HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026/03/23 - Briefing PacketMASON COUNTY COMMISSIONER BRIEFING INFORMATION
FOR THE WEEK OF
March 23, 2026
In the spirit of public information and inclusion, the attached is a draft of information for
Commissioner consideration and discussion at the above briefing.
This information is subject to change, additions and/or deletion, and is not all inclusive of
what will be presented to the Commissioners.
Please see draft briefing agenda for schedule.
Commission meetings are live streamed at http://www.masonwebtv.com/ and public comment is accepted
via email msmith@masoncountywa.gov; mail to Commissioners Office, 411 N 5th Street, Shelton, WA
98584; or phone at (360) 427-9670 ext. 419. If you need to listen to the Commission meeting via
telephone, please provide your telephone number to the Commissioners’ office no later than 4:00 p.m. the
Friday before the meeting. If special accommodations are needed, contact the Commissioners' office at
Shelton (360) 427-9670 ext. 419
Briefing Agendas are subject to change, please contact the Commissioners’ office for the most recent
version.
Last printed 03/20/26 at 11:28 AM
BOARD OF MASON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DRAFT BRIEFING MEETING AGENDA
411 North Fifth Street, Shelton WA 98584
Week of March 23, 2026
Monday
Noon WA State Association of Counties Zoom Meeting*
Virtual Assembly
*This is being noticed as a Special Commission meeting because a quorum of the Mason County Commission may
attend this event and notification is provided per Mason County Code Chapter 2.88.020 - Special Meetings.
Monday, March 23, 2026
Zoom link available on the Mason County website
Commission Chambers
Times are subject to change, depending on the amount of business presented
9:00 A.M. Community Development – Kell Rowen
9:10 A.M. Public Works – Mike Collins
Utilities & Waste Management
9:25 A.M. Support Services – Travis Adams
10:00 A.M. Mason County Historical Museum – Elizabeth Arbaugh
Commissioner Discussion – as needed
Mason County Community Development
Briefing
March 23, 2026
Briefing Items
→ Caldervin Creek – Kell Rowen
→ Chapter 17.05.034 Granting of Variances Authorized – Kell Rowen
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Kell Rowen Ext: 286
Department: Community Development Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☐
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): March 23, 2023 Agenda Date(s): Click or tap here to enter text.
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☒ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item: Caldervin Creek and alleged violations of the Mason County Shoreline Master Program (SMP).
Background/Executive Summary: Complainant argues that a violation of the County’s SMP occurred
when the Department of Natural Resources removed a beaver dam at the headwaters of Caldervin Creek
in 2016 causing sediment problems in the creek and Hood Canal.
Washington law specifically addresses beaver dam removal under the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s (WDFW) hydraulic rules, which recognize that breaching or removing a beaver dam can
release sediment and damage downstream habitat, and WDFW identifies beaver dam removal or
modification as work requiring Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) review. So, while the reported
sediment impacts to Hood Canal and its local oyster beds may be serious, that does not create County
shoreline enforcement authority where the originating work occurred outside shoreline jurisdiction. In this
circumstance, the more appropriate regulators would have been the relevant state agencies with authority
over in-water work and fish habitat, not Mason County acting under its SMP.
The Department of Ecology (ECY) also confirmed that there is insufficient evidence of a violation of
RCW 90.58 (Shoreline Management Act of 1971).
Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.): N/A
Public Outreach: N/A
Requested Action: Discussion only.
Attachment(s): Email chain between Mr. Brad Carey and ECY;
Memo to file from ECY for ERTS No. 741925
From:Sandercock, Maria (ECY)
To:brad carey
Cc:Pat Tarzwell; Sharon Trask; Randy Neatherlin; Kell Rowen; Jayme Martin; Jeremy Norton; Ian Tracy; Tim
Whitehead
Subject:RE: ERTS 741925 investigation update Caldervin Creek and shorelands, tidelands of Hood Canal and tahuya River
Date:Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:38:20 AM
Attachments:ERTS 741925_Memo to file.pdf
Good morning Brad,
Thank you for your patience in receiving this response. Ecology has no findings or
positions with respect to whether the 2016 event happened or caused damages to
downstream properties. Our finding is that there is insufficient evidence of a current
violation of RCW 90.48 and RCW 90.58 and we are taking no further action on the
ERTS report. Our memo outlines our investigation, which I’ve re-attached here.
Sincerely,
Maria Sandercock (she/her)
Section Manager, Southwest Region | Shorelands & Environmental Assistance
Program | WA Department of Ecology
cell: 425-256-1372 | maria.sandercock@ecy.wa.gov
This communication is public record and may be subject to disclosure as per the Washington State Public Records Act,
RCW 42.56.
From: brad carey <liberty2011@live.com>
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2026 7:55 AM
To: Sandercock, Maria (ECY) <MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: Pat Tarzwell <ptarzwell@masoncountywa.gov>; Sharon Trask <strask@masoncountywa.gov>;
Randy Neatherlin <randyn@masoncountywa.gov>; krowen <krowen@masoncountywa.gov>; Jayme
Martin <jmartin@masoncountywa.gov>; jnorton@masoncountywa.gov; Ian Tracy
<itracy@masoncountywa.gov>; Tim Whitehead <timw@masoncountywa.gov>
Subject: Re: ERTS 741925 investigation update Caldervin Creek and shorelands, tidelands of Hood
Canal and tahuya River
External Email
Good morning Maria,
It has been three weeks and once again you have not responded to my email below.
