RES 97-07 DENIAL OF THE DONALD SPENCER APPLICATION TO EXPAND A COVERED MOORAGE IN EAGLE HARESOLUTION NO. 97-07
A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Bainbridge
Island, Washington, denying an application filed by Donald
Spencer for a shoreline substantial development permit to expand
a covered moorage (SSDP 09-15-95-1).
WHEREAS, Donald Spencer submitted to the City an application for a shoreline
substantial development permit (SSDP 09-15~95-1) to expand and enclose a covered moorage
in Eagle Harbor; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval of
the permit application and submitted it to the City Council without a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council referred the application to the Hearing Examiner to
conduct a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held the public hearing, and by
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision (sic) entered on April 18, 1997,
recommended approval of the permit application; and
WHEREAS, on May 15,. 1997, the City Council considered the recommendation of the
Hearing Examiner, and by motion denied the permit application and requested the City Attorney
to prepare proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and a resolution for consideration
of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1997 the City Council considered the proposed findings,
conclusions and resolution; now, therefore
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAINBRIDGE
ISLAND, WASHINGTON, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The application submitted to the City by Donald Spencer for a shoreline
substantial development permit to expand and enclose a covered moorage (SSDP 09-15-95-1)
is denied.
Section 2. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached as Exhibit A are
adopted by the City Council.
Andrew Maron, Mayor Pro Tem
DOCS\94700\107\0137784.01 06/30/97 1 -
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
Susan P. Kasper, City Clerk
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK:
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL:
RESOLUTION NO. 97-07
June 30, 1997
August 21, 1997
DOCS\94700\ 107\0137784.01 06/30/97 2
EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact
1. The Applicant Donald Spencer requested approval of a shoreline substantial
development permit ["SSDP"] for the enlargement of an existing covered moorage at a pier at
5834 Packard Lane NE, Bainbridge Island, Washington. The enlargement results in a covered
moorage of 19x50 feet instead of the original 15x25 feet. (Exhibit 19).
2. The covered moorage has an extensive history of development. It was approved
for development by Kitsap County in 1992, prior to the annexation of the adjoining property into
the City of Bainbridge Island ["the City"]. The covered moorage, and the jurisdiction over it,
was transferred to the City, which approved it in March, 1993. The Department of Ecology
approved the dock in April, 1993. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
3. On June 29, 1995, a complaint was filed that the covered moorage had been
enlarged and was in violation of the original permit. Upon reviewing the complaint, the City
determined that the Applicant was required to apply for an SSDP. The request for said permit
was filed in September, 1995. (Gatwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
4. The review procedure for the SSDP required that it be taken to the City Planning
Commission for a determination of whether a public hearing was required. On January 9, 1997,
the Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit and submitted it to the City
Council with no public hearing required. However, at the Council meeting, it was remanded
to the Hearing Examiner for the purpose of conducting a public hearing. The March 21, 1997
hearing was held pursuant to this directive. (Garwood testimony).
5. The subject property is zoned R-2 and it has a Comprehensive Plan designation
of Open Space/Residential 2. (Exhibit 19).
6. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the City was the lead agency for
the environmental review of impacts resulting from the proposed development. A Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance ["MDNS"] was issued for the project on November 6, 1996.
One comment letter from Charles Schmid was received on the MDNS, but no appeals were
made. (Exhibit 15).
7. The subject property is subject to the shoreline review which is done pursuant to
the Kitsap County Master Program. In the Kitsap Master Program the shoreline is designated
as semi-rural. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
is zoned R-2.
testimony).
The property which adjoins the subject property is single-family residential and
The existing shoreline designation for the property is semi-rural. (Garwood
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.03 07/07/97 1 -
9. The original moorage was a 15x25 foot covered moorage with roof and no sides.
The resulting covered moorage is a 19x50 foot structure with a roof, solid walls on three sides
and a solid sliding door on one side. It is a large, out-of-place, industrial-sized metal structure
that is four times the volume of the original moorage. The moorage is located in the shorelines
of Puget Sound (Eagle Harbor), a significant shoreline in the State of Washington. The project
costs exceeded the statutory minimum of $2,500.00. (Garwood testimony; Exhibits 19, 41-42,
44-46; $chmid testimony; Meyer testimony).
10. As part of a method of recognizing and protecting statewide interest over the
shorelines, the City solicited comments and opinions for the project. The State Department of
Fisheries proposed modifications to the expansion, but no other public agency submitted
comment. The Army Corp of Engineers issued a permit for the covered moorage, but required
that all state permits be secured, including the SSDP. (Exhibits 14 & 19).
11. A requirement of the Kitsap County Master Program is that state agencies'
policies, programs and recommendations be considered in developing regulations for permits.
The Department of Fisheries reviewed the application, visited the site and indicated that a
hydraulic permit with conditions could be issued. (Exhibit 19).
12. In a semi-rural environment, piers and floating docks are permitted uses. A
covered moorage is neither a pier nor floating dock, and is not addressed as a permitted or non-
permitted use, in the Kitsap County Master Program.
13. The moorage provides private access to the public waters for the Applicant, his
family, friends and relatives. There is no public access to this small area of water. (Exhibit
19).
