HomeMy WebLinkAboutConstruction of Second Story Deck without the Required County Approval or Permits - BLD Letters / Memos - 4/7/2008 �50N CO
MASON COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mason County Bldg. III, 426 West Cedar Street
PO Box 186, Shelton, WA 98584
www.co.mason.wa.us (360)427-9670 Belfair(360)275-4467 Elma (360)482-5269
April 7, 2008
John C Scott, Et Al
William Gurrad
13205 NE 61st Street
Kirkland, WA 98033-8656
RE: Mason County Building Code Violation: BCC2008-00143 — PENDING
Site Address: 1470 NE Tahuya-Blacksmith Rd., Tahuya, WA
Legal Description: Haven Lake Tr: 152
Parcel No.: 22330-50-00152
To all interested parties:
The Mason County Building Department has a pending enforcement case against the
above described parcel of land situated within Mason County for non-permitted construction of a
610 sq. ft. deck exceeding 30" in height. According to the Mason County Assessor records, you
are the current Taxpayer of this parcel.
Pursuant to Mason County Code, Title 14 Building and Construction, a permit for the type
of activity is required under the 2006 International Building Code and your property is currently
in violation status.
Our records indicate that construction of a deck exceeding 30" in height has been
constructed/replaced in the absence of county permits or approval on the above described
parcel.
Please submit the required After-the-Fact building permit for deck replacement along with
the required plans drawn to scale. Plans should include details of the footing, beam connection
and materials used. It will also be necessary to submit the materials used in the guardrail as
tempered glass is required. If your plans do not meet the required prescriptive plans,
engineering may be required.
As a courtesy, I am asking that you contact me, in regards to this violation and identify
what your intentions are in closing this matter. You are required to either permit or remove the
deck to avoid further enforcement actions.
I look forward to hearing from you to make the necessary arrangements prior to April 28,
2008.
If you feel you have received this notice in error, please contact me immediately at (360)
427-9670 ext. 356 to discuss your concerns.
Sincerely,
Mindi Brock
Building Inspector/Code Enforcement
Cc: Property File
rF e
�g
.�yy
w
-low z
,
BCC2008-00143 22330-50-00150 ENFORCEMENT PENDING - PERMIT OR REMOVE
t
7 t
a .v
t
i
�� v="
g.
. h. I-Ft q 2" � "ky�. irk)'
"M A J
.A
w
r n � a
F ,
.3
x�
y f
INVESTIGATION REPORT FORM
�/ Revised 11/14/06 �
� n
Case Number: CO-wo �oo�y 3 Parcel# -.Z3✓V - J D - o o I52-
Violation Site Address: I4-7 O Ht•-TU h V Va - B I)(J VYI I J:h ���UU15t
Property Owner(s):f U lr1 (L(_ p V�,l Vl�- (jZ_Telephone:
Mailing Address:
Occupant of Site or Operator: Uri I tl M b lJ Y r cl nnpIy WZ
H2G-- ZZ(o - �5105
Complainant Name: VIA0r1 r"Lq G1P- `Z 2E.L-1 Telephone:
Complainant Address:
Location of Concern/Directions to Site:
Nature of Concern: _ a+ - u
how Yl 1 i w✓Y1 I N Dr aP P 1 A(a C
� Gt�Vl,vl► r �
I
Department of Concern: Building ❑EH Septic ❑EH Solid ❑Planning ❑Fire ❑Public Works
(For Official Use Only Beyond This Point)
Received By: r' Date: 41A/25-223
Referred To: Date:
Investigation Date and Findings:
B LG203 3— 0o3LCe 69D I I&A -fir
Resolution:
i
Name: Date: -7 ` j
(8/6/2008)Jim Scholz- Re: Gurrad replacement Page 1
` From: Jim Scholz TO BE
To: Hoss, Rick KEPT IN T8E
CC: Crater, Ryan; Jim Scholz [�
Date: 8/6/2008 4:48 PM f'�i 1�CEL C��
Subject: Re: Gurrad replacement /— L 17
am,.,
Mr. Hoss,
The letter dated June 13, 2008 that was sent to Mr.Gurrad regarding the determination that was made by members of the
Mason County Planning Department concerning both the Non-Conforming Structure in FWHCA Buffer/Shoreline Building
Setback area and the replacement of a pre-existing but non-conforming pier/dock was very clear regarding this decision.
