HomeMy WebLinkAbout25 - Staff ReportJJEEFFFFEERRSSOONN CCOOUUNNTTYY
DDEEPPAARRTTMMEENNTT OOFF CCOOMMMMUUNNIITTYY DDEEVVEELLOOPPMMEENNTT
621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 | Web: www.co.jefferson.wa.us/communitydevelopment
Tel: 360.379.4450 | Fax: 360.379.4451 | Email: dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us
__________________________________________________________________________________________
SquareONE Resource Center | Building Permits & Inspections | Development Review | Long Range Planning
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
STAFF REPORT TO
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Shoreline Variance ) PROPOSED FINDINGS,
File No: MLA17-00014 – SDP17-00005 ) CONCLUSIONS, AND
Applicant: Karl Anderson ) RECOMMENDATIONS
Project Planner: Anna Bausher, Associate Planner )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Proposal: Shoreline Variance (Type III) to reduce the standard 150 foot shoreline buffer to 45 feet from ordinary
high water mark, as regulated by the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. The request is to reduce the
buffer for construction of a new single family residence with an attached garage and associated normal
appurtenances. The proposed residence is proposed to be located 52 feet from the ordinary high water mark at
the closest point. The parcel is constrained by existing onsite septic facilities on the east portion of the property.
Some mature trees remain between the septic system and an existing cleared area along the shoreline. The
variance requests the residence and garage be located in the existing cleared area closer waterward to avoid
further removal of mature trees within the shoreline buffer. A No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan has been
submitted with the variance application materials. The project will require a public hearing. All work will be
completed above ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Final authority for Shoreline Variance Permit decisions
rests with the Washington State Department of Ecology. The project is exempt from SEPA review under WAC
197-11-800 (1)(b)(i) and (6)(a). A Shoreline substantial Development Permit Exemption and Building Permit will
be required as part of the project proposal as well.
Staff Comment: This proposal is being reviewed as a Shoreline Variance, for the development of a single family
residence within the 150 foot shoreline and Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area buffer. The lot does not
qualify as a non-conforming lot and does not meet the criteria for the modest home provision from JCC
18.25.270 (5)(a). The Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (SMP), as per Jefferson County Code (JCC)
18.25.270 (5)(c) requires a Type III permitting process. With the location of the existing septic system would
prohibit the proposed development from being located entirely outside of the standard 150 foot shoreline
buffer. The proposal is to place the development within an area with least amount of impact in regards to
habitat value.
The SMP incorporates the critical areas regulations of Chapter 18.22 JCC; therefore, this proposal is also being
reviewed for compliance with critical area requirements, specifically those for fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas. Per JCC the SMP takes precedence over the JCC 18.22, therefore no critical area stewardship
plan is required for this proposal.
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions
2
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Owner/Applicant: Karl and Cind Anderson
401 Griffiths Point Road
Nordland, WA 98358
Location: The property is located in eastern Jefferson County
on the west side of Marrowstone Island adjacent to Kilisut
Harbor. The parcel sits between Kilisut Harbor and Griffiths
Point Road. From Port Townsend take Highway 20 until the
intersection with Highway 19. Proceed on Highway 19 for
approximately three miles until a left hand turn onto Highway
116. Follow Highway 116 for approximately four a half miles
until Griffiths Point Road is on the left. Once on Griffiths Point
Road the parcel will be on the left hand side a half mile down
the road. A vicinity map is to the right.
Legal Description: Parcel number 021 324 004; Section 32,
Quarter Section SE 1/4, Township 30 North, Range 1 East. The
parcel is located at 401 Griffiths Point Road, Nordland, WA
98358.
Site Conditions: The parcel is approximately .7 acres in size. There is an existing travel trailer on the parcel with
an attached covered porch that serves as a single family residence, which will be removed and demolished if the
shoreline variance for a new single family residence is approved. The site is mostly flat and mostly cleared, with
some existing native vegetation and trees present. The existing vegetation is mostly located along the north and
west sides of the parcel and in the center of the parcel between the exiting cleared area along the shoreline and
the septic system located on the east end of the parcel. There is an existing bulkhead at the western property
line, which is also the location of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The eastern half of the property is
constrained by an existing onsite septic system, which was permitted in 2016. The septic tank, pump tank,
pressure mound system and reserve area are all outside of the 150 foot fish and wildlife habitat conservation
area.