14. The covered moorage structure is the largest structure of the docks and piers in
the area. (Tracy testimony).
15. The expansion does not alter the use of the dock to which the covered moorage
is attached by others who have a joint use agreement. (Tracy testimony).
16. The expansion does not impact public physical access to the shoreline, nor does
it affect any existing or proposed circulation on Bainbridge Island. There are no known or
suspected historical, cultural or educational uses or significant scientific sites on the property.
The project is not commercial in nature. (Exhibit 19).
17. The expansion fails to preserve and alters the natural character of the shoreline.
It is not appropriate to the character of the environment of the area, and is not compatible with
the environment of the area. (Exhibits 42 & 45; Meyer testimony).
18. The Applicant expanded the covered moorage to allow him to dock his recently-
acquired boat which is larger than the boat that was placed for the original moorage. It is noted
that the size of the boat is not a criterion for this shoreline review. (Tracy testimony).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.03 07/07/97 - 2 -
19. The covered moorage is not an appurtenance to the Applicant's property that is
immediately adjacent to the dock. It is waterward from the ordinary high water mark and is
therefore reviewed separately. It is not exempt from the Shoreline Management Act and
requires a shoreline substantial development permit. In the Kitsap Master Program, unclassified
uses, such as the covered moorage, do not require a conditional use permit, only a shoreline
substantial development permit. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
20. There are no height restrictions for structures in a semi-rural designated
environment. There is a height restriction of 22 feet for structures in the ordinary high water
mark, but no specific height limits in the Kitsap County Master Program. (Garwood testimony).
21. The covered moorage must be evaluated on a case by case basis, must satisfy the
goals and general development policies of the Master Program, and must be consistent with the
management policy and character of the shoreline environment of the proposal. (Garwood
testimony, Part 7 of the Kitsap County Master Program).
22. The covered moorage is part of Applicant's pilot project that includes wrapping
the columns of the moorage with styrofoam floats as a new approach for protection. (Tracy
testimony).
23. The expanded covered moorage dominates and blocks in part the views of the
mountains and the harbor (water) from the water level and from the low bank properties
surrounding the covered moorage area. (Meyer testimony, Exhibits 3, 13, 42, & 44-45; Hanson
testimony).
24. Approval of the expanded covered moorage sets a precedent for other existing
moorages to be expanded. (Hanson testimony).
25. The horizontal and vertical dimensions of the expanded covered moorage alter the
natural character of the shoreline and do not preserve the physical and aesthetic qualities of the
shoreline. The moorage benefits only one person, namely the Applicant, and it is not in the
public interest. The long-term impacts of the proposal, including the aesthetics, outweigh any
short-term benefits to the Applicant. (Schmid testimony; Exhibits 42, 43, & 44-45).
26. Notice of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was published in the
Bainbridge Review on March 5 and 12, 1997 (Ex. 48). Notice was posted at the Bainbridge
Island Chamber of Commerce, City Hall and Winslow Ferry Terminal on March 4, 1997 (Ex.
35), and on the subject property on March 6, 1997 (Ex. 36). A copy of the Notice was also sent
to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and parties of interest on March
4, 1997. (Ex. 34).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.03 07/07/97 - 3 -
Conclusions Based on Findings
1. The Applicant requested approval of a shoreline substantial development permit
for the enlargement of an existing covered moorage at a pier at 5834 Packard Lane NE,
Bainbridge Island, Washington. The enlargement results in a covered moorage of 19x50 feet
instead of the original 15x25 feet. The original moorage had a roof and no sides; the resulting
moorage has a roof, solid walls on three sides and a solid sliding door on one side. (Findings
of Fact No. 1 & 9).
2. The City of Bainbridge Island Ordinance 90-17 adopted all of the Kitsap County
Master Program, except part 8, Appendix I-IV. Part 8 sets forth the procedure for the
processing of a shoreline permit application. This section has been replaced with the Bainbridge
Island Municipal Code ["BIMC"] 16.12.860. (Findings of Fact No. 2-3).
3. The guidelines of the Kitsap County Master Program have been reviewed and the
proposal is not consistent with some of the goals and policies of this program. The project does
not recognize and protect a statewide interest over local interest, namely Puget Sound, although
it does not detract from public use of the shoreline. Findings of Fact No. 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-
25).
4. The project recognizes and takes into account state agencies' policies, programs
and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. All necessary
departments of the State of Washington and the federal government have been given an
opportunity to review the proposal. (Findings of Fact No. 10-11).
5. The county and the City have solicited comments, opinions and advice from
individuals with expertise in scientific areas pertaining to the shoreline. Included in this
expertise was information sought from the Department of Fisheries. (Findings of Fact No. 10).
6. The proposal will not preserve the natural character of the shoreline. It will
dominate and block in part views of the mountains and the harbor (water) from the water level
and from the low bank properties surrounding the covered moorage area. It maximizes, rather
than minimizes, man-made intrusions on the shorelines. It is larger than other structures in the
area. The previous moorage was reasonable in size and type; the expanded moorage is
unreasonable in size and type. (Findings of Fact No. 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
7. The proposal will have impacts over shorelines for future generations. Approval
of the proposal will encourage applications for similar enclosed and large covered moorages.
