Chapter 2.16 LAND USE REVIEW PROCEDURES

The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard procedures for all land use applications processed by the city, to promote timely and informed public participation in those procedures, to eliminate redundancy in the application, permit review, and appeal procedures, to minimize delay and expense, and to result in development approvals that further city goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan. In addition, the purpose of this chapter is to establish the process for adopting and amending Growth Management Act (“GMA”) development regulations, to ensure early and continuous public participation in the creation and amendment of development regulations, which implement the city’s comprehensive plan. Additional specific purposes for some types of approval are included in BIMC 2.16.030 through 2.16.210. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.010 Land use procedures summary table.

Table 2.16.010-1: Summary Table of Land Use Procedures
R = Review and Recommendation, (R) = Optional Review, D = Decision, A = Appeal, P = Public Hearing, (P) = Optional Public Hearing
	DRB	Planning Comm.	Director	Hearing Examiner	City Council	Courts
Administrative Approvals
Tree Removal/Vegetation Maintenance Permit			D	A
Conversion Option Harvest Plan Permit			D	A
Minor Conditional Use	(R)	(R)	D	A
Minor Variance		(R)	D	A
Agricultural Conditional Use			D	A
Large Lot Subdivisions (Prelim)	R	R	D	A
(Final)			D			A
Minor Shoreline Variance [1]		(R)	D	A		A [2]
Minor Shoreline Conditional Use [1]		(R)	D	A		A [2]
Public Works Administrative Decisions			D			A
SEPA Determinations			D	A
Shoreline Substantial Development Exemption [1]			D	A
Shoreline Substantial Development [1]		(R)	D	A		A [2]
Short Subdivisions (Prelim)	(R)	(R)	D	A
(Final)			D	A		A
Sign Permits			D			A
Minor Site Plan and Design Review	(R)	(R)	D	A
Major Site Plan and Design Review (Any SPR in the B/I district must be processed through a major SPR)	R	R	D	A
Critical Area Permit – Major and Minor			D	A
All other administrative decisions: This includes agricultural retail plans, boundary line adjustments (see BIMC 2.16.090), building and other construction permits, building administrative decisions, BIMC interpretations, extension of construction noise hours (see BIMC 16.16.025), and any other administrative land use decision authorized by this code to be made by the director.
			D	A
Quasi-Judicial Decisions by the Hearing Examiner
Conditional Use Permits	R	R	R	D/P		A
Variances		(R)	R	D/P		A
Reasonable Use Exception (See BIMC 16.20.080)		(R)	R	D/P		A
Major Shoreline Variances [1]		(R)	R	D/P		A [2]
Major Shoreline Conditional Use Permits [1]	R	R	R	D/P		A [2]
Long Subdivisions (Prelim)	R	R	R	D		A
Quasi-Judicial Decisions by City Council
Long Subdivisions (Final)			R		D	A
Site-Specific Rezones		(R)	R	R/P	D	A
Consolidated Project Review
See BIMC 2.16.170
Legislative Approvals
Adoption or Amendment of Development Regulations		R/P	R		D (P)	A
Comprehensive Plan Amendments		R/P	R		D (P)	A
Legislative Area-Wide Rezones		R/P	R		D (P)	A
Special Area Plans		R/P	R		D (P)	A

[1] City decisions on shoreline variances, shoreline substantial development permits, and shoreline conditional use permits must be reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-27-130 and RCW 90.58.140(10). The Department of Ecology may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application.

[2] The hearing examiner’s decision is forwarded to the Department of Ecology (DOE) for decision. The DOE decision is then appealable to the Shoreline Hearings Board. (See BIMC 2.16.165.I.)

(Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2018-20 § 5 (Exh. A), 2018: Ord. 2018-08 § 1 (Exh. A), 2018: Ord. 2014-04 § 5 (Exh. 3 § 2), 2014: Ord. 2011-21 § 2, 2011: Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.020 General provisions.

A. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the department director or the hearing examiner is limited to those issues where ordinance or other appropriate authority grants the authority to issue a decision, recommendation, or issue an order.

B. State Environmental Policy Act May Apply. The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Bainbridge Island SEPA ordinance (Chapter 16.04 BIMC) may also apply to applications processed under this section. For a consolidated land use application subject to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 16.04 BIMC, the SEPA threshold determination shall be issued and any required public comment period shall be completed prior to a public hearing.

C. Types of Land Use Applications. Land use applications are classified into four major categories based on the review process: (1) administrative, (2) quasi-judicial decisions by a hearing examiner, (3) quasi-judicial decisions by city council, and (4) legislative approvals. The specific types of applications in each category are shown in the table in BIMC 2.16.010.

1. Administrative land use decisions are made by a department director pursuant to the process in BIMC 2.16.030, and pursuant to specific standards in BIMC 2.16.040 through 2.16.090 as applicable.

2. Quasi-judicial decisions by a hearing examiner are made pursuant to the process in BIMC 2.16.100, and pursuant to specific standards in BIMC 2.16.110 through 2.16.120 as applicable.

3. Quasi-judicial decisions by city council are made pursuant to the process in BIMC 2.16.130, and pursuant to specific standards in BIMC 2.16.140 through 2.16.160 as applicable. This category includes consolidated project review, which is an option available for a land use proposal that requires more than one related land use permit, and in which decisions are made pursuant to BIMC 2.16.170. In some cases, consolidated project reviews may be quasi-judicial decisions by a hearing examiner.

4. Legislative approvals are non-site-specific decisions related to land use in the city but not related to a specific land use application filed by a property owner. These decisions are made pursuant to BIMC 2.16.180, and pursuant to specific standards in BIMC 2.16.180 through 2.16.210 as applicable.

D. Who Can Apply.

1. A property owner, a contract purchaser, or an agent of the owner with authorized written proof of agency may apply for any type of permit.

2. A resident who is not the owner of the dwelling may apply for permits and licenses pertaining to a home occupation.

3. Any person may request an interpretation of the zoning code, shoreline master program, or subdivision regulations. The director of planning and community development may issue interpretations of the zoning code, shoreline master program, or subdivision regulations as needed, and shall post issued interpretations on the city website.

E. Prohibited Ex Parte Communications.

1. Except as permitted under Chapter 42.36 RCW, a proponent or opponent, or his or her agent or representative, of a quasi-judicial matter that is pending before the hearing examiner or council, shall not communicate ex parte, directly or indirectly, with the examiner or a council member concerning the merits of the pending matter or a factually related quasi-judicial matter. This rule shall not prohibit ex parte communications concerning procedural matters.

2. Except as permitted under Chapter 42.36 RCW, the hearing examiner or a council member shall not communicate ex parte, directly or indirectly, with a proponent or opponent, or his or her agent or representative, of a quasi-judicial matter that is pending before the hearing examiner or council concerning the merits of the pending matter or a factually related quasi-judicial matter. This rule shall not prohibit ex parte communications concerning procedural matters.

3. If a prohibited ex parte communication is made to or by the hearing examiner or a council member, the examiner or council member shall comply with Chapter 42.36 RCW. Any violation of this subsection E shall be deemed a misdemeanor and may be punished pursuant to Chapter 1.24 BIMC.

4. Any person seeking to rely on the provisions of this section to disqualify the hearing examiner or a council member from participating in a decision must raise the challenge as soon as the basis for disqualification is made known to the person. Where the basis is known or reasonably should have been known prior to the issuance of the decision and is not raised until after the issuance of the decision, it may not be relied on to invalidate the decision.

F. Design Review Board Review.

1. The design review board shall review and make recommendations on all land use applications as set forth in this section. This design process reflects a collaborative effort between an applicant, the design review board, and the community to better incorporate the vision of the city as outlined in the adopted design standards and guidelines.

2. Subsequent to submittal of preapplication materials, the board shall review a proposal for conformance with applicable design standards and guidelines. The board’s written recommendations shall be included in the staff report transmitted to the planning commission.

3. A board recommendation is not a decision and there is no city appeal of the recommendation.

G. Zoning Verification Letter. Applicants may request a zoning verification letter. A zoning verification letter is intended to provide to an applicant information related to the subject property, including related to legal land uses, zoning, zoning district standards, development history, and compliance.

H. Consultation. Applicants may request and participate in an informal 30-minute meeting prior to a formal preapplication meeting or application submittal. The purpose of the consultation is to discuss in general terms project permit application questions. Staff will not prepare for the consultation, nor will they produce any written or electronic documentation of the discussions. It is the applicant’s responsibility to take notes. As no project permit application will have been submitted at the time of such a meeting, the city will not make any binding commitments.

I. Preapplication Procedure.

1. Subject to certain exemptions, all projects are subject to and must complete the site assessment review process set forth and in accordance with Chapter 15.19 BIMC, and projects requiring a preapplication conference have the option of proceeding with the two processes concurrently. Chapter 15.19 BIMC is designed to ensure that future development integrates low impact development practices to the maximum extent practicable, as required by Chapters 15.19 and 15.20 BIMC.

2. The preapplication conference is an informal discussion between a potential applicant and city staff. A preapplication conference shall not include extensive field inspection or correspondence. The purpose of the preapplication conference is to assist the applicant by identifying the following:

a. Requirements for submittal, including types of permits necessary to complete the proposal and whether SEPA review is required, pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW.

b. Compliance with applicable city plans, goals, policies, codes or guidelines and possible revisions to the proposed project that will enhance the proposal with respect to these requirements.

c. Required plans, studies, reports, and/or other materials specific to the proposal that will provide necessary information for staff to review the project.

d. Whether or not the project will likely qualify as a housing design demonstration project, and/or feedback about how to qualify, if applicable.

3. A preapplication conference may be recommended by the department director for any type of land use application that the director believes may be complex or controversial, but is required prior to submitting an application for the following land use applications unless a waiver is obtained pursuant to this subsection I.3:

a. Minor or major conditional use;

b. Minor or major variance;

c. Minor or major site plan and design review approval;

d. Preliminary long subdivision and short subdivision;

e. Shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline variance, and shoreline conditional use permit;

f. Shoreline substantial development exemption for new shoreline armoring (including bulkheads, revetments, and soft shore designs);

g. Comprehensive plan amendment;

h. Reasonable use exception;

i. Consolidated project review; and

j. Major critical area permit.

4. Except in the case of (a) preliminary short subdivisions and long subdivisions, or (b) shoreline substantial development exemptions or permits for new shoreline armoring (including bulkheads, revetments, and soft shore designs), or (c) where the HDDP process is being used, or (d) where DRB review is required, a preapplication conference may be waived in writing by the director if the director determines the following:

a. The application is consistent with applicable codes and ordinances;

b. The proposed use is clearly listed as a permitted use or a conditional use in the zoning district in which it is located; and

c. The applicant demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the city’s permit processing procedures.

As an additional basis for such a waiver, a preapplication conference may be waived in writing by the director if the director determines that the applicant has attended a consultation meeting within one year of their preapplication meeting, and the director determines that the applicant is in compliance with subsections I.4.a through c of this section.

5. Applications requiring design review board review shall be first reviewed at a department-facilitated preapplication conference and followed up by a summary letter that provides application submittal requirements, as described in this section. The applicant shall then meet with the design review board to discuss the design concept and proceed through the design review process.

The preapplication conference application shall be provided to the design review board and the planning commission. Up to two members of the design review board and the planning commission may attend the preapplication conference with the intent of listening and reporting the proposal to the full design review board and planning commission at a subsequent meeting.

6. The review process for long subdivisions, major site plan and design review permits, and major conditional use permits shall include a public participation meeting following the procedures outlined in Resolution No. 2021-07. The meeting will be held after the design review board concept review, during the project proposal phase.

7. An applicant shall arrange for a preapplication conference by submitting forms and plans as required in the administrative manual, and the Design for Bainbridge appendices where design review is required.

8. The discussion at the preapplication conference shall not bind or prohibit the city’s future application or enforcement of applicable codes and ordinances.