Shoreline Designation: Pursuant to the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program, the shoreline designation is
Priority Aquatic, and the upland designation is Shoreline Residential.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan designates the subject parcel as
Rural Residential 1:5 (RR1:5).
Site Visit: An onsite pre application conference meeting with the applicant, previous DCD planner Patrick
Hopper, and Rick Mraz from the Washington State Department of Ecology took place on Friday, January 13th,
2017.
Date of Application: An application was submitted to Jefferson County DCD on April 4th, 2017. The application
was deemed complete on May 23rd, 2017.
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): The proposal is exempt from SEPA review under WAC 197-11-
800(1)(b)(i) and (6)(a).
Environmentally Sensitive/Critical Area Review:
The proposal received a consistency review pursuant to the Jefferson County Unified Development Code,
including review and consideration of any existing on-site critical areas. The following Critical Areas were
3
confirmed to be present on the subject property: Stable Shoreline Slope Stability, Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Area, Seismic Hazard Area, Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Area (SARPA), High Risk Seawater
Intrusion Protection Zone (SIPZ).
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS AND DATES
In accordance with JCC 18.40 Article III:
Staff requested review and comments on the application through a Notice of Application and Notice of Public
Hearing sent to adjacent landowners within 300 feet of the subject property, Department of Ecology,
Department of Natural Resources, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Archaeological
and Historic Preservation, Skokomish Tribe, Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe.
Public Notice of Type III Land Use Application (Log Items 12 and 13)
• Published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader newspaper May 31th, 2017.
• Notice board was posted on property by the applicant May 26th, 2017, per affidavit of posting.
• The applicant, agencies, tribes, and adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the subject property
were notified by mail, postmarked May 31th, 2017.
• Comment period was open for 30 calendar days (per JCC 18.40.220) through June 29th, 2017.
Notice of Public Hearing, Type III Land Use Application (Log Items 22 and 23)
• Published in the Port Townsend-Jefferson County Leader newspaper October 11th, 2017.
• Notice board was posted on the property by the applicant on October 11th, 2017 per affidavit of posting.
• Notices postmarked October 10th, 2017, were mailed to interested parties and adjacent property owners
within 300 feet of the subject property. One comment letter which was received was anonymous,
therefore a notice was unable to be mailed to this interested party.
• Project met 10-day notice requirement before hearing on October 24th, 2017, per JCC 18.40.230.
COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND SEPA NOTICE:
Public Response: (Log Items 14 and 15)
The public was notified of the shoreline variance application. DCD received two written comment letters on the
proposal. One comment from an adjacent property owner (Roger Eichman) was in favor of the proposal, stating
that the approval of the shoreline variance for a new single family residence would increase surrounding
property values. One anonymous comment was in opposition to the project, stating that the owner was aware
of the site constraints that resulted from the septic system and that they should be required to comply with the
current standards and code.
Agency Comments: (Log Item 24)
Agencies, including tribes, were notified of the shoreline variance application. There were no comments
received during the notice of application. Agencies, including tribes, were notified of the public hearing. One
comment was receive from the Skokomish Tribe stating they had no comment regarding the proposal.
STATE & LOCAL APPROVALS AND PERMITS REQUIRED:
• Jefferson County Department of Community Development: Shoreline Variance Permit. The single family
residence and attached garage will also require building and a Shoreline Substantial Development Exemption
Permit. The removal of the existing covered porch structure will require a Demolition Permit.
• Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) Approval is needed for Demolition Permit.
• Washington State Department of Ecology: Final authority on Shoreline Variance Permit.
4
APPLICABLE JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCES:
• Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, adopted August 28, 1998, updated December 13th, 2004, and as
amended; and
• Jefferson County Unified Development Code, adopted December 18, 2000, and effective January 16, 2001,
and as amended.
PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
This section constitutes staff’s findings and conclusions regarding the applicant’s proposal consistency with the
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan and the Jefferson County Unified Development Code.
Staff Findings:
The following presents staff findings regarding consistency of the application with the Jefferson County
Comprehensive Plan, the Jefferson County Code, and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program. Based on
the findings presented below, recommended staff conditions are included at the end of this staff report.
1. This is a conditional approval, pending final review and approval by the Washington State Department of
Ecology for compliance with the Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson County Shoreline Master
Program.