Proliferation and the cumulative effect of similar enclosed and large moorages will detrimentally
alter natural conditions that are characteristic of the shoreline. The short term convenience of
the development is outweighed by the long term and potentially costly impairments to the natural
environment caused by similar enclosed and large moorages. It does not impact the resources
and ecology of the shoreline. The proposal impairs the public's opportunity to enjoy the
aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Denying the proposal will promote aesthetic considerations
regarding re-development of existing facilities. (Findings of Fact No. 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.03 07/07/97 - 4 -
8. The proposal provides access to the moorage. However, it does not provide
access to any publicly-owned areas of the shoreline. However, it is a very small area of water.
(Findings of Fact No. 10-11 & 17).
9. Although. the proposal does not provide development of recreational use for the
public, it does not deprive the public of other shoreline uses. It continues the established water
use of the bay. (Findings of Fact No. 14 & 17).
10.
& 23-25).
The proposal has some significant impacts. (Findings of Fact No. 9, 14, 17, 18,
11. The covered moorage is not permitted by the general regulations of the Master
Program. (Findings of Fact No. 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23~25).
12. There are no height restrictions for the proposal. (Findings of Fact No. 20).
13. The development will not cause a use or activity accessory to the major use or
activity which is not consistent with goals, policies and regulations of the Kitsap Master
Program. (Findings of Fact No. 19).
14. The proposal is inconsistent with the requirements of the semi-rural environment
in which it is located and is inconsistent with the management policy and character of the
shoreline environment in which it is located. It does not retain certain aspects of the natural
system to maintain appearances of a rural or non-urban environment. (Findings of Fact No. 9,
14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
15. The original moorage was the minimum size and length necessary to provide
housing for a boat of the Applicant. (Findings of Fact Nos. 9 & 18).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.03 07/07/97 - 5 -
EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact
1. The Applicant Donald Spencer requested approval of a substantial shoreline
substantial development permit ["SSDP"] for the enlargement of an existing covered moorage on
a dock at a pier at 5834 Packard Lane NE, Bainbridge Island, Washington. The enlargement
results in a covered moorage of 19x50 feet instead of the original 15x25 feet. (Exhibit 19).
2. The dock covered moorage has an extensive history of development. It was
approved for development by Kitsap County in 1992, prior to the annexation of the adjoining
property into the City of Bainbridge Island ["the City"]. The dock covered moorage, and the
jurisdiction over it, were was transferred to the City, who g~fich approved it in March, 1993. The
Department of Ecology approved the dock in April, 1993. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
3. On June 29, 1995, a complaint was filed that the dock covered moorage had been
enlarged and was in violation of the original permit. Upon reviewing the complaint, the City
determined that the Applicant was required to apply for an SSDP. The request for said permit was
filed in September, 1995. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
4. The review procedure for the SSDP required that it be taken to the City Planning
Commission for a determination of whether a public hearing was required. On January 9, 1997,
the Planning Commission approved recommended approval of the permit and submitted it to the
City Council with no public hearing required. However, at the Council meeting, it was remanded
to the Hearing Examiner for the purpose of conducting a public hearing. The March 21, 1997
hearing was held pursuant to this directive. (Garwood testimony).
5. The subject property is zoned R-2 and it has a Comprehensive Plan designation of
Open Space/Residential 2. (Exhibit 19).
6. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act, the City was the lead agency for
the environmental review of impacts resulting from the proposed development. A Mitigated
Determination of Non-significance ["MDNS"] was issued for the project on November 6, 1996.
One comment letter from Charles Schmid was received on the MDNS, but no appeals were made.
(Exhibit 15).
7. The subject property is subject to the shoreline review which is done pursuant to
the Kitsap County Master Program. In the Kitsap Master Program the shoreline is designated as
semi-rural. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
8. The property
residential and is zoned R-2.
(Garwood testimony).
which adjoins the subject property is single-family residence
The existing shoreline designation for the property is semi-rural.
DOCS\94700\ 107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 1
9. The original moorage was a 15x25 foot covered structure which the Applicant
expanded. The resulting structure is a 19x50 foot covered moorage, all of which lies moorage with
roof and no sides. The resulting covered moorage is a 19x50 foot structure with a roof, solid
walls on three sides and a solid sliding door,on one side. It is a large, out-of-place,: industrial-
sized metal structure that is four times the volume of the original moorage. The moorage is
located in the shorelines of Puget Sound (Eagle Harbor), a significant shoreline in the State of
Washington. The project costs exceeded the statutory minimum of $2,500.00. (Garwood
testimony; Exhibits 19, 41-42, 44-46; Schmid testimony; Meyer testimony).
10. As part of a method of recognizing and protecting statewide interest over the
shorelines, the City solicited comments and opinions for the project. The State Department of
Fisheries proposed modifications to the expansion, but no other public agency submitted comment.
The Army Corp of Engineers issued a permit for the covered moorage, but required that all state
permits be secured, including the SSDP. (Exhibits 14 & 19).
