HomeMy WebLinkAboutstamped_036 Emails with EcologyFrom:NoReply@ecy.wa.gov
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:SEPA record published
Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 4:03:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The SEPA admin reviewed and published SEPA record number 202104944, "Marrowstone
Inn".
Lead Agency File Number: MLA21-00080.
It will now be available to the public.
From: Garret Peck
Email: separegister@ecy.wa.gov
Phone number: (360) 407-6300
Exhibit 36 - Page 1 of 51
From:NoReply@ecy.wa.gov
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:Your SEPA Record Has Been Submitted!
Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 3:54:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
The Department of Ecology has received a new SEPA record from Shannen Cartmel at
Jefferson County with a File Number of: MLA21-00080.
Your record is being reviewed by an administrator.
From: Shannen Cartmel
Email: scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
Phone number: (360) 379-4454
Exhibit 36 - Page 2 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: MLA21-00080 Notice of Application/SEPA
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 11:11:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Shannen,
The document labeled “2021 0806_Marrowstone Inn_Appendix E_Proposed Expansions” shows an
OHWM line at the southern portion of parcel #921084011 that is waterward of where it looks like it
should be according to aerial imagery. Although this does not affect the proposal, an accurate
location of the OHWM will provide clarity on the extent of shoreline jurisdiction at the site. This is
important for both the county and the property owners to have on the record. I am available to
make this determination, so please let me know if you would like me to do this.
The bathroom in building B-5 that was constructed without permits may not meet variance criteria,
as there is already reasonable use of the parcel. A bathroom could be constructed internal to the
existing cabin or within the functionally isolated buffer without a variance.
Three entryways are proposed within the shoreline buffer. Can you please tell me whether this is a
building code requirement?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Sherrie Shold <SShold@co.jefferson.wa.us>;
Pinky Mingo <pmingo@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Scott Bancroft <Sbancroft@jeffpud.org>; Terry Duff
<TDuff@co.jefferson.wa.us>; John Fleming <JFleming@co.jefferson.wa.us>; DNR RE SEPACENTER
<SEPACENTER@dnr.wa.gov>; SEPA (DAHP) <sepa@dahp.wa.gov>; SEPADesk (DFW)
<SEPAdesk@dfw.wa.gov>; samg@portofpt.com; greg@portofpt.com; eric@portofpt.com;
btracer@ejfr.org; bgraham@jeffpud.org; dsarff@skokomish.org; Stormy Purser
<thpo@pgst.nsn.us>; romac@pgst.nsn.us; crossi@pnptc.org; sbruch@jamestowntribe.org;
thpo@jamestowntribe.org; stodd@Suquamish.nsn.us; Jolivette, Stephanie (DAHP)
<stephanie.jolivette@dahp.wa.gov>; ngauthier@jeffersontransit.com
Cc: lleach@peninsuladailynews.com; jlester@ptleader.com; jmcmacken@peninsuladailynews.com;
jeffconews@peninsuladailynews.com
Subject: MLA21-00080 Notice of Application/SEPA
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
Exhibit 36 - Page 3 of 51
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Good afternoon,
Please see the below notice of Type III Conditional Use, Shoreline Variance and SEPA. Due to the
delay in the email. The comment period has been extended until Monday, October 11, 2021.
All project documents are located here:
https://test.co.jefferson.wa.us/WebLinkExternal/0/fol/3249828/Row1.aspx
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC NOTICE OF TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATION,
SHORELINE VARIANCE, AND PENDING SEPA DETERMINATIONMLA21‑00080
APPLICANT:
ANDREW NORDSTROM
4014 HUNTS POINT RD
BELLEVUE WA 98004
Application Received Date: August 12, 2021
Application Complete Date: August 23, 2021
Application Notice Date: September 8, 2021
SITE ADDRESS AND PROJECT LOCATION: Parcel #'s: 921084010 and 921084011; S8 T29 R1E TAX NO. 10 (N300') and (LESS
N300'); 10 Beach Drive, Nordland, WA 98358.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND REQUIRED PERMITS/STUDIES:
ZON2021-00049: SMALL SCALE TOURIST AND RECREATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH MAJOR VARIANCE AND SEPA to
bring Marrowstone Inn into conformance as Rural Recreation Lodging and Cabins. The parcels are in total 8.3 acres and per
Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.20.350(9)(a) requires a variance from the 10‑acre parcel requirement. Additionally, the
applicants are requesting a variance from JCC 18.20.350(9)(b), to allow more than the 6000 square feet of development for
10 acres to accommodate the existing 11 rental cabins totaling 9,097 SF with an additional assembly space, garage with
caretaker’s unit above, and three utility buildings totaling 4,459 SF (excluding the caretaker's residence). The property has
been continuously operated as a grandfathered, non‑conforming beach resort since the 1940s. Part of the proposal includes
renovating and improving the existing structures, upgrading the septic system to meet current commercial standards, the
addition of a sauna, improving existing paths onsite, the addition of more gravel parking, and two "glamping" tents on the
property.
