Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Staff recommends variance to allow home closer to road, encroaching 44 feet into rural wooded setback at Kearney Lake

3220347 · April 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Kitsap County hearing examiner admitted staff exhibits and heard testimony April 10 on a request to reduce a 100-foot rural wooded setback so a single-family home can be built on a 1.6-acre parcel at Kearney Lake.

The Kitsap County hearing examiner admitted staff exhibits and heard testimony April 10 on a request to reduce a 100-foot rural wooded setback so a single-family home can be built on a 1.6-acre parcel at Kearney Lake.

Jeff Smith, a planner with the Department of Community Development, told the examiner the applicants, identified in the record as Ed and Lynn Bridal, seek a front-yard setback of 56 feet to allow an approximately 1,600-square-foot footprint with a septic system and driveway. "My name is Jeff Smith. I'm representing Department of Community Development today," Smith said, summarizing staff's review and recommendation.

The request would encroach 44 feet into the rural wooded setback created by county code and is being reviewed under Kitsap County variance criteria. Smith said the site slopes toward the lake, has about 20 percent slopes in places and contains shoreline and erosion-hazard designations that influenced the proposed location. He said a no-net-loss shoreline mitigation report reduced the shoreline buffer from 80 to 50 feet for this project and a geotechnical report addresses slope risks.

Architect Jill Souza, speaking for the owners, described the design choices and said the chosen location minimizes tree removal and preserves privacy and lake views. "The owners, Ed and Lynn Bridal have, owned the property for ages. . . . this site . . . provided that access to the lake and the views, mitigated all of the, reduced any sort of, tree removal as much possible, but also provided them the privacy that they wanted," Souza said.

A member of the public, Chip Vincent, spoke in support and told the examiner he agreed staff had applied the variance criteria correctly. "In my review of it, this application meets all the criteria for the approval of a zoning variance, and I'm simply here to support the application," Vincent said.

Smith summarized how staff applied the four variance criteria: special circumstances of the parcel (shape, slope, vegetation), preservation of substantial property rights (view corridors), no material detriment to public welfare (staff said the residence would sit farther from the lake than some neighbors and that environmental standards in the Shoreline Master Program would be met), and that the requested relief is the minimum necessary. Based on that analysis, Smith recommended approval with conditions to allow the 44-foot encroachment into the rural wooded setback.

The hearing examiner admitted exhibits 1 through 18 into the record and closed the public hearing. The examiner stated he will issue a final decision within 10 business days based solely on the record from the hearing.

Background details from the staff report included: the parcel is accessed from Southwest Lake Vista Way; the property will be served by a private well and on-site septic with a primary and reserve drainfield shown in staff plans; the site contains shoreline jurisdiction under the county shoreline program; and the parcel lies roughly 500 feet south of the Pierce County line. The parcel was created by a 1992 short plat and is considered a legal lot of record despite current zoning that otherwise calls for one dwelling per five acres or more.

The hearing record shows staff-recommended conditions and references a buffer mitigation plan and geotechnical report; the hearing does not contain a final examiner decision. The examiner closed the hearing after hearing staff, the applicant's representative and one public supporter. The formal decision will be issued in writing by the hearing examiner within the time announced at the hearing.