HomeMy WebLinkAboutOTH Record Requests - 5/22/2007 MASON COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FORM
426 W Cedar St, PO BOX 186, Shelton WA 98584
PHONE (360)427-9670 FAX(360)427-7798
Please allow 5 business days for us to respond to your request*
If items are being mailed please allow an additional 3 days until you receive the paperwork
I would like the information: Requestor's Name Ln 2,10 Z�i
O"_
Mailed X Faxed ❑ picked Up Address �lY fj�y��,sy/I ��/�'v►vc
Date of Request G1 ��J City �� ����, St � Zips/
Time of Request % `/ yyj, Phon����J
PLEASE PROVIDE RECORDS FOR THE FOLLOWING:
Septic Records ❑ As-Built Only ❑ 12 Digit Tax Parcel No.
Other (See Below)
Present Owner Legal Description
Previous Owner
Site Address
Please specifically describe what records or kinds of records you are requesting:
S�ce / a
ki '42i r-P" �4)OC�C'�iaf cvp/x SL.4
t't1211i�,%/��ii✓Ii:,�, �d ��vL' ���l/G/y �a�:,� Xyai:-r-- � .�,a� o� /� / ,/� � �1 /��
• RCW 42.17.020 1 certify that the information obtained through this request will not be used for
commercial pur
i
Signature � Date Gf �--
• Lar equ may be charged as provided by RCW 42.17.3 0. During file review, any pages
yod wish to have copied (excluding non-public record documents) must be tagged and charges
will be assessed at .15 per page. Copies can be mailed or you may pick them up when ready.
• Copies of blue prints or other large format items, when available, may be charged a higher rate
per page
Official Use Onl
Request Routed To: PAC File Clerk ❑ County Admin. ❑ Clerk of the Comm. ❑
Other ❑ Building ❑ Planning ❑ Environmental Health ❑
Public Works ❑ Assessor ❑ Auditor ❑ Treasurer ❑
Completed by: Ext Records were
Completed date: Faxed ❑
Notes: Mailed ❑
To be picked up ❑
(6/22/2007) Grace Miller - Re: PRF's and floats Page 1
From: Pam Bennett-Cumming
To: Allan Borden; Charles McCoy III; Grace Miller; Kell McAboy; Rebecca ...
Date: 6/22/2007 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: PRF's and floats
Reflecting on the issue of Hearings Examiner decisions, and the wording in the SMP
piers and docks chapter which calls out that unattached floats are preferable to piers, It
might not be as easy to recommend approval...
others' thoughts?
Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S
Senior Planner - Watershed Planning & Regulatory Issues
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
phone: (360) 427-9670 x287
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: pambc@co.mason.wa.us
>>> Grace Miller 6/22/2007 11:40 AM >>>
Have any of you had an application/inquiry for a chain anchored float in addition to a
PRF?
I interpret the Piers and Dock Regulations to allow a 400 sf chain anchored float, per
residence, located out beyond the 115' (joint use) PRF to a -8 ft tidal elevation.
So, I have an interesting inquiry from two joint use owners and told them I had never
seen an application such as theirs. I also have no idea what the Hrg Examiner would do
with this one. It would be a joint use 115' PRF and two-chain anchored floats, possibly
15'X26' or 10'X40' out beyond the PRF but relatively close to it.
Any advice or case history would be appreciated. I told them I would ask around to see
if I have missed one? Thanks.
(5/24/2007) Grace Miller-A] Andrews shoreline variance Page 1
----------_- -------- -- ----------
From: Pam Bennett-Cumming
To: Grace Miller
Date: 5/24/2007 11:22 AM
Subject: Al Andrews shoreline variance
CC: Brenda Drake
TO: Grace Miller
I understand there has been an inquiry about the Al Andrews dock variance case, which
occurred in the late 1990's - and that the records are not easily available, since they
have been archived for some time. Some time has passed, but this was began as a
difficult enforcement case, so some details stuck in my mind. The bottom line is that the
project was not approved, and remanded back to the applicant to revise for consistency
with shoreline regulations.
This is what I remember: Originally Andrews did what he claimed was repair work on
the dock, without a permit. There were some complaints, we enforced and required he
go through the necessary permit processes. When photographic evidence from
shoreline obliques and other sources showed the original dock to have been a smaller,
much narrower one on a single row of piles, instead of the wider, longer dock we saw
on a double row of piles, we required he go through a shoreline variance process. The
process would require approval, to retain the structure as enlarged. The variance was
required because the dock did not meet the bulk and dimensional requirements of the
Shoreline Master Program, for either a single family dock or a community dock, being
among other things, too long.
At that time all Shoreline Permits went first through the Shoreline Advisory Board, then
to the Mason County Commissioners. Staff recommendation was for denial of the dock
as "proposed" (i.e. after the fact variance permit for work already done), and that the
Board require the proponent to revise the dock proposal to bring it into compliance with
Shoreline Master Program standards.
At the Shoreline Advisory Board meeting, the SAB required the applicant to revise the
proposal to meet the Shoreline Master Program dimensional standards, before they
would make any recommended decision, and remanded the project back to the
applicant for revision.
Pam Bennett-Cumming, M.E.S
Senior Planner - Watershed Planning & Regulatory Issues
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO Box 279
Shelton, WA 98584
(5/24/2007) Grace Miller Al Andrews shoreline variance Page 2J
phone: (360) 427-9670 x287
fax: (360) 427-8425
email: pambc@co.mason.wa.us