J. Application.

1. Application Submittal Requirements.

a. An application for a specific type of land use decision shall be filed with the appropriate department on forms prescribed by that department and shall include fees as required by resolution of the city council. Each application has specific submittal requirements that are described in the administrative manual. Additional requirements may be requested on the application form.

b. The address indicated on the application shall be, for the purposes of this title, the mailing address of the applicant, and all correspondence relating to the application shall be directed to that address.

c. The applicant or designated representative must be present at any public meeting that has been publicly advertised to hear the application or when the applicant has been personally notified of such a meeting.

d. The director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of an application.

e. The director or city engineer may require additional material such as, but not limited to, maps, studies or models when the director determines such material is needed to accurately assess the proposed project.

2. Determination of Complete Application.

a. A land use application shall be deemed complete when all submittal requirements and all required fees as set forth in the administrative manual or by resolution of the city council have been submitted to the appropriate department and staff has confirmed that the level of detail in submitted materials is sufficient to allow accurate review, even though additional information may be required or subsequent project modifications may occur (see subsection L.4 of this section for timelines).

b. A determination of a complete application shall not preclude the department director from requesting additional information or studies, if new information is required to complete final review or if substantial changes in the application are proposed.

c. If a land use application is determined to be incomplete, the city shall return the application for modification or correction with a request in writing for the missing information. The applicant shall respond to such a request within 60 days of the date of the request.

3. Voiding Application Due to Inactivity. A land use application for which a decision has not yet been made may be canceled for inactivity if the city returns the application for modification or correction (including a request for additional information for an incomplete or complete application) and the applicant fails to respond to the city’s request within 60 days of the request. The planning director may extend the response period beyond 60 days if within that time period the applicant provides and subsequently adheres to an approved schedule with specific target dates for submitting the full revisions, corrections, or other information needed by the requesting department.

K. Fees.

1. Fees and charges payable to the city prior to issuance of a land use permit or approval, except impact fees, shall be paid in an amount established by ordinance or resolution as of the date on which the land use application is accepted, except as provided in subsections K.2 and 3 of this section.

2. Fees and charges payable to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit, including utility participation and connection charges, but except impact fees and fees for which an hourly charge has been established, shall be paid in an amount established by ordinance or resolution as of the date of the permit application.

3. Fees and charges payable to the city in relation to the issuance of land use permits or approvals do not vest except as provided in this chapter. Hourly rate charges shall be imposed for all work done by the city on and after the effective date(s) of the hourly charges, at the rate in effect on the date that work is performed by the city. Hourly charges shall be in addition to any amounts previously collected relative to the permits, approvals, or actions for which hourly fees are either now or subsequently imposed except that amounts paid prior to the imposition of hourly charges shall be considered a nonrefundable deposit against future charges for the same permits or approvals.

L. Application Time Frames.

1. Final decisions on land use applications should be issued within 120 days from the date the application is determined to be complete pursuant to subsection J.2 of this section, except in the case of subdivisions. A preliminary plat for a short subdivision, long subdivision or large lot subdivision must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification or correction within 90 days from the date of filing a complete application, unless the applicant consents to an extension. A final plat for a short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision must be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification or correction within 30 days from the date of filing a complete application, unless the applicant consents to an extension.

2. Where there is a conflict in time periods of state statutes, the state statute with the more restrictive time period shall govern. The time period for making a final decision as established by this section may be extended for any reasonable period of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.

3. For purposes of calculating time periods and counting days of permit processing, the time period shall begin on the first day following the date the application is determined to be complete. The following periods shall be excluded from the 120-day period:

a. Any period during which an application has been returned for correction or modification with a request for missing or additional information necessary for review, in accordance with subsection J.2 of this section;

b. Any period during which an environmental impact statement is being prepared following a determination of significance pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW;

c. Any period during which an appeal of a project permit is being reviewed; and

d. Any extension of time mutually agreed upon by the applicant and the city.

4. The time limits established by this section do not apply if a land use application includes one of the following:

a. An amendment to the comprehensive plan or an amendment to a land use development regulation; or

b. Siting of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; or

c. An application substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be complete under subsection J.2 of this section; or

d. An application for a street or right-of-way vacation.

5. If the city is unable to issue its final decision on a land use application within the applicable time periods, the city shall provide written notice of this fact to the project applicant. The notice will include a statement of reasons why the time periods have not been met and an estimated date for issuance of the notice of final decision.

M. Notice Requirements.

1. Land Use Notice Summary Table.

Table 2.16.020-1 Land Use Notice Summary Table [1]
	Mail, Fax, E-mail, or Other to Applicant	Mail, Fax, or E-mail to Depts., Public, and Others	Publishing in Newspaper	Posting Notice at Official Locations	Posting Sign on the Property
Notice of Complete Application	✔
Notice of Application and Public Comment Period*		✔	✔	✔	✔
Notice of Public Hearing	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Notice of Decision and Appeal Period	✔	✔∗∗

[1] Additional noticing may be required by other titles of the BIMC.

* May be combined with SEPA notice.

** Notice only goes to parties that commented during the public comment period and any agencies with jurisdiction.

2. Exemptions from Public Notice Requirements on Land Use Decisions. The following land use applications do not require a notice of application and public comment period or notice of decision:

a. A building permit or other construction permit.

b. An administrative decision that is categorically exempt under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW), unless the permit application procedures require a public comment period or public hearing. Flexible lot design short or long plats are not exempt from notice requirements.

3. Notice of Complete Land Use Decision Application.

a. Within 28 days after receiving a land use permit application, the department director shall provide to the applicant a written determination, stating either that the application is complete or that the application is incomplete and what is necessary to make the application complete. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the department director will request additional information in writing.

b. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted all additional information identified by the department director as being necessary for a complete application, the department director shall notify the applicant whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary.

c. If the department director does not provide a written determination as to whether the application is complete within the 28 days, the application shall be deemed complete as of the twenty-eighth day.

4. Notice of Application and Public Comment Period.

a. Time of Notice. Within 14 days of a notice of complete application, the department director shall issue a notice of application for any land use application except for those applications that are exempted pursuant to subsection M.2 of this section. The notice of application shall provide a minimum comment period of 21 days. However, for projects requiring review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the notice of application shall provide a minimum comment period of 14 days; the SEPA threshold determination shall not be issued prior to the expiration of the notice of application comment period.

b. Method of Notice. The notice of application shall be provided to the public and other government agencies with jurisdiction over some aspect of the application by the following means:

i. Distributing written notice to property owners at addresses listed on the property tax records of Kitsap County within 500 feet of any boundary of the subject property and including any property within 500 feet of any contiguous property in the applicant’s ownership;

ii. Posting notice in the official posting places of the city, including the city website;

iii. Publishing notice in the official newspaper of the city;

iv. Posting the subject property in a manner prescribed by the city; and

v. Distributing notices to government agencies.

c. Notice of Application Contents. The content of the notice shall comply with the requirements of state law and shall contain that information set forth in the administrative manual.

d. Transportation Notice. If the application is for a short subdivision or a large lot subdivision that is adjacent to the right-of-way of a state highway or within two miles of the boundary of a state or municipal airport, not later than 10 days after the short subdivision application is filed, the director shall provide a notice of the application, including a legal description and location map, to the State Secretary of Transportation. The Department of Transportation shall, within 15 days after receiving the notice, submit a statement to the director who furnished the notice, including any information that the Department of Transportation deems to be relevant about the effect of the proposed short subdivision or large lot subdivision upon the legal access to the state highway, the traffic carrying capacity of the state highway and the safety of the users of the state highway. If comments are not received within 15 days, the director may extend the comment period by an additional 15 days to allow for Department of Transportation comments.

5. Notice of Public Hearing. Notice for an application requiring a public hearing shall be provided in the following manner:

a. Time of Notice. The hearing examiner shall provide notice of the public hearing at least 15 days prior to the hearing or as otherwise provided by law.

b. Method of Notice. The hearing examiner shall provide notice of an appeal hearing as provided in this subsection and shall provide public notice for any other public hearing by:

i. Posting notice in the official posting places of the city, including the city website; and

ii. Publishing notice in the official newspaper of the city at least 14 days prior to the hearing or as otherwise provided by law; and

iii. Distributing notice to the applicant and appellant, if applicable; and

iv. Distributing written notice to property owners at addresses listed on the property tax records of Kitsap County within 500 feet of any boundary of the subject property and including any property within 500 feet of any contiguous property in the applicant’s ownership; and

v. Distributing notice to any person who has submitted a written request for notice of the hearing; and

vi. Posting the subject property in a manner prescribed by the city.

c. Public Hearing Notice Contents. The content of the notice shall comply with the requirements of state law and shall contain that information set forth in the administrative manual.

6. Notice of Land Use Decision and Appeal Period. A notice of decision shall be issued upon a final decision on a land use application. The decision-maker shall distribute the notice of decision to the applicant, the applicable department director and any persons requesting notice or submitting comments on the application prior to the decision. Notice of decision shall include:

a. A statement indicating that the application is approved, approved with conditions, denied, or remanded; and

b. A statement of any conditions included as part of a decision for approval or approval with conditions; and

c. A statement of facts upon which the decision, including any conditions, is based and the conclusions of law derived from those facts; and

d. The SEPA threshold determination and mitigation conditions as specified in Chapter 16.04 BIMC, if applicable; and

e. Procedures for appeal under subsection R of this section if applicable.

7. Combining Public Notices on Land Use Applications. If a land use application is subject to environmental review under Chapter 16.04 BIMC (Chapter 43.21C RCW) and requires a SEPA threshold determination, the SEPA public notice and notice of SEPA public comment period, if any, shall be combined with other land use application notices when possible. A combined notice shall include a statement that a single comment letter may be submitted to the SEPA official, addressing impacts as well as other issues subject to review under the decision criteria for the land use application.

8. Notice Required for Legislative Review Procedures. Unless subsection M.9 or 10 of this section requires otherwise, notice of the date, time and place of any scheduled hearing shall be provided to the public by the following means:

a. Publishing notice in the official newspaper of the city at least 10 calendar days prior to the public hearing.

b. Posting notice in the official posting places of the city.

9. Notice Required for Adoption and Amendment of Land Use Regulations.

a. The city shall give notice of the public hearing in a way that is reasonably calculated to provide notice to property owners and other affected and interested individuals, tribes, government agencies, businesses, and organizations. Examples of reasonable notice include:

i. Posting the property for site-specific proposals;

ii. Publishing notice in the official newspaper of the city;

iii. Notifying public or private groups who have notified the city of an interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered.

b. Notice of the public hearing shall state when the public may submit written comments on the proposed development regulation; provided, that the public shall be given at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing to submit written comments to the city.

c. Errors in exact compliance with this chapter shall not render the development regulation invalid if the spirit of the procedures established by this chapter is observed.

10. Notice Required for Special Area Plan Process. The interdepartmental staff team described in BIMC 2.16.210.D shall provide notice to the public of the initial public meeting by (a) mailing notice, by regular mail, at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting, to all interested persons and groups identified by the interdepartmental staff team, and to all persons requesting such notice; and (b) publishing notice in the city’s official newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the meeting.

N. Land Dedication. The following provisions apply to applications for short or long subdivisions, and to development permits for multifamily residential development.

1. The applicant shall submit with the application (a) a proposal for dedication of land for any public rights-of-way and parks, open spaces, or recreational lands required to serve the proposed development, and (b) any proposed open space covenants for private parks or recreational facilities for which the applicant seeks approval. Those proposals shall be incorporated in the underlying application.

2. Except in the case of short subdivisions, the city council shall then determine whether to require the dedication of land, and/or approve any proposed open space covenants for private parks or recreational activities. In the case of short subdivisions, staff shall determine whether to require dedication of land and/or approve any proposed open space covenants for private parks or recreational activities, but no required land dedication shall be final until accepted by city council.

3. In the instances where staff or the city council determines to require dedication of land, the dedication shall occur:

a. In the case of a short or long subdivision, at the time of final plat approval;

b. In the case of development permits for multifamily development, land dedications of public rights-of-way shall be required at the time of approval of the earliest application at which the number of dwelling units and related traffic generation from the property can be calculated. Land dedications for parks, open spaces, and recreational lands shall be due at the time of approval of the earliest application at which the number of dwelling units on the property can be calculated. All land dedications shall be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits.