Your client can either comply with this decision or he can appeal this decision before the Hearing Examiner.
Regards,
James Scholz
>>> 'Rick Hoss" <rhoss@hctc.com> 8/5/2008 4:36 PM >>>
Jim,
I did receive my public record request and have had a chance to review this
file.There are a few items I request you clarify.
The issue of the long term existence of the nonconforming dock seems to be
directly addressed by Title 15.The language I request you review is set out
below.
I would very much like the chance to discuss with you the following with
regard to replacing the dock to its prior configuration:
1.The existence of the dock prior to the enactment of the
Shoreline Management Act and the MC SMP;
2.This repair is a total replacement that is common practice,
and does not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resources;
3.This repair/replacement was within a year after decay;
4.This total replacement is common practice;
5.This dock was not expanded,and nonconformance of the
appurtenant residential structure was not expanded;
6.The dock should be replaced without enlarging, intensifying, increasing
or altering in a way to increase the nonconformity.
I hope when you review this information you will be willing to discuss this
repair/replacement in more detail.
B.Applicability to Nonconforming Development. "Nonconforming development'
means a shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the Act or the Master Program,or
amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or
standards of the Program or policies of the Act. Nonconforming developments
may continue to be utilized for the same purpose established on the date of
the statute. If a change in use is proposed for such development,any new
use must obtain a permit by applicable regulations; PROVIDED that a proposed
new use for such development that does not conform to Master Program
policies may be considered as a Conditional Use.
(8/6/2008)Jim Scholz Re: Gurrad replacement Page 2
Normal maintenance and repair of nonconforming developments shall be
allowed. "Normal maintenance"includes those usual acts to prevent a
decline, lapse,or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal
repair"means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original
condition within a reasonable time period after decay or partial destruction
except where repair involves total replacement which is not common practice
or causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or
environment WAC 173-27-040(2)(b)).A reasonable period of time for repair 7'0 Bt E K E 'N
shall be up to one year after decay or partial destruction,except for THE
RC
bulkhead replacement which shall be allowed up to five years.Total
replacement which is common practice includes but is not limited to floats, f L F-L
bulkheads and structures damaged by accidents,fire and the elements.
This program shall not restrict the reconstruction within two years of the
date of damage of any existing single-family residence which is damaged or
destroyed by fire,accident or the elements, PROVIDED that nonconformance
with the standards and regulations of this program shall not be increased by
such reconstruction. Reconstruction of any development other than
single-family residences and their appurtenant structures shall be done in
accordance with the requirements for new development.
Expansion of a nonconforming development is prohibited.
Nonconforming development may be continued provided that it is not enlarged,
intensified or increased or altered in any way which increases its
nonconformity: PROVIDED significant environmental damage does not result.
Expansion of a development which is nonconforming by reason of substandard
lot dimensions,setback requirements or lot area,but which is not a
nonconforming use may be allowed as a Variance.
With respect to the cement structure you refer to as a "boat house",I would
like clarification about whether the county's determination was based on the
MCSMP or the FWHCA. I will agree that the MCSMP is the proper regulation
concerning the boat house,but would like to get your views about why you
think the FWHCA may apply.This distinction is important in fact,and in
view of the recent law established by our Supreme Court: 'The protection of
Washington's shorelines for all citizens is an important state
constitutional interest reflected in the SMA enacted by the people. No local
government may impose regulations that are in conflict with the state's
general laws." Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, 162 Wash 2d. 683,702(2007).
It is easy to recognize the applicability and enforceability of the MCSMP
over the"boat house"structure,then apply those rules. I understand this
may not be in your scope of job duties, but I welcome the opportunity to
discuss this with you at your convenience.
In the meantime I am recommending to Dr. Gurrard that he seek wetland
biologist Lee Boad's assistance with a plan for getting the structure"boat
house"to meet the applicable regulations.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my request to discuss
this matter in more detail. I will be happy to meet in your office,and you
are always welcome in mine.