2. A No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan prepared by Olympic Wetland Resources, LLC (dated April 2017) was
prepared for this project.
3. Zoning designation is RR1:5. The shoreline designation is Shoreline Residential.
4. The entire proposal is located within shoreline jurisdiction with the new single family residence entirely
within the shoreline buffer and is subject to the development regulations in the Shoreline Master Program
(JCC 18.25).
5. The application was reviewed by the Jefferson County Department of Community Development staff for the
potential presence of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under the provisions of the Unified
Development Code (UDC). After an initial Geographic Information Systems mapping review and an
investigative site inspection, the following ESAs were confirmed to be present on the subject property:
shoreline jurisdiction, fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, seismic hazard, special aquifer recharge
protection zone, and a high risk seawater intrusion protection zone.
6. Pursuant to JCC 18.30.070 (Stormwater Management Standards), any proposed development with
stormwater runoff must comply with the minimum standards of the 2012 Ecology Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington. The proposal will be reviewed for stormwater management under the
associated building permit (BLD17-00137).
7. Jefferson County determined that this proposal is categorically exempt from review under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) pursuant to WAC 197-11-800(6)(a) and (1)(b)(i).
8. The revised site plan as submitted with the shoreline variance permit application on September 29th, 2017
has been reviewed for consistency under the UDC, and has been approved by Jefferson County Department
5
of Community Development. Any modifications, changes, and/or additions to the approved site plan shall
be resubmitted for review and approval by Jefferson County Department of Community Development.
9. This approval is for a shoreline variance permit to reduce the standard 150 foot shoreline buffer to 45 feet
from ordinary high water mark for construction of a single family residence with an attached garage and
associated normal appurtenances only. Any future permits on this site are subject to review for consistency
with applicable codes and ordinances and does not preclude review and conditions which may be placed on
future permits.
10. An associated building permit and shoreline substantial development permit exemption for the single family
residence has been submitted under BLD17-00137.
11. Marine shorelines and islands are susceptible to a condition that is known as seawater intrusion. Seawater
intrusion is a condition in which the saltwater/freshwater interface in an aquifer moves inland so that wells
drilled on upland areas cannot obtain freshwater suitable for public consumption without significant
additional treatment and cost. Maintaining a stable balance in the saltwater/freshwater interface is
primarily a function of the rate of aquifer recharge (primarily through rainfall) and the rate of groundwater
withdrawals (primarily through wells). The Washington Department of Ecology is the agency with statutory
authority to regulate groundwater withdrawal for individual wells in Jefferson County. New development,
redevelopment, and land use activities on islands and in close proximity to marine shorelines in particular
should be developed in such a manner to maximize aquifer recharge and maintain the saltwater/freshwater
balance to the maximum extent possible by infiltrating stormwater runoff so that it recharges the aquifer.
12. The parcel is located within a High Risk SIPZ (seawater intrusion protection zone) according to the County
GIS map. There are mandatory measures identified in the Jefferson County Seawater Intrusion Policy
(Resolution 61-02, effective September 23, 2002) that apply to well drilling proposals and building permit
applications on existing lots of record.
13. Aquifer Recharge Areas in Jefferson County are characterized by porous geological formations that allow
percolation of the surface water into the soils and the underlying zone of saturation. Aquifers are geologic
formations that contain sufficient saturated permeable material to yield significant quantities of water to
wells and springs. Aquifers serve as the source of drinking water within most of the rural portions of
Jefferson County.
Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan: The proposed shoreline development is subject to the goals and policies
of the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. The following goals and policies apply to the proposal:
1. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Goal 5.0 (p. 8-24) states:
“Allow development along shorelines which is compatible with the protection of natural processes, natural
conditions, and natural functions of the shore environment.”
Staff Comment: The proposed development has undergone review under the Jefferson County Code,
including the shoreline regulations (Chapter 18.25 JCC). As conditioned through existing Jefferson County
regulations, the proposal is consistent with this policy.
2. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Policy 5.1 (p. 8-24) states:
“Regulate shoreline land use activities based on the best available scientific information.”
6
Staff Comment: The proposal was sent to resource agencies and tribes for review and comments. A No Net
Loss and Mitigation Plan was prepared by a qualified biologist to offset impacts through a planting plan.
3. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Policy 5.2 (p.8-24) states: “Protect nearby
properties and the shoreline environment from the individual or cumulative effects of development that may
interfere with the functions of sediment transport systems along the shoreline.”
