are no trees within the shoreline buffer that have potential to be utilized by bald eagle. The proposed project will not require the removal of any native overstory components, with the exception of the fruit trees. Native vegetation plantings defined in Section 6.5 are recommended to enhance the portion of the shoreline buffer outside of the development zone, and are expected to eventually provide habitat features important to the Bald Eagle in the future. With recommended mitigation, this project is not expected to adversely impact the use of the site or surrounding area by bald eagles. 4.5 Marbled Murrelet(Brachyramphus marmoratus)-Threatened Marbled Murrelets are typically associated with coastal habitats and nest in old-growth forests. Murrelets may fly as far as 50 miles inland to nest, however the average distance is roughly 5- miles from nest to sea. It is only during the summer breeding months that they are commonly found inland. During non-nesting seasons they live at sea. Murrelets require tall mossy trees in coniferous old growth forests with cavities on thick branches where they can construct a cup nest 20-40 meters above the forest floor. Murreletts have been documented laying eggs on rocky ground habitats only when a sufficient forest is unavailable. There are no documented nesting sites surrounding the project site. No potential nesting trees are within the project area. This project is not expected to adversely PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Zimny HMP p 4 January,2009 'U Page 5 impact Marbled Murrelet given there are no documented nesting sites or potential nesting trees in the vicinity of the project area. 4.6 Northern Spotted Owl(Stria occidenta[is caurina)-Threatened Spotted owls require a large amount of land for their nesting and hunting grounds; pairs may occupy up to 58 sq. km. They are territorial and do not migrate, but they may shift their ranges slightly in response to seasonal changes Suitable spotted owl habitat includes trees relatively large in diameter, multi-layered forest canopy with a moderate to high canopy closure in overstory, midstory, and understory, large, tall, live trees with cavities, broken tops, mistletoe, or platforms of branches capable of holding accumulated organic matter suitable for use as a nest. Dead standing trees and fallen decayed trees supporting abundant populations of prey species are critical to spotted owl populations. Currently there are no spotted owl nesting sites documented in proximity to the project site. No trees are proposed to be removed that represent typical Spotted Owl habitat. As spotted owls are currently not present, and the project area does not represent typical spotted owl habitat, no impacts to spotted owl or associated habitat are expected result from the proposed project. 5.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS The project lies within the regulated buffer of a saltwater shoreline. Project scale in the protected area is as follows: Development Type Habitat T3Tq Project scale SFR with deck Saltwater shoreline(Case Inlet)buffer 800 sq. ft. 5.1 Vegetation Disturbance The building footprint is located in a portion of the property that is occupied by an area maintained with lawn and fruit trees. The proposed project will not require the removal of native vegetation within the shoreline buffer. Invasive species removal and native vegetation plantings described in Section 6.2 and 6.3 are recommended to preserve and enhance vegetation abundance and diversity within portion of the shoreline buffer outside of the development zone. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Ziinny h-MP � y January, 20097 Page 6 ' U .Y Photo r ion of SFR& deck. 5.2 Designated Critical Habitat for Salmonids The shoreline of Case Inlet is listed as a Final Designation on the Northwest Region Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in Washington - August 2005. However, none of the proposed actions are likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Actions described in this plan are not expected to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. 5.3 Noise Pollution A slight increase in noise from construction activities is likely to occur during daylight construction hours. No nesting sites are located within the radii of concern that would be impacted by noise associated with the establishment of the SFR. 5.4 Temporary Increase in Sediment and Turbidity During Construction The proposed work has the potential to temporarily increase turbidity and suspended sediment within the project area. Best Management Practices have been recommended in Section 6.4 to avoid adverse effects associated with sediment and turbidity during construction. 5.5 Light and Glare The proposed project will result in an increase in light and glare commonly associated with residential construction and land use. However, species that currently utilize available habitat along this portion of Case Inlet are likely adapted to light and glare based on the high density of residential development along the shoreline. Therefore, an increase in light and glare is not likely to have a substantial impact on any wildlife that may be utilizing the parcel. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com icy Zimny HMP $ January,2009 Page 7 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 6.1 Avoidance Mitigation The proposed project avoids the shoreline buffer and aquatic habitat by positioning the SFR and deck the furthest from the shoreline that is feasible while meeting project objectives and septic and drainfield requirements. 