Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Orchard hearing on McCormick Woods preliminary plat draws stormwater and traffic concerns
Summary
City planning staff recommended approval of a preliminary plat to create 105 single-family lots in McCormick Woods planning area H, but nearby residents and the Glenwood Homeowners Association pressed the developer and staff for clearer answers on stormwater runoff, groundwater recharge and traffic impacts; the hearing examiner will issue a written decision.
Port Orchard’s hearing examiner convened a March 25 preliminary plat hearing on LU24-PLA-prelim-03, a proposal to subdivide planning area H of McCormick Woods into 105 single-family lots and 10 tracts for access, utilities and open space. City planning staff recommended approval, saying the design meets the zoning code and the 2016 comprehensive plan.
Miss Andrews, the city planner presenting the application, told the hearing that the plat was submitted Oct. 10, 2024, that buffers for two on-site wetlands and nearby drainage corridors “are shown to be met or exceeded,” and that final civil plans will be reviewed under a future land disturbing activity permit. “We are recommending approval of the preliminary plat,” she said.
Why it matters: the parcel abuts existing neighborhoods and two wetlands; neighbors told the hearing they fear renewed flooding, potential effects on private wells and downstream fish-bearing streams, and increased traffic on local roads. The developer and staff said most technical issues will be handled in later permit phases, and the hearing examiner said he would issue a written decision summarizing evidence and conditions.
Residents’ concerns came from several directions at the hearing. A member of the McCormick Woods community asked whether a phasing and construction schedule exists; the examiner deferred that detail to staff and the applicant. A virtual commenter identified as Mr. Wayne said there is “a growing fear about what’s happening” in the community and cited vegetation loss, erosion control and stormwater as central worries.
Russ Michael, speaking for the Glenwood Homeowners Association, asked the hearing to accept a PowerPoint into the record and described prior flooding and what he called an “inadequate legacy storm water system.” He told the hearing that in winter 2020 “approximately 250,000 gallons flowed through the property at 6428 Glenwood Road Southwest,” and said that residents on private wells are anxious about aquifer recharge and potential contamination, and about cumulative discharge into Ruby Creek and Square Creek, which he said are designated for anadromous fish.
The developer’s representative, Greg Krabby, said the project team is negotiating a reforestation and park agreement with the city and has included commitments to additional trees and open-space requirements. Krabby said roof runoff will be dispersed across native landscape and the adjacent golf course in conformance with Department of Ecology guidance, and that detention basins will be private, with maintenance assigned to the homeowners association. He also said the storm pond identified by commenters is owned by an earlier developer and not by the current applicant. “That pond is not on our property,” Krabby said, adding that the developer will cooperate with the city and the HOA to provide design and maintenance information.
Miss Andrews and the applicant also addressed regulatory steps: the plat was reviewed under the May 2023 zoning code and the city’s adopted stormwater standards; the file includes a SEPA determination of non-significance (DNS) for the plat area, and staff said that single-family proposals in the designated critical aquifer recharge area are reviewed under the standard stormwater process rather than requiring additional CARA-specific studies. Miss Andrews displayed a Kitsap County GIS as-built graphic that shows a feature labeled “pond C,” but told the hearing the city lacks a maintenance record for that pond and recommended further inquiry by public works staff.
The hearing ended with the examiner saying he would issue a detailed written decision addressing the issues raised, and that attendees should provide email addresses to receive the decision. The developer indicated a separate public hearing on the reforestation/park agreement could occur in June.
What’s next: the examiner will prepare a written decision based on testimony and the exhibits entered into the record; final engineering, stormwater design and any required easements will be addressed in later permitting (land-disturbing activity permits and development-agreement implementation).