I don't know if you received it, read it, understood it, or are intentionally ignoring it.
Please acknowledge receipt of my email below, and then please answer our questions our
team and community have regarding your departments investigation of my last years ERTS
complaint I filed with your office for these ongoing environmental catastrophic CWA violations
we are witnessing as DNR continues to fill in critical wetlands with gravel and debris in
Cladervin Creek, Tahuya River, and Hood Canal.
I will be out of my office and on vacation until 04/03/26, but I would appreciate a response by
the time I return. I have a leadership meeting scheduled early next month with our team
regarding your investigation I requested, and I would like your answers to my questions in my
email below before this meeting.
Please advise me who your manager is and their contact information as well.
Thank you,
Brad
360-801-1500
From: brad carey <liberty2011@live.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2026 3:59 PM
To: Sandercock, Maria (ECY) <MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Re: ERTS 741925 investigation update Caldervin Creek and shorelands, tidelands of
Hood Canal and tahuya River
Good afternoon Maria,
I finally had a chance to review your attached investigation of my ERTS complaint.
Our findings, DNR admissions, expert witness reports, DNR's approved remediation plan,
Mason County's DCD and Public Works findings and reports, and court rulings all seem in
opposite of DOE's report/memo claiming of no past and continuing damages.
Is it DOE's findings/position that the 12/01/2016 DNR event did not happen?
And or is it DOE's/findings/position that the event happened, but no damages occurred?
And or is it DOE's findings/position that the event happened and damages occurred, but they
cured themselves and are not ongoing?
It was our hope that who ever DOE assigned to investigate my ERTS complaint, might show a
little interest in learning what all us natives living out each day along the creek and the
County's investigation, as well as lawmakers, WDFW inspectors, WDFW fish counters, the
HCSEG, expert hydrologist and biologists - to name a few, have all witnessed and continue to
witness.
Do you know who DOE had investigate my ERTS complaint and write your report/memo?
Your attached memo is unauthored - unless I missed it in your 13 page report.
I really do appreciate DOE investigating my ERTS complaint. Our team and I, as well as our
community and many others are baffled that DOE's findings appear to have been also
prepared with out any witnesses of the ongoing damages we all are seeing, being contacted
by DOE. In fact, it ignored the $3.1M in payment for damages to three of us plaintiff's.
Would it help your closed out investigation, if you spoke to some witnesses at WDFW or DNR
or the County? Would it be helpful if DOE were to interview our team investigators and ask us
for our creek bed elevation readings of before and after we emergency HPA dredged a limited
portion of the creek and beach under phase one of the DNR approved remediation plan in
early 2024? I asked witnesses that are aware of the past and ongoing DNR damages both town
folks and several of our County officials, if DOE had interviewed any of them. They all said they
were not contacted. Would it be helpful to DOE's investigation, if our team were to dig about
a six foot deep hole on the creek shorelands and Canal tidelands where they merged and
show your investigator the dying and decaying sea life that was and continues to get covered
by DNR's unpermitted gravel discharge and continued discharges? If so, we should plan to
meet and perform during at least a 5 foot low tide for proper investigation viewing.
If our team, the community, DNR, the County, and our expert witnesses could prove to DOE
that DNR's 12/01/2016 unpermitted actions did and continue to cause both catastrophic
environmental and residential damages, would DOE find that proof important to it's
investigation? If so, please let us know and I can have at least 50 witnesses speak to you to the
past and ongoing damages they have witnesses and some have experienced first hand. The
municipal agency of Mason County is one of those witnesses, as well as WDFW and even DNR
themselves, if you interview the correct employees, will share with you the past and ongoing
damages they are aware of.
Please let us know the answers to our questions. We are here to help.
Thank you and have a good weekend.
Brad
360-801-1500
From: Sandercock, Maria (ECY) <MARI461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 2:50 PM
To: brad carey <liberty2011@live.com>
Subject: ERTS 741925 update
Good afternoon Brad,
I’m writing to let you know that we have completed our investigation related to ERTS 741925,
which involved reports of filling of wetlands associated with discharge from a 2016 incident at
a culvert on Caldervin Creek. We have determined that Ecology will take no further action on
this case due to insufficient evidence that a new violation of RCW 90.48 or RCW 90.58 has
occurred. Attached is a copy of a memo for the ERTS record that outlines our investigation
and findings.
Sincerely,
Maria
Maria Sandercock (she/her)
Section Manager, Southwest Region | Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program | WA
Department of Ecology
cell: 425-256-1372 | maria.sandercock@ecy.wa.gov
This communication is public record and may be subject to disclosure as per the Washington State Public Records Act,
RCW 42.56.