Sincerely,
Rick
8/6/200$ Jim Scholz- Re: Gurrad re lacement Pa e 3
RICHARD T. HOSS
rhoss@hctc.com
HOSS&WILSON-HOSS, LLP
236 W. Birch St.,Shelton,WA 98584 TO BE KEPT IN
Off: (360)426-2999; Fax: (360)426-6715 T�1t
PARCEL FILE
NOTICES
CONFIDENTIAL&PRIVILEGED: This email message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this email
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
e-mail message and any attachment.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS,we hereby notify you that,to the extent that this written
communication addresses tax matters, it is not intended and cannot be used
to avoid tax-related penalties under federal,state or local law.
8/6/2008)Jim Scholz-Gurrad Page 1
' From: Ryan Crater THE
Scholz, Jim TO BE KEPT IN TH
Date: 8/5/2008 5:22 PM
Subject: Gurrad
RC ESL R _
Jim,
I would respond to Mr. Hoss by simply saying that your letter dated June 13, 2008 was
very clear regarding the final decision surrounding the case and end it at that. If he
wishing to debate our final decision he can do that with the Hearings Examiner who is
better suited to here his arguments.
Ryan.
(8/6/2008) Jim Scholz- Gurrad Page 1
From: Ryan Crater
To: rhoss@hctc.com TO BE KEPT IN
CC: Scholz, Jim
Date: 8/5/2008 5:42 PM IF��x F
Subject: Gurrad .._
Rick,
I will be sending out an official notice of code violation tomorrow to Mr. Gurrad. I was
hoping to work with your client to resolve the violations, but it appears that is not going
to be the case. I am anticipating a deadline of Aug 26th... give or take a few days.
Anticipated hearing date will be Oct. 13th if compliance is not met.
I believe Jim Scholz made it pretty clear in his June 13, 2008 letter as to how he was
reviewing the structures.
Until I hear otherwise from Monty Cobb or a ruling from the Hearings Examiner on the
interpretation of Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, I am of the position your use of the final
ruling is not applicable.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner / Code Enforcement
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO BOX 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Phone # 360-427-9670 ext. 577
Fax # 360-427-8425
(8/5/2008)Jim Scholz-Gurrad replacement Pa e 1
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss@hctc.com>
To: <JimSc@co.mason.wa.us>
CC: <wggurraddds@comcast.net>, "'Vicki Born"'<vickib@hctc.com>
Date: 8/5/2008 4:36 PM
Subject: Gurrad replacement TO BE KEPT IN THE
Jim, HACH Fl F
I did receive my public record request and have had a chance to review this
file. There are a few items I request you clarify.
The issue of the long term existence of the nonconforming dock seems to be
directly addressed by Title 15. The language I request you review is set out
below.
I would very much like the chance to discuss with you the following with
regard to replacing the dock to its prior configuration:
1.The existence of the dock prior to the enactment of the
Shoreline Management Act and the MC SMP;
2. This repair is a total replacement that is common practice,
and does not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resources;
3. This repair/replacement was within a year after decay;
4. This total replacement is common practice;
5. This dock was not expanded, and nonconformance of the
appurtenant residential structure was not expanded;
6. The dock should be replaced without enlarging, intensifying, increasing
or altering in a way to increase the nonconformity.
hope when you review this information you will be willing to discuss this
repair/replacement in more detail.
B. Applicability to Nonconforming Development. "Nonconforming development"
means a shoreline use or structure which was lawfully constructed or
established prior to the effective date of the Act or the Master Program, or
amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or
standards of the Program or policies of the Act. Nonconforming developments
may continue to be utilized for the same purpose established on the date of
the statute. If a change in use is proposed for such development, any new
use must obtain a permit by applicable regulations; PROVIDED that a proposed
new use for such development that does not conform to Master Program
policies may be considered as a Conditional Use.
Normal maintenance and repair of nonconforming developments shall be
allowed. "Normal maintenance" includes those usual acts to prevent a
decline, lapse, or cessation from a lawfully established condition. "Normal
repair" means to restore a development to a state comparable to its original
condition within a reasonable time period after decay or partial destruction
except where repair involves total replacement which is not common practice
(8/5/2008)Jim Scholz- Gurrad replacement Page 2
or causes substantial adverse effects to the shoreline resource or TO BE KEPT IN THE
environment WAC 173-27-040(2)(b)).A reasonable period of time for repair ! A' l C L L F f L E
shall be up to one year after decay or partial destruction, except for
bulkhead replacement which shall be allowed up to five years. Total
replacement which is common practice includes but is not limited to floats,
bulkheads and structures damaged by accidents,fire and the elements.