11. A requirement of the Kitsap County Master Program is that state agencies;,
agencies' policies, programs and recommendations be considered in developing regulations for
permits. The Department of Fisheries reviewed the application, visited the site and indicated that
a hydraulic permit with conditions could be issued. (Exhibit 19).
12. In a semi-rural environment, piers and floating docks are permitted uses. A
covered moorage is neither a pier nor floating dock, and is not addressed as a permitted or non-
permitted use, in the Kitsap County Master Program.
13~heproject is an expansion of an existing covered moorage. Only a small portion of
thennoorageqs physically effected by the expansion. (Garwood testhnony).
t4. The moorage provides private access to the public waters for the Applicant, his family,
friends and relatives. There is no public access to this small area of water. (Exhibit 19).
15 iA. The covered moorage structure is the largest structure of the docks and piers in the
area. T-here a~r have been, other covered mooragcs. Thc one that was closest to the
Appticant~recentty smxk duri~vere winter storm. (Tracy testimony).
t6 15. The expansion does not alter the use of the dock to which the covered moorage is
attached by others who have a joint use agreement. (Tracy testimony).
t7 16. The expansion does not impact public physical access to the shoreline, nor does it
affect any existing or proposed circulation on Bainbridge Island. There are no known or suspected
historical, cultural or educational uses or significant scientific sites on the property. The project
is not commercial in nature. (Exhibit 19).
t8...L7~ The expansion does not alter fails to preserve and alters the natural character
of the shoreline. It creates a larger structurewhile viewing the shorelh~e, but it does not h~qJact
the general dynamic view-of the site. (Exhibit 19)., is not appropriate to the character of the
DOCS\94700\ 107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 2
environment of the area, and is not compatible with the environment of the area. (Exhibits 42 &
45; Meyer testimony).
t9. The Applicant indicated that the reason the moorage was expanded was 18.
The Applicant expanded the covered moorage to allow him to dock his recently-acquired
boat which is larger than the boat that was placed for the original moorage. It is noted that the
size of the boat is not a criterion for this shoreline review. (Tracy testimony).
20 19_. The covered moorage is not an appurtenance to the Applicant's property that is
immediately adjacent to the dock. It is waterward from the ordinary high water mark and is
therefore reviewed separately. It is not exempt from the Shoreline Management Act and requires
a shoreline substantial development permit. In the Kitsap Master Program, unclassified uses, such
as the covered moorage, do not require a conditional use permit, only a shoreline substantial
development permit. (Garwood testimony; Exhibit 19).
2:t 20. There are no height restrictions for structures in a semi-rural designated
environment. There is a height restriction of 22 feet for structures in the ordinary high water
mark, but no specific height limits in the Kitsap County Master Program. (Garwood testimony).
22 21. The only criteria which must be satisfied by the proposal are the shorelinepermit
general criteria. The covered moorage must be evaluated on a case by case basis, must satisfy the
goals and general development policies of the Master Program, and must be consistent with the
management policy and character of the shoreline environment of the proposal. (Garwood
testimony, Part 7 of the Kitsap County Master Program).
23. The Applicant subnfitted that the 22~ ]]xe_covered moorage is part of a Applicant,s
pilot project that includes wrapping the columns of the moorage with styrofoam floats as a new
approach for protection. (Tracy testimony).
24: There will be no blockage of mountain or bay views as a result of the expanded
covered~noorage..--All views from the adjoining properties are abovc the horizon of the moorage.
(Tracy testimony):.
25 23. Witness Diane Meyer subnfitted that she had been livh~g with the "obstruction" for
twoyears~. She contended that t~rhe boathouse expanded covered moorage dominates and blocks
in part the views and blocks part of the view of the mountains and the harbor (water) from the
water level and from the low bank properties surrounding the covered moorage area. the water
from her property. She submitted that the Applicant does not need a structure which is 22 feet
high. (Meyer testimony, Exhibits 3, 13, 42, & 44-45;Hanson testimony).
26 24. Witness Maggie IIanson submitted objection to thc requirement of non-
environmental hnpact statement. She stated that aApproval of the expanded covered moorage sets
a precedent for other existing moorages to be expanded. She also contended that the size of the
structure impacts boating safety and should be prohibited. (Hanson testimony).
DOCS\94700\ 107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 3
27 25. Witness Charles Sctunid subnfitted that he lives noril't of the property adjohfing the
dock and caxmot see the covered moorage. Ilowever, hc objected to it coutending its Ilxe
horizontal and vertical dimensions of the expanded covered moorage alter the natural character
of the shoreline and do not preserve the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. do-not
faqnto the natural surrounding enviromnent. IIe also submitted that the deparUncut of Natural
Resources should be required to lease the property to the Applicant. IIe further stated that tThe
moorage benefits only one person, namely the Applicant, and it is not in the public interest. He
furtherx:ontended that t~rhe long-term impacts of the proposal, including the aesthetics, outweigh
any short-term benefits to the Applicant. IIe stated that the covered moorage should not be
permitted-in an area that is of high scenic value or where open-water views are hnportant:.
(Schmid testimony; Exhibits d2~ 43, & 44-45).
