Port Orchard planning commission tables rezone after residents raise access, wells and traffic concerns

PORT ORCHARD, Wash. — The Port Orchard Planning Commission on May 6 postponed action on a city-initiated 2025 comprehensive plan amendment and an applicant-requested rezone that would change land now designated industrial to residential after dozens of residents raised concerns about legal access, groundwater wells, traffic and safety.

The commission voted to table the entire 2025 amendment docket — which includes the applicant’s requested change from light industrial to medium-density residential for parcels near Old Clifton Road and Anderson Hill Road and city-initiated updates to the capital facilities element and the Transportation Improvement Program — and kept the public record open through the June meeting to allow written comments.

The public hearing drew more than a dozen in-person and Zoom speakers who live along Durfee Lane and adjacent private roads. Many said the principal concern is how future development would access the site, with residents saying an applicant-proposed use of an existing easement across private property could force a public-standard road next to homes, threaten private wells and increase traffic at the Old Clifton / Anderson Hill intersection.

"We are not considering a development application at this time," said Jim, planning staff, reminding the commission that the current vote is on map and land-use designations rather than any specific subdivision or building permit. The staff presentation noted the comprehensive plan amendment process provides policy guidance; any future subdivision or development proposal would trigger detailed review for access, critical-area protections, stormwater and utilities.

Why it matters: Changing the future land-use designation removes an industrial allocation and makes residential uses permissible in the comp plan and zoning, which would affect how the property may later be developed. Residents said potential outcomes — a paved two-lane road with sidewalks, dozens or hundreds of housing units, or heavy industrial use — would have different and immediate impacts on wells, school capacity, wildlife and neighborhood character.

What residents told the commission

Several residents said they learned about the proposal only after surveyors appeared on nearby land. Erin Durfee, a resident and third-generation Durfee Lane homeowner, said the road and neighborhood are a close-knit community and that widening the route would be "detrimental" to families and small-homestead lifestyles. John Medlock, who recently built a home on Durfee Lane, told commissioners he had to drill more than 50 feet to reach sufficient water pressure and warned that bringing municipal utilities or serving hundreds of units would be logistically difficult and costly.

Waylon Palmer, an applicant representative, said the owner, Mike Diaz, has held the property as industrial for roughly 18 years and that a lack of feasible access has kept the land undeveloped. "Residential traffic is more acceptable than industrial traffic," Palmer said, arguing residential development would cause less truck activity and could be more compatible with adjacent homes.

Staff analysis and legal context

Planning staff said they evaluated the request against the comprehensive-plan amendment criteria in the municipal code and consistency with countywide and state growth-management targets. Staff noted Port Orchard has a substantial surplus of residential capacity but a smaller surplus of employment land; the proposed change would modestly reduce industrial capacity but, in staff’s view, not below the level needed to meet the city’s employment targets.

Commissioners and staff stressed that the hearing was not an approval of any development or of access arrangements. As Jim, planning staff, put it: "If a subdivision application were filed, that is the time that we look at legal access, mitigation, water impacts, [and] environmental review." The commission cannot compel dedication of private property or acquire easements on behalf of a developer; any required legal access must be demonstrated by the applicant in a future permit application.

Decision, next steps and public input

The planning commission voted to table the item to the June meeting and to keep the written record open so residents can submit comments. Commissioners encouraged residents and the applicant to use the intervening month to exchange information about well locations, easement language and alternative access options, including potential access through city property or the industrial park. Staff said the city can notify the commission if additional legal or procedural constraints arise.

Residents who wish to submit written testimony were asked to email the planning commission at planning@portorchardwa.gov or mail comments to the Department of Community Development, 216 Prospect Street, Port Orchard 98366. The planning commission’s recommendation to the city council remains due by June 30 under the city’s amendment schedule; council action was tentatively scheduled for June 10 before the commission’s decision to delay.

Ending

The meeting closed with commissioners asking staff to accept written testimony and to provide updated information to the public. The commission indicated it expects additional materials and testimony before reconsidering the comprehensive plan amendment and rezone in June.