6.2 Minimization Mitigation The proposed project minimizes impacts to the shoreline buffer by limiting the square foot4ge of the building footprint of the SFR to 960 square feet and the attached deck to 600 square feet. The proposed SFR is located 30 feet from the shoreline at the nearest point and the proposed deck is located_.,I� eet from the shoreline at the nearest point, this is the furthest distance from the shoreline that the size and configuration of the lot will allow while meeting project objectives and septic requirements. 6.3 Enhancement Recommendations The total displacement of shoreline buffer for this project entails 800 square feet, while the remainder of the project is outside of the 35-foot building setback. To compensate for the proposed work within the buffer, it is recommended that the bank that is between the shoreline and the proposed development be removed of invasive species and planted with native vegetation. The total area recommended for native planting occupies 800 square feet, and will be identified as the Enhancement Zone. f 4 yt. t t 3M; t y w. Photo 4. Enhancement Zone(top of bank,facing south). PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Zimny HMP January,2009 Page 8 1r Trr d � 'k ? �«k j ♦ q, y ". � ^'fie. /+-...>.i tY`•- �'ss�� �� t ,tea Photo 5. Side of bank(facing north),occupied by ivy and blackberry to be removed and replanted with native species. The Enhancement Zone is currently dominated by several species of ivy and himilayan blackberry, each are invasive species and should be removed prior to the recommended native plantings. Although primarily dominated by invasive species, the Enhancement Zone contains lesser amounts of native species such as Oregon grape and rhododendron, which should be excluded from the vegetation removal. The invasive species that exist in the disturbed zone should be removed by cutting or pulling of the root balls, and can be done using a small excavator. Following the blackberry and ivy removal and the implementation of restorative planting recommended below, persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they continue to become a problem. Following the invasive species removal, it is recommended that temporary erosion control groundcover or netting be placed along the slope to provide soil stability while newly installed plants become established. The Enhancement Zone will be enhanced with native species listed below. Both tree and shrub species are listed, however, in order to preserve a view corridor future development it is recommended that tree species only be planted along the east and west 10-foot margins of the enhancement zone. The following species and pot sizes to be installed from are outlined below: Trees: western red cedar(Thuja plicata)- 2 gallon Douglas fir(Pseudotsuga menziesii)-2 gallon Shrubs: Oregon grape (Mahonia nervosa)- 1 gallon salal(Gaultheria shallon)— 1 gallon PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Zimny HMPy January,2009 l /U Page 9 evergreen huckleberry(Vaccinium ovatum) - gallon nootka rose(Rosa nutkana)— I gallon salmonberry(Rubus spectabilis)— I gallon Pacific Willow(Salix lusida)— I gallon Hooker willow(Salix hookeriana)— 1 gallon Scouler willow(Salix scouleriana)— I gallon Sitka willow(Salix sitchensis)— I gallon beaked hazelnut(Corylus cornuta)— I gallon Indian plum(Oemleria cerasiformis)— I gallon oceanspray(Holodiscus discolor)— I gallon Pacific ninebark(Physocarpus capitatus)— 1 gallon California black currant(Ribes bracteosum)— 1 gallon western thimbleberry(Rubus parviflorus)— I gallon red elderberry(Sambucus racemosa)— I gallon Ferns: sword fern(Polystichum munitum)— 1 gallon Native Planting Guidelines It is recommended that plantings be installed within the identified mitigation zone to achieve the following densities. A minimum of I tree species and five shrub or fern species from the above list are recommended. trees- 10' on center shrubs-5' on center ferns-4' on center These densities will provide a moderately dense, structurally diverse plant community within the mitigation zone. To fulfill the recommended density, the Enhancement Zone will be planted with four trees, 28 shrubs and 18 ferns. It is recommended that installation be done as single trees and or clusters of three shrubs, on approximate 10-foot centers. Finally, sword fern will be randomly installed throughout the planting row on average four-foot centers. The portion of the mitigation zone between the house and shoreline need not be planted with overstory trees for the purpose of preserving a view corridor. Typically, planting should occur during winter dormancy. The optimum time for planting is during February and March, however, the need to complete the project in a timely manner may call for planting to occur outside optimum time periods. No machinery earthwork will be necessary to implement this mitigation plan; planting holes for specified vegetation installation will be hand dug. No additional clearing or grading should be necessary for buffer enhancement. All installed vegetation shall be marked with colored flagging to facilitate monitoring inspections. The monitoring program is described below to insure project effectiveness. Invasive Species PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell-360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com J e Zimny HMP January,2009 Page 10 Invasive species such as Himalayan blackberry, reed canary grass, Japanese knotweed, and English Ivy may continue to invade the mitigation zone. These species are stubborn competitors for light and nutrients and limit success of native plants. Invasive species should be removed from the mitigation zone should they invade. Herbicides should not be used to achieve this due to the proximity to the shoreline. Persistent cutting during the growing season is sufficient to offset the rhizomes of invasive species if they become a problem. Once native species become established, invasive species should be less of an issue. 