28 26. Notice of the public hearing before the Hearing Examiner was published in the
Bainbridge Review on March 5 and 12, 1997 (Ex. 48). Notice was posted at the Bainbridge Island
Chamber of Commerce, City Hall and Winslow Ferry Terminal on March 4, 1997 (Ex. 35), and
on the subject property on March 6, 1997 (Ex. 36). A copy of the Notice was also sent to all
property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and parties of interest on March 4, 1997.
(Ex. 34).
Conclusionn Based on Findi~q
1. The Applicant requested approval of a substantial shoreline substantial development
permit for the enlargement of an existing covered moorage on at a dock pier at 5834 Packard Lane
NE, Bainbridge Island, Washington. The enlargement results in a covered moorage of 19x50 feet
instead of the original 15x25 feet. The original moorage had a roof and no sides; the resulting
moorage has a roof, solid walls on three sides and a solid sliding door on one side: (Findings of
Fact No. 1 & 9).
2. The City of Bainbridge Island Ordinance 90-17 adopted all of the Kitsap County
Master Program, except part 8, Appendix I-IV. Part 8 sets forth the procedure for the processing
of a shoreline permit application. This section has been replaced with the Bainbridge Island
Municipal Code ["BIMC"] 16.12.860. (Findings of Fact No. 3-4 -2:3).
3. The guidelines of the Kitsap County Master Program have been reviewed and the
proposal is not consistent with some of the goals and policies of this program. The project
recognizes does not recognize and protects protect a statewide interest over local interest, namely
Puget Sound, but although it does not detract from public use of the shoreline. Findings of Fact
No. 7wlO;,---11, 14, 17, & 24 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
4. The project recognizes and takes into account state agencies, agencies' policies,
programs and recommendations in developing and administering use regulations. All necessary
departments of the State of Washington and the federal government have been given an
opportunity to review the proposal. (Findings of Fact No. 10-11).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 - 4 -
5. The county and the City have solicited comments, opinions and advice from
individuals with expertise in scientific areas pertaining to the shoreline. Included in this expertise
was information sought from the Department of Fisheries. (Findings of Fact No. 10).
6. The proposal will not preserve the natural character of the shoreline. It will not
result ira any obstruction of dominate and block in part views of the mountains and the harbor
(water) from the water level and from the low bank properties surrounding the covered moorage
area. bay from the horizon. Although it It maximizes, rather than minimizes, man-made
intrusions on the shorelines. It is larger than other structures in the area, it is rcasonablc~r_he
previous moorage was reasonable in size and type; the expanded moorage is unreasonable in size
and type. (Findings of Fact No. 24 & 25 9, 14,17, 18, & 23-25).
7. The proposal will not have impacts over shorelines for future generations.
Approval of the proposal will encourage applications for similar enclosed and large covered
moorages. Proliferation and the cumulative effect of similar enclosed and large moorages will
detrimentally alter natural conditions that are characteristic of the shoreline. The short term
convenience of the development is outweighed by the long term and potentially costly impairments
to_the natural environment caused by similar enclosed and large moorages. It does not impact the
resources and ecology of the shoreline. The proposal impairs the public's opportunity to enjoy
the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Denying the proposal will promote aesthetic considerations
regarding re-development of existing facilities. (Findings of Fact No. 3-24 9, 14, 17, :18, & 23-
25).
8. The proposal provides access to the moorage. However, it does not provide access
to any publicly-owned areas of the shoreline. However, it is a very small area of water. (Findings
of Fact No. 10-11 & 17).
9. Although the proposal does not provide development of recreational use for the
public, it does not deprive the public of other shoreline uses. It continues the established water
use of the bay. (Findings of Fact No. 14 & 17).
10. The proposal allows for economic development without creating has some
significant impacts. (Findings of Fact No. 3-24 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
11. The covered moorage is a not permitted use by the general regulations of the Master
Program. (Findings of Fact No. 79, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
12. There are no height restrictions for the proposal. (Findings of Fact No. 21 20).
13. The development will not cause a use or activity accessory to the major use or
activity which is not consistent with goals, policies and regulations of the Kitsap Master Program.
(Findings of Fact No. 7-25 19).
14. The proposal is consistera inconsistent with the requirements of the semi-rural
environment in which it is located and is inconsistent with the management policy and character
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 - 5 -
of the shoreline environment in which it is located. It is intended to does not retain certain aspects
of the natural system. it accomplishes this bc being placed in a large bay in which lhnited use and
access is provided to maintain appearances of a rural or non-urban environment. (Findings of Fact
No. 3-25 9, 14, 17, 18, & 23-25).
15.. Existing covered moorage and expansion of the stone are not specifically identified
inthe Kitsap Master Progrmn and no specific regulations or criteria guidelines arc sct forth for
the review of the same. (Findings of Fact No. 21-22).
16. 15. The permit is not given for the reasons subnfitted by the Applicant pertahxing
to the size of his boat. The size of his boat and the need for covered moorage are not the basis for
grant-of the SSDP. The shorelinepem~it is granted for-thesotc reason that it is consistenVwith the
Shoreline Act of the State of Washington m~d the Kitsap County Master Progtmn. The original
moorage was the minimum size and length necessary to provide housing for a boat of the
Applicant. (Findings of Fact Nos. 9 & 18).