Page 1 of 13
Washington State Department of
Ecology Memorandum to File
January 26, 2026
Subject: Memo to File Regarding Follow Up Action for Environmental Report Tracking System (ERTS)
No. 741925
The Shorelands & Environmental Assistance Program (SEA) program received the above ERTS and
conducted the following review for potential violations to RCW 90.48 and RCW 90.58.
1. Reviewed relation to ERTS #720434 which had not been reviewed further due to an active court
case regarding the reported incident.
2. Conducted a desktop analysis of the reported impact area to verify SEA’s jurisdiction under RCW
90.48 and RCW 90.58. Caldervin Creek does fall under Ecology’s jurisdiction (under RCW 90.48).
Caldervin Creek is not a shoreline of the state under RCW 90.58, but portions within 200 feet of
Hood Canal are within shoreline jurisdiction (RCW 90.58).
3. Conducted a desktop analysis of the area to determine specifically the presence of wetlands. No
indication of wetlands were found near the mouth of the creek, or along the creek. This was
based on the following review:
o Review of WA Coastal Atlas and Mason County WA GIS Imagery. Tidal Aquatic Bed is
present where Caldervin Creek flows into Tahuya Bay and emergent wetlands are
mapped along the Wood Lake side of the culvert. No other wetlands were mapped
along the creek. Review of the Puget Sound Shoreline Mapping Project | Encyclopedia of
Puget Sound provided additional insight.
4. Conducted a desktop analysis of historical aerial imagery of Caldervin Creek and its mouth at the
Hood Canal. Imagery indicated sediment plume present in multiple years prior to 2016
(Attachment A).
5. Reviewed the case history for Brad Carey, Pamela Rogers, and Liberty Management LLC vs
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) (Case #19-2-00737-23). This included
court documents, along with interviews with DNR.
o Specifically, the Joint Motion to Vacate Judgment and Orders Filed October 30, 2023,
and November 17, 2023, dated December 26, 2023, which states “The parties have
agreed to a global resolution of this action that eliminates the need for the Defendant to
produce a remediation plan or undertake the performance of rumination activities.
Under these circumstances, the Court’s orders and judgement are inequitable in their
prospective application.” Page 3 Line 25 through page 4 line 2.
6. Reviewed the emergency HPA (#2024-6-51+03) received by Brad Carey for the dredge of
Caldervin Creek.
Page 2 of 13
7. Conducted a site visit to Caldervin Creek near the mouth at hood Canal on 12/11/2025, the
week of the atmospheric river (previous 24 hours received 0.93 inches of rain at weather station
KWATAHUY28). Ecology observed the creek from NE North Shore Road and from county right of
way off NE Shorebrook Drive. Staff observed what appeared to be typical creek bed conditions
with a cobbled sized rock bed. Cobbles appeared to be 1-3 inches, although measurements
weren’t taken. Water in the creek was relatively clear. There was no evidence of recent or
ongoing pollutants from Ecology’s vantage points and no evidence of wetlands.
8. Conducted a site visit to Wood Lake and Caldervin Creek at site of culvert connection on
12/31/2025. Evidence of woody material and cobble movement from Wood Lake to Caldervin
Creek through the culvert was present but appeared to be a natural process. Ecology staff
observed wetlands directly downstream of the culvert, with no real defined creek channel.
Water pooled within the wetland approx. 7-inches deep. Water then transitions into a defined
creek bed with a gravel/cobble bed, lacking much loose material. Then about 25 yards from the
culvert is a ~25-foot-tall waterfall, with pooled water at the base. No discharge of fill material
into the wetlands beyond natural processes was observed.
During the same site visit Ecology visited an unnamed creek crossing under NE Belfair Tahuya
Rd, just northeast of Caldervin Creek. This served as a reference creek. The unnamed creek
originates in Rodney White Slough and eventually drains in the Hood Canal, following a similar
path as Caldervin Creek. The watershed appears to be similar in size and has similar land cover
and land uses. Ecology observed similar conditions in the unnamed creek as Caldervin Creek in
terms of streambed material and size.
Based on the review of the above items, the SEA program has determined we will take no further action
due to insufficient evidence that a new violation of RCW 90.48 or RCW 90.58 has occurred. There is
insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is ongoing discharge of pollutants from the actions
related to the culvert at Woods Lake and thus, there does not appear to be evidence of a new violation
under RCW 90.48. There is no new development or use in shoreline jurisdiction and therefore no
evidence of a violation of RCW 90.58.
Attachments (2): A – Historical aerial imagery of lower Caldervin Creek
B – Collection of photos from site visits.
Page 3 of 13
Attachment A: Historical aerial imagery of lower Caldervin Creek
Figure 1: 2009 Google Earth imagery of Caldervin Creek mouth showing sediment plume where creek
drains into Hood Canal.
Figure 2: 2011 Google Earth Imagery.
Page 4 of 13
Figure 3: 2013 Google Earth Imagery.
Figure 4: August 2016 Google Earth Imagery (culvert incident occurred December 1, 2016, per Joint
Motion to Vacate (No. 19-2-00737023).
Page 5 of 13
Figure 5: June 2017 Google Earth Imagery.