Staff Comment: The proposed development sits well above OHWM on a short bank, it is not foreseeable
that the development would impact sediment transport or result in a need for a related structure such as a
bulkhead, which could impact sediment transport beyond what is currently present with the existing
bulkhead.
4. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Goal 5.6 (p. 8-24) states:
“Manage shoreline hazard areas such as unstable bluffs and erosion and coastal flood hazard areas to
protect public safety and public and private property.”
Staff Comment: The parcel is not mapped as a floodplain, landslide hazard, erosion hazard or unstable
slopes. A portion of the parcel is mapped as a seismic hazard. The shoreline is a low bank with an existing
bulkhead along the shoreline of the parcel. Many of the adjacent properties have existing bulkheads as well.
It is assumed that no further impact to sediment transport than what is currently present would occur.
5. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Goal 5.7 (p. 8-24) states:
“Manage storm water for proposed and existing development in a manner consistent with Department of
Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.”
Staff Comment: Downspouts to splashblocks are proposed to be used to meet the prescribed standards in
the SWMMWW for Downspout Dispersion Systems (BMP T5.10B) and will be reviewed under the associated
building permit.
6. The Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998, Environment Goal 5.8 (p. 8-24) states:
“Promote best management practices to protect shorelines in land use regulations related to septic systems,
forest practices, agricultural practices, industry, and other development.”
Staff Comment: Best management practices (BMPs) are incorporated in the development regulations which
this proposal has been reviewed against such as for stormwater.
Jefferson County Unified Development Code:
The proposal is subject to review to determine consistency with the Jefferson County Unified Development Code
(UDC). For review against the Shoreline Master Program (JCC 18.25) please see the next section of this staff
report.
The following Jefferson County Unified Development Code sections are applicable to the proposal:
1. JCC 18.15.040 Allowable and Prohibited Uses.
JCC 18.15.040 (Table 3-1) Allowable and Prohibited Uses: Single-Family Residences in Rural Residential
1DU/5Acres is a “YES” use.
Staff Comment: Single-family residential use is an allowed use on the subject property.
2. JCC 18.30.070 Stormwater Management Standards. All new development and redevelopment must conform
to the standards and minimum requirements set by the most current version of the Washington
Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
Staff Comment: The proposal will be reviewed for stormwater under the building permit. Downspouts to
splashblocks are proposed to be used to meet the prescribed standards in the SWMMWW for Downspout
Dispersion Systems (BMP T5.10B).
7
3. JCC 18.22 Critical Areas. The proposal is required to comply with the critical area regulations for high risk
seawater intrusion protect zone, special aquifer recharge area, fish and wildlife habitat conservation area
and geologically hazardous areas (seismic).
Staff Comment: The proposal is located within a seawater intrusion protection zone (SIPZ). The proposed
project would not be expected to adversely affect the SIPZ. The roof runoff stormwater is proposed to be
infiltrated though dispersion back to the aquifer. Public water is available which will not impact the aquifer.
These requirements comply with the protection standards contained within JCC 18.22.130.
The fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (150 feet of the marine shoreline containing federally listed
species) has been addressed in the submitted No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan as well as in review under the
Shoreline Master Program. The application was noticed to state agencies and tribes, but did not receive any
comments that the proposal would adversely impact fish, wildlife, or sensitive habitat in the project area.
The biological report was review by the DCD staff biologist and was determined that the proposal would
expect to compensate for the development impacts. It was recommended by the staff biologist that the
monitoring report be for 5 years (instead of 3 years as indicated in the report). Also, that topsoil may be
needed to be imported in the footprint of the existing structure. Recommendations by the biological report
and the DCD staff biologist have been included in the permit conditions.
A portion of the parcel is mapped a geologically hazardous area for seismic hazard. Currently under the JCC
18.22 seismic hazards are not regulated for residential uses. Therefore, no geotechnical report or special
conditions have been required for this mapping.
Shoreline Master Program (SMP):
The proposal is subject to the policies and regulations of the SMP. Any conditional use approval issued by DCD
requires final review and approval by the Washington State Department of Ecology for compliance with the
Shoreline Management Act and the Jefferson County SMP. The proposed project is located in the shoreline
residential designation.
