Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unit Lot Subdivision Boundary Line Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews proposed unit‑lot subdivision rules and boundary‑line adjustment revisions
Summary
Staff presented draft amendments to BMC 20.12 to implement state-required unit lot subdivision for missing‑middle housing and to clarify boundary‑line adjustment procedures; public commenters generally supported unit‑lot language and requested clarifications to the proposed BMC text.
Planning staff presented draft zoning-code amendments proposing a unit-lot subdivision process and revisions to the boundary-line adjustment provisions of Bremerton Municipal Code 20.12, saying the changes would implement state requirements and support missing‑middle housing while streamlining the city’s code language.
Garrett Jackson, planning manager with the City of Bremerton, told the commission that state law (RCW 58.17.0603) requires a unit-lot subdivision process for short subdivisions (nine lots or fewer) and that the changes are intended to facilitate townhomes, duplexes, cottage housing, and accessory dwelling units by allowing development standards to apply to the parent lot rather than to individual unit lots. Jackson said the draft also proposes limited flexibility in boundary-line adjustments when existing, historic development makes strict compliance with current dimensional standards impracticable and that staff has proposed readability and organization edits to reduce code complexity.
Public testimony generally supported the unit-lot subdivision language. Ian Harkins, representing the Kitsap Building Association, said, “In general, we’re very supportive of the unit lot subdivision language,” and asked that certain vague or subjective phrases in the boundary-line adjustment draft be clarified or removed to avoid dispute. Gary Chapman, a land surveyor, praised the proposed revisions and asked staff to remove an overly strict provision limiting parcel geometry and suggested recording practice changes so title companies and plats remain insurable and clear.
Commissioner questions focused on ownership of common areas in unit-lot subdivisions and on limits to flexibility for boundary-line adjustments. Commissioner Tift asked whether common areas would be owned jointly by unit owners; staff confirmed that common areas would be owned commonly by individual lot owners. In a hypothetical, Tift asked whether an owner of two adjoining lots could adjust a line to enlarge one lot and reduce the other; staff said such a change would still need to meet minimum lot size, density, and setback requirements, and that the proposed flexibility is meant to address cases where existing development cannot meet current standards.
Staff said the draft language is an early iteration and that planning staff will consult with stakeholders (including development professionals and surveyors) before bringing the amendments to a public hearing, Department of Commerce and SEPA review, and ultimately to Council for consideration. The planning manager said boundary-line adjustment changes would also include site-plan review requirements and other clarifications to streamline review.
Public commenters with concerns: Jack Stanfill raised a broader objection about environmental review and historical agreements; staff clarified that prior three‑party agreements had been vacated and that the city’s 2016 comprehensive plan update superseded older designations. Harkins and Chapman requested specific code clarifications; staff indicated they would work with those stakeholders on wording prior to a public hearing.
No formal vote was taken on the proposed code changes at the workshop; staff requested direction and public feedback and said it will return with revised code language and a public hearing date.