Figure 6: 2018 Google Earth Imagery.
Page 6 of 13
Figure 7: 2021 Google Earth Imagery.
Figure 8: 2023 Google Earth Imagery.
Page 7 of 13
Attachment B: Collection of photos from site visits
Figure 9: Caldervin Creek observed from the NE North Shore Road bridge looking downstream to the
southeast toward the Hood Canal. Figure depicts typical creek bed conditions with cobbled size rock bed
and relatively clearwater. Taken 12/11/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 8 of 13
Figure 10: Caldervin Creek observed from NE North Shore Road bridge looking upstream to the
northwest. Figure shows typical creek bed conditions with cobbled size rock bed and relatively
clearwater. Taken 12/11/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 9 of 13
Figure 11: Unnamed reference creek observed from NE Belfair Tahuya Rd bridge, just northeast of
Caldervin Creek, looking upstream to the northwest. Figure shows typical creek bed conditions with
cobbled size rock bed, like Caldervin Creek. Taken 12/31/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 10 of 13
Figure 12: Caldervin Creek and Wood Lake Culvert observed from the outlet at Caldervin Creek looking
in toward inlet of Wood Lake. Figure shows woody material and cobble movement from Wood Lake to
Caldervin Creek through the culvert. Taken 12/31/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 11 of 13
Figure 13: Caldervin Creek at culvert outlet observed from within the wetland of Caldervin Creek looking
upstream at the culvert outlet. Figure shows woody material accumulation within the wetland with signs
of beaver activity. Taken 12/31/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 12 of 13
Figure 14: Caldervin Creek wetland just downstream of culvert observed from within the wetland of
Caldervin Creek looking downstream. Figure shows no defined creek channel, but directional flow of
water within the wetland. Taken 12/31/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Page 13 of 13
Figure 15: Caldervin Creek downstream of wetland and upstream of waterfall observed from within the
Caldervin Creek looking upstream. Figure shows defined creek channel with gravel/cobble bed, lacking
much loose material. Screenshot of a video taken 12/31/2025 by Department of Ecology.
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Kell Rowen Ext: 286
Department: Community Development Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☐
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): 3/23/2026 Agenda Date(s): 3/31/2026
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☒ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(This is the responsibility of the requesting Department)
Item: Place on the March 31, 2026, Action Agenda to set a public hearing for April 28, 2026 to
consider amendments to Title 17 Zoning Code, Chapter 17.05, Section 17.05.034 – Granting of
variances authorized.
Background/Executive Summary: Since zoning was implemented in the County (circa 1990s) the
development regulations have allowed for administrative variances – under certain circumstances
– to reduce the minimum setback from property lines to a minimum of 10 feet for front and rear
yards (otherwise 25 feet and 20 feet respectively), and a minimum of five (5) feet for side yards
(otherwise 20 feet).
Administrative variances are processed and approved or denied during building permit review by
the designated planner. DCD issues, on average, 180 applications per year. As the County
continues to grow, staff has seen an increase in property line disputes, which is a civil matter. The
County does not require surveyed property lines for building permit applications. This amendment
would require a survey of the property line/s if applicants are requesting the reduced setbacks. In
lieu of a survey, the County would accept an affidavit signed by the property owner/s of the shared
property line – recorded to Title – acknowledging the location of the property line.
This proposal will reduce the potential for boundary disputes and minimize staff time spent
informally mediating property line disagreements between neighboring property owners.
Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.): N/A
Public Outreach: Public Hearing notice as required for Planning Advisory Commission and Board.
Also posted on PAC webpage and in Board agenda and website.
Requested Action: Place on the March 31, 2026 Action Agenda to set a public hearing for April 28,
2026.
Attachment(s): Proposed amendments to MCC 17.05.034; DRAFT Affidavit in Lieu form
Created: 2024-12-12 09:00:07 [EST]
(Supp. No. 69, 11-24)
Page 1 of 1
17.05.034 Granting of variances authorized.
(a) The hearing examiner shall have the authority to grant a variance from the provisions of this chapter when,
in their opinion, the conditions set forth in Section 17.05.036 have been met. The hearing examiner shall
have the authority to attach conditions to any such variance when, in their opinion, such conditions are
necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare, or to assure that the spirit of this chapter is
maintained.
(b) The administrator shall have the authority to grant a variance from the provisions of this chapter when the
granting of such variance will result in a measurable deviation of ten percent or less from the provisions set
forth in this chapter. In issuing such variance, the administrator shall make a positive determination that the
conditions set forth in Section 17.05.035 have been met. The administrator shall have the authority to attach
conditions to any such variance when, in his (her)their opinion, such conditions are necessary to protect the
public health, safety or welfare, or to assure that the spirit of this chapter is maintained.