In addition to being within the shoreline residential designation, the proposal is subject to several other policies
and regulations. The following sections of the SMP are specifically applicable to the proposal:
• JCC 18.25 Article VI General Policies and Regulations;
• JCC 18.25.500 Residential; and
• JCC 18.25.580 Variance Criteria.
Staff Comment: The proposal has been reviewed against all applicable section of the SMP and has been
determined to comply with all SMP requirements.
1. Shoreline Master Program Article VI General Policies and Regulations (JCC 18.25.260-320), includes policies
and regulations for all uses and developments in all shoreline environments. The following addresses the
general requirements of the SMP:
a) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.270 addresses critical areas, shoreline buffers, and ecological
protection.
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations in this section of
the SMP. A No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan was received as part of the permit application which
complies with the no net loss of ecological functions requirements as located in JCC 18.25.270. The
mitigation sequencing located in this section addresses avoidance of impacts. As some mature trees
remain on the property it is proposed that the development be located within the previously cleared
area to avoid removal of the mature trees on the parcel, although this would place the residence further
8
in the shoreline buffer. The proposal does not comply with the standard shoreline buffers located in this
section which is why this request for a shoreline variance is being processed.
b) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.280 addresses historic, archaeological, cultural, scientific and
educational resources.
Staff Comment: The application was sent to Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) and to tribes. Neither DAHP nor the tribes provided any comments indicating that a
survey would be needed or that there was the potential for resources to be affected by the project. The
Skokomish Tribe submitted comments that they had no comments on the project proposal.
c) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.290 addresses public access.
Staff Comment: This section is not applicable as this project proposal is exempt from providing public
access.
d) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.300 addresses shoreline setbacks and height.
Staff Comment: The proposed project meets requirements for density, setbacks, height and other
provisions.
e) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.310 addresses vegetation conservation.
Staff Comment: The project proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations in this
section of the SMP. The proposed development is located to avoid removal of vegetation with the
higher habitat value. Mature trees are not proposed to be removed and the mitigation plan will increase
the amount of vegetation currently on the parcel significantly.
f) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.320 addresses water quality and quantity.
Staff Comment: The project proposal is consistent with all applicable policies and regulations in this
section of the SMP. There are no foreseen adverse impacts on water quality or quantity.
2. Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500, presents policies that are applicable to shoreline residential
development.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with the regulations in the residential section.
The following addresses the residential requirements of the SMP:
a) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500(1) addresses polices for residential development.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with this subsection. The proposed development has been
planned and designed to avoid impacts on high habitat functions on the site and promote shoreline
functions and processes. Preservation of existing mature shoreline vegetation is proposed with
mitigation for the impacts which cannot be avoided. Cumulative impacts of pollutants such as
stormwater runoff and septic systems have been addressed in development regulations. Requirements
to meet the SWWMMM and State and County Health Regulations incorporate best management
practices to avoid impacts.
b) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500(2) addresses uses and activities prohibited.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with this subsection. The site has an existing bulkhead.
c) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500(3) presents the Shoreline Environment Designations
JCC 18.25.500(3)(e) Shoreline Residential. Residential development is allowed subject to the policies and
regulations of this master program.
Staff Comment: The proposed development will be required to receive a shoreline substantial
development permit exemption as part of the building permit.
d) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500(4) presents policies for primary residences and property
subdivision.
9
Staff Comment: The proposal is consistent with this subsection. No proposal of property division is
requested.
e) Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.500(5) presents regulations on accessory structures and uses.
Staff Comment: The proposal complies with this this subsection. No accessory use or structure is
proposed.
3. Shoreline Master Program JCC 18.25.580 presents approval criteria for shoreline variances:
a) JCC 18.25.850(1) states: The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional
requirements set forth in this program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to
the property such that the strict implementation of this program would impose unnecessary hardships on
the applicant/proponent or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Use restrictions may not be
varied. In authorizing a variance, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the county or the
Department of Ecology to control any undesirable effects of the proposed use. Final authority for
variance permit decisions shall be granted by the Department of Ecology.
Staff Comment: The parcel is such that a single family residence and garage cannot be entirely located
outside of the standard 150 foot buffer due to the septic system, reserve drainfield and associated
setbacks. The home site size which is requested is consistent with other residential uses in the area.