O. Time Limits and Extensions.

1. A land use permit automatically expires and is void if the applicant fails to file for a building permit or other necessary development permit within three years of the effective date of the permit unless (a) the applicant has received an extension for the permit; or (b) the permit provides for an extended time period.

2. The director may grant one extension to the permit, in writing, for a period not to exceed one year if:

a. Unforeseen circumstances or conditions necessitate the extension of the permit; and

b. Termination of the permit would result in unreasonable hardship to the applicant, and the applicant is not responsible for the delay; and

c. The extension of the permit will not cause substantial detriment to existing uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

d. The extension request is received by the department no later than 30 days prior to the expiration of the permit.

P. Required Notices on Title. Where any provision of the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code requires the recording of a notice on title related to a land condition or land use approval condition, the applicant shall record those notices in the form shown in the Bainbridge Island Municipal Code or administrative manual. In the case of long, short, or large lot subdivisions, the notice shall be recorded prior to or at the recording of the final plat. In the case of other approvals, the notice shall be recorded before the issuance of any building permit related to the approval.

Q. Approval Binding. No person, firm or corporation shall locate or expand a use for which any land use approval is required without first obtaining that land use approval. Once a land use application has been approved, no building or development of any sort shall occur contrary to the approved land use application unless this title includes a procedure for adjustments or modifications and the city has approved those adjustments or modifications.

R. Appeals.

1. Appeal of an Administrative Review Decision.

a. Applicability. All administrative decisions, departmental rulings and interpretations made in accordance with administrative review procedures of BIMC 2.16.030 and administrative decisions made under BIMC 1.26.070 may be appealed to a hearing examiner. Administrative decisions of the public works director and decisions on sign permits may not be appealed to the hearing examiner.

b. SEPA Appeals. Appeals of decisions made in accordance with Chapter 16.04 BIMC, the city’s SEPA rules, shall be made according to the procedures in that chapter. Where the appeal concerns a substantive approval, denial, or conditional approval of a development application based on a SEPA determination (a “substantive SEPA appeal”), the appeal hearing shall be pursuant to subsection R.1.i of this section. Where the appeal concerns a threshold determination regarding the applicability of SEPA or the level of SEPA review required (a “procedural SEPA appeal”), the appeal shall also be pursuant to subsection R.1.i of this section, but, if heard on the same date, the procedural SEPA appeal shall be heard first and the record of the proceeding closed before the substantive appeals are heard.

c. Rules. The rules of procedure adopted under BIMC 2.14.030.C.2.b shall address appeal hearings before the hearing examiner. Such rules of procedure for appeal hearings will be published on the city’s website and available from the office of the city clerk upon request.

d. Timing. An appeal of an administrative decision shall be filed with the city clerk within 14 days of the date of the decision. This provision applies when the application (i) is exempt from SEPA or (ii) is subject to SEPA and uses the “optional process.” An appeal of an administrative decision shall be filed with the city clerk within 21 days of the date of decision when the project is subject to SEPA and requires a SEPA threshold determination public comment period pursuant to WAC 197-11-340.

e. Written Appeal Required. All appeals shall be filed in writing with the city clerk, shall identify the decision appealed and the date of the decision, and shall contain a summary of the grounds for the appeal.

f. Content of Appeal. Appeal hearings shall be limited to the issues specified in the written appeal.

g. Hearing Date. Following receipt of a notice of appeal and payment of the appropriate fee, a public hearing shall be set by the hearing examiner.

h. Related Documents. All written comments and related documents received prior to the appeal hearing shall be transmitted to the hearing examiner no later than the hearing date. In the case of complex or controversial appeals, the city may require that some or all materials be submitted two or more days in advance of the hearing date.

i. Appeal Hearing. As stated in RCW 43.21C.075, because a major purpose of SEPA is to combine environmental considerations with public decisions, any appeal brought under this section shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act provides a basis for challenging whether governmental action is in compliance with the substantive and procedural provisions of this chapter. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. The appeal shall be heard in accordance with RCW 43.21C.075. The appeal shall be held at an open record public hearing. Participation in an appeal hearing is limited to the applicant, the applicant’s representative, the appellant, the appellant’s representative, appropriate city staff and consultants, any witnesses called by each and any nonparty who submitted written comments during the public comment period if the hearing examiner determines that the testimony will be relevant to the issue on appeal and nonrepetitive of the testimony of other witnesses.

i. In a SEPA procedural appeal, the procedural determination by the city’s SEPA official shall carry substantial weight.

ii. In an appeal of a substantive decision made by the city, the criteria shall be whether (A) the proceedings were materially affected by failure to comply with adopted procedures, or (B) the decision is inconsistent with the BIMC criteria for that type of approval, or (C) the evidence in the record was not adequate to support the decision.

iii. In an appeal on the substance of a SEPA determination, or substantive conditions attached to an approval through the SEPA review process, the determination by the city’s SEPA official shall carry substantial weight.

j. Continuation of Hearing. A hearing may be continued to a date certain without additional notice.

k. Decision. Upon completion of the appeal hearing, the hearing examiner shall (i) affirm the decision, (ii) reverse the decision, (iii) affirm the decision with conditions, or (iv) remand the decision to the department director for further consideration of identified issues. The decision of the director shall be accorded substantial weight by the hearing examiner. The hearing examiner may include conditions as part of a decision granting or granting with conditions an appeal to ensure conformance with BIMC, the city’s comprehensive plan and other applicable laws or regulations.

l. Timing of Written Decision. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision on the appeal within 20 working days after completion of the public hearing unless the appellant and the hearing examiner have consented to an extension of time. The written decision shall include (i) the decision of the hearing examiner granting or denying the appeal in whole or in part; (ii) any conditions included as part of the decision on the appeal; (iii) findings of facts upon which the decision, including any conditions, is based and the conclusions of law derived from those facts; and (iv) a statement of the right of a person with standing to appeal the decision of the hearing examiner in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW.

m. Distribution. The hearing examiner or designee body shall provide a copy of the written decision to the applicant, the appellant, the applicable department director, and any person requesting the written decision or who submitted substantive comments on the application prior to the decision.

2. Appeal of a Decision of the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be final unless, within 21 days after issuance of a decision, a person with standing appeals the decision in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW or its successor.

3. Appeal of a City Council Decision on a Quasi-Judicial Matter. The decision of the city council shall be final unless, within 21 days after issuance of a decision, a person with standing appeals the decision in accordance with Chapter 36.70C RCW or its successor.

4. Appeals of a City Council Decision on a Legislative Matter. Appeal of a city council decision on a development regulation, area-wide rezone and comprehensive plan amendment is governed by state law.

S. Housing Design Demonstration Projects.

1. Purpose and Goals. The purpose of this subsection S is to allow the development of housing design demonstration projects that increase the variety of housing choices available to residents across underserved portions of the socioeconomic spectrum, and to promote compact, low-impact development where it is most appropriate. Further, its purpose is to encourage high quality and innovation in building design, site development, and “green” building practices.

The goals of this program are to increase the housing supply and the choice of housing styles available in the community; to promote socioeconomic diversity by adding to the stock of income-qualified housing; to encourage development of smaller homes, at reasonable prices, in neighborhoods attractive to a mix of income and age levels; and to demonstrate that innovative design and building techniques (conserving water and energy, using sustainably sourced materials, limiting environmental impacts) are compatible with market considerations.

2. Applicability. This subsection S is applicable to all properties located within the Winslow sanitary sewer system service area or Winslow Subarea Plan study area, as those areas exist or are defined on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. An application for a housing design demonstration project may be applied to single-family residential subdivisions, mixed-use/multifamily and multifamily developments. Since the purpose is to provide housing projects as demonstrations, the city will accept projects for consideration and approval prior to the sunset date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. The city will limit acceptance of projects outlined in this section to two projects after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.

3. Review and Approval Process. Housing design demonstration project applications shall be reviewed as specified in the same manner as other applications for the same type of underlying land use permit (see BIMC 2.16.030 through 2.16.210), with additional review steps done in the order outlined in BIMC 2.16.040 (Site plans and design review), 2.16.070 (Short subdivisions), 2.16.110 (Major conditional use permit), 2.16.125 (Preliminary long subdivisions), and as outlined in this subsection.

a. Conceptual Proposal Review. Applicants proposing a demonstration project shall meet with city staff during the conceptual phase to discuss the goals and evaluation parameters of the proposed project. The conceptual proposal review is an informal discussion between the applicant and city staff regarding a proposed project. There are no required application materials for this stage. Applicants shall contact the planning department staff to request a meeting, and the meeting shall be scheduled by staff for no more than three weeks after the request date. The purpose of the conceptual proposal review is to determine if the proposal is eligible to be considered as an application for a housing design demonstration project and to assist the applicant by identifying (i) requirements for submittal, including types of supplemental materials for application; (ii) compliance with applicable city plans, goals, policies, codes, or guidelines and possible revisions to the project that will enhance the proposal with respect to these requirements; (iii) areas of BIMC Titles 17, Subdivisions and Boundary Line Adjustments, and 18, Zoning, where the applicant seeks flexibility; and (iv) required plans, studies, reports, and/or other materials specific to the proposal that will provide necessary information for staff and the design review board, and to review the project under the criteria outlined in subsection S.4 of this section.

b. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall apply for a preapplication conference pursuant to subsection I of this section. Housing design demonstration projects shall be reviewed by both staff and the design review board, pursuant to subsection F of this section. The applicant shall submit an HDDP proposal consistent with the requirements in the administrative manual. The applicant shall consider input received during the public meetings and conceptual review with city staff in crafting the proposal. The proposal will be evaluated pursuant to subsection S.4 of this section by city staff with the design review board serving in an advisory role, in addition to their review of applicable design guidelines. The director shall prepare written findings of fact, and applicants will receive preliminary notification from the director whether the proposal will qualify as a housing design demonstration project, or feedback about how to improve the proposal to qualify. If the applicant changes the proposal in any significant manner other than a response to feedback from the public meeting, conceptual review, or the preapplication review, an additional preapplication conference may be required.

c. Application Submittal. An applicant may submit a land use permit application (subdivision, site plan and design review, or conditional use permit) for a housing design demonstration project after completion of a required conceptual and preapplication review and notification by the city that the proposal qualifies as a housing design demonstration project. Upon receipt of an application, the director shall provide notice to the applicant and public in accordance with subsection M of this section and commence the application review process. Housing design demonstration projects that require more than one land use permit must utilize the consolidated project review process outlined in BIMC 2.16.170. All housing design demonstration project applications, including subdivisions, shall be reviewed by the design review board and the planning commission at public meetings. The design review board and the planning commission shall make recommendations on all housing design demonstration projects.

d. Permit Decision. The decision to approve or deny a housing design demonstration project shall be made as part of underlying land use permit approval. The decision shall be based upon the decision criteria of the underlying planning permit, and the decision criteria outlined in subsection S.5 of this section. Housing design demonstration project approval conditions shall be included in the final permit approval and shall address any ongoing compliance requirements, including compliance with approved design plans. The city may require that the applicant record covenants to ensure ongoing compliance or maintenance for required project components.

e. Building Permit. The applicant shall submit a building permit that is consistent with all conditions of the land use permit approval. The applicant shall also submit documentation that the project has applied for required certification by a green building rating system, such as Evergreen Sustainable Development, LEED, or BuiltGreen. Proof of ongoing certification shall be required during construction and project certification must be completed prior to final occupancy.

f. Living Building Challenge. For projects pursuing the Living Building Challenge standard of the International Living Building Institute, the applicant must show proof of pursuing ongoing certification during construction for all required elements. After construction, and prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the applicant must show proof of initial project compliance as to the site, materials, indoor quality and beauty/inspiration components of the Living Building Challenge and that the project is likely to achieve the elements of energy and water following 12 months of occupancy as required under Living Building Challenge certification. For those elements of energy and water that require occupancy of the building for 12 months for Living Building Challenge certification, the applicant must submit a report to the city following 12 months of occupancy, demonstrating its progress towards meeting these remaining elements of the Living Building Challenge standard. If certification of those elements has not been achieved, the applicant must provide quarterly reports of progress towards certification of these elements, including additional steps and timeline that will be taken to achieve certification.

