SAN JUAN COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION

Transcription

1 SAN JUAN COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION Applicants: Chris Henry, Trustee 200 S. College St, 9 th Floor Charlotte, NC Guy and Mary Shinn 101 N 48 th Ave. #29 Yakima, WA John Tiscornia 5646 East Mercer Way Mercer Island, WA Agent: File No: Request: Location: Jeff Otis, Otis Landuse Consulting 393 Bobbyann Rd. Eastsound, WA HE14-08 (07SJVAR021) Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (SSDP) 2205 Obstruction Pass Road Orcas Island Parcel Nos: , , , , , Summary of Proposal: Land Use Designation: An application to expand an existing joint use dock located in Obstruction Pass. Rural Farm Forest Shoreline Designation: Rural Public Hearing: After reviewing the report of the Community Development and Planning Department a public hearing was held on February 6, Applicable Policies RCW Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and Regulations: SJCC Shoreline Master Program (SMP) SJCC Marine Habitat Areas Decision: The application is approved with conditions.

2 Findings of Fact 1. In 1992 San Juan County approved a joint-use dock for the properties and owners who are now requesting a SSDP for expansion. 2. The existing dock consists of a 106 foot pier, a 40 foot ramp and a 46 foot float. The existing float is located over eel grass. 3. The proposed expansion would add a 40 foot ramp, an 8 foot by 10 foot ramp float, and increase the size of the moorage float by 45 feet. The dock would be extended approximately 49 feet seaward which would then create a minimum separation of 24 feet from all existing eelgrass. The proposed float would be fully grated. The new expanded dock would have an overall area of 1,775 square feet and overall length of 199 feet. 4. The primary purpose of the proposed expansion is to allow adequate moorage for the high number of boats owned by the applicants. The relocation away from existing eelgrass is a secondary reason. 5. The applicants have a total of seven boats with approximately 215 feet of combined lineal footage. The available moorage from the expanded dock would approximate 170 feet. 6. There are six lots which would be participating in the use of the dock. There are three residences with a fourth residence currently under construction. An additional house is also planned for one of the vacant lots. Four hundred four (404) lineal feet of shoreline will be restricted to the expanded dock. 7. The realigned docks will cover existing kelp areas. There are no facts in this record that the new location will have any significant adverse impact to the kelp. There will be a significant reduction of impact to existing eelgrass from the relocation. 8. Piles are necessary to support the float and the preference for anchors in the SMP is overcome because of the facts shown in Ex The Joint-Use Agreement admitted as Ex. 1 satisfies the County s policies and requirements. 2

3 10. The dock is located in Obstruction Pass which is a narrow waterway with heavy traffic. Any mooring buoys at this location would have an impact to navigable waters. 11. As shown in Exs. 3 and 4, existing alternate facilities are neither reasonable nor feasible. 12. A Determination of Non-significance was issued on December 5, No appeals were taken. 13. Notice of Public Hearing was published December 5, Mailing and posting occurred December 3, During the public hearing on February 6, 2008 comments from and a letter by Friends of San Juan County were submitted. One of the issues raised dealt with existing kelp at the proposed expansion location. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the record was left open for submission of a response. That response from Otis Land Use Consulting dated February 13, 2008 was received and became part of the record. 15. The amended staff report dated January 31, 2008 is incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. The analysis and factual statements contained in the staff report are adopted as a finding herein. 16. Any conclusion herein which may be deemed a finding is hereby adopted as such. Conclusions of Law 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over the persons and subject matter of this proceeding. 2. Proper notice was given in compliance with local and state requirements. 3. Shoreline Variances are exempt from the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. 4. Joint-use docks are favored over single docks. Use of existing docks (including expansion) is favored over construction of new docks. Alternative moorage and facility use is favored over expansion of joint-use docks. 5. Under the facts of this case alternative moorage and existing alternative facilities are not reasonable nor feasible. 6. This expansion proposal is consistent with the joint-use preference of the Comprehensive Plan and SMP. Under these facts the proposal is the minimum expansion necessary. 3

4 7. Under these facts the containment of the float with pilings is the best choice in terms of environmental protection, despite the preference for use of anchor cable contained in SJCC (D)(10). 8. There is no significant adverse impact to kelp shown in this record. 9. The proposal is within the size and length allowances for joint-use docks with more than two users. There are no restrictions in the SMP on the number of boats that may use a dock. There are no minimum restrictions on the number of lots/users once the threshold of three has been attained. 10. Properly conditioned, this proposal meets all of the policies and criteria of the SMA, SMP, the Comprehensive Plan and other code requirements. 11. Any finding herein which may be deemed a conclusion is hereby adopted as such. Conditions The following conditions will apply to the SSDP: 1. The expansion shall be constructed as proposed in the application materials, except as the same may be altered by these conditions. 2. All debris entering the water or shoreline area shall be removed immediately and disposed of in a legal manner. 3. The applicants shall obtain all other required permits or approvals and abide by any conditions imposed therein. 4. The amended Joint-Use Agreement shall be signed and recorded prior to construction. 5. All conditions of the previous shoreline permit #92SJ020 shall continue to apply. 6. Construction shall not begin until all relevant appeal periods have run. 7. Development under this permit shall commence within two years of the date the approval becomes final and shall be completed within five years thereof or the permit shall become void. 8. Failure to comply with any condition may result in permit revocation. 4

5 Decision The SSDP is approved subject to the conditions set forth above. DONE this day of March, Wm. H. NIELSEN, Hearing Examiner Shoreline Appeal Any appeal of the shoreline substantial development permit shall be made to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board pursuant to RCW and the rules adopted by said hearings board. 5