6.4 Best Management Practices Recommended Best Management Practices for this project are as follows: • Perform excavation and site preparation work during dry weather. • Install silt fencing near the shoreline to prevent erosion and siltation of waters. Silt fencing can be removed following project completion and installation of temporary erosion control. • Minimize amount of erodible soils at any given time to the maximum extent feasible. • Check all equipment daily for leaks. Refueling and lubrication of equipment should occur off site. Do not store any fuel, lubricants,chemicals, or hazardous substances outside overnight within the project area. • Clearly mark grading and excavation limits with orange flagging or construction fencing. • Do not apply any chemicals when there is a possibility of rain. • Comply with all permits and requirements of governing authority. 7.0 MONITORING Monitoring of the site will begin the first fall following project completion and maintained on a annual basis. The information gathered will provide the following: 1) condition of reintroduced plant species; 2) the use of the site by wildlife species; 3) any disturbance caused by the development and its effect on the protected zone and associated aquatic habitat; 4) any occurrence of exotic species within the mitigation zone; 5) any corrective measures that may be deemed necessary to provide desired conditions. This monitoring will be in effect for the duration of three years. The information gathered will be provided in an annual report and submitted to the Director of Mason County Department of Community Development. 8.0 SUMMARY This report addresses the establishment of a single family residence and deck that will encroach into an area occupying 800 square feet within the regulated buffer of a saltwater shoreline (Case Inlet). The total proposed development entails the SFR occupying 960 square feet, attached deck occupying 600 square and an attached garage occupying 900 square feet. The proposed SFR will l f be located 30 feet from the OHWM of Case Inlet, and the uncovered deck will extend to k51feet from the OHWM of Case Inlet. Given the existing septic and drainfield location coupled with the size and configuration of the parcel, this is the furthest distance from the shoreline that is PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618,Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com Zimny HMP January,2009 Page 11 feasible while meeting project objectives. Best Management Practices are recommended to minimize negative impacts to the shoreline and aquatic habitat during project implementation. No native vegetation will need to be removed to meet project objectives. Mitigation recommendations include invasive species removal and native plant enhancement of 800 square feet of shoreline buffer that is situated along a bank between the proposed development and the shoreline. No impacts to water quality or aquatic habitat are predicted. Mitigation Measures, and Best Management Practices, have been identified to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for impacts associated with proposed construction. We trust this information is sufficient for your needs at this time. Thank you for choosing The Wetland Corps as your environmental consultant. if you have any questions feel free to call. Respectfully submitted, Lee Boad Senior Ecologist Heather Lane Staff Wetland&Natural Resource Specialist I PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com �7c y 1113 REFERENCES Audobon WatchList. http;//audobon2.org/webapp/watchlist/viewSpecies. Knutson, K.L., and V.L.Naef. 1997. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats: riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 181 PP. Native Plants for Kitsap County. ftp://kcwppub3.co.kitsap.wa.us/pw/sw/Native Policy of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Western Washington Treaty Tribes Concerning Wild Salmonids. Adopted by Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission,1997. Washington State Department of Ecology; William Symington Lake habitat Analysis. 1998. PO Box 2854, Belfair,WA 98528 cell:360-620-0618, Office: 360-372-2421 e-mail: boad40@peoplepc.com i 1 ECKERT RD Q , w *el 4o/ �a CO }G�aptVf � �R p c� �� 4i a J m Approximate Parcel wm Location a Z d N 4-43 { W �4� Q Ni RQft i t , FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP Project Name: Zimny Project / Location: Grapeview,WA Project: TWC09-W10 Client: Tim Zimny Date: lio9 THE WETLAND CORPS Map I. egend CONUS Cities N CONUS SLAWS iOOK Lower 48 Wetland Polygons Estuarine and Marino Dee%iwalel Ewwwine and Marine Welland Froshwatev Emergent Welland fre hw&tef Fot"tedrShrub WeUand Washington freshwater Pend Lake Wier Riyerine p: VaO�hn X. Approxim t e Parcel I tj n] E2US'- ...........".. Figure 3 National Wetland Inventory Map Figure adapted from NWI Section 18 Township 21 North Range 1 West Mapper website FIGURE 3 NWI MAP Project Name: Zimny Project Location: Grapeview,WA 0400 Project: TWC09-W10 Client: Tim Zimny —"W77 Date: 1/09 THE WETLAND CORPS Note: No wetland mapped in project vicinity. N +MINE- 7 sp , N'A l! y� A Approximate Parcel Location Onsite Soil Conditions based on Mason County Soil Survey Subject Site Soils: Indianola sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes (Ie).