(c) The administrator may allow a reduction in the required front yard setback or rear yard setback by
administrative variance under the following circumstances: for existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002,
that are parcels designated as Rural Residential 2.5, Rural Residential 5, Rural Residential 10, Rural
Residential 20, or Rural Multi-Family; and where physical attributes of the lot (such as steep slopes,
wetlands, streams, soils, shorelines; lot width at the front yard line of no more than fifty feet or lot size of no
more than one-quarter acre; and existing improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas)
preclude a proposed development from meeting the twenty-five-foot front yard setback or twenty-foot rear
yard setback standards. The front yard setback or rear yard setback shall be the minimum necessary to
accommodate a reasonable development proposal, but not less than ten feet distance from the property line
or road access easement boundary. The administrator shall document in the property filepermit system the
rationale for the administrative variance decision. A survey of the subject property line/s shall be required. A
signed affidavit by all affected (adjacent) property owners will be accepted in lieu of survey and shall be
recorded to each affected property.
(d) The administrator may allow a reduction in the required side yard setback by administrative variance under
the following circumstances: for existing lots of record as of March 5, 2002 that are parcels designated as
Rural Residential 2.5, Rural Residential 5, Rural Residential 10, Rural Residential 20, or Rural Multi-Family;
and where physical attributes of the lot (such as steep slopes, streams, wetlands, shorelines, and soils; lot
width at the front yard line of no more than fifty feet or lot size of no more than one-half acre; and existing
improvements of buildings, septic systems, and well areas) preclude a proposed development from meeting
the twenty-foot side yard setback standard. The variance to the side yard setback shall be the minimum
necessary to accommodate a reasonable development proposal. This side yard setback shall not be less than
five feet distance from the property line. The administrator shall document in the property file the rationale
for the administrative variance decision. A survey of the subject property line/s shall be required. A signed
affidavit by all affected (adjacent) property owners will be accepted in lieu of survey and shall be recorded to
each affected property.
Commented [KR1]: Do we want to consider Commercial
and Industrial properties to have reduced side yard setbacks
with affidavits or???
Commented [KR2]: Do we want to consider Commercial
and Industrial properties to have reduced side yard setbacks
with affidavits or???
Affidavit of Agreement
PURPOSE: This Affidavit serves to document and formalize the agreement between property
owners regarding the construction of a structure closer to the shared property line than
normally permitted under the Mason County Zoning Code. This agreement is entered into
voluntarily and with full understanding of the applicable development regulations.
DECLARANTS:
1. Name: _______________________________
Address: _____________________________
Parcel Number: _______________________
2. Name: _______________________________
Address: _____________________________
Parcel Number: _______________________
(Additional declarants may be added as necessary.)
AGREEMENT DETAILS:
1. The undersigned property owners hereby agree that the owner of the property located
at ________________________ ("Property A"), with Parcel Number ________________,
may construct a structure at a reduced setback of ______ feet from the shared property
line between Property A and ________________________ ("Property B"), with Parcel
Number ________________.
2. This agreement acknowledges that the setback reduction deviates from the minimum
setback required under Mason County Code Title 17, Chapter 17.05 Section 17.05.034.
Return to (name and mailing address):
3. All property owners confirm that this agreement does not absolve the owner of Property
A from obtaining the necessary permits and approvals from Mason County or complying
with any other applicable local, state, or federal regulations.
4. The undersigned parties agree that this document shall be recorded with the Mason
County Auditor’s Office and shall run with the land, binding current and future owners of
the affected parcels.
5. This agreement is entered into willingly and without coercion, and all parties have had
the opportunity to seek legal or professional advice before signing.
SIGNATURES:
Property Owner A:
Signature: ______________________________
Name (Printed): ___________________________
Date: ___________________________________
Property Owner B:
Signature: ______________________________
Name (Printed): ___________________________
Date: ___________________________________
(Additional property owners, if any, may sign below.)
Notary Public:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss
COUNTY OF MASON )
On this _______ day of __________________________, 20_____, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally
appeared to me known to be the individual/s described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they signed and sealed the said instrument
as free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and the purposes therein mentioned.
Given under my hand and official seal this _______day of ______________________, 20_____.
_____________________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at: ___________________________________
My commission expires: _________________________
Action Items:
• Hearing examiner recommendation for Road Vacation 426.
• Water leak credit for customer #308132 in the amount of $982.40, plus applicable late fees, based on
verification that the leaks have been repaired.
• Surplus of paint equipment – sell to City of Shelton or through allowable methods under MCC Ch. 3.40,
including public sale, auction, or other appropriate means .
Discussion Items:
Commissioner Follow-Up Items:
Upcoming Items:
March 31st @9:15am Public Hearing on Franchise Application for Forged Fiber 37, LLC (AT&T)
MASON COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
COMMISSIONER BRIEFING
March 23, 2026
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Lovejoy Schaefer, Right of Way Agent Senior,
on behalf of Mike Collins, PE, PLS, Deputy
Director/County Engineer
Ext: 456
Department: Public Works Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☒
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): March 23, 2026 Agenda Date(s): March 31,2026
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☒ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Road Vacation No. 426 - Hearings Examiner Recommendation
Vacate all that portion of Hannegan Street adjacent to Lots 15 and 16, in Block 77, AND Lots 1 and
30, in Block 78, all in Hood Canal Land and Improvement Co’s Plan to Union City, in Volume 1 of
plats, Page 9, records of Mason County, Washington, all within the Southeast quarter, of Section 32,
Township 22 North, Range 3 West, W.M.