4. Evaluation Method. Each project will be evaluated for innovation and achievement of the goals of this subsection S using a number of factors. The evaluation factors are divided into three categories. Examples of sustainable development methods do not limit other mechanisms of meeting the evaluation factor. Projects that qualify as housing design demonstration projects are eligible to use the flexible development standard incentives outlined in subsections S.6 and 7 of this section, and are eligible for the residential incentives outlined below and in subsection S.8 of this section. Table 2.16.020.S-1 shows how projects are evaluated to qualify for the housing design demonstration project program.

Table 2.16.020.S-1: Housing Design Demonstration Project Scoring System
Density Incentives		Requirements to Receive Incentives
Density Incentives		Green Building and Innovative Site Development		Housing Diversity
2.5 x Base Density (for properties in residential zones) OR Max. Bonus Mixed-Use FAR (for properties in the MUTC and HS Road zoning districts)		•	LEED Silver, BuiltGreen 4, or Evergreen Sustainable Development	•	50% affordable housing
		•	Project meets innovative site development methods requirements of subsection S.4.b of this section	•	Home size not larger than 1,600 sq. ft.
NOTE: For required affordable housing units:
o	Required affordable housing units must serve low-income households with an income less than or equal to 80% AMI. (See BIMC 18.21.020.A and 18.36.030.)
o	Rental projects: 50% of required affordable house units must serve households with an income less than or equal to 60% AMI.
o	Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) are not counted towards meeting affordable housing requirements of the HDDP program.

a. Housing Diversity. Evaluation will review:

i. Unit Size. HDDP housing units cannot be larger than 1,600 square feet; and

ii. Affordable Housing. The project includes at least 50 percent of housing units that are affordable to households at or below low-income, as described in Chapter 18.21 BIMC, Affordable Housing, and BIMC 18.36.030. For rental projects: 50 percent of required affordable housing units must serve households with an income less than or equal to 60 percent AMI. Designated affordable housing shall remain affordable for 99 years from the time of final inspection on the affordable unit. The applicant shall record covenants that demonstrate how the unit will remain affordable and be managed for 99 years. Any ADUs constructed on lots where the primary unit is designated as required affordable housing must also be maintained as designated affordable housing.

b. Innovative Site Development. All HDDP projects will follow the Washington State Department of Ecology’s 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. The project must integrate at least two of the 14 sustainable site methods listed across the four sustainable site categories below (water quality and conservation, landscaping, open space, and transportation). For projects which designate at least 75 percent of units as affordable housing, compliance with the innovative site development requirements is optional, not required.

i. Water Quality and Conservation. Projects use methods to decrease water usage and improve stormwater runoff quality through an integrated approach to stormwater management such as:

(A) Greywater. At least 30 percent of dwelling units integrate greywater use.

(B) Cisterns. At least 30 percent of total project roof area stormwater collection is directed to cisterns.

(D) Covered Parking. At least 80 percent of total project parking spaces are covered (e.g., parking garage, carport).

ii. Landscaping. The project uses low maintenance landscaping and limits the amount of lawn in private yards in favor of common open space. Projects are encouraged to use cisterns to collect rainwater for irrigation or garden use.

(A) Native or Drought Tolerant Plants. Project landscaping integrates at least 60 percent native or drought tolerant plants.

(B) Private Yards. All private yard areas within the project designed to have less than or equal to 20 percent turf/grass.

(C) Heritage Trees. The project preserves one or more tree that has been approved as a “heritage tree” under the city’s program.

iii. Common Open Space. The project provides connected common open space area set aside as active open space and designed and integrated into the project. The open space could include active elements such as a neighborhood garden/pea patch and composting facilities, or a playground. Critical areas and their buffers and required roadside buffers do not contribute to “common open space” under the housing design demonstration project program.

(A) Open Space. The project integrates at least 25 percent of the lot area as common open space.

(B) Neighborhood Garden. The project incorporates a neighborhood garden or pea patch.

iv. Transportation. The project uses a design that provides enhanced sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle travel and internally preserves existing informal, internal connection to external trail(s), or creates new connections where appropriate, to implement the Island-Wide Transportation Plan (IWTP). The project design strives to reduces reliance on automobiles and trip counts, and promotes alternative transportation and public transit.

(A) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging. The project integrates EV charging facilities for at least 10 percent of vehicle parking capacity, locating rechargeable electric vehicle (EV) parking in a conspicuous and preferred location close to a main building entrance.

(B) Car Sharing. The project integrates a parking space for a vehicle sharing program, such as Zipcar™.

(C) Public Nonmotorized Facilities. The project provides public walkways, sidewalks, separated paths, or bike lanes not otherwise required by the IWTP. Facility location and design is subject to approval by the department of public works.

(D) Covered Bike Parking. The project provides covered, consolidated bike parking.

(E) Bus Shelter. The project provides a covered bus shelter(s) for Kitsap Transit and school bus riders. Shelter location and design must be consistent with any Kitsap Transit, city, or school district requirements.

c. Innovative Building Design. The project shall be constructed under a green building certification program that requires third-party verification such as the Evergreen Sustainable Development, Living Building Challenge standard of the International Living Building Institute, Passive House Institute US/International, LEED or the BuiltGreen Program of the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties.

5. Approval Criteria. In addition to decision criteria required by the underlying planning permit or approval, an application for a housing design demonstration project may be approved if the following criteria are met:

a. The applicant clearly demonstrates that the evaluation factors listed in subsection S.4 of this section will be met, as evaluated by the planning and public works departments;

b. The applicant has demonstrated how relief from specific development standards, including setback reductions, lot coverage and/or design guidelines, is needed to achieve the desired innovative design and the goals of this chapter;

c. The project does not adversely impact existing public service levels for surrounding properties;

d. The project complies with all other portions of the BIMC, except as modified through this housing design demonstration project process;

e. If a project will be phased, each phase of a proposed project must contain adequate infrastructure, open space, recreational facilities, landscaping and all other conditions of the project to stand alone if no other subsequent phases are developed; and

f. The applicant is meeting required housing diversity standards. Management of long-term affordability for designated affordable housing will be monitored through the use of recorded covenants and/or other agreements.

6. Development Standard Incentives for Development Projects in the Mixed-Use Town Center. The applicant may request that development standards from BIMC Titles 17 and 18 be modified as part of a housing design demonstration project. The city will review the request to modify development standards through the project review process outlined in subsection S.3 of this section. Requirements of BIMC Title 16 may not be modified. The following development standards may be modified:

a. Minimum Lot Dimensions and Size. Reductions in lot size or dimensions are subject to approval by Kitsap County health district.

b. Maximum Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage can be increased above zoning district requirements with no maximum.

c. Natural Area. For MUTC projects developed under BIMC Title 17, the prescriptive natural area requirements in Table 17.12.070-1 do not apply. Instead, the project shall integrate at least 50 square feet of natural area per unit.

d. Residential Parking. The parking requirements outlined in BIMC 18.15.020 may be modified to require one parking space for homes under 800 square feet and one and one-half parking spaces for homes between 800 and 1,200 square feet. This reduction may not be combined with any other reductions to result in less than one space per unit, and additional guest parking may be required pursuant to Table 18.15.020-1. A limited number of parking spaces may be designed to accommodate alternative fuel or subcompact vehicles such as Smart™ cars, with parking stall dimensional standards reduced from the standards outlined in BIMC 18.15.020.J. The applicants are encouraged to work with neighboring property owners to ensure street parking is not overburdened. If the project is requesting a reduction in required parking through the housing design demonstration project program, then the development shall integrate at least one guest parking space for every five dwelling units.

i. For projects which designate 100 percent affordable housing and within one mile of the ferry terminal, for units less than 900 square feet in size, the parking requirement is reduced to one-half space per unit.

e. Setbacks. Unless required for public safety purposes, such as sight distance, setbacks may be reduced as described below. This section does not supersede lesser setback requirements in the MUTC/HS Road district zones, as outlined in Tables 17.12.070-1 and 18.12.020-3, as applicable.

i. Zoning Setback Reductions.

(A) Front setback within project: 10 feet.

(B) Rear setback within project: minimum of five feet.

ii. Subdivision Setback Reductions.

(A) All interior subdivision setbacks: zero feet.

(B) Building to exterior subdivision boundary: five feet.

f. Building Height. Buildings within the Mixed-Use Town Center or High School Road districts may achieve a maximum building height not to exceed the optional height outlined in Table 18.12.020-3.

7. Development Standard Incentives for Development Projects in Residential Zones. The applicant may request that development standards from BIMC Titles 17 and 18 be modified as part of a housing design demonstration project. The city will review the request to modify development standards through the project review process outlined in subsection S.3 of this section. Requirements of BIMC Title 16 may not be modified. The following development standards may be modified:

a. Minimum Lot Dimensions and Size. Reductions in lot size or dimensions are subject to approval by Kitsap County health district.

b. Maximum Lot Coverage. Maximum lot coverage can be increased above zoning district requirements with no maximum.

c. Natural Area. For residentially zoned projects developed under BIMC Title 17, the prescriptive natural area requirements in Table 17.12.070-1 do not apply. Instead, the project shall integrate at least 400 square feet of natural area per unit.

d. Residential Parking. The parking requirements outlined in BIMC 18.15.020 may be modified to require one parking space for homes under 800 square feet and one and one-half parking spaces for homes between 800 and 1,200 square feet. This reduction may not be combined with any other reductions to result in less than one space per unit, and additional guest parking may be required pursuant to Table 18.15.020-1. A limited number of parking spaces may be designed to accommodate alternative fuel or subcompact vehicles such as Smart™ cars, with parking stall dimensional standards reduced from the standards outlined in BIMC 18.15.020.J. The applicants are encouraged to work with neighboring property owners to ensure street parking is not overburdened. If the project is requesting a reduction in required parking through the housing design demonstration project, then the development shall integrate at least one guest parking space for every five dwelling units.

e. Setbacks. Unless required for public safety purposes, such as sight distance, zoning and subdivision setbacks may be reduced as described below. This section does not supersede lesser setback requirements as outlined in Tables 17.12.070-1 and 18.12.020-2, as applicable. Additional vegetative landscaping screen may be required by the director when reducing setbacks.

i. Zoning Setback Reductions.

(A) Front setback to on-site access: 10 feet.

ii. Subdivision Setback Reductions.

(A) All interior subdivision setbacks: zero feet.

(B) Building to on-site access: 10 feet.

8. Density Bonus Incentives. An increase in residential base density may be permitted as outlined in Table 2.16.020.S-1.

9. Housing Project Visit. In order to learn from the innovative design practices, if used, all projects completed under this subsection S shall allow city staff to conduct occasional site tours. City staff will make a request of the property owner prior to conducting a tour and will not access the properties for tours more than once every three months. The site tours will be limited to the exterior and common grounds of the property and conducted during regular business hours. Visits will be coordinated through the staff and property owner, and the owner will receive written notice no less than two weeks in advance of each visit. Any additional access to private property or at alternative times shall be at the permission and cooperation of the individual homeowner only.

10. Demonstration Period. This subsection S and related provisions of BIMC Titles 2, 17, and 18 shall expire when an updated affordable housing program is adopted to replace code provisions of BIMC 18.12.030.D and .E and Chapter 18.21 BIMC. (Ord. 2022-01 § 1 (Exh. A), 2022; Ord. 2021-39 § 1, 2021; Ord. 2021-12 §§ 1 – 3, 2021; Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2019-32 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 2018-20 § 6, 2018; Ord. 2018-31 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-24 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2018-08 §§ 2 – 6, 2018; Ord. 2017-03 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2016-28 §§ 2, 3 (Exh. A), 2016; Ord. 2016-27 §§ 1 – 5, 2016; Ord. 2013-25 §§ 2, 3, 2013; Ord. 2012-09 § 1, 2012; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.030 Administrative review – In general.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for administrative decision-making on land use applications. These provisions apply when BIMC does not describe more detailed administrative procedures for a specific type of application, and also supplement those more specific administrative procedures where they exist. If there is an inconsistency between these general administrative provisions and more detailed administrative provisions for a specific type of application elsewhere in the BIMC, the more specific provisions shall govern.