Granting relief of the standard 150 foot buffer would allow for a similar residential use as to those in the
surrounding area.
b) JCC 18.25.580(2) states: Variances will be granted in any circumstance where denial would result in a
thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances extraordinary circumstances shall
be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
Staff Comment: The proposal is located on private upland property. There are no foreseen adverse
impact to the public interest. The proposal is consistent with the policies in RCW 90.58.020.
c) JCC 18.25.580(3) states: Variances may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can
demonstrate all of the following:
i. JCC 18.25.580(3)(a) states: That the strict application of the bulk or dimensional criteria set forth in this
program precludes or significantly interferes with a reasonable permitted use of the property;
Staff Comment: The property is approximately three quarters of an acre in size. The standard 150 foot
shoreline buffer extends approximately half the length of the property. The area outside of the
standard shoreline buffer is largely encumbered by an existing septic system, reserve drainfield, and
driveway. There is not sufficient space to locate the proposed single family residence and attached
garage completely outside of the buffer. Per the residential zoning and the surrounding uses of the
parcels in the area it seems reasonable to request a single family residence and garage for use on the
property.
ii. JCC 18.25.580(3)(b) states: That the hardship described above is specifically related to the property,
and is the result of conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application
of this program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s/proponent’s own
actions;
Staff Comment: The parcel size limits the ability for the proposed development to comply with the
standard shoreline buffer regulations. While the length of the parcel provided approximately half of
the parcel to be outside of the shoreline buffer, the normal appurtenance infrastructure of the septic
system, reserve drainfield area, and driveway already encumber the majority of the parcel area
located outside of the buffer.
iii. JCC 18.25.580(3)(c) states: That the design of the project will be compatible with other permitted
activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects on adjacent properties or the shoreline
environment;
10
Staff Comment: The area is zoned as residential with a shoreline designation of shoreline residential.
The majority of the parcels in the vicinity currently already have residential uses. There are some
parcels which still remain vacant land. County regulations allow residential uses within theis area.
There are no foreseen adverse effects on adjacent properties. With the prescribed mitigation plan it
has been indicated by the project biologist that the shoreline environment will be sufficiently
mitigated from adverse impacts.
iv. JCC 18.25.580(3)(d) states: 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;
Staff Comment: Almost all of parcels located in the surrounding area and parcels down Griffiths Point
Road are currently being used for residential uses. Five out of the six parcels north on Griffiths Points
Road all contain single family residences. South of the subject parcel on Griffiths Point Road one
parcel is located off of the road and is of similar length of the subject parcel. Beyond this parcel the
parcels are larger and longer which offer a greater setback than those residences located directly off
of Griffiths Point Road. The parcel directly south is consistent with the other parcels located directly
off of Griffiths Point Road to the north. The parcels continuing south are not similar parcels as the
subject parcel and are not good comprables as such. They range from having 75 foot to 500 foot
buffers, but still have homes larger than what is requested in this proposal. These parcels with existing
development located directly off of Griffiths Point Road have an approximate average shoreline buffer
of 27 feet from OHWM. The approximate residence size is 1,768 sq/ft with all have either attached or
detached garages of an approximate average of 884 sq/ft. See table and aerial photograph below. For
enlarged photos and parcel information see Log Items 16 and 17. The request for a residence of
approximately 1,491 sq/ft with an attached garage of approximately 484 sq/ft with a buffer of 45 feet
does not appear to grant any special privileges in comparison to surrounding uses.
v. JCC 18.25.580(3)(e) states: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
Staff Comment: Residential uses are an allowed use for the zoning and shoreline designation of the
parcel. It is not foreseen that this residential proposal will impact public interest.
Parcel
Number
Approximate
OHWM
Setback
Approximate
Residence
Square Footage
Approximate
Garage Square
Footage
021324011 35 1,917 864
021324010 25 2,160 504
021324009 20 2,373 1,152
021324008 25 1,788 1,344
021324006 Vacant
021324005 30 1,040 864
021324003 25 1,335 576
Approximate
Averages of
Parcels
Located off of
Griffiths Point
Road:
27 feet 1,768 sq/ft 884 sq/ft
Parcels South
of Griffiths
Point Road:
921051041 500 2782 0
921051043 75 1825 489
11
vi. JCC 18.25.580(3)(f) states: That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be
materially interfered with by the granting of the variance; and
Staff Comment: The proposed development is not expected to have any impacts to navigation or use
of the shoreline. The proposal is entirely located on private lands and has no foreseen impacts to
public use of the shoreline.
vii. JCC 18.25.580(3)(g) states: Mitigation is provided to offset unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the
proposed development or use.