SDP2021-00012: SHORELINE VARIANCE WITH SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT to remodel and renovate
existing non‑conforming cabins. The renovations mostly include lateral, landward development within the shoreline
jurisdiction. Waterward development includes supplying existing non‑conforming cabins 1‑4 with the required septic
transport lines. There are two wetlands on‑site, a category I marine wetland and a category IV wetland, with a 300‑foot and
40‑foot buffer, respectfully. The applicants are requesting an administrative buffer reduction of 25% per JCC 18.22.730 (9).
The entryway of Cabin 2 is proposed to be located waterward of the existing entryway, but will not be the most waterward
portion of the cabin and the entryway to cabin 3 will be relocated to the eastern side of the cabin, a lateral expansion that is
parallel to the shoreline of Oak Bay. The previous unpermitted expansion of a restroom in cabin 5, which the applicants have
requested to keep and upgrade is parallel to the shoreline of Kilisut Harbor and is necessary to provide restroom facilities for
the guests utilizing this cabin. Associated access road improvements and portions of the areas where sewer lines are
proposed are waterward of cabins 1‑4. The septic system has been designed to minimize land disturbance in association with
the onsite contours and conditions. The proposal is the most minimally invasive option to the shoreline and is required to
bring the property into compliance. The proposal is accompanied by a Shoreline, Wetland, Fish and Wildlife Habitat, and
FEMA Floodplain assessment prepared by Soundview Consultants.
Exhibit 36 - Page 4 of 51
COMMENT PERIOD AND WHERE TO VIEW DOCUMENTS:
The application and any studies may be reviewed at the Jefferson County Department of Community Development. All
interested persons are invited to (a) comment on the application; (b) receive notice of and participate in any hearings; and (c)
receive a copy of the decision by submitting such written comment(s)/request(s) to the Jefferson County Department of
Community Development, Development Review Division, 621 Sheridan Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368, (360)
379‑4450. Comments concerning this application should be submitted to the Department by 4:30 p.m. on October 11, 2021.
If the last day of the comment period falls on a weekend or holiday, then the comment period shall be extended to
the first working day after the weekend or holiday. Comments submitted after this date may not be considered in the staff
report.
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The optional DNS process of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197‑11‑355 is
being used. This may be the only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the proposal. DCD reviewed the
proposal for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a DNS. This determination is based upon a review
of the SEPA Checklist, project submissions, and other available information. Additional conditions or mitigation measures may
be required under SEPA. The SEPA Official has determined that: This will be the only opportunity to make comments related
to SEPA. There will not be another comment period after the threshold (final) SEPA determination is made. If the threshold
determination is a Determination of Non‑Significance (DNS) or a Mitigated Determination of Non‑Significance (MDNS), parties
of record may appeal the decision to the Hearing Examiner within 14 days of the final Notice of Decision. A Determination of
Significance (DS) may not be appealed to the Hearing Examiner.
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION:
This is a Type III permit application that is subject to SEPA review. An open record hearing will be scheduled. Separate public
notice of the SEPA threshold (final) determination by the Administrator and the date of the hearing will be provided at least
15 days prior to the hearing. Appeals of the Administrator's threshold decision will be handled at the same hearing. A copy of
the staff report will be made available for inspection at no cost at least seven calendar days prior to such a hearing. The final
permit decision for this Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner
may not be further appealed except to Superior Court.
APPEALS:
Appeals of SEPA decisions are described above in the SEPA Environmental Review section. The final permit decision for this
Type III permit application will be made by the Hearing Examiner. Decisions of the Hearing Examiner may not be further
appealed except to Superior Court.
Project Planner: Shannen Cartmel, 360‑379‑4450
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 5 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Date:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:57:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Thanks, I looked at those too. 9.b is about changing the use. Are they proposing to do that with
some of the structures? 10.b basically says they’d need a variance. Let’s see what the code
requirement is for the entryways and then pick this back up.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:50 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
JCC18.25.660(9)(b) and 10(b)
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:05 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Ugh, sorry, didn’t see your other email about building code requirements!
Exhibit 36 - Page 6 of 51
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:00 AM
To: 'Shannen Cartmel' <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Can you please direct me to the language in the SMP pertaining to landward or lateral expansion for
non SFRs?
And can you please let me know whether the entryways are a code requirement?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:40 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
I included the representatives on the forwarded email to you, to allow them to contact you directly. I
agree with you and they were told this from the beginning. However, I do believe they could still
qualify for either landward or lateral expansions.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Shannen Cartmel
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:38 AM
To: 'Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)' <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Exhibit 36 - Page 7 of 51
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Okay. I will get you updated on the building code requirements. I have an email out to my plans
examiner requesting verification. I do know that they have some build without permit violations on
the property that the new owner is attempting to remedy.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen,
Please see my comments below. If the entryways are required by code for safety, etc., that would
make the variance easier. If not, I don’t see how they can get approval for expansion in the buffer
when they already have reasonable use, unless you see something in the SMP that has you looking
at this differently. I looked through the SMP yesterday and didn’t find anything that would allow this
type of expansion, since these are not SFRs.
They would still need a variance for the septic lines.