B. Applicability. This section applies generally each time a provision of the BIMC authorizes administrative review of a land use application. Permit-specific review requirements are in relevant subsections. The specific types of applications subject to administrative review are listed in the table in BIMC 2.16.010. When an application requires both an administrative approval under BIMC Title 17 or 18 and also a shoreline jurisdiction approval under Chapter 16.12 BIMC, those approvals may be processed simultaneously.

C. Public Comment. Any person may comment on a proposed application by submitting written comments prior to the end of the notice of the application’s 21-day comment period (except for those applications for which no notice is required under BIMC 2.16.020.M).

D. Decision Procedures.

1. Criteria for Decision. In making the decision, the department director shall consider the applicable decision criteria of this code, all other applicable law, and any necessary documents and approvals. When no other criteria are specified, the director shall apply the following criteria:

a. The application must comply with all applicable requirements of the BIMC as well as state and federal law.

b. The application is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, and specifically with the character or intended character of the area in which the property is located, as described in the comprehensive plan.

2. Environmental Review. For a land use application subject to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 16.04 BIMC, a SEPA threshold determination may be issued simultaneously with the final decision of the land use application.

3. Planning Commission Recommendation. When written public comments are received during the public comment period concerning the effect of the land use application on the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program or matters not addressed by specific provisions of this code, the director may request the planning commission to review an application and make a written recommendation prior to the director making a decision. The planning commission will consider the land use application at a public meeting. The planning commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of an application. In making a recommendation, the planning commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria of this code, all other applicable law, and any necessary documents and approvals. If the applicable criteria are not met, the planning commission shall recommend the proposal be modified or denied. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation. The planning commission’s written recommendation and other documents upon which its decision is based shall be immediately transmitted to the director and shall be given substantial weight by the director in making a decision.

E. Single Report.

1. The department director shall prepare a single consolidated report setting forth all the recommendations and decisions made on the application as of the date of the report.

2. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or as required through SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW. The report shall include the SEPA determination if a determination has not previously been issued.

3. If an administrative shoreline master program permit is required for the project pursuant to Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the report shall address the requirements of that chapter.

F. Department Director Decision. The department director may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the decision criteria, findings of fact, recommendations of the planning commission and design review board as applicable, and any necessary documents and approvals.

G. Corrections or Clarification. The department director may amend the decision at any time to correct clerical errors clearly identifiable from the public record. Such a correction does not affect any time limit provided for in this chapter. The department director may clarify a statement in the written decision at any time as long as the clarification does not materially alter the decision.

H. Effect of Decision. The decision of the department director is the final decision of the city, subject to the appeal provisions in BIMC 2.16.020.R.

I. Revocation of Administrative Approvals. An administrative approval may be revoked by the director upon the finding of any one or more of the following:

1. That the approval was obtained by deception, fraud or other intentional or misleading representation; or

2. That the use for which approval was granted has been changed; or

3. In the case of minor conditional use permits, that the use has at any time been discontinued for a year or more; or

4. That the permit granted is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval or in violation of the code; or

5. That the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety. (Ord. 2021-03 § 1, 2021; Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.040 Site plans and design review.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish a comprehensive site plan and design review process that ensures compliance with the adopted plans, policies, and ordinances of the city. The overall goal of this chapter is to minimize land alteration, provide greater site development flexibility and consequently provide more creative and imaginative design than generally is possible under conventional zoning regulations. It is further intended to provide for the review of development proposals with respect to overall site design and to provide a means for guiding development in a logical, safe, attractive, and expedient manner, while also allowing property to be developed in phases. An additional purpose is to promote those specific purposes for each zoning district stated in Chapter 18.06 BIMC.

B. Applicability.

1. Site plan and design review shall be required prior to the issuance of construction permits in any of the following circumstances:

a. The new construction of a nonresidential building or other structure; or

b. The expansion, remodel, or alteration of any building or other structure by more than five percent of its existing floor area, or overall size in cases where floor area is not applicable; or expansion that creates a new dwelling unit; or

c. A change of use, where traffic, parking, noise or other impacts are greater than the impacts for the previously existing use, as determined by the director; or

d. The construction of new wireless communication support structures (but not the location of wireless facilities on existing buildings).

2. Exemptions. The following types of activities shall not require site plan and design review pursuant to this section. Properties within jurisdiction of the shoreline master program, as defined by Chapter 16.12 BIMC, or containing critical areas or critical area buffers, as defined by Chapter 16.20 BIMC, may require review pursuant to those chapters.

a. Permits authorizing residential construction for detached single-family residential use and accessory dwelling units.

b. Any activity that does not require a building permit or is not considered a change in use, as determined by the director.

c. Any activity on the exterior of a building that does not exceed 25 percent change in any existing facade or roof form.

d. Interior work that does not alter the exterior of the structure or affect parking standards as determined by the director.

e. Normal building maintenance and repair.

f. Maintenance or expansion of existing parks where the proposed activities are exempt from SEPA review in accordance with WAC 197-11-800.

g. Construction of public communications towers.

3. The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for site plan or design review. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

C. Major and Minor. This section provides two methods of site plan and design review: major and minor. Application materials for both major and minor site plan and design review can be found in the administrative manual.

1. Minor. Minor site plan and design review is required for minor projects that can clearly meet the decision criteria in subsection F of this section, as determined by the director. Examples of minor administrative projects include: (a) a fourplex multifamily development; (b) minor commercial remodel or the addition of a small room; and (c) a minor change in use, such as from a church to a preschool.

2. Major. Major site plan and design review requires design review board and planning commission review and recommendation, and is required for projects that: (a) are determined by the director to be more complicated than those in subsection C.1 of this section, due to site constraints or the complexity of the project; or (b) receive written public comment(s) during the public comment period concerning the effect on the land use application of the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program, or matters not addressed by specific provisions of this code; or (c) are located on property zoned business/industrial after November 22, 1999.

D. Review Procedures – Proposal Stage. Review of site plan and design review proposals shall include all of the following in the order listed:

1. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference in accordance with the provisions and requirements in BIMC 2.16.020.I.

2. Conceptual Review. The conceptual review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The applicant will present a short project description, zoning summary, and a thorough narrative of design context in accordance with the Design for Bainbridge manual and appendices. This meeting is a means of providing feedback on projects in their earliest stages before applicants are committed to a particular design. The conceptual review is an opportunity to ensure that the applicant understands the design review process, and the design standards and guidelines. This early touch allows the design review board and applicant to consider optional concepts for a project that may be better suited to the Island community, to dialogue in an informal manner with the applicant, and review the design standards and guidelines applicable to the project. Project design submittal requirements are described in the Design for Bainbridge appendices.

3. Public Participation Meeting. As part of the project proposal phase, applicants are required to participate in a community meeting through the city’s public participation program at a planning commission meeting and as outlined in Resolution No. 2021-07. The public participation meeting is a meeting of public engagement, and the applicant’s opportunity to respond to questions, comments, and assessments of the proposed project. A second public participation meeting may be required if significant project changes occur after completion of the design guidance review.

4. Design Guidance Review. The design guidance review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The design guidance review meeting is intended to provide input and guidance to an applicant that the proposed project is responding adequately to the Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines, including recommendations for how the project could be revised to achieve greater consistency. The applicant shall also make known the potential need and rationale for any departure from the design standards and guidelines. The design submittal requirements are described in the Design for Bainbridge appendices. Additional design guidance review may be required if significant project changes occur after the initial design guidance review.

5. Final Design Review and Recommendation. The design review board reviews and makes a final determination of project consistency with Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines. The design review board will forward written findings, their determination of the project’s consistency with the standards and guidelines, the design guideline checklist, and their recommendation, including any conditions, to the staff planner. Any condition attached to a recommendation must be intended to achieve consistency with one or more specific standards or guidelines. The design review board’s written findings will be included in the staff report transmitted to the director or planning commission. The design review board shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or departures, or denial. A design review board recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation. The planning commission may determine that additional design review is required if significant project changes occur following the final design review and recommendation.

E. Review Procedures – Application Stage. Review of site plan and design review applications shall include all of the following:

1. Application. An applicant may submit an application for site plan and design review at any time after completion of the required steps in subsection D of this section or approval of a waiver in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.I.3 or I.4 or subsection D.1 of this section. The applicant shall submit a complete application with all required submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

2. Review by Kitsap Public Health District.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the health district.

b. The health district shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary long subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.

3. Review by City Engineer.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the city engineer.

b. The city engineer shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary long subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.

4. Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission.

a. In the case of a major site plan and design review application, the planning commission shall review the application prior to the review and final decision by the director.

b. The purpose of the planning commission review and recommendation meeting is to review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines, BIMC Title 17, and the comprehensive plan.

c. The planning commission shall consider the application at a public meeting where public comments will be taken. The planning commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of an application. In making a recommendation, the planning commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria, all other applicable law, and the recommendation of the design review board. If the applicable criteria are not met, the planning commission shall recommend the proposal be modified or denied.

d. The design review board’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the planning commission. Any deviation from the recommendation shall be documented in their written findings of facts and conclusions.

e. The planning commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the planning commission and design review board, to the staff planner. The planning commission’s written findings will be included in the staff report transmitted to the director. The planning commission’s recommendation shall be given substantial weight by the director in making a decision.

f. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation.

5. Review and Approval by Director.

a. The director shall review the application materials, information provided by the health district and city engineer, staff report, any public comments received, the recommendations of the design review board and, in the case of major site plan and design review applications, the recommendations of the planning commission, and shall make a final decision based on:

i. In the case of a minor site plan and design review application, the final decision on an application is made by the director based on (A) decision criteria in subsection F of this section, (B) the DRB recommendation, and (C) consideration of any public comments received.

ii. In the case of a major site plan and design review application, the director will make the final decision based on (A) the decision criteria in subsection F of this section, (B) the recommendation of the planning commission, (C) the recommendation of the design review board, and (D) consideration of any public comments received. The design review board’s and planning commission’s recommendations shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the director. Any deviation from those recommendations shall be documented in the director’s report.

b. The director shall make compliance with the recommendations of the design review board and/or planning commission a condition of approval, unless the director concludes that the recommendations:

i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

c. The director shall adopt a planning commission recommendation of denial of an application unless the director concludes that the recommendation:

i. Reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceeds the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

6. Relationship to Other Land Development Applications – Consolidated Project Review.

a. If requested by the applicant, a site plan and design review application that is part of a proposal requiring multiple land use permits may be combined in a consolidated project review. Related applications requiring a public hearing shall be considered at one public hearing in accordance with BIMC 2.16.170.

b. If a site plan and design review application is part of a consolidated project, the director will review the site plan and design review application as prescribed under subsection E.6.a or E.6.b of this section, as appropriate, and forward the findings and decision to the appropriate hearing body for any required public hearing.

F. Decision Criteria. The director and planning commission shall base their respective recommendations or decisions on site plan and design review applications on the following criteria:

1. The site plan and design is consistent with all applicable provisions of the BIMC, design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, and applicable subarea and master plans; and

2. The locations of the buildings and structures, open spaces, and landscaping result in a context-sensitive design; and

3. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria:

a. The proposal conforms to current standards regarding domestic water supply and sewage disposal; or if the proposal is not to be served by public sewers, then the lot has sufficient area and soil, topographic and drainage characteristics to permit an on-site sewage disposal system; and

b. If the health district recommends approval of the application with respect to those items in subsection F.3.a of this section, the health district shall so advise the director; and

c. If the health district recommends disapproval of the application, it shall provide a written explanation to the director; and

4. The streets and nonmotorized facilities, as proposed, are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and

5. The city engineer has determined that the site plan and design meets the following decision criteria:

a. The site plan and design conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and

b. The site plan and design will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and

c. The streets, nonmotorized facilities, locations of the buildings, structures, and vehicular circulation systems as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the island-wide transportation plan; and

d. If a traffic study shows that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and

e. If the site will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the site, and the required service(s) can be made available at the site; and

f. The site plan and design conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and

6. No harmful or unhealthful conditions are likely to result from the proposed site plan; and

7. If the subject property contains a critical area or buffer, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

8. If the subject property is within the shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the site plan and design review permit conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

9. If the applicant is providing privately owned open space and is requesting credit against dedications for park and recreation facilities required by BIMC 17.20.020.C, the requirements of BIMC 17.20.020.D have been met; and

10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the site plan has been properly designed to ensure fire protection; and

11. The site plan and design has been prepared consistent with the purpose and review procedures of this chapter.

G. Action of Director. The director may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for site plan and design review. Conditions may be imposed to enable the proposal to meet the standards of the decision criteria.