Staff Comment: A No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan was prepared by Olympic Wetland Resources which
address the project proposal, impacts and proposed mitigation. Based off of this report along with the
comments from DCD staff biologist for implementing the mitigation it is expected that the suggested
mitigation will offset adverse impacts. The mitigation plan includes planting of 120 shrubs and trees
with monitoring for 5 years. (Log Item 11)
d) JCC 18.25.580(4) states: In the granting of all variances, consideration shall be given to the cumulative
environmental impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were
granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances
should also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and should not produce significant
adverse effects to the shoreline ecological functions and processes or other users.
Staff Comment: The request is to reduce the standard shoreline buffer for a residential use. In all shoreline
designations, excepting natural, a single family residence and normal appurtenances are an allowed use
through a shoreline substantial development permit exemption. Within natural shoreline designation a
conditional use permit it required. Each parcel is provided with a route to allow single family residential
development on the parcel. The reduction of the shoreline buffer within this area does not greatly vary
from that of the existing setbacks of other residences within the area as described in the table above. It
seems reasonable to believe that under similar situations other variances would be granted without
significant adverse effects.
e) JCC 18.25.580(5) states: Other factors that may be considered in the review of variance requests include the
conservation of valuable natural resources and the protection of views from nearby roads, surrounding
properties and public areas. In addition, variance requests based on the applicant’s/proponent’s desire to
enhance the view from the subject development may be granted where there are no likely detrimental
effects to existing or future users, other features or shoreline ecological functions and/or processes, and
where reasonable alternatives of equal or greater consistency with this program are not available. In
platted residential areas, variances shall not be granted that allow a greater height or lesser shore setback
than what is typical for the immediate block or area.
Staff Comment: The buffer reduction request is not greater than that of the existing surrounding homes.
While the requested buffer could be larger and located slightly further landward, doing so would require
mature native trees to be removed. The reduced setback to maintain these mature trees is reasonable as
the residence would still be located within the shoreline buffer and would still require a shoreline variance.
Other options for reducing the shoreline buffer within the Jefferson County SMP have been reviewed and
determined not to be practical.
f) JCC 18.25.580(6) states: Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under other county codes shall
not be construed as shoreline permits under this program.
Staff Comment: The shoreline variance permit is a separate permit from that of which is required of the
building permit and the shoreline substantial development permit exemption. These permits may be
approved and issued with conditions upon approval of the shoreline variance permit.
12
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the preceding findings and conclusions, staff recommends finding that the proposal is consistent with
the applicable plans and ordinances and that it meets the review criteria. Approval of the Shoreline Variance of
the standard 150 foot shoreline buffer to 45 feet from OHWM on parcel number 021 324 004 for the
construction of a single family residence with an attached garage and associated normal appurtenances should
be granted subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions:
1. This is a conditional approval from Jefferson County that requires a shoreline variance permit from the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Land disturbing activities approved under this
shoreline variance permit shall not begin until Ecology has issued their written approval of this shoreline
application.
2. The applicant shall not begin any work approved under this shoreline variance permit until written
authorization to proceed has been obtained from Ecology.
3. Substantial progress towards completion of the project shall be performed within two years of the
issuance of the permit.
4. Approval of this shoreline variance permit shall be accompanied by an approved building and shoreline
substantial development permit exemption from Jefferson County prior to ground disturbing activities.
5. The applicant shall implement the mitigation, as presented in the No Net Loss and Mitigation Plan
prepared by Olympic Wetlands Resources, LLC dated April 2017.
6. The applicant shall implement the mitigation proposal in the report prepared by Olympic Wetland
Resources, LLC except that: (1) monitoring shall be conducted for a total of five years and the
performance standard for monitoring years 4 and 5 shall be 80 percent for plant survival and shall be
more than 10 percent cover of non-native species; (2) a total of 120 native trees and shrubs shall be
planted, as per the Landscape Specifications table; and (3) if approximately 9 to 12 inches of topsoil is
not present within the footprint of the existing structure, the applicant shall be required to import soil
to increase the chances for plant survival in this area.
7. The project biologist shall be onsite to review planting locations and check plant health prior to plant
installation.
