Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant and county staff dispute buffer, mitigation on Kitsap shoreline variance
Summary
At a March 26 hearing, Kitsap County staff recommended approval of a shoreline variance to allow a new garage and modest house addition, while the applicant's representative and owner disputed the existence and treatment of vegetative buffers and whether mitigation and a variance were necessary; the hearing examiner will issue a recommendation to the Department of Ecology.
The Kitsap County hearing examiner heard competing arguments March 26 over a proposed garage and home addition on a shoreline parcel and will issue a written recommendation to the state Department of Ecology.
Staff presented the application (file no. 20888) and recommended approval as conditioned. Darren Gurney, planning and environmental supervisor for the Department of Community Development, said the proposal would allow a roughly 1,000-square-foot single-story garage, revise a driveway apron, and add about 403 square feet to an existing single-family residence. Gurney said the garage requires a 28% reduction to the shoreline buffer and an 18% reduction to a southwest buffer, that the structure would not exceed shoreline height limits, and that mitigation plantings and other conditions would achieve the county's no-net-loss requirement.
The applicants' representative, William M. Palmer, representing owners John and Jerianne Grice, challenged staff's analysis. Palmer said the property lacks the buffer described in the Shoreline Master Program and disputed staff's reliance on ecosystem and habitat policies for the site. "My contention is that a variance process should never have been required," Palmer said, and he told the examiner he would submit a PowerPoint and a written variance-criteria analysis as exhibits.
Owner Jerianne Grice testified that repeated attempts to establish native vegetation on the site had failed: "I planted I think 23 different variations of shrubs on the property all of them died." Grice said soil and salt exposure have made plantings difficult and that she was concerned about five-year monitoring requirements that could obligate her to replace vegetation that has not taken root.
Gurney responded under oath that the ordinary high water mark is set at the bulkhead edge and that Kitsap County code (cited in the record as 2240120) identifies an 85-foot standard buffer and a 50-foot reduced buffer, each carrying a 15-foot building setback. He said no-net-loss is driven by added impervious surface and that staff's mitigation sequencing and monitoring allow for adaptive management when plantings initially fail. Gurney also noted the county consulted tribes and Ecology during permit review and that Ecology has final authority on the shoreline permit.
Palmer raised permit-processing concerns: he said the building permit for the site was first submitted in January 2021 and remains unresolved, a delay he said has frustrated his clients. He also argued that some of the conditions (including restrictions on on-site parking and requirements to establish a buffer) are not supported by the property's physical conditions.
The examiner admitted the applicant's supplemental materials as exhibits, closed the record for the hearing, and said he will issue recommendations to the Department of Ecology within a few weeks. Ecology will make the final decision on the shoreline permit.
Next procedural steps: the hearing examiner will issue a written recommendation to the Department of Ecology; Ecology has at least 30 days to act following the examiner's decision, per the process described at the hearing.