Per your other email, yes, I can work with them. Do they want to contact me directly?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: FW: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
Exhibit 36 - Page 8 of 51
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender
AND were expecting the attachment or the link
I believe this would take them out of a variance for the buildings correct?. However, I do believe that
the new septic line is within the variance criteria.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:46 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Rives Kitchell
<Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen, We are working through more development of the project and are attempting to eliminate anyextension/addition waterward of the interrupted buffer in hopes that this will allow us toavoid the need for a Shoreline Variance. Specifically, this means relocating the proposedentrances for Cabins 2, 3, and 5 . We are now also looking into a new location for Cabin 5’srestroom as Rebecca’s earlier email indicated it would not be allowed to remain where theunpermitted restroom is currently located. Cabin 2 – relocate proposed entry to the north of the cabin, inside interrupted buffer
RR: The way the access road to Cabin 2 is depicted in this drawing doesn’t match up with what I’m
seeing on the aerials. It looks like the access road stops about 10 feet short of the cabin. I also don’t
see the walkway that’s shown in the drawings. It looks like the entire area surrounding this cabin, up
to Resort Rd, is in the buffer.
Exhibit 36 - Page 9 of 51
Cabin 3 – remove proposed entry on the east side of the cabin and relocate an entry to thenorth, inside of the interrupted buffer
RR: I don’t see a walkway for this cabin either. The aerial shows grass all around the north and east
sides of the cabin. It also looks like the entire area surrounding this cabin is in the buffer.
Cabin 5 – remove proposed entry on south side of the cabin. Relocate restroom landward ofthe interrupted buffer
RR: These changes will make it so that no variance would be required for this particular cabin.
Can you let us know what the process is to revise our proposal and provide an updatedAppendix E. Would the timeline of the review process shift at all/would there need to be any
Exhibit 36 - Page 10 of 51
extension of public notice due to a revised submission? We are attempting remove anyproposals that would require the shoreline variance and hopefully make the review lessonerous. We just want to make sure this won’t slow us down instead! Feel free to give me acall if you have any questions or if this isn’t totally clear. Thanks! John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 11 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Date:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 11:20:29 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen—I have a few questions/comments about the highlighted sections below from the notes:
1. Why would only waterward expansion require a variance? I would think that any additional
development in the buffer or setback would require a variance.
2. Same question really—why would this be a CUP rather than a variance?
3. The OHWM would not be based on the wetland delineation; it is based on OHWM indicators.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:55 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM -
Exhibit 36 - Page 12 of 51
Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting
the attachment or the link
The notes from the pre-app. Shoreline information starts on page 6.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:05 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Ugh, sorry, didn’t see your other email about building code requirements!
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 10:00 AM
To: 'Shannen Cartmel' <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Can you please direct me to the language in the SMP pertaining to landward or lateral expansion for non
SFRs?
And can you please let me know whether the entryways are a code requirement?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:40 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Exhibit 36 - Page 13 of 51
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM -
Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting
the attachment or the link
I included the representatives on the forwarded email to you, to allow them to contact you directly. I agree
with you and they were told this from the beginning. However, I do believe they could still qualify for either
landward or lateral expansions.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Shannen Cartmel
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:38 AM
To: 'Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)' <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Okay. I will get you updated on the building code requirements. I have an email out to my plans examiner
requesting verification. I do know that they have some build without permit violations on the property that
the new owner is attempting to remedy.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 9:33 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen,
Please see my comments below. If the entryways are required by code for safety, etc., that would make the
variance easier. If not, I don’t see how they can get approval for expansion in the buffer when they already
have reasonable use, unless you see something in the SMP that has you looking at this differently. I looked
through the SMP yesterday and didn’t find anything that would allow this type of expansion, since these are
not SFRs.
Exhibit 36 - Page 14 of 51
They would still need a variance for the septic lines.
Per your other email, yes, I can work with them. Do they want to contact me directly?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: FW: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
I believe this would take them out of a variance for the buildings correct?. However, I do believe that the
new septic line is within the variance criteria.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:46 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Rives Kitchell <Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening
attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen, We are working through more development of the project and are attempting to eliminate anyextension/addition waterward of the interrupted buffer in hopes that this will allow us to avoid theneed for a Shoreline Variance. Specifically, this means relocating the proposed entrances forCabins 2, 3, and 5 . We are now also looking into a new location for Cabin 5’s restroom as Rebecca’searlier email indicated it would not be allowed to remain where the unpermitted restroom iscurrently located. Cabin 2 – relocate proposed entry to the north of the cabin, inside interrupted buffer
Exhibit 36 - Page 15 of 51
RR: The way the access road to Cabin 2 is depicted in this drawing doesn’t match up with what I’m seeing
on the aerials. It looks like the access road stops about 10 feet short of the cabin. I also don’t see the
walkway that’s shown in the drawings. It looks like the entire area surrounding this cabin, up to Resort Rd,
is in the buffer.
Cabin 3 – remove proposed entry on the east side of the cabin and relocate an entry to the north,inside of the interrupted buffer
RR: I don’t see a walkway for this cabin either. The aerial shows grass all around the north and east sides of
the cabin. It also looks like the entire area surrounding this cabin is in the buffer.
