STREHLOW, NANCY IRION 2005-11-17
DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF BAINBRIDGE ISLAND
In the Matter of the Application of
NANCY IRION STREHLOW SVAR13337
for Shoreline Variance
Introduction
The Applicant seeks a shoreline variance to facilitate construction of a single-family
residence. The Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on this matter on October 20,
2005. Parties represented at the hearing were the Director, Planning and Community
Development Department, by Marja Preston, Planner, and the Applicant, Nancy Irion
Strehlow.
After due consideration of all the evidence in the record, the following constitutes the
findings, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this application.
Findings
Site
1.The subject site, addressed as 15731 Point Monroe Drive NE, is located on the
Point Monroe sand spit in the northeasterly portion of the Island, north of Fay Bainbridge
State Park. The entire property (total = 6,886 sq. ft.) owned by the Applicant (tax lot
number 41550000690003) consists of four adjoining lots: Lot 69: 1,950 sq. ft.; Lot 70:
1,978 sq. ft.; Lot 88: 1,632 sq. ft.; and, Lot 89; 1,326 sq. ft. [Exhibit 13, Application;
Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report]
2.The sand spit extends north and curves around to the west and south, forming a
“J” shape. Pt. Monroe Drive, a narrow access road (8-ft. wide at the subject site), runs
through the approximate middle of the spit, between the houses on the Puget Sound
(north) side of the road and those on the lagoon (south) side of the road. In the
immediate vicinity of the subject site [see e.g., Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 27], the spit is
quite narrow and houses are not built on the Puget Sound side of the road. [Exhibit 3;
Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of Preston; Testimony of R. Strehlow]
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 1 of 9
3.On Lot 70, south of the road, existing development consists of a 633 sq. ft. “A-
frame” house (built in 1958). An “Airstream” trailer is located on Lot 69. There are no
structures on Lots 88 and 89 north of the road (there is a drainfield on Lot 88). The
zoning is R-6, residential - six units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designation is
Urban Residential, UR-2. It has a Semi-Rural Environment designation under the
Shoreline Master Program. The rest of the spit has similar residential zoning,
Comprehensive Plan, and Shoreline Master Program designations. [Exhibit 11; Exhibit
28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of Preston]
4.Single-family residences of various sizes, styles, and ages are generally located
close to one another along both sides of the spit (28 on each side). Point Monroe was
platted in 1931 and, like the house on Lot 70, many residences were built decades before
the establishment of current zoning requirements and do not observe the setback, yard
and other development standards of the Code. There are residences on the adjacent lots
to both the east and to the west. Many residences are built up to and possibly within the
right-of-way. [Exhibit 8; Exhibit 27; Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of
Preston; Testimony of R. Strehlow]
Proposal
5.The Applicant seeks to remodel the house on Lot 70, construct a garage on Lot
69, and install a drainfield on Lot 88. The existing house on Lot 70 is constructed over
the water on creosote pilings; the proposed remodel includes replacing the creosote
pilings with a lesser number of concrete pilings. The proposed garage would
accommodate two cars and have studio/living space on the second floor. A covered, but
unheated connection would allow convenience pedestrian access between the house and
garage. The existing drainfield on Lot 88 would be replaced and both Lot 88 and Lot 89
would be enhanced with native vegetation. [Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony
of Preston; Testimony of Konosu]
6.There is no space for parking along the narrow travelway here. The proposed
garage (820 sq. ft.) has been reconfigured from what was shown in the original
application. The reconfigured design [Exhibit 26] would provide off-street parking for
two cars with a proper turning radius to access the garage from Pt. Monroe Drive. The
reconfigured garage would be located so that (on the lagoon side of the structure) a native
vegetation zone of 400 sq. ft., with an average width of 10 ft. and a minimum width of 5
ft., would be provided. [Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of Preston;
Testimony of Konosu]
7.The subject site has only 3,928 sq. ft. of upland property. There is no building
envelope possible without a shoreline variance. A variance is requested to allow the
garage to be built on Lot 69 with a native vegetation zone that is less than the standard 50
ft. (No native vegetation zone currently exists on Lot 69.) The variance is also to allow
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 2 of 9
the proposed drainfield on Lot 88 within the native vegetation zone. Lots 88 and 89
current have beach grasses and the proposal includes replanting and enhancing with
native plants the areas disturbed by drainfield construction. [Exhibit 28, Revised Staff
Report; Testimony of Preston]
Director's Analysis and Recommendation
8.A shoreline variance (SVAR) is required for this proposal. [Exhibit 28, Revised
Staff Report; Testimony of Preston]
9.The Director, in accordance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA),
conducted an environmental review after giving appropriate notice of the application and
of the SEPA comment period. No public comment was received. On September 1, 2005,
the Director issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS). That
determination was not appealed. [Exhibit 23; Exhibit 28, Staff Report; page 2;
Testimony of Preston]
10.Recommended Conditions 1-6 are SEPA conditions that the Director advises are
necessary to mitigate potentially adverse environmental impacts from the proposed
development. At hearing the Director noted that a zoning variance and a Lot Boundary
Adjustment would also be required; these land use actions are not part of this application.
[Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of Preston]
11.The Director requested that other agencies review and comment on the subject
application. Some Recommended Conditions are in response to the comments received.
In particular, Recommended Conditions 12 and 13 reflect the concerns of the Kitsap
County Health District that the proposal not result in increased demands on the septic
system. [Exhibits 21 and 22]
12.The Staff Report includes a thorough analysis of the proposal’s consistency with
Code requirements. That analysis, including the discussion of and references to the
Recommended Conditions [Exhibit 28, pages 7 through 13], is hereby adopted by
reference into these Findings.
13.The Director found the application consistent with the applicable sections of the
Code: BIMC 15.34; the Shoreline Master Program BIMC 16.12.050, 16.12.060,
16.12.070, 16.12.090, 16.12.150, 16.12.260, 16.12.380; the Critical Areas Ordinance
BIMC 16.20.080; the Zoning Code BIMC 18.18.020; 18.18.050, 18.18.060, 18.18.070,
18.78.060, and 18.111.040. [Exhibit 28, Revised Staff Report; Testimony of Preston]
14.The Director recommends that the requested variance be approved with numerous
conditions. (See Conditions 1-29 included at the end of this decision.) [Exhibit 28,
pages 2-4; Testimony of Preston]
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 3 of 9
Hearing
15.The public hearing on the application was properly noticed with posting, mailing,
and publication completed by October 1, 2005 [Exhibit 25].
16.At hearing, the Director’s report and recommendation was presented [Preston].
The Applicant testified about the proposal [N. Strehlow] and her witnesses testified about
the sand spit [R. Strehlow] and the reconfiguration of the garage [Konosu]. One person
[Birkholz] testified regarding the character of the neighborhood.
Bainbridge Island Municipal Code
17.The Shoreline Master Program, at BIMC 16.12.090, requires a native vegetation
zone immediately upland of the OHWM. In the Semi-Rural shoreline environment, a 50
ft. wide native vegetation zone is the standard for residential uses [BIMC 16.12.150,
Development Standards, Table 4-2].
18.Applications for shoreline variances not determined by the Director to be minor,
are decided by the Hearing Examiner following the procedures in BIMC 2.16.100.D.
19.Regards shoreline variance decisions, BIMC 16.12.350.B provides that:
1. The city of Bainbridge Island hearing examiner is vested with
authority to:
a. Approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline
variance and shoreline conditional use permit applications after a public hearing
and after considering the findings and recommendations of the director, which
shall be given substantial weight; provided that decisions may be appealed in
accordance with BIMC 16.12.370.B.
20.The Shoreline Master Program (SMP), BIMC Chap. 16.12, regulates development
in the shoreline. The Shoreline Master Program provisions for shoreline variances,
BIMC 16.12.380, include:
B. Shoreline Variance. The purpose of a shoreline variance permit
is strictly limited to granting relief to specific bulk, dimensional, or performance
standards set forth in the master program, where there are extraordinary or
unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation
of the master program would impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or
thwart the Shoreline Management Act policies as stated in RCW 90.58.020 or its
successor.
* * *
2. Criteria for Granting Shoreline Variances. Shoreline
variance permits for development that will be located landward of the ordinary
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 4 of 9
high water…may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the
following:
a. The strict requirements of the bulk, dimensional, or
performance standards…preclude or significantly interfere with a reasonable
economic use of the property not otherwise prohibited by the master program.
b. The hardship described above is specifically related to
the property and is the result of unique conditions, such as irregular lot shape,
size, natural features, and the application of the master program…
c. The design of the project will be compatible with other
permitted activities in the area and will not cause adverse effects to adjacent
properties or the shoreline environment.
d. The shoreline variance authorized does not constitute a
grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area and will
be the minimum necessary to afford relief.
e. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect…
Conclusions
1.The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to hear and decide this matter and the
Code requires that the Director's recommendation be given substantial weight.