Background/Executive Summary:
The Mason County Hearing Examiner held a hearing on Wednesday January 14, 2026, at 1:00pm via
zoom. This hearing was to consider formally acknowledging the vacation by operation of law to the
above mentioned street in the plat of Hood Canal Land and Improvement Co’s Plan to Union City, as
recorded in Volume 1 of plats, page 9, as dedicated on March 16, 1889, in Mason County, Washington,
and as petitioned by South Shore Enterprises LLC, a Washington limited liability company.
The Hearing Examiner issued his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation on
February 23, 2026, recommending approval of the proposed vacation with the following condition.
1. The vacated area will still be subject to existing easements for ingress, egress, and drainage or other
purposes, if any, and in accordance with RCW 36.87.140, retain an easement in favor of Mason County
for any utilities and drainage present in the vacated right of way.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact:
The required administrative fee of $1,000 has been paid. The vacation area is classified as a “Class C”
road. Per RCW 36.87.120 & MCC 12.20.060, no compensation other than the administrative fee of the
vacation action is due.
Public Outreach:
Public notice was provided as required by RCW 36.87.050, both by posting at the site and by publishing
in the county official newspaper.
Requested Action:
Requesting the Mason County Board of Commissioners accept the recommendation of the Hearing
Examiner and formally acknowledge the vacation of the right of way as petitioned by operation of law
pursuant to the Session Laws of 1889-1890, subject to the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Recommendations of the Hearing Examiner for Road Vacation No. 426.
Attachment(s):
1. Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation
2. Order of Vacation
Road Vacation p. 1 Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
RE: Road Vacation No. 426
Petition for a Road Vacation
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
Southshore Enterprises LLC requests the vacation of rights of way along Hannegan
Street in Union, between Blocks 77 and 78 of the Plat of Hood Canal Land and
Improvements to Union. It is recommended that the County Commissioners approve
the vacation.
The vacation area likely has already been vacated as a matter of law under what is
called the ancient right of way statute, RCW 36.87.090. Due to amendments made to
the original statute in 1909, a court has ruled that the statute generally operates to vacate
roads that were dedicated prior to March 11, 1904 and remained unused for a period of
at least five years. See Gillis v. King County, 42 Wn.2d 373 (1953). The right of way
subject to this vacation request was dedicated to the public on March 16, 1889 and has
apparently remained unopened since the dedication since is currently undeveloped.
TESTIMONY
Tina Schaefer, Right of Way Agent Senior summarized the staff report. Mr. Buechel, the
petitioner, noted that vacation of the street would not deny anyone access since just north
of the vacation area the right of way is in a wetland.
EXHIBITS
The October 29, 2025 Engineer’s Report – Road Vacation File No. 426 was admitted as
Exhibit 1 during the vacation hearing along with its four attachments as listed on Page
2 of the report.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Hearing. A virtual hearing on the petition for vacation was held on January 14,
2026 at 1:00 pm via Zoom.
Substantive:
Road Vacation p. 2 Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Site/Proposal Description. Southshore Enterprises LLC requests the vacation of
right of way along Hannegan Street in Union, between Blocks 77 and 78 of the Plat of
Hood Canal Land and Improvements to Union.
Southshore Enterprises LLC owns the lots abutting the entirety of both sides of the
vacation area. The vacation area is legally described in Exhibit A and depicted in an
aerial photograph in Exhibit C. Southshore Enterprises LLC has petitioned for the
vacation of the dedicated right of ways as attached on Exhibit B. The requested right
of ways are unopened and undeveloped as shown in Exhibit D. The right of ways were
dedicated to the public on March 16, 1889.
The vacation area is not found useful to the County road system since it likely has been
vacated by operation of law as identified in the Summary above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 12.20.030 provides the Examiner with the
authority to review road vacation applications and make a recommendation to the
Mason County Board of County Commissioners.
Substantive:
2. Review Criteria and Application. Chapter 12.20 MCC sets forth the requirements
for vacation of roads. Furthermore, MCC 12.20.010 provides that County roads may
be vacated in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 36.87 RCW. Applicable
review standards for vacation under Chapter 12.20 MCC, as well as those in Chapter
36.87 RCW, are quoted in italics below and applied via corresponding conclusions of
law.
MCC 12.20.010: County roads may be vacated in accordance with the provisions of
RCW 36.87, and Mason County may require as a condition precedent to the vacation
the receipt of just compensation from the person or persons benefiting from the
vacation.
RCW 36.87.020: Owners of the majority of the frontage on any county road or portion
thereof may petition the county legislative authority to vacate and abandon the same
or any portion thereof. The petition must show the land owned by each petitioner and
set forth that such county road is useless as part of the county road system and that the
public will be benefited by its vacation and abandonment. The legislative authority
may:
Road Vacation p. 3 Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(1) require the petitioners to make an appropriate cash deposit or furnish an
appropriate bond against which all costs and expenses incurred in the examination,
report, and proceedings pertaining to the petition shall be charged; or
(2) by ordinance or resolution require the petitioners to pay a fee adequate to cover
such costs and expenses.