Cabin 5 – remove proposed entry on south side of the cabin. Relocate restroom landward of theinterrupted buffer
RR: These changes will make it so that no variance would be required for this particular cabin.
Exhibit 36 - Page 16 of 51
Can you let us know what the process is to revise our proposal and provide an updated Appendix E. Would the timeline of the review process shift at all/would there need to be any extension of publicnotice due to a revised submission? We are attempting remove any proposals that would requirethe shoreline variance and hopefully make the review less onerous. We just want to make sure thiswon’t slow us down instead! Feel free to give me a call if you have any questions or if this isn’ttotally clear. Thanks! John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient and may
contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other intellectual property
laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail message or its attachments. If
you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail.
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 17 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Date:Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:58:39 AM
Attachments:image002.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Any expansion that is in the buffer that is not cut off by existing, legally established development
would require a variance. I did not agree with all of the applicant’s ideas of where exactly the buffer
is cut off and where it is not.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:48 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: FW: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Rebecca,
Question 1, we determined that any expansion is in fact a variance correct?
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:39 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Rives Kitchell
<Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Exhibit 36 - Page 18 of 51
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi Shannen, I wanted to follow up on some questions we have regarding our permits and any revisions weneed to make to them as well as a couple of other questions surrounding the project. 1) We are reworking our design to avoid any waterward development that would requirea shoreline variance and would like to revise the permit submittal to reflect that. Ifthese revisions do negate the need for a shoreline variance, how much time could weexpect to be taken off of our approval timeline?2) We would like to clarify our conditional use permit application to include up to 12events/weddings per year on the property which is more than the 4 allowed per JCC18.20.380(1)(f) without an administrative (Type II) conditional (C(a)) permit3) Is there a way to revise the applicant information from Andrew Nordstrom to hisLLC? The current owner information includes Andy’s personal address and he wouldlike to change that to his business information if possible What is the process for including revisions to these applications? Do we email the revisedversions to you or is there a separate process we need to undertake? We also want to confirmthat including these revisions will not restart the clock on any of our permitting timelinesand/or comment or review periods. In addition to the questions above, we would like to understand the options we have with thecurrent mobile home that is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new (3) unitstructure. Due to budget constraints, we are looking at options to either demolish the currentmobile home and leave the area clear for a couple of years until we are ready to build, or todemo the mobile home and place (3) studio trailers/tiny homes on wheels in its place until weare ready to build the permanent structure. Is there any timeline associated withdemolishing and replacing the mobile home? Would demolishing the mobile home and notreplacing with the new structure right away have any implications on the conditional usepermit?
ß MOBILE HOME TO BE DEMO’d AND REPLACED WITH (3) STUDIO UNITS- Is there any time limit on rebuilding the structure or other implication we should beaware of if we demolish the mobile homes and leave clear until we are ready torebuild?
Exhibit 36 - Page 19 of 51
Please let me know if you have any questions or if you would like to go over any of this on acall. Thanks! John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
From: John Sampson
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:46 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Tori Masterson <tori@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Rives Kitchell
<Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: Marrowstone Inn - MLA21-00080 - Revision Process
Hi Shannen, We are working through more development of the project and are attempting to eliminate anyextension/addition waterward of the interrupted buffer in hopes that this will allow us toavoid the need for a Shoreline Variance. Specifically, this means relocating the proposedentrances for Cabins 2, 3, and 5 . We are now also looking into a new location for Cabin 5’srestroom as Rebecca’s earlier email indicated it would not be allowed to remain where theunpermitted restroom is currently located. Cabin 2 – relocate proposed entry to the north of the cabin, inside interrupted buffer
Exhibit 36 - Page 20 of 51
Cabin 3 – remove proposed entry on the east side of the cabin and relocate an entry to thenorth, inside of the interrupted buffer
Cabin 5 – remove proposed entry on south side of the cabin. Relocate restroom landward ofthe interrupted buffer
Can you let us know what the process is to revise our proposal and provide an updatedAppendix E. Would the timeline of the review process shift at all/would there need to be anyextension of public notice due to a revised submission? We are attempting remove anyproposals that would require the shoreline variance and hopefully make the review lessonerous. We just want to make sure this won’t slow us down instead! Feel free to give me a
Exhibit 36 - Page 21 of 51
call if you have any questions or if this isn’t totally clear. Thanks! John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 22 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: Marrowstone - Ecology Comments
Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 12:36:22 PM
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Yes, I’ll put a hold on that date.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 12:33 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone - Ecology Comments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Can you tentatively hold the 2nd? Lets say around 11:00 AM? I will check to see if that works with the
applicants.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 12:20 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone - Ecology Comments
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Shannen,
Exhibit 36 - Page 23 of 51
I’m open on October 25 and 29, and November 1 and 2. If none of those days works on your end,
please let me know and I’ll see what I can move around. I won’t be able to do any site visits starting
November 3 for 2-3 weeks.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 11:55 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: FW: Marrowstone - Ecology Comments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Good morning Rebecca,
What is your availability next week and the week of the 1st for a site visit?
