Kitsap hearing on Spring Hill appeal focuses on whether mitigation sequencing alone authorizes wetland fill

Kitsap County’s hearing on the Spring Hill SEPA appeal on March 14 focused on whether the county can require a separate critical area variance before allowing wetland fill that the applicant says has already been analyzed under mitigation sequencing. The hearing examiner, Philip Rex, presided over testimony from County planners, the applicant’s counsel and wetland consultants about avoidance, buffer definitions and how local code should be read with Department of Ecology (DOE) guidance and Corps of Engineers review.

The dispute matters because the applicant, proposing an affordable housing development called Spring Hill in the Kingston urban growth area, seeks to impact a limited area of category-4 wetlands and to provide on-site mitigation and a conservation easement. The developer says the project’s mitigation plan substantially avoids wetlands and provides a “functional lift.” County staff disagreed, issued a SEPA determination of significance (DS), and tied that determination in part to what staff described as inadequate demonstration of avoidance and the question whether a critical area variance is required under the Kitsap County Code.

Project purpose and practicability were central to the debate. Applicant witnesses and its counsel argued the project purpose (to deliver for-sale affordable housing at a scale necessary to make financing feasible) informs what alternatives are practicable and that, based on the applicant’s cost…