2.Required notices of the application and of the hearing were made and the hearing
was held consistent with the applicable procedural requirements.
3.The requested shoreline variance meets the requirements for approval of BIMC
16.12.380.B.2:
a.SMP requirements interfere with reasonable economic use. The
small lots are so constrained by zoning setbacks and the native vegetation
zone that there is no building envelope without variance relief.
b.Hardship is property-related and resulting from SMP requirements.
Similar to other shoreline lots in the vicinity, these legally platted lots are
very small. Without a variance from the requirement fora 50-ft. wide
native vegetation zone, there would be no building envelope possible. The
hardship is not caused by any action of the Applicant.
c.The design will be compatible and not cause adverse effects. The
requested variances would facilitate construction of a single-family
residence consistent with the Pt. Monroe neighborhood. The proposed
garage would be located behind the shoreline structure line (as delineated
by adjacent residences) to ensuring no loss of view from those adjacent
properties. The project would be conditioned to avoid or appropriately
mitigate potential adverse impacts to the shoreline environment.
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 5 of 9
d.Not a grant of special privilege and is the minimum necessary.
This is not a grant of special privilege as other residences lack or have
reduced native vegetation zones.The reconfiguration of the garage
minimizes the size of the structure consistent with the size and shape
needed to accommodate two cars, while providing a larger native
vegetation zone from that originally proposed. The variance is the
minimum necessary to allow for reasonable single-family development.
e.No substantial detrimental effect.Granting the variance would not
result in detrimental effects to the public interest (also see “d” above); the
proposal is in character with this old established neighborhood and,
although less than the standard, an adequate native vegetation zone would
be established where there currently is none. Also consistent with the
public interest, shoreline vegetation would be enhanced on Lots 88 and 89.
4.The subject site consists of small shoreline lots, platted before the shoreline
regulations were adopted. As conditioned, the project proposed would be consistent with
the applicable provisions for granting the requested variance.
Decision
The application of Nancy Irion Strehlow for shoreline variance to allow a smaller than
standard native vegetation zone (as depicted in Exhibit 26) and to allow a drainfield
within the native vegetation zone on Lot 88, is hereby 1
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
through 29 that follow on pages 7 through 9.
th
Entered this 17 day of November 2005.
______________________________
Meredith A. Getches
City of Bainbridge Island
Hearing Examiner pro tem
Concerning Further Review
NOTE: It is the responsibility of a person seeking review of a Hearing Examiner
decision to consult applicable Code sections and other appropriate sources, including
State law, to determine his/her rights and responsibilities relative to appeal.
The decision of the Hearing Examiner is the final decision the City in this matter. Appeal of the
shoreline decision is to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board [see as provided by
RCW 90.58.180 (or its successor) and Chapter 461-08 WAC (or its successor). To be timely,
petition for review must be filed within the 21-day appeal period [see BIMC 16.12.370].
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 6 of 9
SVAR 13337
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1.To prevent adverse environmental impacts to existing water quality, best
management practices for all shoreline construction activities shall be followed at all
times, such that soil and beach sand erosion is prevented from degrading water quality on
a temporary and permanent basis.
2.To mitigate the impact on the beach habitat, no stock piling of materials shall
occur on beach or in areas of beach grass, all foreign materials shall be removed from
beach, and any damage to beach will be restored with a plan approved by the City and
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. A construction staging plan shall be
submitted to and approved by the Department of Planning and Community Development
prior to issuance of a building permit for this project.
3.No fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides shall be used in the native vegetation zone.
The use of these products elsewhere on the site is discouraged, but if necessary they shall
be used consistent with Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies.
4.Extreme care shall be taken to prevent petroleum products, chemicals, or other
toxic or deleterious materials from entering the water and degrading water quality. If a
spill does occur, or if oil sheen or any distressed or dying fish are observed in the project
vicinity, work shall cease immediately and Washington Department of Ecology shall be
notified of such conditions.Contact: Northwest Regional Spill Response Section at (206)
649-7000.
5.Upon completion of construction, all cleared areas on the site shall be landscaped
within the first planting season.
6.The reduced native vegetation zone along the shoreline shall be maintained in
native vegetation. Specifically, removal of any native plants within this zone is
prohibited and dead or diseased plants replaced with appropriate native plants. Removal
of invasive/non-native species may be permitted with a City approved replanting plan
indicating the type of vegetation being removed and the type and quantity of native plants
being provided.