This program shall not restrict the reconstruction within two years of the
date of damage of any existing single-family residence which is damaged or
destroyed by fire, accident or the elements, PROVIDED that nonconformance
with the standards and regulations of this program shall not be increased by
such reconstruction. Reconstruction of any development other than
single-family residences and their appurtenant structures shall be done in
accordance with the requirements for new development.
Expansion of a nonconforming development is prohibited.
Nonconforming development may be continued provided that it is not enlarged,
intensified or increased or altered in any way which increases its
nonconformity: PROVIDED significant environmental damage does not result.
Expansion of a development which is nonconforming by reason of substandard
lot dimensions, setback requirements or lot area, but which is not a
nonconforming use may be allowed as a Variance.
With respect to the cement structure you refer to as a"boat house", I would
like clarification about whether the county's determination was based on the
MCSMP or the FWHCA. I will agree that the MCSMP is the proper regulation
concerning the boat house, but would like to get your views about why you
think the FWHCA may apply. This distinction is important in fact, and in
view of the recent law established by our Supreme Court: "The protection of
Washington's shorelines for all citizens is an important state
constitutional interest reflected in the SMA enacted by the people. No local
government may impose regulations that are in conflict with the state's
general laws." Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, 162 Wash 2d. 683, 702 (2007).
It is easy to recognize the applicability and enforceability of the MCSMP
over the"boat house"structure, then apply those rules. I understand this
may not be in your scope of job duties, but I welcome the opportunity to
discuss this with you at your convenience.
In the meantime I am recommending to Dr. Gurrard that he seek wetland
biologist Lee Boad's assistance with a plan for getting the structure"boat
house"to meet the applicable regulations.
Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my request to discuss
this matter in more detail. I will be happy to meet in your office, and you
are always welcome in mine.
Sincerely,
Rick
Jim—Sc—hod G rra-d |
�� ��� KEPT �0 l�W�
R|CHARO T. HOSS U �� ���— //v � x ��—
T �����—� �~� ! ��
hms��hoc. om u�r�k�K .� K � � _
HOSS & VV|LSON'HOSS. LLP
230 W. Birch St, She|Von, WA 08584
Off: (360)426'2000; Fax: (360)428'6715
NOTICES
CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED: This email message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this email
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
e-mail message and any attachment.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with requirements imposed by the
|RS, we hereby notify you that, to the extent that this written
communication addresses tax matters, itiu not intended and cannot beused
to avoid tax-related penalties under federal, state or local law.
�
f (7/25/2008)Jim Scholz- Records request Page 1
TO BE KEPT IN THE
From: Sandra Pridmore PARCEL R; F
To: Crater, Ryan; Scholz, Jim
Date: 7/22/2008 11:01 AM
Subject: Records request
I have a records request from Hoss&Wilson-Noss asking for all correspondence, letters and a-mails from Ryan Crater and
Jim Scholz regarding parcel #22330-50-00152. Permit numbers; BLD2008-00366 and BLD2008-00404. Client name is: Dr.
William Gurrad.
Since these permits are still open I don't have all the records in the Parcel file. Please give me anything you have this
afternoon and I will make copies of the information.
Thank you so much,
Sandra
(7/17/2008) Jim Scholz- RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad) Page 1l
j E BE KEPT IN THE
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss@hctc.com>
To: "'Ryan Crater"' <RyanC@co.mason.wa.us>
CC: "'Jim Scholz"' <JimSc.mail.Mason@co.mason.wa.us>, <Danielle@hctc.com>
Date: 7/17/2008 11:38 AM
Subject: RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad)
Ryan and Jim,
I represent William Gurrad. Please immediately forward a copy of the June 13, 2008 letter to Dr. Gurrad
referenced in Ryan's email. I am making this request so I may meet any time deadlines that may be in the
letter. I specifically asked for any deadlines, and have not received a complete answer.