DOCS\94700\107\0137530.RED 07/07/97 - 6 -
RECEIVED,
INSLEE, BEST, ET AL.
KITSAP COUNTY
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT MASTER PROGRAM
Prepared by the Kitsap County Department of
Community Deve!.opment from a draft proposal
of the Kitsap County Shoreline Advisory
Committee and amended ~.ud adopted by the
Kitsap County Board of Commissioners in
confor~7~nce with RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-16.
ADOPTED: JULY 1977
The preparation of this document was aided
by the Washington State Office of Community
Development through a federal grant from
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development under the provisions of Section
701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended
and a State grant from the Washington State
Department of Ecology under Section 25 of
the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART
PART 2
PART 3
PART 4
PART 5
PART 6
PART 7
GENERAL PROVISIONS
DEFINITIONS
GOALS
SHORELINE MANAGEMENT
NATURAL SYSTEMS
SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
USE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
ACTIVITIES
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
Defi ni ti on
Pol icy
Regulations
AQUACULTURE
Defin~tio~ '
7ol icy
Regulations
FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Defi ni tion
Pol icy
Regulations
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
BOATING FACILITIES
Marinas:
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
Piers and Floating Docks:
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
Mooring Buoys:
Definition
Regulations
PAGE
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-4
7-5
7-5
7-5
7-5
7-7
7-7
7-7
7-9
7-10
7-10
7-10
7-10
7-12
7-12
7-12
7-12
7-13
7-13
7-13
7-14
7-14
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
XI.
Recreational Floats:
Defi ni ti on
Regulations
Marine Railways:
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
Boat Launching Ramps:
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
MINING
Definition
Poli cy
Regulations
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AND ON
Definition
Pol icy
Regul-ations
PREMISE
SIGNS
RESI
DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Definition
Policy
Regulations
Single Family Residences
Multi-Family Residential
Subdivisions
Units
UTILITIES
Definition
Policy
Regulations
Sewage Outfall
Plant
Utility Lines
Sewage
and Treatment
(other than
Outfal 1 Lines)
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL (GARBAGE)
Policy
Regulations
PORTS AND WATER RELATED INDUSTRIES
Definition
Policy
Regulations
7-15
7-15
7-15
7-15
7-15
7-16
7-16
7-16
7-17
7-17
7-17
7-17
7-19
7-19
7-19
7-19
7-21
7-21
7-21
7-22
7-23
7-23
7-25
7-25
7-25
7-25
7-26
7-27
7-27
7-27
7-28
7-28
7-28
7-28
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
XII.
XIII-.
XIV.
XV.
SHORELINE WORKS
Bulkheads:
Definition
Pol cy
Regulations
Breakwaters:
Defi ni tion
Pol cy
Regulations
Landfills:
Defi ni tion
Pol cy
Regulations
Dredging:
Definition
Pol cy
Regulations
Jetties and Groins:
Defi n'i tion
Pol cy
Regulations
Shoreline Protection:
Definition
Pol cy
Regulations
ROAD, RAILROAD AND
Definition
Pol icy
Regulations
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREAS, HISTORIC SITES
AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH SITES
Definition
Policy
Regulations
RECREATION
Definition
Policy
Regulations
7-30
7-30
7-30
7-30
7-31
7-32
7-32
7-33
7-33
7-33
7-34'
7-34
7-35
7-35
7-36
7-36
7-37
7-37
7-37
7-38
7-38
7-38
7-38
7-41
7-41
7-41
7-41
7-43
7-43
7-43
7-44
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
PART 8
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX I:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
8-1
Permits - Procedures - Fees 8-1
Non-Permit Development 8-1
Substantial Development Permit 8-1
Applications 8-1
Procedure 8-1
Fee Schedule 8-2
Shorelines Conditional Use Permit 8-3
Defi ni tion 8-3
Procedure 8-3
Variance 8-4
Definition 8-4
Procedure 8-4
Duration of Permits 8-5
Appendix tI:
Port Gamble and Port Madison
Indian Reservations
Appendix III: Ki~p C~u~ty Shore!.ine
Environment Designation Map
8-6
vii
PART 3- GOALS
MASTER GOAl
"In recognition that the Shorelines are among the most valuable, scarce
and fragile of our natural resources which provide a significant part of
our way of life as a place of residence, recreational enjoyment and
occupation, it is the intent of this program to provide for the management
of the Shorelines of Kitsap County, which gives preference to water
dependent and water related uses while encouraging development and
activities to co-exist in harmony with the natural conditions."
SHORELINE USE: to provide for a pattern of diverse land
and water uses on the shoreline.
CONSERVATION - RESOURC£ PRODUCTION: to achieve pro-
duction and uti!izati'on o~ renewable resources. To provide
for the conservation of the natural shoreline resources.
HISTORY AND CULTURE: to identify, preserve, protect and
restore areas of historical, cultural, educational and
scientific value.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: to provide for the suitable
location of commercial and other economic development which is
water dependent or related.