- In the Indianola series are excessively drained, droughty brown soils of the uplands. They have developed on hummocky and rolling ridges from glacial drift that consisted of loose, porous sand. The sand came mainly from acid igneous rocks. The annual rainfall ranges from 50 to 70 inches, and the native vegetation is mainly Douglas-fir. Indianola soils occur in the eastern half of the county in association with the Alderwood and the Everett soils. They are unlike the Everett soils in that they are not gravelly. They differ from the Alderwood soils in not being gravelly and in having a sand, rather than a cemented, substratum. Indianola soils' are more nearly like the Lystair soils in the -western part of the county. They differ front those soils mainly in having brown and yellowish-brown colors and less basic igneous material in the parent. drift. The Lystair soils are brown and reddish yellow, and they occur in an area of higher rainfall. A more detailed soil description can be found in Appendix B Mason Soil Survey Text. FIGURE 4 SOIL SURVEY Project Name: Zimny Project 4Akr Location: Grapeview,WA ` Project: TWC09-W10 ��'ETL_�N D CORPS Client: Tim zimny THE Date: 1/09 Note: Hydric soils not present in project vicinity. ILL -� -- III � 17 � �7 Approximate parcel ;z- location Q 170 0$ �1703508 i 4 ct Y,4 S Puget Sou ad I iI 4 + +70258$ +702588 1702584 no 1 eoo i SOILS Hvdtic Soils TR ANS ORTATION STRE NIS Highly Unstable r Stream Water Type 1-5( as:side; /�/Pay ed Road Highly Erodible LehlyUa:ub:e S �Stream Type L:: n�knon(East side} Unpaved Roa(I �;�y Erodible � _] No Data or Gravel Pits Road(Surface LTttltlon�ti) Stream Water Type --5(:Fes.side; ll r••.,''Abatidotied Road Stream Type I:nknotrn(Wes-,side; I^6°A Orpliuled Road Trail FIGURE 5 DNR STREAM MAP Project Name: Zimny Project Location: Grapeview,WA Project: TWC09-WIO Client: Tim Zimny %'ETL_' Date: 1/09 THE �N D CORPS Note: Type F Stream mapped>400' from parcel location. I I guy . �S Existing Drainfleld& East Rauschert Reserve Road Existing Sand Filter Proposed Garage Proposed 2 ' Proposed Driveway • Enhancement 3 one ,• 00 (800 sa. 15'building setba', �22 . N 20'buffe. Parcel 121 1`8500MIM Case Inlet Saltwater Shoreline 20' buffer+ 15' building setback I 0 50' FIGURE 2. SITE MAP ^AW Project Name: Zimny Project "ar-4-1` Location: Grapeview,WA THE WETLAND CORPS Project: TWC09-W10 Client: Tim Zimny Date: 1/09 I Case ActivityListin 2/19/2009 g 11:48:ooA1vl Case#: SPI2008-00136 Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By Updated Updated By SPIA600 SPI Letter-Field Review 8/13/2008 None DONE Al-111 8/13/2008 AHB Pre-inspection for Tim Zimny/Delynn Ecklund on Aug. 11,2008: The purpose of the pre-inspection was to evaluate issues related to the construction of a single-family residence and garage on a 0.28 acre parcel,lot 4 in Mountain Shores,along Rauschert Rd. The property is 60 feet wide and 200 feet deep from road to shoreline,has little native plant cover(except near the shoreline where the lower bank is covered by medium-sized rock),and has slopes of 5 to 10 percent throughout. An existing drainfield and septic system components are located close to the road,and a drainage easement is situated along the west property line. The proposed residence would be located to the south of the septic system and this inspection is to verify proper development setbacks. These findings state regulations in effect at inspection time,unless noted otherwise. Development Regulations standards: _Y_ The site is in Rural Residential 5 zone. Standard building setbacks are 25-foot front yard setback,and 20-foot side property line and rear yard setbacks. These setbacks are measured from structures above grade such as roof overhangs,stairs,balconies,decks,heat pumps,storage buildings,and fuel tanks. _Y_ An exception is made for lots less than 100 feet in width,where side yard setbacks are equal to 10 percent of the lot width,but no less than 5 feet;this property has 6 ft.side yard setback. _Y_ An administrative variance may be requested to reduce these setback distances from property lines,to as low as 5 feet(side yard)or 10 feet(front yard),if the size,shape,or features of the property constrain development from the proper setbacks. This process requires application and review at the time of the building permit submittal. Resource Ordinance Standards: _N_ Slope or Landslide hazards:Slopes less than 10 percent adjacent to or within 300 feet of a proposed project were observed. No geologic special report(geologic assessment or geotechnical report) is needed during development review. _N_ Wetland critical area: Planning staff confirmed that the parcel does not contain certain wetlands,which are regulated under Mason County's Wetlands chapter 17.01.070 of the Mason County Resource Ordinance.The applicant will not need a wetlands special report during development review. _N_ Stream setbacks: No seasonal or perennial drainage flows through the subject property. The proposed development is greater than 200 feet from the any stream management area covered by the standards of this critical area. _Y_ Shoreline setbacks: The shoreline designation for the area is Urban Environment per the Mason County Shoreline Master Program and setbacks would be determined by the Mason County Resource Ordinance. In this portion of Pickering Passage,the shoreline setback is determined by averaging the distance of setback from the roofline of the adjacent residence