Kitsap County commissioners move Boundary Line Adjustment ordinance to deliberation after hours of public testimony

Kitsap County commissioners on June 8 heard hours of testimony over a proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) ordinance that would create a new county code (chapter 16.64) and change related chapters in County Code. Garrett Beaulieu, a long‑range planner with the county Department of Community Development (DCD), told the board the draft creates two review paths: a Type 1 ministerial permit (no SEPA or public hearing; RCW allows up to 65 days but staff expect much faster reviews for straightforward cases) and an over‑the‑counter (OTC) 30‑minute review for simple two‑party adjustments such as fence‑line corrections or moving a single corner.

Beaulieu said the OTC route is limited to adjustments between two existing properties that move only one line or corner, cannot change exterior plat boundaries and includes a priority review option when proof of sale is provided. He said staff developed checklists and a boundary line adjustment cover sheet that planners would stamp if criteria are met. He also said outreach to surveyors, realtors, title companies and others informed the draft and that changes since the Planning Commission included the OTC option, cover sheets and allowances for minor deviations (up to 10% of a lot’s area or 10,890 square feet) under director discretion.

Why it matters: The ordinance would add a formal county review step for adjustments that many speakers said are already governed by state law and private agreements; opponents cautioned it could add cost and delay to routine property transactions, while supporters said it offers clarity for buyers and prevents future development surprises.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Several longtime realtors, surveyors and property‑rights advocates urged the commissioners to reject the ordinance or send it back to the Planning Commission for additional review. Wayne Halverson, a resident who said he had spent about $30,000 on a multi‑year subdivision effort, opposed additional requirements as an expense and barrier to using property. Robert Larson and Richard Brown (local realtors) criticized the OTC definition, arguing that typical BLAs move multiple lines or corners and that counter staff could not overrule licensed surveyors’ legal descriptions. Michael Gustafson, a planning‑commission veteran, argued the draft conflicts with state statutes and that county staff lack standing to substitute county review for procedures governed by RCW. William M. Palmer (Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners) and Linda Wood (Kitsap County Association of Realtors) urged the board to consider fiscal and property‑rights impacts and said the existing state framework has generally governed BLAs successfully.

At the same time, supporters said the code would reduce downstream problems for property buyers and add transparency. Carrie Lou Thompson said Kitsap is behind other counties for not having a BLA code; Fred DePete (former assessor map draftsman) told the board DCD’s review identified roughly 6,746 recorded BLAs historically and that only a small fraction had problems. Justin Weiss, a broker, offered a concrete cost example: one sale‑related BLA he handled cost $6,318 and he warned lenders may not accept county OTC certification in lieu of a licensed surveyor’s work.

Board discussion focused on process questions: whether stakeholder groups had formally endorsed the draft (staff: they provided feedback but not a formal endorsement), how the county would staff and resource any new review, the mechanics of the OTC eligibility criteria (staff clarified it allows moving one line or rotating/moving one corner) and whether to remand the revised draft back to the Planning Commission. Commissioners said they received significant written and emailed comments in addition to in‑person testimony.

Action taken: After closing the hearing, the board voted to continue deliberations and decision to June 17 to allow staff to prepare additional information (including clarifications on forms, the corner/line mechanics, and the resource/fiscal impacts) and to determine whether remanding to the Planning Commission is appropriate. The motion to continue carried by voice vote.

Next steps: The board will reconvene for deliberations and a decision on June 17; the meeting record and staff memos prepared for that date should include the forms and clarifications several speakers requested.