PUBLIC ACCESS: to provide for safe, convenient and
diversified access for the public to publicly own shorelines
of Kitsap County and assure that intrusions will not endanger
life or adversely affect fragile natural areas.
CIRCULATION: to correlate all existing and proposed
circulation routes and facilities with shoreline usem.
RECREATION: to provide adequate, appropriately located,
convenient and diverse recreational opportunities along the
shoreline.
3-1
RURAl ENVIRONMENT
Definition: A Rural Environment is defined as
an area in which the natural, agricultural or
recreational features predominate and where
the use by man results in only a light modifi-
cation of the natural characteristics.
Purpose: The purpose of placing an area in Rural Environment is to protect
agricultural land from urban expansion, restrict intensive development along
undeveloped shorelines, function as a buffer between urban areas, maintain
open spaces and opportunities for recreational uses compatible with agri-
cultural activities, provide the opportunity for rural living which is of
lower unit intensity than the semi-rural living, to provide an environment
where living is compatible with the natural systems, and to regulate
use activities which may change the natural systems that establish the
characteristic nature of the environment. It is intended that man's use
activities will interact with the natural systems.
SEMI-RURAl ENVIRONMENT
Definition: A Semi-Rural Environment is defined
as an area in which t~'e'predominate feature is
the modification by the action of man but which
still maintains significant natural features.
Purpose: The purpose of placing an area in a Semi-Rural Environment is to
insure the proper utilization of the area by a multiplicity of human uses
on a fairly intense scale. It is also intended to retain certain aspects
of the natural systems to maintain appearances of a rural or non-urban
environment. It is intended that natural systems will interact with
man's use activities.
URBAN ENVI RONMFNT
Definition: An Urban Environment is defined as an
area subject to the intensive human modification
of natural features.
Purpose: The purpose of placing an area in an Urban environment is to ensure
the proper utilization and concentration in the area by a multiplicity of
intense urban uses, and to encourage the existence of desirable and pleasant
urban shorelines in the County. Because shorelines suitable for urban uses
are a limited resource, emphasis should be given to development within already
developed areas and particularly to water-dependent industrial and commercial
uses requiring frontage on navigable waters. Priority should also be given
to public visual and physical access to water in the urban environment. tt
is intended that natural systems should be subordinate to man's use activities.
4-4
PART 6 - SHORELINES OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
The Shoreline Management Act of 1971'designated certain shoreline areas as
shorelines of state-wide significance. Shorelines thus designated are
important to the entire state. Because these shorelines are major resources
from which all people in the state derive benefit, Kitsap County's Master
Program must give preference to uses which favor public and long-range goals.
Accordingly, Kitsap County's Master Program shall give preference to uses
which meet the principles outlined below in order of preference.
RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT THE STATE-WIDE INTEREST OVER
LOCAL INTEREST,
Development Guidelines:
Solicit comments and opinions from groups and individuals
representing state-wide interests by circulating the Master
Program, Master Program amendments and requests for substantial
development permits on'-shorelines of state-wide significance
to state agencies, adjacent jurisdictions, citizen's advisory
lcormnittees and local officials, and state-wide interest groups.
Recognize and take into account state agencies' .uolicies,
programs and recomm%endations in developing and administering
use regulations.
Solicit co,,~ments, opinions and advice from individuals with
expertise in ecology, oceanography, geology, lim. no!ogy, aqua-
culture, and other scientific fields pertinent to shoreline
management.
PRESERVE THE NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE SHORELINE
Development Guidelines:
(a)
Designate and administer shoreline planning environments and
use regulations to minimize mmn-mmde intrusions on shorelines.
(b)
Encourage upgrading and redeveloping those areas where intensive
development already exists, in order to reduce their adverse
impact on the environment and to accom~nodaCe maximum future
growth rather than allowing high intensity uses to extend into
low intensity use or underdeveloped areas.
(c)
Ensure that where commercial timber cutting is allowed, as
provided in RCW 90.58.150, reforestation ~,i!l be possible and
accomplis.bed as soon as practicable.
6-1
RESULT IN LONG-TERM OVER SHORT-TERM BENEFIT
Development Guidelines:
(a)
Preserve the shorelines for future generations. For example,
actions that would convert resources into irreversible uses or
detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of shore-
lines of state-wide significance should be severely limited.
(b)
Evaluate the short-term economic gain or convenience of
developments in relationship to long-term and potentially
costly impairments to the natural environment.
Actively promote aesthetic considerations when contemplating
new development, redevelopment of existing facilities or for
the general enhancement of shoreline areas.
PROTECT THE RESOURCES AND ECOLOGY OF THE SHORELINE~
Development Guidelines:
Leave undeveloped those areas which contain a unique or
fragile resource.
(b)
Prevent erosion and sedimentation Chat would alter the natural
function of the water system. In areas where erosion and
sediment control practices will not be effective, excavations
or other activities w.~ich increase erosion are to be severely
limited.
(c)
Restrict or prohibit public access onto areas which cannot
be maintained in a natural oondition under human uses.
INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE
SHORELINES,
Devel opmen t Guidelines:
(a)
Give priority to developing paths and trails to shoreline areas,
linear access along the shorelines and to developing upland
parking.