on each side of the subject parcel to the shoreline ordinary high water mark(OHWM). Any portion of the new structure,including decks,balconies,and rooflines,must be behind this common line. Shoreward of this line for 15 feet toward the shoreline is an area that may be used for lawns,patios or landscaping(development at grade level). From that point toward the shoreline is considered to be a required vegetated buffer that must remain and is regulated by the Mason County Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas Chapter(FWHCA). Within this chapter are those activities listed that can be done both with and without a Mason Environmental Permit;proposed tree limbing and limited cutting of trees in the buffer for view improvement are reviewed by the area permit planner prior to starting these type of activities. Staff measured the proportional setback from the OHWM of the Pickering Passage shoreline to a proposed building site. The shore setback of the roofline of the residence to the west is 15 feet from the OHWM. The shore setback of the roofline of the residence to the east is 28 feet from the OHWM. The proportional setback for a structure on the subject parcel would be 22 feet from the shoreline OHWM, but the minimum shoreline setback using the Resource Ordinance standards is 35 feet from the shoreline OHWM(composed of 20 feet vegetation buffer along the shoreline and a 15-foot building setback on the upland side of the vegetation buffer). As stated above,all proposed development above grade must be behind this distance as shown on enclosed drawing. Page 2 of 3 U� CaseActivity-rpt Case Activity Listing 2/19/2009 11:48:OOAM Case #: SPI2OO8-00136 IP10 - Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By I updated Updated By Based on this field review,the presence of the Resource Ordinance Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas,and the proposed layout of development,no area exists on the subject parcel that would be unencumbered by the critical area buffer and building setback. The applicant can choose to reduce the footprint of proposed development on the property to meet the proper setbacks,or pursue residential development on this property with the review of a variance from the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter. A variance request includes the submittal of a Habitat Management Plan(HMP), prepared by a qualified biologist,to support the proposed development. The HMP addresses impacts to the buffer and offers measures to preserve and protect the buffer or to mitigate impacts of the development proposal. A copy of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas chapter,including.details on the contents of an HMP and the variance public review procedure,is available.The application materials are available in person at the Mason County Permit Assistance Center,Sth and Cedar St.in Shelton or by phone at 427-9670 ext.281. Application for a variance to these standards does not guarantee approval of the development as proposed. NOTE that certain activities in the FWHCA buffer are allowed without special permit. These include maintenance of existing areas of activity within the vegetation area,removal of danger trees and replacement with native tree species,and placement of short(2-foot height)landscape walls placed in the buffer. Activities not included are rock or walls acting as bank protection to function as a bulkhead, and removal of shore vegetation;these structures and uses need building and/or environmental permit review as part of a proposal. Each of these proposals(bulkhead or dock/float at the edge of the shoreline)are activities for which a Mason Environmental Permit(MEP)must be requested and a habitat management plan(prepared by a qualified biologist)must be included in this permit review;upon evaluation of this information,a Mason Environmental Permit may be granted. Planting native plants and shrubs to replace the existing lawn area is certainly the type of proposed enhancement in the habitat management plan to lessen the impacts anticipated by a proposal. You would need to confirm with the Health Department what their septic system standards are to make sure about the adequacy of supplying a septic system and drainfield area(s)for the proposed development. General process: Future site development must include a site plan,showing all setbacks from property lines,shoreline,roads,and existing and proposed improvements;this site plan will be needed for building permit application submittal and permit review(as well as a submitted variance request). Specific County Codes standards for future development may be found at the County website address http://www.co.mason.wa.us. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Thank you. Page 3 of 3 CaseActivity-rpt RECEIVED Valerie Sparks APR 14 2009 5408 South Bay Terrace NE Olympia, WA 98516 M C C D - PLANNING April 9, 2009 Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mason County Planning Department: This letter is in response to the request for variance from setback requirements within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, specifically for the construction of a residence. The project location is Mountain Shores TR 4, Rauchert RD., Shelton. Parcel No. 12118-50-00004. I am a co-owner of the residence on Lot#5 located west and adjacent to lot#4. We,the undersigned, object to the setback variance that is being requested of 22 feet from shoreline. The Mason County Planning Department has a bulletin entitled Shoreline Bulkheads that expressly quotes the Shoreline Master Program, "Residential