8. Plant substitutions shall be approved by DCD prior to plant installation. Non-native species and
landscaping varieties shall not be approved as a plant substitution.
9. No building final or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until DCD has reviewed and approved the
mitigation area for compliance with the approved report and permit conditions. Contact DCD project
planner, Anna Bausher, at 360.379.4454 to schedule a site visit for mitigation verification.
10. Work within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Master Program other than as described above shall
receive separate review from this Department.
11. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the revised site plan submitted on September 29,
2017 as it exists now or is hereafter amended by Jefferson County and/or the Washington Department
of Ecology.
12. The proposed expansion is located within critical area buffers. All construction activities shall encroach
upon the buffer as minimally as possible. Silt fencing and construction barrier fencing along no clearing
13
limits as established on the approved site plan shall be established prior to land disturbing activities.
Fencing shall be established to prevent encroachment into the buffer and no clearing areas as specified
on the site plan. This includes the storage or preparation of materials. Contact DCD project planner,
Anna Bausher, at 360.379.4454 to schedule a site visit for fencing verification.
13. Existing native vegetation of mature trees, within the marked no clearing areas on the site plan shall not
be removed.
14. The existing travel trailer with attached enclosure shall be removed. A demolition permit from Jefferson
County shall be applied for removal as required. The applicant shall contact the Olympic Region Clean
Air Agency to determine additional requirements from their agency and shall comply with them.
15. Structures shall be evaluated under applicable building permit review at the time of the building permit
application. Specific development features may vary within compliance with the shoreline variance
permit conditions.
16. All development shall be constructed to comply with the 2012 Washington Department of Ecology
Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington.
17. The project shall adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control stormwater, erosion and
sediment during construction. BMPs shall address permanent measures to stabilize soil exposed during
construction, and in the design and operation of stormwater and drainage control systems
18. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas may require special protection measures to mitigate water quality
degradation. The submitted proposal does not require additional aquifer protection measures.
However, during construction the project shall follow the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
facility design standards as identified and defined in the Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget
Sound Basin.
19. To help prevent seawater from intruding landward into underground aquifers, all new development
activity on Marrowstone Island, Indian Island and within 1/4 mile of any marine shoreline shall be
required to infiltrate all stormwater runoff onsite.
20. MANDATORY MEASURES OF HIGH RISK SIPZ:
Water conservation measures:
1. Roof and other intercepted precipitation shall be routed to on-site detention ponds and/or other
approved means and allowed to be released to the soil slowly.
2. Water collected from Storm water and roof catchments may be used for watering lawns and gardens.
Unless catchment water has been treated to meet drinking water standards, there shall be no cross
connections allowed between the potable supply and impounded water.
3. Water withdrawn from wells on each property shall not be used for watering of lawns and/or
gardens.
4. Ground water withdrawn from each property shall be restricted to a rate of three (3) gallons per
minute.
5. Installation of water conserving fixtures such as low flow toilets, faucets and shower restrictors and
other water saving plumbing fixtures.
6. Landscaping plan (xeriscaping, native vegetation with minimal amounts of irrigation).
Please NOTE that the above listed measures are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather is intended to
be illustrative of the types of water conservation measures.
14
21. MANDATORY MEASURES FOR HIGH RISK SIPZ:
1. For proof of potable water on a building permit application, applicant must utilize DOH-approved
public water system if available.
2. If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water
or an individual well may be used as proof of potable water subject to the following requirements:
a. Variance from Chapter 173 WAC standards granted by Ecology per WAC 173-160-106 for a
new groundwater well within 100 feet of a sea-salt water intrusion area per WAC 173-160-171 (i.e.,
within 100 feet of a groundwater source showing chloride concentrations above 200mg/L or within 100
feet of the marine shoreline); or for an existing or proposed groundwater well not subject to an Ecology
variance, applicant must provide evidence through a hydrogeologic assessment (relevant components of
an Aquifer Recharge Area Report per UDC 3.6.10.e) of a reasonable probability that the subject aquifer
will not be degraded by the proposed use of well.
b. Installation of a flow meter.
c. On-going well monitoring for chloride concentration.
d. Submittal of flow and chloride data to the County per monitoring program.
3. If public water is unavailable, a qualifying alternative system may be used as proof of potable water.
Prepared by Project Planner, Anna Bausher, October 2017