RCW 36.87.060: If the county road is found useful as a part of the county road system
it shall not be vacated, but if it is not useful and the public will be benefited by the
vacation, the county legislative authority may vacate the road or any portion thereof.
3. Vacation Area Meets Vacation Criteria. The vacation petition and proposed
vacation conforms to the requirements of the statutes and ordinances quoted above.
The vacation area is found useless to the County road system since it likely has been
vacated by operation of law as identified in the Introduction. The petitioner owns all
of the abutting property of the vacation area.
As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the vacation area is not currently useful as a
part of the county road system as required by RCW 36.87.060.
MCC 12.20.040: For the purpose of vacating county roads, all roads shall be
classified as follows:
(1) Class A. All roads for which the right-of-way is an easement.
(2) Class B. All roads for which the right-of-way is owned in fee simple and for which
the county paid full fair market value of the fee simple estate.
(3)Class C. All roads that meet RCW 36.87.090 requirements.
4. Vacation Area Qualifies as Class A Road. As outlined in the introduction, since the
right of way was dedicated prior to 1904 and has remained unopened since it already
has been vacated as a matter of law under RCW 36.87.090. Therefore, it qualifies as
a Class C roadway.
MCC 12.20.050: Any person or persons desiring to have any portion of any county
road vacated shall be required by the Mason County board of county commissioners
as a condition precedent to the vacation to pay the county prior to the vacation. The
compensation rates include those rates set forth in Section 12.20.060, if any, and the
administration fee set forth in Section 12.20.080.
5. No Payment Required. The Engineer’s Report identifies that the administrative
fees have been paid. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 6, no compensation for
the right of way is required.
MCC 12.20.060: The county shall require, as a condition precedent to the vacation of
roads or portions thereof within the classifications set forth in Section 12.20.040, that
Road Vacation p. 4 Recommendation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
persons benefitting from the vacation thereof compensate Mason County as set forth in
the following schedule:
(1) Class A Roads. Fifty percent of the appraised value.
(2) Class B Roads. One hundred percent of the appraised value.
(3) Class C Roads. No compensation other than for the administrative fee of the
vacation action.
At no time will the compensation for Class A or B roads be reimbursed less than the
county originally paid for the property.
6. Compensation Not Required. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 4, the
vacation area is classified as a “Class C” road. No compensation is required.
MCC 12.20.080: Each petition for vacation of a road shall be accompanied by a
payment of one thousand dollars to cover all administrative costs regardless of the
county's approval of vacation. Said administrative costs shall include the costs of the
hearing examiner in holding the public hearing and reporting recommendations to the
board of county commissioners.
7. Administrative Fee Paid. The Engineer’s report identifies that the $1,000
administrative fee has been paid.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve the proposed vacation
subject to the following conditions.
1. The vacated area will be subject to existing easements for ingress, egress, and
drainage or other purposes, if any, and in accordance with RCW 36.87.140, retain
an easement in favor of Mason County for any utilities and drainage present in the
vacated right of way.
DATED this 23rd day of February, 2026.
Phil Olbrechts
Mason County Hearing Examiner
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Richard Dickinson, Deputy Director U&W
Management and Stephanie Buhrman, Finance Manager Ext: 450
Department: Public Works Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☒
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): March 16, 2026 Agenda Date(s): March 31, 2026
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☐ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Water Leak Credit Request – Approval Required per Mason County Code 13.34
Background/Executive Summary:
Pursuant to Mason County Code 13.34 – Water Leak Credit Policy, customers experiencing significant,
documented water leaks may request a credit for the excess water usage. Credits exceeding 10,000 cubic
feet (CF) require review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
Public Works received the following water leak adjustment request for a customer in the Beards Cove
Water System which meets the criteria for Board review and consideration:
1. Customer #308132 -Beards Cove Water Customer Report
• Average Use: 3100 CF/month
• Leak Incident Summary: During the month of February, customer experienced a washer
hookup valve failure that went undiscovered for at least 3 weeks.
• Repairs: Parts purchased, and washer valve repaired by family. Receipts submitted.
• Requested Credit: 15,380 CF for Feb 2026 totaling $982.40, plus any late fees.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact:
The total requested credit of $982.40 (plus any applicable late fee) will be deducted from the water tier
revenue. No budget amendment is required.
Public Outreach:
Utilities and Waste Administrative staff notifies customers via certified letters and/or phone calls about
potential significant water leaks due to unusually high usage of 2500 CF or greater. Customers are made
aware only one credit every three years per property is allowed, with exceptions for extraordinary
circumstances subject to staff recommendation and Board approval.
Requested Action:
Request approval from the Board of County Commissioners to issue a water leak credit for customer
#308132 in the amount of $982.40, plus applicable late fees, based on verification that the leak has been
repaired.