development along shorelines should be designed and sited to make shore protection measures unnecessary". The alternatives to bulkheading are nonstructural erosion control methods. "The most long term,preventative means of shoreline property protection is a construction setback in which the house or structure is built on a site,which is a safe distance (setback) from the active shoreline......Setbacks also prevent interruption of the natural erosion process and help to preserve the marine and wildlife habitat of the shoreline." NOAA's Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management issues statements concerning Shoreline Management Plans. They state that shoreline planning is necessary for managing shoreline erosion impacts in the coastal environment. Planning is considered one of the few techniques that allows for a regional approach to shoreline management—"much more effective than attempting to manage the shoreline one building .......permit at a time." These required setbacks enable a more holistic regional approach to shoreline management instead of a piecemeal parcel by parcel approach. Washington's Administrative Code (WAC 365-190-080) describes "Critical Areas". It states that counties and cities are requested and encouraged to make their actions consistent with the intent and goals of"protection of wetlands,"Executive Orders 89-10 and 90-04. WAC 365-190-080 (5)(c )(iii)requires that all private tidelands suitable for shellfish harvest shall be classified as critical areas. There are large geoduck farming areas directly below and east of this area. There are oyster beds and clamming areas directly below. Other areas of Puget Sound have had their shellfish areas destroyed by �i Mason County Planning DepartmentPd April 9, 2009 / Page 2 the increased silt and runoff from poorly designed development(for example Henderson Inlet). Let's not ruin Pickering Passage's clear water and capacity to support shellfish. As the plot plan shows,the proposed residence is at least 3 times as large as the residence to the west. Mr.Zimny quotes the Mason Co. Resource Ordinance as describing the residential size of the building if adhering to the setback requirement as"far less than what is defined as reasonable use". The Mason Co. Resource Ordinance does not specify what square footage is necessary for reasonable use. Sect. 17.01.120 K states only that an analysis needs to be performed"to determine if there is any other reasonable use with less impact on the resource lands or critical areas is possible". This has not been done. Obviously it is not necessary to have the size of structure that is proposed to have reasonable use, as the residence next door has reasonable use and is much smaller. The plot plan does not show a true outlay of the shoreline in relationship to the surrounding structures. The construction of this residence will impact the view corridor of the residence to the west as the shoreline veers to the south and the new residence will obstruct that view to the southeast. No one needs to describe what impact a loss of view has on enjoyment and value of a piece of property,but King County Superior Court Judge Michael Hayden did when he ruled that homeowners would have to remove their sloped roof and replace it with a flat roof to block less of the neighbor's view of the Puget Sound. Seattle PI, Oct. 8, 2005. Preservation of neighboring views is a recognized interest and is not per se unreasonable. Views are unique commodities that cannot be replaced. See,e.g., State v. Stannard, 109 Wn.2d 29, 36,742 P.2d 1244(1987). Sincerely, Valerie Sparks,member of Sparks Family LLC Steven Sparks of San Diego,California, member of Sparks Family LLC CX& 3) Mina Ghanaie RECEIVED 10721 Evanston Ave N APR 14 2009 Seattle, WA 98133 M CC ID - PLANNING April 13, 2009 Mason County Planning Department PO Box 279 Shelton, WA 98584 Dear Mason County Planning Department: I am writing to oppose the application for Variance from Standards for the residential construction project located at tax parcel no. 12118-50-00004 on Rauschert Rd., Shelton. I am the daughter of a co-owner of the residence on Lot #5 located west and adjacent to lot #4. 1 object to the setback variance because I am concerned about the environmental impacts associated with building construction and the increased impervious area close to the water line. The Mason County Resource Ordinance clearly provides special provisions for view protection and allows the applicant to build closer than the required Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas buffer distance of 100 ft. The applicant is proposing to reduce the buffer even further to 22 ft. The applicant's claim that the allowable construction area is less than "what is defined for reasonable use" is not a valid reason to reduce the shoreline buffer. The location of the building, size of garage and existing sewage system could be reconfigured to allow for the required 35' buffer. The areas listed in the application and the boundaries shown on the plot plan are not consistent. In conclusion, we request the Mason County Planning Department deny this variance request on the grounds of inadequate planning to prevent erosion and the resultant harm to the environment as outlined by Federal, State, and local regulations. Sincerely, Mina Ghanaie, Assoc. AIA RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST Application received and logged: ✓ I_d �, Notice and HMP sent to WDFW and Tribe: I g Notice of application delivered to Journal: 3/1 Notice of application posted and mailed: 31ig ✓,"&4 3 g Notice of hearingdelivered to Journal: � -g v �i i V h pit W/01 Notice of hearing posted and mailed: ,/ h, ;y y Photos? Nip SEPA?: NA Circulated on: NA Report to HEX by: f v, 3/1� HEX hearing date: Decision: o jV A Q Spy 1)Cvw-�^'":stfi,l ew f � I-0AA410-(SyJ6,40, Notice of Final Decision sent on:. 