H. Adjustments to Approved Site Plan.

1. Minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review may be made after review and approval by the director. Minor adjustments are those that include minor changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not include changes to the intensity or character of the use. Minor adjustments are processed through a written request from the applicant and a written response from department staff. The city response is placed in the project file and is effective to modify the approval as described in the response.

2. Adjustments other than minor adjustments to an approved site plan and design review require a new or amended application as determined by the director. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, or character of the use. (Ord. 2022-09 § 13, 2022; Ord. 2021-12 § 4, 2021; Ord. 2021-03 §§ 2 – 4, 2021; Ord. 2019-24 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 2018-20 § 7 (Exh. B), 2018; Ord. 2017-14 § 1, 2017; Ord. 2017-02 § 2, 2017; Ord. 2016-28 §§ 4, 5, 2016; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.050 Minor conditional uses.

A. Purpose. A minor conditional use permit is a mechanism by which the city may require specific conditions on development or the use of land to ensure that designated uses or activities are compatible with other uses in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. If imposition of conditions will not make a specific proposal compatible the proposal shall be denied.

B. Applicability.

1. As determined by the director, this procedure shall apply to (a) all conditional uses listed as agricultural uses in Table 18.09.020; (b) conditional uses listed in Table 18.09.020 other than an educational, cultural, governmental, religious, or health care facility, where the director determines that the anticipated impacts of those conditional uses will be minor or minimal; or (c) uses that are clearly consistent and compatible with other uses in the same zone or vicinity. Properties within jurisdiction of the shoreline master program, as defined by Chapter 16.12 BIMC, or containing critical areas or critical area buffers, as defined by Chapter 16.20 BIMC, may require review pursuant to those chapters.

2. Exemptions. Although a site plan review may be required, the following types of activities are not required to obtain a minor conditional use permit.

a. Any activity that does not require a building permit or is not considered a change of use as determined by the director;

b. A one-time expansion of the square footage of an existing use up to 25 percent, regardless of ownership;

c. Interior work that does not alter the exterior of the structure or affect parking standards as determined by the director;

d. Normal building maintenance and/or repair;

e. Maintenance or expansion of existing parks where the proposed activities are exempt from SEPA review in accordance with WAC 197-11-800.

3. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for minor conditional use. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

C. Procedures. Minor conditional uses shall be approved through the general administrative review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.030 except as described below. Application materials for minor conditional use can be found in the administrative manual.

D. Nonagricultural Minor Conditional Use Decision Criteria. A nonagricultural minor conditional use or an agricultural research facility may be approved if:

1. The conditional use is consistent with applicable design guidelines in BIMC Title 18. The conditional use is compatible with the established and intended character of the neighborhood, considering factors that include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, the type of activities generated by the use, and the predictable levels of any adverse impacts; and

2. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

3. The conditional use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and

4. The conditional use complies with all other applicable provisions of the BIMC; and

5. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the proposed use may have on the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

6. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and

7. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and

8. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria:

a. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and

b. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and

c. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed align with and are otherwise coordinated with streets and nonmotorized facilities serving adjacent properties and are adequate, safe, efficient and consistent with the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and

d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and

e. If the conditional use will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the conditional use, and the required service(s) can be made available at the site; and

f. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications,” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation from the standards; and

9. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria:

b. If the health district recommends approval or disapproval of the application the health district shall so advise the director; and

10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will be properly designed to ensure fire protection; and

11. If a minor conditional use is processed as a housing design demonstration project pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.S, the above criteria will be considered in conjunction with the purpose, goals, policies, and decision criteria of BIMC 2.16.020.S; and

12. A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria of this chapter, then the permit shall be denied.

E. Agricultural Conditional Use Decision Criteria.

1. As agriculture is a preferred use, conditional uses that are listed as agricultural uses in Table 18.09.020 (except for agricultural research facilities) may be approved if:

a. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the immediate vicinity of the subject property; and

b. The conditional use is in accord with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and

c. The conditional use will be served by adequate public facilities, including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities; and

d. The conditional use complies with all other provisions of the BIMC.

2. Animal agricultural conditional uses that are in compliance with an existing conditional use permit may expand any structure or area used in the operation of the conditional use on January 1, 2012 (effective date of adoption), by up to 25 percent without applying for a new conditional use permit.

F. Exemption from Height Limit for Structures in Any Zone District. An exemption from the height limits for structures not including buildings in each zone district can be approved through the minor conditional use process if the director determines that: (1) view opportunities are not substantially reduced; (2) no structure is located in any required setback except as otherwise authorized by BIMC Title 18; and (3) each setback requirement shall be increased one-half foot for every foot above the maximum structure height.

G. Conversion to Major Conditional Use Permit. If a minor conditional use application has received written public comments during the notice of application comment period concerning the effect of the land use application on the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program or matters not addressed by specific provisions of the BIMC, the director may determine that the application be processed as a major conditional use permit.

H. Adjustments to Approved Minor Conditional Use Permit.

1. Minor adjustments to an approved minor conditional use permit may be made after review and approval by the director. Minor adjustments are those that entail small changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not entail changes to the intensity or character of the use.

2. Major adjustments to an approved minor conditional use permit require an amended application and shall be processed in the same manner as a new minor conditional use permit application. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, and/or use.

I. Local Register of Historic Places Conditional Use Decision Criteria. A proposal to modify development standards (such as setbacks, open space, lot coverage, landscape buffers, and parking requirements) and/or to allow for a use otherwise permitted for a structure on the local register (including exclusive residential in the mixed use town center) shall meet the following criteria:

1. Subsections D.1 through 10 of this section, Nonagricultural Minor Conditional Use Decision Criteria, including a review and recommendation from the historic preservation commission as to whether the proposal is compatible with the historic nature of the building and/or site; and

2. The use shall be compatible with the existing design and/or construction of the structure without significant alteration. (Ord. 2019-24 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 2017-02 §§ 3, 4, 2017; Ord. 2016-11 § 1, 2016¹; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.060 Minor variance.

A. Purpose. Variances are the mechanism by which the city may grant relief from the provisions of the zoning ordinance where practical difficulty renders compliance with certain provisions of the code an unnecessary hardship, where the hardship is a result of the physical characteristics of the subject property and where the purpose of the comprehensive plan is fulfilled.

B. Applicability.

1. A variance is authorized only for lot coverage, size of structure, or size of setbacks. Variances are not authorized for changes in density requirements, building or structure height requirements, open space requirements, or expanding a use otherwise prohibited.

2. The minor variance process may be used for minor deviations from zoning standards in BIMC Title 18 as determined by the director. Minor projects should be limited to: (a) projects that are exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), or (b) proposals for less than a 25 percent encroachment in required yards, (c) proposals for less than a 25 percent increase in lot coverage, or (d) proposals related to single-family residences on an existing lot. All other variances shall be processed using the procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.120.

3. This process may also be used for minor variation(s) from the engineering requirements of the adopted city of Bainbridge Island engineering and development standards if the requested variation will further the purposes of the BIMC and is approved by the department director, after recommendation by the city engineer and/or the fire marshal.

4. For projects participating in a housing design demonstration project pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.S, design guidelines may be varied if the applicant can demonstrate that deviation from the guidelines will facilitate meeting goals of the housing design demonstration program.

5. This procedure is not available to obtain variances from subdivision standards in BIMC Title 17 or to obtain variances from BIMC Title 18 zoning standards cross-referenced in BIMC Title 17 as part of a short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision approval or amendment process, except for those engineering standards covered by subsection B.3 of this section.

6. This procedure is not available to allow the siting for an accessory dwelling unit where it would not otherwise be permitted.

7. A variance shall not be granted solely because of the presence of nonconformities in the vicinity of the subject site.

8. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

C. Procedures. Minor variances shall be approved through the general administrative review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.030 except as described below. Application materials for minor variances can be found in the administrative manual.

D. Decision Criteria.

1. A minor variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:

a. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and

b. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of the subject property, or factors necessary for the successful installation of a solar energy system such as a particular orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar access; and

c. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by the applicant; and

d. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but that is denied to the property in question because of special circumstances on the property in question, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which the property is located; and

e. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except those provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in accord with the comprehensive plan.

2. A variance may be approved with conditions. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria in subsection D.1 of this section, then the application shall be denied.

E. Conversion to Major Variance. If a minor variance application has received written public comments during the notice of application comment period concerning the effect on the land use application of the comprehensive plan, shoreline master program or matters not addressed by specific provisions of the BIMC, the director may determine that the application be processed as a major variance. (Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.070 Short subdivisions.

A. Purpose. This section provides an administrative procedure for approving subdivision plats including four lots or less.

B. Applicability. This procedure applies to all short subdivisions. Short subdivisions involve the division or redivision of land into four lots or less when those plats meet the criteria set forth in BIMC Title 17.

C. General Procedures.

1. Short subdivisions shall be approved through the general administrative review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.030 except as described below. Application materials for short subdivisions can be found in the administrative manual.

2. Short subdivisions shall not be used, either by a person alone or by persons acting together, at one time or over a period of time, as a means to circumvent compliance with the more stringent subdivision requirements that control the subdivision of land into five or more lots. When an application for a short subdivision is filed within five years after the approval of a short subdivision on a contiguous land parcel, a presumption of an attempt to circumvent short subdivision requirements may be invoked by the director as a basis for further investigation to assure compliance with the intent of this provision.

3. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for a short subdivision. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

4. Vesting. A proposed short subdivision shall be considered under the subdivision ordinance, zoning or other land use control ordinances, and the State Environmental Policy Act in effect at the time a fully completed application for preliminary approval of the subdivision has been submitted to the city. The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by the administrative manual.

5. Timeline for Review. The city has 90 calendar days from the filing of a complete application in which to approve, disapprove, or return the application to the applicant for modification. The timeline for review can be extended beyond 90 calendar days if the city determines it has incomplete or insufficient application materials and/or if there are significant changes to application materials. If no action can be taken to approve or disapprove the application within the 90 calendar days, the director must notify the applicant of the reasons for the delay and steps necessary to complete the application.

D. Review Procedures – Proposal Stage. Review of short subdivision proposals shall include all of the following in the order listed except that the division or redivision of land into two lots shall not be required to comply with subsections D.2, D.3, and D.5 of this section:

1. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference in accordance with the provisions and requirements in BIMC 2.16.020.I.

4. Design Guidance Review. The design guidance review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The design guidance review meeting is intended to provide input and guidance to an applicant that the proposed project is responding adequately to the Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines, including recommendations for how the project could be revised to achieve greater consistency. The applicant shall also make known the potential need and rationale for any departure from the design standards and guidelines. The design submittal requirements are described in the Design for Bainbridge appendices and the administrative manual and include documentation of the four-step design process, schematic design, and completed subdivision design guidelines checklist. The four-step design process includes:

a. Delineate Natural Space. The applicant shall prioritize natural resources on the site in terms of their highest to least appropriateness for inclusion in the proposed natural area. On the basis of those priorities and practical considerations given to the site’s configuration, its context in relation to natural areas on adjoining and neighboring properties, and the applicant’s subdivision objectives, natural space shall be delineated in a manner clearly indicating boundaries as well as the types of resources. The amount of natural space required is provided in Chapter 17.12 BIMC.

b. Locate Homesites and Community Space. After delineating natural space, homesite areas and community space shall be identified (a “sketch” diagram is acceptable), using the site analysis and context maps produced for the conceptual proposal review meeting as a base map. The amount of community space required is provided in Chapter 17.12 BIMC.

c. Define Access. After locating the natural space, homesites, and community space, the access network shall be defined. The access network shall provide a safe, convenient, and efficient system for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation and minimize impacts on proposed natural space.

d. Draw Lot Lines. Upon completion of the preceding three steps, draw lot lines to delineate the boundaries of individual lots.