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Subject: Marrowstone - Ecology Comments
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Shannen, Andy received some comments from Ecology last week and it appears that they are still
Exhibit 36 - Page 24 of 51
questioning the OHWM. Please let us know when we can set up a visit with our biologist,Ann, to accompany the ecology representative onsite to verify. Thanks, John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 25 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:John Sampson; Shannen Cartmel
Cc:Helena Smith; Racheal Villa; Tori Masterson; andrew nordstrom
Subject:RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Date:Tuesday, January 4, 2022 9:50:56 AM
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
John, thank you for this additional information. I have a few comments:
I appreciate the detailed information about how we made the final determination of the OHWM on
November 18, 2021, that you included in the 1-3-22 cover letter. I see that some of the site plans
include the location of the revised OHWM. I recommend that the narrative from the letter and the
updated site map showing the new OHWM be included in the wetland and shoreline report and the
date of report revision be added to the cover sheet of that report.
I want to note that we did not do a wetland boundary verification at the site, but I am open to doing
that if the county would like that done.
There are two minor additions proposed to cabins within the shoreline buffer/setback. I believe
these are entryways, correct? It is possible these can meet variance criteria if there is no other way
to ensure the safety of entry into the cabins. This is something we should discuss further with the
county.
I don’t foresee any issues with processing a variance for the septic system but would like to hear the
county’s perspective as well.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Hi Shannen,
Exhibit 36 - Page 26 of 51
Please see attached for our response to the request for information from 11.04.2021 as well asupdated drawings and diagrams that reflect the changes made. Included is the requestedTraffic Impact Analysis, Septic justification, clarification re: OHWM, and the removal of theinterrupted buffer from our proposal. Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide or if I can answer any questions. Thanks,John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Good morning,
Please see the attached additional information request. As always, please let me know if you have
any questions. Happy Thursday!
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 27 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel; Ann Boeholt; Tori Masterson; andrew nordstrom; John Sampson
Cc:Helena Smith
Subject:RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Date:Friday, November 5, 2021 9:32:10 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
I would add that to Ann’s second question, a cabin would not disconnect the buffer, because the
buffer would go around the cabin.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 8:58 AM
To: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John
Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Ann the same interpretation in Jefferson County has applied for both critical areas and shoreline.
Regardless of the difference of wording the interpretation has been consistent. You are welcome to
apply for a code interpretation on this matter.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 4:53 PM
Exhibit 36 - Page 28 of 51
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John
Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Shannen, The following questions have come up regarding interrupted buffers:
While onsite earlier this week, we were discussing the language in JCC18.25.270.4.c for interruptions
of shoreline buffers. i.e. that only lawfully established hardened surfaces or paved roads provide
enough of a disruption to “functionally isolate” from the shoreline or critical areas. But, the
language in the Critical Areas Code is different, and it says “wetland buffers do not include areas that
are functionally and effectively disconnected from the wetland by an existing, legally established
road or another substantial developed surface”. (JCC 18.22.730(6)(b). This does not say anything
about a road needing to be “hardened or anything other than gravel. If gravel is considered
impervious, a gravel road is interrupting many (though obviously not all) buffer functions. How has
the County been implementing this?
Also, would a cabin be a considered an interruption of the buffer? Or just a buffer encroachment?
In other words, if a legally existing non-conforming cabin is within the buffer, does the buffer
continue on the opposite side of the cabin or does the horizontal extent of the buffer at that
location stop at the cabin?
Thank you.
Ann
Ann Boeholt, Senior PWSSenior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
a: 2907 Harborview Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
e: ann@soundviewconsultants.com
w: soundviewconsultants.com
p: 253.514.8952
Exhibit 36 - Page 29 of 51
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Good morning,
Please see the attached additional information request. As always, please let me know if you have
any questions. Happy Thursday!
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 30 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Date:Monday, November 8, 2021 8:15:32 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Ok, if it’s not technically abandoned per the SMP criteria, then we don’t need to discuss it. Thanks
for the clarification.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 8:12 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Let’s discuss tomorrow, if it works for you. I do not think it has been abandoned for long. I think we
had made the decision at a high level of management that per the SMP and our zoning code, that
the use would not be considered abandoned.
I probably used the term in the wrong context, but I was more so considering that given the state of
the cabins, it is quite clear that the number of guests coming have dwindled over time for traffic
purposes.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 5:45 AM
Exhibit 36 - Page 31 of 51
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Shannen, I didn’t realize the use had been abandoned. If it meets the SMP definition of abandoned,
it’s no longer legally nonconforming. We should discuss.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 6:37 PM
To: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
dave@hulbertcc.com; Shold Designer <designer@cottonshold.com>; Seth Rodman
<seth@zenovic.net>; Todd Hulbert - Hulbert Custom Construction (todd@hulbertcc.com)
<todd@hulbertcc.com>; Rives Kitchell <Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Tori,
I will be having a meeting with public works next week. I can attempt to gain more information from
public works. The concerns to address some of the neighbors comments would be safety and traffic
increase from the use. While the use has had a historical similar operation, it has been abandoned
for some time, if it is restored, it is likely to expect traffic increase from tourists.
Regarding the septic, there is nothing specifically that I foresee being disputed. Its actually a matter
of proving there are no alternatives. It is part of the variance criteria in Jefferson County Code (JCC)
18.25.580 (1-6).
