Hearing Examiner hears request to place fence inside shoreline buffer at 4635 Marine Drive Place

The City of Bremerton Hearing Examiner on March 24 heard testimony on a shoreline variance application from property owner William Jett to install a fence inside the shoreline buffer at 4635 Marine Drive Place.

The hearing examiner, Yoshi Kumar, presiding for Laminar Law, admitted prefiled exhibits including the applicant's shoreline permit application, site plans, a habitat management plan prepared by Ecological Land Services, written public comments and the city staff report. Justin Rowland, senior planner for the City of Bremerton, said the proposal “violates the code by appearing on the waterward half of the shoreline buffer and by not being limited to site property lines,” and recommended denial because the application met only two of the ten criteria under the Washington Administrative Code required for a variance. Rowland also told the examiner that the Washington State Department of Ecology would not support approval at this time.

The applicant, William Jett, testified that people and domestic animals regularly enter his front yard and that a fence is needed for safety and to allow family use of the yard. Attorney Ken Bagwell, representing Jett, argued the city’s staff report was “devoid of any authority supporting its conclusions” and said submitted biological reports and a habitat management plan show no ecological impacts. Bagwell referenced the Department of Ecology’s variance guidance and said the proposal is consistent with the Shoreline Management Act policy cited in the record.

A neighbor, Michel (Mike) Dubos, testified in opposition and said his principal concern was precedent: “My biggest objection [is] precedent across the board. Once something is set, I think there’ll be numerous requests for fences down the road.” Dubos also said neighbors were concerned about visual impacts from an initially proposed taller fence.

City attorney Brett Jetty (identified on the record as the city attorney) responded that the burden lies with the applicant to show the variance criteria are met and urged consideration of cumulative impacts and whether granting the variance would amount to a special privilege not afforded to other properties.

During questioning, Rowland explained code standards: where a 100-foot buffer exists a fence is permitted only in the outer half of the buffer (50 feet from the ordinary high water mark) and only along side property lines; for the site at issue the applicable buffer dimensions shown in the staff report required a side-yard setback equal to half of a 64-foot buffer (32 feet from the ordinary high watermark) for any fence to be allowed without a variance.

The hearing record includes the habitat management plan and two field biology reports submitted by the applicant. The examiner closed the public testimony and said he would issue a written decision on the variance within 10 business days.

The hearing was administrative; the examiner’s written decision will state whether the application satisfies the variance criteria and, if approved, any conditions. If the examiner grants the variance, the record indicates the permit and application would still require review by the Washington State Department of Ecology.