Additional design guidance review may be required if significant project changes occur after the initial design guidance review.

E. Review Procedures – Application Stage. Review of short subdivision applications shall include all of the following:

1. Application. An applicant may submit an application for a short subdivision at any time after completion of the required steps in subsection D of this section or approval of a waiver in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.I.3 or I.4 or subsection D.1 of this section. The applicant shall submit a complete application with all required submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

2. Review by Kitsap Public Health District.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the health district.

b. The health district shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary short subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.

3. Review by City Engineer.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the city engineer.

b. The city engineer shall provide written recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the preliminary short subdivision application pursuant to the decision criteria in subsection F of this section.

4. Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission.

a. Review and recommendation by the planning commission is optional. The director shall determine whether review is necessary based on the major issues and specific aspects of the project, the design review board recommendation, and any written public comments received during the public comment period.

b. The purpose of the planning commission review and recommendation meeting is to review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines, BIMC Titles 17 and 18, and the comprehensive plan.

e. The planning commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the planning commission and design review board, to the staff planner. The planning commission’s written findings, conclusions and recommendation will be included in the staff report transmitted to the director.

f. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation.

5. Review and Approval by Director.

b. The director will make the final decision based on (i) the decision criteria in subsection F of this section, (ii) the recommendation of the planning commission, (iii) the recommendation of the design review board, and (iv) consideration of any public comments received. The design review board’s and planning commission’s recommendations shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the director. Any deviation from those recommendations shall be documented in the director’s report.

c. The director shall make compliance with the recommendations of the design review board and/or planning commission a condition of approval, unless the director concludes that the recommendations:

i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

d. The director shall prepare written findings of facts and conclusions in support of the decision made. If the director disapproves the application he or she shall provide a written explanation of the reasons for the disapproval to the applicant.

F. Decision Criteria for Short Subdivisions. The director’s decision shall include written findings of fact addressing all the requirements of the following subsections. The short subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if:

1. The applicable subdivision design guidelines and development standards of BIMC Titles 17 and 18 are satisfied; and

2. The preliminary short subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including those items listed in RCW 58.17.110; and

3. The short subdivision has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the four-step design process; and

4. Any portion of a short subdivision that contains a critical area, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

5. Any portion of a short subdivision within shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

6. The city engineer’s recommendation contains determinations that the following decision criteria are met and such determinations are supported by substantial evidence within the record:

a. The short subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 17.12 BIMC related to streets and pedestrian access, and water, stormwater, and septic facilities; and

b. The short subdivision conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.19, 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and

c. The short subdivision will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and

d. If the short subdivision will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the short subdivision, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and

7. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this code; Chapters 36.70A and 58.17 RCW; and all other applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations; and

8. The proposal is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan; and

9. Appropriate provisions for maintenance in perpetuity of natural and/or community space have been made; and

10. The preliminary subdivision design is compatible with the physical characteristics of the proposed subdivision site.

G. Repealed by Ord. 2018-20.

H. Civil Plan Review.

1. The applicant shall submit civil engineering plans and designs to the city for review by city staff and acceptance by the city engineer before submitting an application for final short subdivision approval.

2. No construction on or to the site may take place until civil engineering plans have been received and approved by the city.

3. After the preliminary short subdivision and civil engineering plans have been approved the subdivider is authorized to develop the subdivision’s facilities and improvements in strict accordance with standards established by this title, related standards in BIMC Titles 17 and 18, and any conditions imposed.

I. Review of Final Short Subdivision Application.

1. Timeline for Review. A final short subdivision shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant within 30 working days from the date of a complete application, unless the applicant provides written consent to an extension of such time period.

2. Submittal of Final Plat.

a. A final plat shall be submitted containing all of the submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

b. Improvements shall be constructed and/or construction assurance documents pursuant to subsection N of this section must be filed for any unfulfilled conditions.

c. Documentation that all conditions of approval from the preliminary plat have been met shall be provided.

3. Duties of Surveyor. All final short subdivisions shall be prepared by a land surveyor registered pursuant to Chapter 18.43 RCW, shall be surveyed in accordance with current state regulations, and shall contain the certificate shown in the administrative manual. The lot corners, perimeter, and right-of-way monuments (if applicable) shall be marked in a manner approved by the city surveyor. The material used to mark the corners, perimeter, and right-of way monuments (if applicable) shall be described upon the face of the short subdivision drawing.

4. Review, Recommendation, and Approval.

a. The final plat must be consistent with the preliminary plat approval and all conditions of approval.

b. The city engineer shall review the final short subdivision to determine compliance with the requirements of RCW 58.17.160, the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Development Standards Manual” (except as varied by the city engineer during the preliminary short plat review process), and any conditions imposed on the approved preliminary subdivision plat, and forward written recommendations for approval or disapproval to the director.

c. The health district when appropriate shall review the final short subdivision and forward recommendations for approval or disapproval to the department.

d. After receiving the city engineer’s recommendations pursuant to subsection I.4.b of this section, and the health district’s recommendations pursuant to subsection I.4.c of this section as applicable, the director shall approve or disapprove an application for final short subdivision.

e. The short subdivision plat shall be approved if the director determines that:

i. The final short subdivision meets all standards established by state law, this title, and related standards in BIMC Titles 15 through 18.

ii. The final short subdivision is in conformance with all terms and conditions of the preliminary short subdivision.

iii. The final short subdivision bears the certificates and statements of approval required by the BIMC.

f. If the application conforms to the criteria in subsection I.4.e of this section, the director shall signify his or her approval by signing the approval line on the face of the short subdivision. If the director disapproves the application, a written explanation shall be provided to the applicant.

g. If an applicant voluntarily sets aside more than 25 percent of the site as designated open space, that fact will be noted on the plat.

5. Amendment of Disapproved Application. When an application is disapproved, an applicant shall have 180 working days following the decision in which to file an amended application to remedy the matters that led to the disapproval. Upon receipt of such an amended application, the application shall be reviewed as set forth in this subsection. If an applicant files no such amended application within the period allowed, the application shall be considered denied.

6. Certification by Treasurer. Upon request of the city or the applicant for a short subdivision, the county treasurer, if no property taxes are owing upon the real property, shall so certify by subscribing the certification line upon the face of the short subdivision.

J. Modification of Preliminary or Final Short Subdivision before Filing.

1. An alteration to an approved preliminary short subdivision that does not change the general plat layout, increase off-site impacts of the subdivision, or modify a provision or condition that was a matter of dispute by any party during the preliminary approval process may be made by the director after notice and opportunity to comment are provided to the applicant and all parties of record. The director shall review and approve or disapprove the request for modification following the process set forth in BIMC 2.16.030.

2. Other modifications to an approved short subdivision must be reviewed in accordance with the process for a new short subdivision application, including payment of fees, and shall be approved consistent with the procedures and requirements of this section.

3. The following exemptions shall not constitute changes in the short subdivision approval and do not require further review as provided for under subsection J.1 or J.2 of this section:

a. Engineering detail, unless the proposed detail modifies or eliminates features specifically required as an element of the preliminary short subdivision approval. For purposes of this section, “engineering detail” shall mean minor changes to proposed road or lot grading or drainage design that do not significantly affect the location of those facilities, and minor changes to locations of utility pipes, swales, or wires that do not significantly affect their visibility from adjacent roads or properties, and similar minor changes;

b. Minor changes in lot lines or lot dimensions; or

c. Minor alterations regarding homesite location and/or open space usage.

K. Requirements for Filing Plat.

1. No short subdivision shall be presented to or accepted for filing with the county auditor unless the face of the short subdivision contains the approval of the director, and the certification of the treasurer that no tax, penalties, or delinquent assessments are owing on the subject property.

2. The applicant shall record the short subdivision with the county auditor within 90 days of approval, and shall provide a copy of the recorded subdivision to the department.

L. Further Subdivision. Land in a short subdivision may not be further divided through a short subdivision within a period of five years after the recording of the final short subdivision without the approval of a long subdivision pursuant to BIMC 2.16.125 and 2.16.160. Nothing in this section shall prevent the owner from filing an amendment within the five-year period to create up to a total of four lots within the original short subdivision boundaries.

M. Disclaimer as to Streets. Streets within a short subdivision shall not be maintained by the city unless such streets have been improved to current city standards and have been accepted as part of the approved short subdivision. Unless accepted, the responsibility for maintenance shall lie with the owners of the lots. In such case, the face of each short subdivision shall contain the following disclaimer:

Responsibility and expense for maintenance of streets serving lots within this short subdivision (unless such roads have been accepted by the city) shall rest with the lot owners.

N. Assurance of Improvements.

1. In lieu of completion of improvements with conditions of a preliminary short plat approval, the city engineer may accept an assurance device in an amount and in a form determined by the city council, but not to exceed 125 percent of the established costs of completing the infrastructure that secures and provides for the actual construction and installation of the improvements or the performance of the conditions within one year, or such additional time as the city engineer determines is appropriate after final plat approval.

2. The city engineer shall require an assurance device securing the successful performance of improvements for two years after the city’s acceptance of the improvements. The city may require that the applicant provide assurances of improvement for all lots in an approved short subdivision before the city will approve final occupancy for more than 80 percent of the lots shown on the subdivision.

O. Amendment to Approved Short Subdivision. A short subdivision that has been approved and recorded may be amended upon application of the owners of all lots, access easements, open space, or other rights that are proposed to be amended. The contents and procedure for an amended application shall be that for an application in the first instance, except that minor alterations regarding home-site location and/or open space usage shall be approved administratively consistent with the procedures and requirements of BIMC 2.16.030. (Ord. 2021-12 § 5, 2021; Ord. 2019-24 § 2, 2019; Ord. 2018-20 § 8 (Exh. C), 2018; Ord. 2017-02 § 5, 2017; Ord. 2011-21 § 3, 2011; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.080 Large lot subdivisions.

A. Purpose. This section provides an administrative procedure for approving subdivisions in which all of the created lots are generally larger than five acres.

B. Applicability. This procedure applies to all large lot subdivisions. Large lot subdivisions include divisions or redivisions of land so that each created lot contains at least five acres of land (or 1/128th of a section of land, whichever is less).

C. General Procedures.

1. The provisions of this section shall supplement the general administrative review provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for a large lot subdivision. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

2. Large lot subdivisions shall be reviewed and approved through the procedures described for short subdivisions in BIMC 2.16.070.D through F, with the exception that design review board and planning commission review and recommendation are required, not optional.

3. Vesting. A proposed large lot subdivision shall be considered under the subdivision ordinance, zoning or other land use control ordinances, and the State Environmental Policy Act in effect at the time a fully completed application for preliminary approval of the subdivision has been submitted to the city. The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by the administrative manual.

4. Timeline for Review. The city has 90 calendar days from the filing of a complete application in which to approve, disapprove, or return the application to the applicant for modification. The timeline for review can be extended beyond 90 calendar days if the city determines it has incomplete or insufficient application materials and/or if there are significant changes to application materials. If no action can be taken to approve or disapprove the application within the 90 calendar days, the director must notify the applicant of the reasons for the delay and steps necessary to complete the application.

D. Repealed by Ord. 2018-20.

E. Repealed by Ord. 2018-20.

F. Civil Plan Review.

2. No construction on or to the site may take place until civil engineering plans have been received and approved by the city.

3. After the preliminary large lot subdivision and civil engineering plans have been approved the subdivider is authorized to develop the subdivision’s facilities and improvements in strict accordance with the standards established by this title, related standards in Titles 17 and 18, and any conditions imposed.

G. Review of Final Large Lot Subdivision Application.

1. Timeline for Review. Final large lot subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, disapproved or returned to the applicant by the director within 30 working days from the date of filing of a complete application, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period.

2. Submittal of Final Plat. The submittal requirements shall be the same as those for short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.I.2.

3. Duties of Surveyor. The duties of the surveyor shall be the same as those for a short subdivision as described in BIMC 2.16.070.I.3.