18.25.580 Variance permit criteria.
(1) 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
Exhibit 36 - Page 32 of 51
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.
(2) 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.
(3) Variances may be authorized, provided the applicant/proponent can demonstrate all of the
following:
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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;
(d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed
by the other properties in the area, and will be the minimum necessary to afford relief;
(e) That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect;
(f) That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be materially
interfered with by the granting of the variance; and
(g) Mitigation is provided to offset unavoidable adverse impacts caused by the proposed
development or use.
(4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) Permits and/or variances applied for or approved under other county codes shall not be
Exhibit 36 - Page 33 of 51
construed as shoreline permits under this program. [Ord. 7-13 Exh. A (Art. IX § 5)]
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
dave@hulbertcc.com; Shold Designer <designer@cottonshold.com>; Seth Rodman
<seth@zenovic.net>; Todd Hulbert - Hulbert Custom Construction (todd@hulbertcc.com)
<todd@hulbertcc.com>; Rives Kitchell <Rives@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hello Shannen, We have received the additional information requests and have a few questions: Traffic Impact Analysis
Thank you for forwarding to the Owner the TIA Checklist & Appendix C from Public
Works.
We have spoken with multiple traffic engineers who have each responded that the TIA
request is very broad. They would like to know what specifically Public Works is
requiring from the study. They stated that without more specific information they will
have a hard time developing their scope.
Our larger concern is that without a defined scope for the TIA we will not be able to
provide an accurate study that meets the requirements of Public Works on the first
attempt.
Septic
We would like to request more specific information as to what components of the septic
proposal would be disputed in meeting the variance criteria. For example:
Will the gravity-fed waste lines located waterward of cabins be disputed?
(highlighted in yellow below)
Exhibit 36 - Page 34 of 51
Will the septic tank & pump placements lateral of existing shoreline structures
but within the buffers be disputed?
(highlighted in yellow below)
Will the septic lines located laterally of the existing buildings (between the structures)
within the shoreline & wetland buffers be disputed?
(highlighted in yellow below)
Exhibit 36 - Page 35 of 51
Please note that the above diagrams reference the originally proposed OHWM. We
understand that as this is adjusted it will also impact the buffers and setbacks.
Our septic designer has designed the system to minimize the crossing of septic and
water lines. As well, they have used best practices to design a reliable gravity-fed
system.
During the design phase, the septic designer received input from the biologist,
the civil engineer, and the installer. It was determined by all professional
consultants that crossing water & septic lines was strongly discouraged and that
locating septic tight lines in the buffer was preferred from an environmental
standpoint.
OHWM
We are working with our biologist to evaluate the impacts and timeline for re-
evaluating the OHWM and making the necessary adjustments. Ann will reach out with
any questions.
Thank you again and we look forward to receiving your input. Best regards, Tori Masterson, Architect
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c.206.354.2619
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
Exhibit 36 - Page 36 of 51
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Good morning,
Please see the attached additional information request. As always, please let me know if you have
any questions. Happy Thursday!
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW
42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 37 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Shannen Cartmel; Ann Boeholt
Cc:andrew nordstrom; Tori Masterson; John Sampson
Subject:RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
Date:Friday, November 12, 2021 10:26:07 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Shannen, I think that will be fine.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:57 AM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Just as a heads up, I am not available on the 18th. But I don’t think it is crucial I am there. Rebecca
can fill me in, if that works for everyone else.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 2021 9:56 AM
Exhibit 36 - Page 38 of 51
To: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Shannen
Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Ann,
Thank you for this additional information. I will look through it carefully and get back to you next
week.
Regarding the site visit, just to clarify, you’re wanting to be done at the site by 10:00?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 5:54 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Shannen
Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Thank you Rebecca. Of course. Understood! Yes, I could make the 18th work. I prefer first thing in
the morning. I’d like to be able to leave there at 10:00 if possible. Meanwhile, and since the water
level will be lower that week than this week, here are some photos you might find interesting.
These photos were taken this morning, during the high tide which was confirmed to be 9.48 feet at
Port Townsend. The Port Townsend MHHW is 8.52 feet, so this was roughly a foot above MHHW
and getting pretty close to where one would expect OHW to be.
Kilisut Harbor, it is a low energy marine environment. In a low energy marine environment, one
would NOT expect wave run-up and such. To the south, it is a high energy marine environment.
Because of this simple condition, one would expect the OHW on the high energy marine shoreline to
Exhibit 36 - Page 39 of 51
be higher than along the low energy marine shoreline. Furthermore, the waters coming into Kilisut
Harbor on an incoming tide are from the north. Whereas, coming into Oak Bay, the waters must
circle around Marrowstone Island or funnel through Portage Canal. This is significant because the
nearest tidal datum station to the southern tip of Marrowstone Island is across the water, over at
Bush Point, and the nearest tidal datum station to the north is Port Townsend. See below:
Per the NOAA tidal datum station, we learn that the MHHW at Port Townsend is .83 feet lower than
the MHHW at Bush Point (9.35 feet relative to MLLW). So, one could also expect from this alone
that the OHW of a shoreline closer to Bush Point would be around 1 foot higher (give or take) than
the OHW of a shoreline closer to Port Townsend. Add to this the additional high energy wave runup
along the shoreline of Oak Bay, and you would expect the OHW along Oak Bay to be substantially
higher than that within Kilisut Harbor. That is what we are finding and what the photos taken today
illustrate.