(b)
Locate development inland from the ordinary high water mmrk
so that access is enhanced.
6-2
INCREASE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC
ON THE SHORELINES
Development Guidelines:
(a)
Plan for and encourage development of facilities for
recreational use of the shorelines.
(b)
Reserve areas for lodging and related facilities on
uplands well away from the shorelines with provisions
for non-motorized access to the shorelines.
J
SHORELINE AREAS OF KITSAP COUNTY DESIGNATED AS SHORELINES
OF STATE-WIDE SIGNIFICANCE
Marine Shorelines:
Hood Canal - from Foulweather Bluff to the southwestern
corner of the boundary of Kitsap County, near Chinum Point.
(Includes tidelands and wetlands.)
Puget Sound - Seaward from line of Extreme Low Tide.
5-3
PART 7 - USE ACTIVITIES
The Shorelines Management Act Final Guidelines have established 21 sets of
Shoreline Use Activities which are to be included within local government
shoreline master programs. These use activity categories consist of
specific uses or groups of similar uses which are characteristic of the
shoreline corridor. They have been formulated as implementing tools to
assist in carrying out the intent and policy of the Master Program and
the Shoreline Management Act. The policies and regulations developed for
each use activity category are intended to serve as the primary set of
criteria for evaluating proposed developments and alterations to the shore-
line environment.
UNIDENTIFIED USE ACTIVITIES
Shoreline use activities not specifically identified ,and for which policies
and regulations have not been developed will be evaluated on a case by
case basis and will be required to..~atisfy the.goals and general development
policies of the Master Program~ the policy of the Shoreline Management Act
and shall be consistent with the management policy and character of the
shoreline environment in which they propose to locate and shall require ~
substantial development permit.
USE ACTIVITY - SHORE~ INE ENVIRONMENT COMPATIBIIITY CHART
A use activity - shoreline environment compatibility chart (see page 7-3)
has been developed by the administrator to graphically portray in very
general terms the relationship between the various use activities and the
shoreline environments establishment by the use regulations. This
compatibility chart reflects the attempt of the use activity regulations
to allow all reasonable and appropriate uses while imposing the regulatory
control necessary to insure preservation of the integrity of the natural
systems and natural environment of the shoreline area in which they intend
to locate. Additional concerns incorporated in the use regulations and
reflected in the compatibility charts included the permissible uses in the
natural system areas.
7-1
BOATING FACILITIES
DEFINITION: I'IAR | NAS
A Water dependent facility that provides moorage
and/or any of t,~e following, wet and/or dry storage
and other related sales and maintenance services,
for pleasure and commercial craft. (Community
and public docks are not considered a marina.)
POLICY:
Adequate facilities should be provided in areas which may be
reached from major population centers.
Marinas should be designed to minimize the impact of water
pollution and damage to aquatic life.
Marinas should be aesthetically compatible with adjacent areas.
Shallow water embayments with poor flushing action should not
be considered for overnight and long-term moorage facilities.
~EGULATIONS:
A. Environments
1. A marina is a permitted use in the Urban, Semi-Rural and
Rural Environments.
2. A marina shall be p~_m_Cted in the conservancu environment
subject to obtaining a Shorelines Conditional Use Permit.
3. Marinas are prohibited in the Natural EnvironmenT.
B. General Regulations
Where marinas are allowed, an evaluation of the following and
any other concerns deemed necessary shall be required: water
quality, water circulation and flushing, marina life. petro-
leum handling and storage upland. impact visual quality and
effect upon the environment designation and land use.
Design and operational procedures for fuel handling and
storage shall minimize accidental spillage and satisfactory
means for handling spills that occur shall be provided.
Washington State Department of Fisheries criterion for the
construction of marinas shall be consulted in planning for
marinas.
4. State and local health agency standards and guidelines for
the development of marinas shall be considered.
7-!2
BOATING FACILITIES (CONTINUED):
DEFINITION:
PIERS AND FLOATING DOCKS
A pier is a fixed structure built over the water,
used as a landing place for marine transport or
for recreational purposes. A floating dock is
a platform built for the same purposes and
attached to the shore or a fi~ed pier by a
loosel~ coupled ramp.
POLICY:
The cooperative uses of piers and floating docks should be
encouraged. Priority should be given to the use of community
piers and docks in all new major waterfront subdivisions.
The use of floating docks over piers should be encouraged in
those areas where scenic values are high and where conflicts
with recreational boaters and fishermen are not greatly
increased.
Open pile piers should be encouraged where shore trolling is
important and where there is significant longshore drift.
Boat docking facilities should not be located in ecologically
sensitive areas.
- Size and length of piers and floating docks should be the
minimum that provides the required service.
- Size and length should also be a minimum interference to
navigation and other uses of the water area.
P~EGULATI ONS:
A. Environments:
1. Piers and floating docks are ruermitred in the Urban, Semi-
Rural, Rural and Conservancy Environmencs.
2o
Piers and floating docks shall be permitted in the Natural
Environment, subject to obtaining a Shorelines Conditional
Use Permit.
7-13