Attachment(s): Water Leak Adjustment Request and Documentation
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Mike Collins, PE, PLS, Deputy Director/County Engineer Ext: 450
Department: Public Works Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☒
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): March 23, 2026 Agenda Date(s): March 31,2026
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☐ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the requesting
Department)
Item: Surplus Paint Equipment
Background/Executive Summary:
Mason County Public Works has identified certain paint equipment as surplus following the acquisition of a striping truck
in 2025, which has rendered this equipment no longer necessary for ongoing county operations. The equipment has been
evaluated and determined to be surplus in accordance with Mason County Code Chapter 3.40.
The surplus equipment includes:
• 6x12 Cargo Mate trailer
• Push paint striper (LLV 3900 HP, automatic)
• Two (2) spray guns with Lazerguide 2000
• 12-inch hopper
• Line Driver
The City of Shelton has expressed interest in purchasing the equipment for continued public use. Consistent with the
County’s adopted surplus property procedures, surplus personal property may be disposed of through a negotiated sale
when it is in the public interest.
If the City of Shelton elects not to proceed with the purchase, Mason County Public Works requests authorization to
dispose of the equipment through other allowable methods under Mason County Code Chapter 3.40, including public sale,
auction, or other appropriate means.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact:
Public Works originally purchased the equipment for approximately $29,000 and utilized it for about one year, during
which approximately 70 lane miles of roadway were striped prior to acquiring the striping truck. By comparison,
contracting this work would have cost approximately $1,000 per lane mile.
The sale of the surplus paint equipment will generate revenue for the Road Fund.
Public Outreach:
Public outreach will be conducted as required under Mason County Code Chapter 3.40.
Requested Action:
Request the Mason County Board of Commissioners declare the paint equipment as surplus, approve the sale to the City of
Shelton, or, if the City of Shelton declines, authorize Public Works to surplus the equipment through other allowable
methods under Mason County Code Chapter 3.40, including public sale, auction, or other appropriate means.
Mason County Administrator
411 N 5th Street
Shelton, WA 98584
(360) 427-9670 ext. 419
Mason County Commissioner
Briefing Items from County Administrator
Support Services
March 23, 2026
Specific Items for Review
→ Flags of Our Founding Fathers – Travis Adams
Administrator Updates
Commissioner Discussion
→ Appointment of Avary Rollins to the Lewis-Mason-Thurston Area Agency on Aging (LMTAAA) advisory
council
Mason County
Agenda Request Form
To: Board of Mason County Commissioners Item No.
From: Travis Adams Ext: 530
Department: Central Services Briefing: ☒
Action Agenda: ☒
Public Hearing: ☐
Special Meeting: ☐
Briefing Date(s): 3/23/26 Agenda Date(s): 3/31/26
Internal Review: ☐ Finance ☐ Human Resources ☐ Legal ☐ IT ☐ Risk ☐ Other
(Please ensure proper internal review channels have been followed, this is the responsibility of the
requesting Department)
Item: Flags of Our Founding Fathers
Background/Executive Summary:
The “Flags of Our Founding Fathers” project is an effort to celebrate the 250th signing of the Declaration
of Independence with an enjoyable activity about the American flags of the Revolutionary War. The
project is a partnership between America 250 Mason County and Sierra Pacific Industries. The effort
seeks to encourage youth groups to promote patriotism while having fun making a colonial period
American flag from repurposed Mason County timber resources.
The flag kits are available now to youth groups by contacting the America 250 Mason County project
officer William Harris at wharris.allyn@gmail.com. The objective is to collect all completed flags in late
May so they can be displayed in the Forest Festival parade and at the Logging Show on May 30, 2026, in
Shelton, WA. The flags will be displayed at the America 250 Mason County and Sierra Pacific Industry
booths. Flags will be returned to participating organizations after Forest Festival.
3/31, America 250 Mason County and Sierra Pacific Industries want to present Mason County with one
example of what youth groups across the Olympic peninsula are making. This Betsy Ross, the first
official United States Flag, is made from Sierra Pacific Industries repurposed 2”x4” stud lumber from
the mill here in Shelton.
Associated Costs/Budget Impact (amount, funding source, budget amendment, etc.):
N/A
Public Outreach:
N/A
Requested Action:
N/A
Attachment(s):
Flags of Our Founding Fathers Flyer
Join the Fun:
Spark patriotism and ignite historicalcuriosityDive into history by researching aRevolutionary War-era flag and pickyour favorite.Grab our exclusive flag kit withrepurposed lumber available Marchto May 2026.Unleash your creativity by paintingand assembling your masterpiece.Share the story behind your flag'shistory.Show off your creation at Forest Feston May 30th at the America 250Mason County Booth!
Flags of Our Founding Fathers
Celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!
Interested in a Flag Kit for your Youthgroup?
Contact Us: William HarrisWHarris.Allyn@gmail.com
Sponsored By:
July 4, 2026, marks the 250 , Semi-Quincentennial, anniversary of thesigning of the Declaration ofIndependence. America 250 MasonCounty invites you to honor our nation’shistory by creating a Colonial periodAmerican flag using repurposed MasonCounty timber.
th
The Stars and Stripes, first adopted by
Congress on June 14, 1777, featured 13 red
and white stripes and 13 white stars on a blue
field. Our flag pictured above was craftedusing repurposed lumber provided by SierraPacific Industries.