7.The applicant shall obtain an approved building permit from the Department of
Planning and Community Development prior to construction of the proposed structures.
8.To the satisfaction of the Director, the applicant shall obtain a zoning variance to
allow reduction of the rear yard setback on Lot 69 prior to issuance of a building permit
for Lot 69.
9.The applicant shall obtain a boundary line adjustment to aggregate the lots prior
to issuance of a building permit for Lot 69.
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 7 of 9
10.Hydraulic Permit Approval shall be obtained from the Department of Fish and
Wildlife prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed remodel of the overwater
residence on Lot 70.
11.The footprint of the proposed garage shall be in substantial conformance with the
drawing date-stamped October 14, 2005 [see Exhibit 26] and shall not exceed 820 sq. ft.
A 90-square foot connection between the house and garage may be constructed subject to
Kitsap County Health District approval.
12.As restricted by the Kitsap County Health District, the existing residence on Lot
70 shall not be expanded in footprint, type of use, or number of bedrooms.
13.Consistent with the recommendation of the Kitsap County Health District, the
proposed garage cannot be, or contain, an individual living unit or residence and shall not
be rented separately from the main residence on Lot 70. The garage structure is limited
to a sink and toilet only; no kitchen facilities, bathtubs or showers are to be permitted.
14.The native vegetation zone on Lot 69 shall be in substantial conformance with the
drawing date-stamped October 14, 2005 [see Exhibit 26], with a minimum width of not
less than five feet and an average width of 10 feet, as measured from the Ordinary High
Water Mark.
15.Silt fencing shall be installed prior to construction on each of the lots. The silt
fence shall be inspected by the Department prior to issuance of a building permit, and
shall remain in place until construction is complete.
16.The native vegetation zone on Lots 69, 88 and 89 shall be replanted with native
shrubs and grasses. A restoration/planting plan shall be submitted and approved by the
Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The plantings shall be installed and
inspected prior to final inspection of the proposed structures.
17.In accordance with the standards listed in BIMC Chapter 15.34, lights shall be
hooded and shielded so that the light or glare does not extend beyond the property
boundary.
18.Any structure constructed on the property must meet the shoreline height
restriction of 30 feet, as measured from average existing grade to the top of the roof.
19.The applicant is required to stop work and immediately notify the Department of
Planning and Community Development and the Washington State Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation if any historical or archaeological artifacts are uncovered
during excavation or construction. This provision shall appear as a note on construction
drawings submitted as part of the building permit application.
20.Herbicides and pesticides shall not be allowed to directly enter water bodies or
wetlands unless approved for such use by the appropriate agencies (Washington State
Department of Agriculture or Washington State Department of Ecology, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency).
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 8 of 9
21.Prior to site disturbance, a set of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for erosion
and sediment control shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Bainbridge Island
City Engineer, to avoid degradation of water quality and shoreline bluff stability during
temporary construction activities and on-going maintenance of the site
22.No clearing, grading or construction shall occur outside of the dry season, April 1
to October 1. Disturbed soils shall be mulched or seeded immediately. No disturbed
soils shall remain exposed for more than three days.
23.New or used creosote treated wood materials shall be prohibited on the site, to
prevent degradation of water quality and habitat.
24.Equipment for the transportation, storage, handling, or application of such
materials shall be maintained in a safe and leak-proof condition. If there is evidence of
leakage, the further use of such equipment shall be suspended until the deficiency has
been satisfactorily corrected.
25.A geotechnical engineer shall fill out the City’s standard geotechnical forms
during the building permit process to fulfill the intent of BIMC Section 16.20.080. The
geotechnical engineer is not required to claim that the feature will be stable; however, the
City may arrange an engineering peer review, if necessary to ensure protection of the
City’s infrastructure.
26.Prior to issuance of a building permit, an indemnification agreement for all
activities and structures on the site shall be duly executed in a form approved by the City
Attorney, pursuant to BIMC Section 16.20.090.C.2.g).
27.The applicant shall obtain a temporary license from the City prior to commencing
installation of the septic drainfield. The applicant shall submit an application for right-of-
way vacation prior to issuance of a building permit.
28.A copy of all public agency approvals and approved drawings shall be given to all
contractors performing work at the site.
29.A copy of these Conditions of Approval shall be attached to the building permit
application(s).
Decision of the Hearing Examiner
SVAR13337
Page 9 of 9