My research supports SVC’s initial OHW mark for the most part, but I would agree that in a few
Exhibit 36 - Page 40 of 51
places the OHW could be moved slightly further landward. It would not be correct to move the
OHW to the landward edge of the American dune grass (by the large Pacific madrone) as you
contemplated last week. See the additional photo taken today of that area attached. Look close to
see your pink flag—well landward of the water level. Note that American dunegrass is not a good
indicator of the OHW in a low energy marine environment. Ian Hutchinson only guessed at its salt
tolerance and did state that it should be considered carefully.
Ann
Ann Boeholt, Senior PWSSenior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
a: 2907 Harborview Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
e: ann@soundviewconsultants.com
w: soundviewconsultants.com
p: 253.514.8952
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
Hi Ann,
My husband just had rotator cuff surgery, and I need to be here to assist him while he recovers. I
think by next week I should be able to leave him home alone to do a site visit. I’m available on
Thursday the 18th. Would that work for you?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
Exhibit 36 - Page 41 of 51
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Hello Rebecca,
I have been following up our site visit with some good research. I am awaiting site photos taken
during this morning’s high tide which was above MHHW and likely was very close to where OHW is
expected to be.
I wanted to check on your availability to head back up there together to formally re-stake the OHW.
Tomorrow is rather short notice, but I could make it work, or possibly Friday afternoon?
Ann
Ann Boeholt, Senior PWSSenior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
a: 2907 Harborview Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
e: ann@soundviewconsultants.com
w: soundviewconsultants.com
p: 253.514.8952
Exhibit 36 - Page 42 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:Ann Boeholt
Cc:andrew nordstrom; Tori Masterson; John Sampson; Shannen Cartmel
Subject:RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
Date:Friday, November 12, 2021 2:06:23 PM
Attachments:image004.png
image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Ann,
I’ve talked this over with Rick Mraz, who has extensive experience working in marine and coastal
environments. His position is that American dunegrass (Leymus mollis) tends to be above the
OHWM, as it is tolerant of salt spray but not necessarily salt water inundation. In addition, its
indicator status is FACU, which further corroborates its likelihood of being above the OHWM. Your
statements about the information (or lack thereof) in the Hutchinson paper are a good reminder
about how little data we have on some of these species. I look forward to revisiting the site with you
next week and adjusting the OHWM according to this information.
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 5:54 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Cc: andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Shannen
Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Thank you Rebecca. Of course. Understood! Yes, I could make the 18th work. I prefer first thing in
the morning. I’d like to be able to leave there at 10:00 if possible. Meanwhile, and since the water
level will be lower that week than this week, here are some photos you might find interesting.
These photos were taken this morning, during the high tide which was confirmed to be 9.48 feet at
Exhibit 36 - Page 43 of 51
Port Townsend. The Port Townsend MHHW is 8.52 feet, so this was roughly a foot above MHHW
and getting pretty close to where one would expect OHW to be.
Kilisut Harbor, it is a low energy marine environment. In a low energy marine environment, one
would NOT expect wave run-up and such. To the south, it is a high energy marine environment.
Because of this simple condition, one would expect the OHW on the high energy marine shoreline to
be higher than along the low energy marine shoreline. Furthermore, the waters coming into Kilisut
Harbor on an incoming tide are from the north. Whereas, coming into Oak Bay, the waters must
circle around Marrowstone Island or funnel through Portage Canal. This is significant because the
nearest tidal datum station to the southern tip of Marrowstone Island is across the water, over at
Bush Point, and the nearest tidal datum station to the north is Port Townsend. See below:
Per the NOAA tidal datum station, we learn that the MHHW at Port Townsend is .83 feet lower than
the MHHW at Bush Point (9.35 feet relative to MLLW). So, one could also expect from this alone
that the OHW of a shoreline closer to Bush Point would be around 1 foot higher (give or take) than
Exhibit 36 - Page 44 of 51
the OHW of a shoreline closer to Port Townsend. Add to this the additional high energy wave runup
along the shoreline of Oak Bay, and you would expect the OHW along Oak Bay to be substantially
higher than that within Kilisut Harbor. That is what we are finding and what the photos taken today
illustrate.
My research supports SVC’s initial OHW mark for the most part, but I would agree that in a few
places the OHW could be moved slightly further landward. It would not be correct to move the
OHW to the landward edge of the American dune grass (by the large Pacific madrone) as you
contemplated last week. See the additional photo taken today of that area attached. Look close to
see your pink flag—well landward of the water level. Note that American dunegrass is not a good
indicator of the OHW in a low energy marine environment. Ian Hutchinson only guessed at its salt
tolerance and did state that it should be considered carefully.