0C,00 I i Appeal to BOCC: r 25, ' S"ao: �U cxu S 1M 5� Q I 4 restk,,c- a hm— Ad 6!0- A a4L.9A Nood Notes & Comments: ��lynx Ecd<l H� �,3c,o)s71-6gi1 �.4 150c,Sr �Rlnh �I e�y"EclUu•vl A)'n72g dok�orti,�.3Fi,;, S noc.�saidu^<{� h�he,?60o orc•,,,(u fyrl�a .:« (—t�u�c xc�i.�l 4Ae le3.5er a yo b o af ) 7� 1Il'7toj C:\Documents and Settings\gbm\Loca1 Settings\Temp\RESOURCE ORDINANCE VARIANCE CHECKLIST.doc.ram A variance from standards may be appropriate where a lot is exceptionally narrow or shallow or contains unusual topographic conditions, but only when strict application would result in hardship on the owner of such property. C. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Application requirements shall be the same as for a Mason Environmental Permit in Section 17.01.120, as well as the following: 1. A description of the specific modification from the terms of the Chapter required; and 2. A description of the reasons for the variance. D. REVIEW PROCESS The review process for variances from standards shall be the public review process set forth in Section 17.01.120. E. REVIEW STANDARDS See Mason County Code 15.09.057 for the review criteria. 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) 2,550 square feet. 1. Included in the total allowed area for a residence is a)the area of the first floor of the residence, b)the area of any covered or uncovered decks or patios proposed, except for the area of landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements, c)the area of roof overhangs greater than two feet, and d)the area of any living space or decks on any floor other than the first floor that extend beyond the walls of the first floor unless its area is already included in b)or c) above, and d)the area of any accessory structure. The area should be the same as the area covered by structures as seen in a birds-eye view of the site looking directly down, with the exceptions of not counting the roof overhangs of not more than two feet and of not counting the landings at entrances of a minimum size to meet building code requirements. 2. This provision does not allow wetlands or fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas or their buffers to be converted to lawn or residential landscaping. 17.01.160 TEMPORARY USES The Director shall authorize by administrative decision temporary uses pursuant to the terms and conditions of this section. A. PURPOSE This section provides a process for authorizing certain uses or activities of a non- permanent nature for a limited duration. B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS The application shall contain those requirements the Director deems appropriate based on the duration of the use and its potential for environmental impact. Mason County Resource Ordinance 96 Revised December 27, 2006 i 1 �-eoN co'. / 0 (� ' MASON COUNTY ( Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Permit Processing/Inspections/Addressing Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg.III 426 W.Cedar y '8s4 P.O.Box 186 Shelton,WA 98584 NOTICE OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE MASON COUNTY RESOURCE ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that Timothy Zimny,who is applicant for the following proposal,has filed an application for:Request for Variance from Setback Requirements within a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area, specifically for the construction of a single family residence that will be located approximately 22' from the Type I Water. Project Location: Mountain Shores TR 4, Rauchert RD., Shelton.Parcel No. 12118-50-00004. Date of Complete Application: 02/19/09 The proposed development is reviewed as a Variance under the Mason County Resource Ordinance FWHCA Chapter 17.01.110 and Title 15,Mason County Development Code. Any person desiring to express their view or to be notified of the action taken on the application should notify: Mason County Planning Dept,PO Box 279, Shelton,WA 98584 in writing of their interest. A Public Hearing will be held by the Mason County Hearings Examiner on the proposed project on Tuesday,April 28,2009 at 1:00 PM within the Commissioner's Chambers of Building 1,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. Please contact Grace Miller of the Mason County Planning Department at(360)427-9670, ext 360 with any questions regarding this Variance request. LL 1 ST O 1- A DjP}dF-N(T 'Pac,PC ,'h/ O wN FRS w "rHiN 300 FeE;-r oj�- yLve- 13out'i3O,4elt.s T�LlP- VAe-%AN/0tF FZL QUIDS i PARCEL #121185000002 �) PAUL A JR & DOLORES APOSTLE P.O. BOX 111329 TACOMA, WA 98411-1329 PARCEL #121185000003 HAROLD D & kATHERINA A OLSON P.O. BOX 69 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0069 PARCEL #121185000005 1/0 1-1/-7/oy SPARKS FAMILY LLC 30 Rl7rC C/O JERALD PARKS 1/07 W 132 1+AVE CT E PU)(7 4-5608 PARCEL #121185000006 !