I will submit a public records request for this today, but request you spend 5 minutes and just forward this
letter to me now.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Rick
RICHARD T. HOSS
rhoss@hctc.com
HOSS&WILSON-HOSS, LLP
236 W. Birch St., Shelton, WA 98584
Off: (360)426-2999; Fax: (360)426-6715
NOTICES
CONFIDENTIAL& PRIVILEGED: This email message may contain legally privileged and/or confidential
information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all
copies of this e-mail message and any attachment.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS,we hereby
notify you that, to the extent that this written communication addresses tax matters, it is not intended and
cannot be used to avoid tax-related penalties under federal, state or local law.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Crater [mailto:RyanC@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:54 AM
To: Rick Hoss
Cc: Jim Scholz; Danielle@hctc.com
Subject: RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad)
Rick,
The enforcement case only went as far as the posted stop work order.
When Mr. Gurrad seen the stop work order he immediately called in and
asked what he needed to do. Being that he submitted the necessary
documents in a timely manner no further enforcement action was taken or
deadlines set. From what I understand portions of his projects do not
meet the standard guidelines for design criteria under the Shoreline
Master Program. If Mr. Gurrad complies with the current design
standards there should be no further issues from the County and the
permits approved for the bulkhead and dock. The structure he built
within the buffer which appears to be a boat house or a similar
structure presents a number of regulatory issues. The June 13 letter
[(7/17/2008)Jim Scholz RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad) Page 2
TO E KEPT IN TH r-
was notification to the land owner of our final review determination. Pl-i 0 1 CE J° , r�
Appeals are forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for a determination if Mr.
�
Gurrad would like to appeal our final determination.
Your client should have provided you with a copy of the June 13 letter.
If not, we would be glad to provide you with one upon receiving a the
public record request. I don't anticipate this taking more than a few
days. Another option would be for Mr. Gurrad to give Jim a call and let
him know that you are acting as his agent then we could release the
information to you.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner/Code Enforcement
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO BOX 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Phone#360-427-9670 ext. 577
Fax#360-427-8425
>>>"Rick Hoss" <rhoss@hctc.com>7/17/2008 10:12 am >>>
Ryan,
The only June 13 letter I've seen is from DOE has the comments from Kim
Van
Zwalenburg to the effect that replacement is authorized as repair when
common.
Please forward the June 13 letter so I can see where you are.
I still request a meeting. I feel in our last matter it took me a month
to
figure out what was the problem, then only after reviewing the partial
results of my record request. It would be nice to learn early on the
parameters of the county's actual concern.
I will submit a record request on Gurrad, but suggest a better way to
proceed is for you to just send me the critical documents. It actually
will
benefit the County to cooperatively forward these critical documents.
One example, my 3 week old request for Public Works bridge
applications
still has not been answered. My idea was there were two bridges
replaced in
connection with the emergency, and it will be helpful to see what
paperwork
accompanied the county's work in view of the requests being made of
the
private party. I know you told me I had to seek records requests for
all
documents, but if the county doesn't timely respond, not unusual, the
problems become more complex, rather than less. The public record
compliance
(7/17/20D8)Jim Scholz- RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad) Page 3
•problems can have an effect on the overall resolution, effects that TO BE KEPT IN THE/' �t
can l-', CEL '�
easily be avoided at an overall cost savings to the county. :..
So please, please forward the June 13 letter, and other key documents,
without me having to wait for a record request.
Please also advise the most recent date Mason Co. took any land use
action
regarding Gurrad. I want to make sure there are no deadlines I am not
aware
of.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Rick
RICHARD T. HOSS
rhoss@hctc.com
HOSS &WILSON-HOSS, LLP
236 W. Birch St., Shelton, WA 98584
Off: (360)426-2999; Fax: (360)426-6715
NOTICES
CONFIDENTIAL& PRIVILEGED: This email message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this
email
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of
this
e-mail message and any attachment.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with requirements imposed by
the
IRS, we hereby notify you that, to the extent that this written
communication addresses tax matters, it is not intended and cannot be
used
to avoid tax-related pen
alties under federal, state or local law.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Crater[mailto:Ryan C@co.mason.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 4:41 PM
To: rhoss@hctc.com
Cc: Jim Scholz
Subject: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad)
Rick,
A final decision was made with regards to the permits associated with
the
above enforcement case,which are outlined in the June 13 letter.
With
regards to your representation of Mr. Gurrad... are you specifically
disputing portions of the final decisions made in the June 13 letter?
(7/17/20D8)Jim Scholz- RE: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad) Page 4
TO BE KEPT IN THE
If PARCEL R o F
so, those disputes will possibly need to be address through a hearing :--
process in front of Mason County Hearings Examiner. Several Senior
Level
Planners, myself, and Jim met regarding this issue of which the result
was
the June 13 letter.
As stated above please provide specifics regarding any disputes
associated
with the final decision outlined in the June 13 letter.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner/Code Enforcement
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO BOX 279
Shelton, WA 98584
Phone#360-427-9670 ext. 577
Fax#360-427-8425
(7/17/2008)Jim Scholz- Dr. Gurrad Page 1
_ ._ --
From: "Rick Hoss" <rhoss@hctc.com> TO �� �� -��T IN TH`
To: <JimSc@co.mason.wa.us>
CC: "'Vicki Born"' <vickib@hctc.com>, <wggurraddds@comcast.net> ' :d �C E L
Date: 7/16/2008 2:59 PM
Subject: Dr. Gurrad
Jim,
will be representing Dr. William Gurrad in connection with the dock and
bulkhead replacement and Shoreline Master Program compliance at his Haven
Lake property. I have reviewed the materials Dr. Gurrad provided me and have
some familiarity with the governing regulations applicable to this
situation.
Please let me know when it will be convenient for you to meet with me to
discuss this project in more detail. Please also confirm that this notice is
sufficient for you to copy me on all matters concerning Dr. Gurrad or his
property.
Thank you for your kind assistance with my request.
Sincerely,
Rick
RICHARD T. HOSS
rhoss@hctc.com
HOSS &W ILSON-HOSS, LLP
236 W. Birch St., Shelton, WA 98584
Off: (360)426-2999; Fax: (360)426-6715
NOTICES
CONFIDENTIAL& PRIVILEGED: This email message may contain legally
privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this email
in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this
e-mail message and any attachment.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: In compliance with requirements imposed by the
IRS, we hereby notify you that, to the extent that this written
(7/16/20D8)Jim Scholz- ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad) Page 1,
From: Ryan Crater TO BE KEPT IN
To: rhoss@hctc.com
CC: Scholz, Jim d ,�
Date: 7/16/2008 4:41 PM
Subject: ENF2008-00016 (Gurrad)
Rick,
A final decision was made with regards to the permits associated with the above enforcement case,which are outlined in
the June 13 letter. With regards to your representation of Mr.Gurrad...are you specifically disputing portions of the final
decisions made in the June 13 letter? If so,those disputes will possibly need to be address through a hearing process in
front of Mason County Hearings Examiner. Several Senior Level Planners, myself,and Jim met regarding this issue of which
the result was the June 13 letter.
As stated above please provide specifics regarding any disputes associated with the final decision outlined in the June 13
letter.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner/Code Enforcement
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO BOX 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone#360-427-9670 ext. 577
Fax#360-427-8425
(6/25/2008)Jim Scholz- Replacement of Non-Conforming Dock Page 1
TO BE KEPT IN 7.HE
From: Jim Scholz
To: wggurraddds@comcast.net
CC: Crater, Ryan; Fink, Robert
Date: 6/25/2008 10:31 AM
Subject: Replacement of Non-Conforming Dock
Attachments: Letter Gurrad.doc
Mr.Gurrad,
I am unsure of what your question is concerning the SEPA comments unless you are referring to the comments you received back
from Kim Van Zwalenburg dated June 16,2008,in which she states that..... "it does appear that the proposal is for a
nonconforming structure......." . Per your e-mail of 6/17/08 as stated in both my return e-mail to you as an attachment(for your
convenience I am also attaching the same letter)and in the letter I sent out to you dated(June 13,2008) "Complete replacement
of a non-conforming structure(pier/dock)that does meet the above criteria must be done in compliance with the current
regulations.The portions of your dock or pier wider than 8 ft.do not meet current code. Based on the standards of the SMP Use
Regulations the application for the pier/dock can be revised with a new site plan to reflect the current design standards of the
Shoreline Master Program and can then be further processed by the planning staff.In order for me to process your application
(BLD2008-00366)you must first submit a revised site plan as stated above which meets the current SMP Regulations.If I can be of
further assistance concerning this matter please feel free to contact me either by e-mail or by phone.