Ann
Ann Boeholt, Senior PWSSenior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
a: 2907 Harborview Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
e: ann@soundviewconsultants.com
w: soundviewconsultants.com
p: 253.514.8952
From: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 4:35 PM
To: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Subject: RE: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
Hi Ann,
My husband just had rotator cuff surgery, and I need to be here to assist him while he recovers. I
think by next week I should be able to leave him home alone to do a site visit. I’m available on
Thursday the 18th. Would that work for you?
Rebecca Rothwell, MES, PWS
Wetlands Specialist/Shorelands Technical and Regulatory Lead
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: Ann Boeholt <ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Exhibit 36 - Page 45 of 51
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2021 3:13 PM
To: Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: Marrowstone Inn Ordinary High Water Mark
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Hello Rebecca,
I have been following up our site visit with some good research. I am awaiting site photos taken
during this morning’s high tide which was above MHHW and likely was very close to where OHW is
expected to be.
I wanted to check on your availability to head back up there together to formally re-stake the OHW.
Tomorrow is rather short notice, but I could make it work, or possibly Friday afternoon?
Ann
Ann Boeholt, Senior PWS
Senior Environmental Planner
Soundview Consultants LLC
a: 2907 Harborview Drive, Gig Harbor, WA 98335
e: ann@soundviewconsultants.com
w: soundviewconsultants.com
p: 253.514.8952
Exhibit 36 - Page 46 of 51
From:Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY)
To:John Sampson; Shannen Cartmel
Cc:Helena Smith; Racheal Villa; Tori Masterson; andrew nordstrom
Subject:RE: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Date:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 12:03:36 PM
ALERT:BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open
attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi John,
Thank you for including the information about how we came to a final determination of the OHWM
in Appendix D. Can you please include a statement about the November 18 follow-up site visit for
the OHWM determination in two places:
1. The third paragraph of the executive summary
2. The first paragraph of the methods section (chapter 3).
These statements should also direct the reader to Appendix D for more information.
Thanks!
Rebecca Rothwell, Shoreline Planner
WA Department of Ecology | desk: 360-407-7273; cell: 360-810-0025
This communication is a public record and may be subject to disclosure per RCW 42.56.
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2022 10:26 AM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL
SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND
were expecting the attachment or the link
Hi Shannen, See attached for our updated wetland and shoreline report as requested by Rebecca. Pleaselet us know what the next steps are in order to get on the calendar for a hearing as quickly aspossible. Thanks! John Sampson
Exhibit 36 - Page 47 of 51
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 9:42 AM
To: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
John,
Yes our hearing examiner has been selected. Once you submit the final 2 documents, I will begin
further review and we can hold a meeting if desired to go over anything else needed, clarifications,
and next steps.
The application review and staff report will take a significant amount of time, but we can evaluate it
at that time and then talk about when scheduling a hearing would be appropriate.
As a heads up, I do believe we are running low on hourly fees left for review, I will get back to you on
this once you submit the final documents.
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Exhibit 36 - Page 48 of 51
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Shannen, We have heard through the grapevine that a new hearing examiner was hired! That’s greatnews. We will have our updated wetland and shoreline report ready to submit within thenext couple of days. Once that is submitted and barring any other comments on your end, Ibelieve we should be ready to get on the calendar for a hearing. Can you let us know theexpected timeline for that hearing? Thanks,John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:07 PM
To: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Thank you John. I will begin to look through it next week. Given Rebecca’s email, once I have a
chance to review the new submittal, we can look at scheduling a meeting to discuss any concerns.
Have a great rest of the week!
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
From: John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Exhibit 36 - Page 49 of 51
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>;
Racheal Villa <racheal@soundviewconsultants.com>; Tori Masterson
<tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom <andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or
click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi Shannen, Please see attached for our response to the request for information from 11.04.2021 as well asupdated drawings and diagrams that reflect the changes made. Included is the requestedTraffic Impact Analysis, Septic justification, clarification re: OHWM, and the removal of theinterrupted buffer from our proposal. Please let me know if there is anything else I can provide or if I can answer any questions. Thanks,John Sampson
HOEDEMAKER PFEIFFER LLC
6113 13th Avenue South, Seattle, Washington 98108
206.545.8434 c. 509.551.6647
www.hoedemakerpfeiffer.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged information, as well as content subject to copyright and other
intellectual property laws. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose, use, copy, or distribute this e-mail
message or its attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by
reply e-mail.
From: Shannen Cartmel <SCartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us>
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 11:18 AM
To: Tori Masterson <tori@hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; andrew nordstrom
<andrewlnordstrom@gmail.com>; John Sampson <john@Hoedemakerpfeiffer.com>; Ann Boeholt
<ann@soundviewconsultants.com>
Cc: Helena Smith <HSmith@co.jefferson.wa.us>; Rothwell, Rebecca (ECY) <rebs461@ECY.WA.GOV>
Subject: [External] MLA21-00080 Additional Information Request
Good morning,
Please see the attached additional information request. As always, please let me know if you have
any questions. Happy Thursday!
Respectfully,
Shannen Cartmel
Lead Associate Planner
Exhibit 36 - Page 50 of 51
Jefferson County Community Development
scartmel@co.jefferson.wa.us
360-379-4454
***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***
Exhibit 36 - Page 51 of 51