� DOUGLAS P & SUSAN M WALKER 591 E RAUSCHERT RD 107JI 4,7va-4l'v'%+W" GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546 5,&tM Wpr JIM; PARCEL # 121185000007 TOM J & JAN S REICHERT 218 5TH AVE WEST KIRKLAND, WA 98033-5325 PARCEL #121185000008 MARK HITCH LIVING TRUST M HITCH TRS M HITCH LV TR 46 VILLAGE WAY PMB 164 PORT LUDLOW, WA 98365-9762 ! j PARCEL #121185000009 ROBERT C & KATHLEEN L POTTER 6319 113TH AVE NE KIRKLAND, WA 98033-7211 PARCEL #121185000016 GERALD & ELIZABETH TRS JULIAN LVG TRUST 4417 CLARMAR LN SE OLYMPIA, WA 98501-4711 PARCEL #121185000017 STEVEN P MICERA P.O. BOX 508 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0508 PARCEL #121185000018 MARGARET HASTEY 5216 SADDLEBACK DR NW GIG HARBOR, WA 98332 PARCEL #121185000019 MARK A & PAMELA J YOUNKIN P.O. BOX 493 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0493 PARCEL #121185000020 MATTHEW J LEVESQUE ET UX C/O GALEN E MURPHY 3006 SAN JOSE AVE ALAMEDA, CA 94501 PARCEL #121185000024 LUIS A & LORRAINE A NIENHUSER P.O. BOX 526 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0526 PARCEL #121185000025 THERESA I HANSEN 1414 S TYLER ST TACOMA, WA 98405-1138 PARCEL #121185000026 JOHN & LEE ANN M BURKITT P.O. BOX 443 GRAPEVIEW, WA 98546-0443 PARCEL #121185000027 GERALD&F�LIZAWETH TRS JULIAN JULIAN FAMILY LVG TRUST 4417 CLARMAR LN SE OLYMPIA, WA 98501-4711 �� BaX yi35 ys3�y Page 1 of 1 Grace Miller- Variance From: Valerie Sparks To: Date: 4/14/2009 8:46 AM Subject: Variance Attachments: Grace, included is another letter objecting to the variance proposal. I have also included my letter again. Please email me and let me know you have received them. Valerie Sparks file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\gbm\Local%20Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\49E44... 4/14/2009 (2/19/2009)Qrace Miller- Re: file search Page 1 From: Shelly Bellisle To: Grace Miller Date: 2/19/2009 11:53 AM Subject: Re: file search The file has been scanned.All the information is in Land Records >>> Grace Miller 2/19/2009 11:51 AM >>> May I please have the file for: Parcel #12118-50-00004 Timothy Zimney In particular,I need Allan's pre-inspection with his notes from August 2008 and the septic records showing where the septic system is located please. Thank you. Case Activity Listing 2/19/2009 11:48:OOANI Case #: SPI20O8-00136 Assigned Done Activity Description Date 1 Date 2 Date 3 Hold Disp To By updated updated 6y SPIA010 Application Received 7/30/2008 7/30/2008 None DONE KKK 7/30/2008 KKK SPIA100 Site Inspection 7/30/2008 8/11/2008 None DONE AHB AHB 8/13/2008 AHB Page ] of 3 CaseActivity..rpt MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg.1 411 N.5th Elma (360)482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 TO: THE MASON COUNTY JOURNAL FROM: MASON CO. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: 3 i I I t'101 Please publish the attached Notic�o�gy,ol<<a#ea��+' R.o.ua � on the following day(s) Please keep the Affidavit of Publication for the Department of Community Development to pick up from your office and send I copies to the following 50wA Colby TWA R8384 Please charge --1t.r1 a4 about for the publication at: 1 Thank you, Mason County Planning Staff 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. OWNER.__j v,__� APPLICANT: DATE: h -mi County Vanance Applicotion 03/16/2009 15:18 FAX CJ001 �c TX REPORT * TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO 0475 CONNECTION TEL SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME 03/16 15:16 USAGE T 01'22 PGS. SENT 4 RESULT OK MASON COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT + . FAX Phone:(360)427-9670 ext. Fax:(360).427-8425 f TO . 1 COMPANY NAME: CONTACT NAME: . FAX NUMBER. PHONE NUMBER: i SENDER: :.REGARDING: Number of Pages ([nciude Cover Sheet): I Date Sent: . Time Sent:. . .. F. VVI.� /\QLIUI -z I� 1 y �u\AA� Tr q -LY1.194 1 ©3 °p�h MASON COUNTY � rp Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Elma (360) 482-5269 Mason County Bldg. 1411 N.5th P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 185 April 17,2009 Timothy Zimny PO Box 4135 South Colby,WA 98384 RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING,Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2009-00001 Dear Mr.Zimny, The Public Hearing before the Mason County Hearing Examiner to consider your Resource Ordinance Variance request has been scheduled for Tuesday,April 28,2009.The Hearing will take place at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Building I,411 North Fifth Street, Shelton. Enclosed is the staff report that staff has forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for his review as well as written comments received,to date. Oral comments will be accepted at the hearing and written comments may be accepted also. If you have any questions,please let me know. Thank you. Sincerely, A Ad4w Grace Miller,Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ♦�°�' °p°•r7A MASON COUNTY Shelton (360) 427-9670 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Belfair (360) 275-4467 Planning Mason County Bldg. 1 411 N.5th Elma (360) 482-5269 P.O.Box 279 Shelton,WA 98584 April 17,2009 To:All interested parties From:Planning staff,Grace Miller RE: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING,Resource Ordinance Variance#VAR2009-00001 Applicant:Timothy Zimny Project:Construction of single family residence within saltwater buffer. To whom it may concern: The Public Hearing before the Mason County Hearing Examiner to consider Timthy Zimny's Resource Ordinance Variance request has been scheduled for Tuesday,April 28,2009.The Hearing will take place at 1:00 PM within the Commissioners Chambers of Building 1,411 North Fifth Street,Shelton. Enclosed is the staff report that staff has forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for his review.Oral comments will be accepted at the hearing and written comments may be accepted also.If you have any questions, please let me know.Thank you. Sincerely, Grace Miller,Planner DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT