Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accessory Dwelling Unit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Frasier (Frazier) ADU hearing raises neighbor access concerns; staff recommends approval
Summary
Kitsap County planners recommended approval of a 900-square-foot detached ADU at 13993 South Keyport Road NE; a neighbor submitted a written comment about access across adjacent property, which was admitted into the record and will be reviewed by the examiner before he issues a decision.
Kitsap County Hearing Examiner Phil O'Briggs on Feb. 13, 2025 heard a conditional use permit application to convert an existing special-care unit into a 900-square-foot detached accessory dwelling unit on a 3.0-acre parcel addressed as 13993 South Keyport Road NE in Poulsbo (Central Kitsap).
Erin Lewis, associate planner with the Kitsap County Department of Community Development, said the application was deemed complete on July 2, 2024; the county issued a SEPA determination of non-significance on Dec. 11, 2024; and no SEPA appeals were filed. Lewis said the existing principal dwelling is 4,495 square feet, which sets a 900-square-foot maximum for the ADU under county code; staff recommended approval as conditioned. "Staff finds the proposal meets the special use criteria in Kitsap County Code 17.415.015(B) and recommends approval as conditioned," Lewis said.
Applicant Mark Frazier (recorded in the hearing as "Mr. Frazier") told the examiner he and his wife bought the property roughly a year earlier and intend the conversion so family can live there. He described a sunroom that can be walled off to create the ADU and said the change is straightforward.
A neighbor's representative, identified as Ms. Palmer, said she was representing Mr. Gargano and that she had submitted a written comment expressing concern about ADU access over an existing roadway that crosses Mr. Gargano's property. Palmer said she had emailed the comment to planner Erin Lewis; the planner confirmed receipt, forwarded it to the county legal team, and told the hearing she had discussed the matter with her supervisor. The comment was admitted into the record as exhibit 20.
Lewis told the examiner that because the ADU proposal eliminates use of the disputed access and conforms to the code requirement that accessory units use the primary residence access, the department considered the easement/dispute not integral to the land-use decision. The applicant said he would comply with the code and that he plans to fence off the older driveway, so ADU access will be via the primary residence as required.
Examiner O'Briggs admitted the neighbor's letter into the record as exhibit 20, said he would review the easement/materials, and closed the hearing record; he will issue a written file decision within 10 business days. Staff recommended approval as conditioned; a final administrative decision was not made during the hearing.
Why it matters: The case illustrates how access and easement disputes can surface during ADU reviews. The applicant and planner stated the ADU will use the primary residence access to meet code requirements; the examiner noted he lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate private easement disputes but will review the record when preparing his decision.
