Residents urge commissioners to deny Arborwood extension; concerns center on wetlands, stormwater and developer concessions

KITSAP COUNTY — Dozens of residents called on the Kitsap County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 24 to reject or subject to stricter terms any extension of the Arborwood development agreement, saying the county should not relax current code for large out‑of‑county developers.

Why it matters: Commenters said Arborwood, a multi‑phase development that remains largely unfinished after years, risks wetlands and fish‑bearing streams, could impose long‑term infrastructure costs on taxpayers, and will not produce housing affordable to local median‑income households if allowed to rely on older, less protective stormwater and critical‑areas standards.

What residents told the board Public commenters described repeated interactions with county staff and the development's history of phased permits and code‑grandfathering. "When you enter into a contract, you agree to the terms of the contract," said Ben Strobel, whose property borders the development, arguing the developers should not be permitted to change the agreed terms. Several speakers accused large regional builders of "bullying" the county with legal threats and urged elected officials to prioritize long‑term community and environmental interests over developers' schedules.

Numbers and environmental concerns April Ryan, a nearby resident, cited a study she said found that "on average each new house costs the local government $83.00 more in infrastructure costs than received in tax revenue," and multiplied that figure by 751 homes to argue the county would bear millions in net infrastructure costs. Residents and speakers from Island Lake and Barker Creek neighborhoods warned of impacts to salmon runs, aquifer recharge, and local creeks, and urged stronger wetland protections. Doug Heyman and others said the proposed units would generally be priced well above median incomes and therefore do not meet the county's affordable‑housing needs.

Process questions and requested clarifications Several commenters asked whether the county had completed adequate environmental and fiscal due diligence and whether alternatives had been evaluated, including allowing the original development agreement to lapse. David TT (a speaker who said he had submitted materials by email) asked for clarity about the "five‑year extension" reportedly being negotiated by the Department of Community Development (DCD), noting the permit applied for five years but that the parties had not specified whether the development agreement itself would be modified. He recommended that any negotiated extension include a firm, phase‑by‑phase schedule, penalties for noncompliance, and contingency planning.

Commissioner and staff context Residents referenced a Feb. 12 study session in which commissioners discussed negotiating an extension with the developers. Commissioners and staff did not take a final vote on Arborwood during the Feb. 24 meeting. Instead, multiple speakers were invited to submit written material and questions; staff asked commenters to send specific questions to DCD by email for formal response. One county staffer said DCD had been directed previously to begin negotiations on a five‑year extension, which is why community members sought public clarification.

Outlook No formal action to approve an extension was taken at the meeting. Speakers will continue to press the board and DCD for strict adherence to current critical‑area and stormwater standards, for stronger timelines and penalties in any negotiated extension, and for fuller environmental and fiscal analysis before the county agrees to changes to the original development agreement.

Votes at a glance - No formal vote on Arborwood extension taken at this meeting; direction to DCD to negotiate a five‑year extension was referenced as preexisting staff direction but not enacted as a final board decision at this session.