Regards,
Jim Scholz
360-671-6764
>>> Ryan Crater 6/25/2008 10:04 AM >>>
Mr.Gurrad,
I am not handling the SEPA comments. I forwarded your e-mail to Jim the Planner for your area.
Regards,
Ryan Crater
Land Use Planner/Code Enforcement
Mason County Department of Community Development
411 North 5th
PO BOX 279
Shelton,WA 98584
Phone#360-427-9670 ext. 577
Fax#360-427-8425
>>> "William Gurrad" <woourraddds@comcast.net> 6/25/2008 8:05 am >>>
Ryan:
I talked to Phyllis in Mason County permitting on June 24,2008. Phyllis said that Ryan Crater was the individual to talk to
about SEPA comments and that is why I had left a voice message for you yesterday.
The "L"shaped dock which was removed from our shoreline on Haven Lake earlier this year had all of its supporting structure
in varying degrees of rottenness....50%to 100%as it had been placed there in 1981-2 to replace the then existing decayed dock of
the same configuration and dimension that had been there since the early 1960's or earlier. My wife who visited that lake property
often since the early 1960's will attest to these facts.
Thank you for your attention to this SEPA matter Ryan.
Respectfully,
William Gurrad
(6/17/20A8)Jim Scholz- Re: Update on questions that have arisen Page 1
1 ----- - -- -- — --
' From: Jim Scholz TO BE KEPT IN THE
To: Gurrad, William
CC: Jim Scholz " ;- ' [�
Date: 6/17/2008 8:27 AM F1
Subject: Re: Update on questions that have arisen
Attachments: Letter Gurrad.doc
Mr.Gurrad,
I sent out a letter yesterday concerning the Mason County Planning Department's decision on both the unpermitted, illegal
structure in the Fish&Wildlife Critical Area Buffer on Mason Lake and questions that have arisen concerning the
replacement of your dock. I also included with the letter all the necessary documentation that the decision is based on. I
have included as an attachment a copy of the letter that was sent out.Additionally for your information I will be signing off
on two of your three permits(the permits for the deck and the bulkhead)either today or tomorrow. If you have addiitonal
questions concerning the letter or the documentation please contact me via e-mail.
Thank you,
Jim Scholz
wgqurraddds@comcast.net> 6/17/2008 7:26 AM >>>
Jim Scholz:
I hope you had a very pleasant Father's Day.
I did receive the SEPA ending comment letter from Mason County. The only question I saw listed was the prior
existence of the 10'x 14'section of dock next to the bulkhead. That question had been addressed and answered via photo
documentation given to you during our May 16th meeting in Shelton. The permit status web site of Mason County also
notes verification of prior dock.
I talked to Gloria Rogers Monday,June 16,2008 again. She was not aware of a definite date for response to Mason
County. I did clarify that the new bulkhead is in place but there is no new dock in place at this time. She mentioned that
Hydraulic Project Approval is only issued for structures going in.
Jim,you had mentioned that you hoped to have answers to the remaining questions of the buffer zone structure at
SEPA ending date,Jun 13th. I would appreciate having those answers e-mailed to me so I cam get my part done in a
reasonably allowed time. Thank you in advance for your attention and response to the questions that have arisen.
William Gurrad
SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY
■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent
■ Print your name and address on the reversQ X ❑Addressee
' so that we can return the card to you. B. Re ' ted Name) C. Date of Delivery
■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, '.
or on the front if space permits.
1. Article Addressed to: a d4y,
ff nt from item 1? ❑Yes
dress below: ❑ No
JOHN C SCOTT ET AL �d1
WILLIAM GURRAD v
13205 NE 61 ST STREET 3. Seice Type
KIRKLAND WA 98033-8656 L�J Certified Mail ❑Express Mail
❑ Registered ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise j
❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. I
4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes
2. Article Number
(Transfer from service label) 7007 1490 0004 6442 9353
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
Sender: Please print your name, address, and Z115*4;;�<box
Mason County
Community Devellopnwlft
PO Box 186
Shelton, WA q$W RECEIVED
|
426 W. CEDAR Si.
|