4. Review, Recommendation, and Approval.

a. The city engineer shall review the final large lot subdivision to determine the compliance with the requirements of RCW 58.17.160, the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Development Standards Manual” (except as varied by the city engineer during the preliminary large lot review process), and any conditions imposed on the approved preliminary subdivision plat, and forward written recommendations for approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the director.

b. After receiving the city engineer’s recommendation pursuant to subsection G.4.a of this section, the director shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the final large lot subdivision.

c. The large lot subdivision shall be approved if the director determines that:

i. The final large lot plat meets all standards established by state law, this title and related standards in BIMC Titles 15 through 18; and

ii. The proposed final large lot plat bears the certificates and statements of approval required by the administrative manual; and

iii. The facilities and improvements required to be provided by the subdivider have been completed or assurances in accordance with BIMC 2.16.070.N have been provided.

d. If the application conforms to the criteria in subsection G.4.c of this section, the director shall signify his or her approval by signing the approval line on the face of the large lot subdivision. If the director disapproves the application, he or she shall provide a written explanation to the applicant.

5. Amendment of Disapproved Application. When an application is disapproved, an applicant shall have the same rights to submit an amended application that apply to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.I.5, except that any amended application filed within the 180-day time frame shall be reviewed as set forth in this subsection G.

H. Improvements.

1. All large lot subdivisions shall have the following improvements developed and/or installed prior to recording the final plat:

a. Streets shall be cleared and grubbed; and

b. Streets shall be rocked or graveled to provide adequate year-round passage; and

c. Appropriate drainage, including erosion control, facilities consistent with Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC shall be provided on a plan approved by the city engineer prior to clearing and construction of any plat improvements.

2. All street rights-of-way within the large lot subdivision shall be dedicated to the city of Bainbridge Island unless the only access between the large lot subdivision and a developed, publicly owned road is a private road and there is no easement providing public access on that private road. That dedication shall not reduce the number of parcels allowable in a large lot subdivision if such parcels are based on a section subdivision and/or comprise 1/128th of a section or more.

3. On any approved large lot no further lot divisions shall be approved until the required improvements are installed and approved by the city.

I. Assurance of Improvements. Large lot subdivisions shall be subject to the same requirements for assurance of required improvements that apply to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.N.

J. Modification of Preliminary or Final Large Lot Subdivisions before Filing.

1. An alteration to an approved preliminary large lot subdivision that does not change the general plat layout, increase off-site impacts of the subdivision, or modify a provision or condition that was a matter of dispute by any party during the preliminary approval process may be made by the director after notice and opportunity to comment are provided to the applicant and all parties of record. The director shall review and approve or disapprove the request for modification following the process set forth in BIMC 2.16.030.

2. Other modifications to an approved large lot subdivision must be reviewed in accordance with the process for a new large lot subdivision application, including payment of fees, and shall be approved consistent with the procedures and requirements of this chapter.

3. The following exemptions shall not constitute changes in the preliminary large lot subdivision approval and do not require further review as provided for under subsections J.1 or J.2 of this section:

a. Engineering detail, unless the proposed detail modifies or eliminates features specifically required as an element of the preliminary large lot subdivision approval. For purposes of this section, “engineering detail” shall mean minor changes to proposed road or lot grading or drainage design that do not significantly affect the location of those facilities, and minor changes to locations of utility pipes, swales, or wires that do not significantly affect their visibility from adjacent roads or properties; and similar minor changes;

b. Minor changes in lot lines or lot dimensions; or

c. Minor alterations regarding homesite location and/or open space usage.

K. Disclaimer as to Streets. Streets within a large lot subdivision shall not be constructed or maintained by the city unless such streets have been improved to current standards and have been accepted into the city street system. Unless so improved and accepted, the responsibility for maintenance shall lie with the owners of the lots. In such cases the face of each large lot subdivision plat shall contain the following disclaimer:

Responsibility and expense for maintenance of roads leading to or serving lots within this Large Lot Subdivision (unless such roads have been accepted into city’s road system) shall rest with the lot owners.

L. Further Division. No lot in an approved large lot subdivision may be divided further within five years of recording the approved final large lot subdivision plat without following the subdivision requirements in effect at the time of such application. Short or long subdivision procedures may apply, depending on the number of additional lots proposed to be created.

M. Requirements for Filing Plat. In addition to the requirements of subsections J and K of this section, approved large lot subdivisions shall be subject to the same requirements for filing plats that apply to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.K.

N. Amendment to Approved Large Lot Subdivision. Proposals for amendment of a large lot subdivision shall follow the provisions of RCW 58.17.215. Alterations of a subdivision are also subject to the provisions of RCW 64.04.175. (Ord. 2018-20 § 9 (Exh. D), 2018; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.090 Boundary line adjustment.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a method for administrative approval of boundary line adjustments that satisfy public concerns of health, safety and welfare, where contiguous lots are proposed to be consolidated into a single lot, or where altering boundary lines is otherwise requested.

B. Applicability.

1. Boundary line adjustments may be requested to alter boundaries between platted or unplatted lots or both that do not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, or division of land.

2. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for a boundary line adjustment. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

C. Procedure.

1. A preapplication conference is not required.

2. The applicant shall file application materials as described in the administrative manual.

3. If the director determines that the application and information submitted with the application comply with the requirements of this code and all other laws, the department shall request that the applicant provide a final boundary line adjustment survey.

4. Except in the case of aggregation of lots, where a final survey is not required, the final boundary line adjustment survey shall be prepared by a licensed surveyor and shall meet the requirements set forth in the administrative manual.

D. Decision Criteria.

1. An application for a boundary line adjustment may be approved or approved with conditions if no additional lot is created and no lot is created that contains insufficient area and dimensions to meet the minimum requirements for area, width and depth for a building site in the zone in which the property is located. If these criteria are not satisfied, then the criteria in subsection D.2 of this section must be met or the boundary line adjustment may not be approved.

2. If the criteria in subsection D.1 of this section are not met, the application for boundary line adjustments may be approved or approved with conditions if:

a. After the adjustment, each lot involved retains its status prior to the adjustment as a developed or undeveloped lot and as a conforming or nonconforming lot; or

b. After the adjustment, a nonconforming lot that is permitted to be developed under BIMC 18.30.050 may become a conforming lot.

3. The director shall not approve an application for a boundary line adjustment if the director determines that the adjustment is being used, either individually or in combination with other adjustments, to achieve a result that would otherwise require a short or long subdivision approval.

4. A boundary line adjustment may be approved even if it results in a lot that contains a pre-existing accessory structure without a related primary structure.

E. Requirements for Filing Boundary Line Adjustment. Approved boundary line adjustments shall be subject to the same requirements for filing that apply to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.K.

F. State Procedure for Disputed or Missing Boundary Lines. Whenever a point or line determining the boundary between two or more parcels of real property cannot be identified from the existing public record, monuments, and landmarks, or is in dispute, the landowners affected by the determination of the point or line may resolve any dispute and fix the boundary point or line by one of the procedures identified in RCW 58.04.007. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.100 Quasi-judicial review by hearing examiner – In general.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to describe those general procedures that apply whenever state law or the BIMC require a public hearing before a hearing examiner and a recommendation or decision by the hearing examiner.

B. Applicability. This section applies each time a provision of this code authorizes a recommendation or a final decision by the hearing examiner. The specific types of applications subject to review by the hearing examiner are listed in the table in BIMC 2.16.010. The provisions of this section are supplemented by more detailed provisions in BIMC 2.16.110, 2.16.120, 2.16.160, 2.16.165, and/or 16.20.080.

C. Procedures.

1. SEPA Environmental Review. For a land use application subject to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 16.04 BIMC, the SEPA threshold determination shall be issued and any required public comment period shall be completed prior to a public hearing.

2. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation. When written public comments are received during the public comment period concerning the effect of the land use application on the comprehensive plan, the shoreline master program, or matters not addressed by specific provisions of this code, the director or the hearing examiner may request planning commission review and recommendation pursuant to the procedures in BIMC 2.14.020.G prior to the final decision.

3. Single Report.

a. The director shall prepare a single consolidated report setting forth all the recommendations and decisions made on the application as of the date of the report.

b. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or as required by SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and shall include the SEPA determination if a determination has not previously been issued.

c. If a shoreline master program permit is required for the project pursuant to Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the report shall address the requirements of that section.

d. The director’s report shall be presented to the hearing examiner at the public hearing.

4. Public Hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing prior to issuing a decision. The purpose of the public hearing is to review a proposed project for consistency with the BIMC, appropriate elements of the comprehensive plan and all other applicable law, and to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the project and its compliance with the municipal code, the comprehensive plan and all other applicable law. The hearing examiner shall maintain a record of the exhibits presented and a recording of the testimony and arguments presented, which shall be kept by the city clerk. Any rules of procedure for hearings adopted by the city council will be published on the city’s website and available from the office of the city clerk upon request. A hearing may be continued to a date certain without additional notice.

5. Participation in the Public Hearing. Any person may participate in the public hearing. The hearing examiner has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, nonrepetitive comments and to set time limits.

6. Hearing Examiner Action.

a. The hearing examiner may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or remand an application.

b. In making a decision, the hearing examiner shall consider the applicable decision criteria of this code, all other applicable laws, recommendations of the planning commission and design review board, testimony presented at the hearing, and any necessary documents and approvals. In the case of decisions involving properties subject to the shoreline jurisdiction of Chapter 16.12 BIMC, the hearing examiner shall also consider consistency with the requirements of the shoreline master program.

c. The hearing examiner shall issue a written decision in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.M.6, within 10 working days of the public hearing, unless a longer period is agreed upon by the hearing examiner and the applicant or appellant. If the hearing examiner and the applicant or appellant agree on a longer period for issuance of the written decision, the examiner shall provide notice of the extension to the applicant or appellant, the city, and any person who testified at the hearing or submitted written testimony for consideration at the hearing.

d. The hearing examiner shall file the decision with the city clerk’s office.

7. Motion for Reconsideration. The rules of procedure adopted under BIMC 2.14.030.C.2.b shall allow a party of record to file, within a reasonable period of time specified by such rules, a motion for reconsideration of a recommendation or decision issued by the hearing examiner.

8. Corrections or Clarification. The hearing examiner at any time may amend the decision to correct clerical errors clearly identifiable from the public record. Such correction does not affect any time limit provided for in this chapter. The hearing examiner may clarify a statement in the written decision as long as the clarification does not materially alter the decision.

9. Effect of Decision.

a. On matters that do not involve shoreline conditional uses or shoreline variances, the decision of the hearing examiner is the final decision of the city, subject to the appeal provisions in BIMC 2.16.020.R.2.

b. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(10) and WAC 173-27-130, final decisions involving shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances are made by the Washington State Department of Ecology. For these types of applications, the hearing examiner’s decision is a recommendation subject to approval, approval with conditions, or denial by that department.

10. Revocation of Quasi-Judicial Approvals. An approval or permit granted by the hearing examiner may be revoked by the hearing examiner following the procedures in this section upon the finding of any one or more of the following:

a. That the approval was obtained by deception, fraud or other intentional or misleading representation; or

b. That the use for which approval was granted has been changed; or

c. In the case of major conditional use permits, that the use has at any time been discontinued for a year or more; or

d. That the permit granted is being exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval or in violation of the BIMC; or

e. That the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety. (Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2011-21 § 4, 2011: Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.110 Major conditional use permit.

A. Purpose. A major conditional use permit is a mechanism by which the city may require specific conditions on development or the use of land to ensure that designated uses or activities are compatible with other uses in the same zone and in the vicinity of the subject property. If imposition of conditions will not make a specific proposal compatible the proposal shall be denied.

B. Applicability.

1. As determined by the director, a major conditional use permit shall be secured from the city prior to establishing or expanding a use according to situations that include, but are not limited to: (a) the proposed use or expansion covers 50 percent or greater of the total lot area; (b) the proposed use is accessed by a local or private road; (c) the proposed use or expansion generates more than 36 total trips per day; (d) the proposed use or expansion contains four or more units in a multifamily dwelling; or (e) requests for additional nonresidential building height pursuant to Table 17.12.070-1, 18.12.020-2 or 18.12.020-3.

2. Any activity that is exempt from the request for a minor conditional use permit pursuant to BIMC 2.16.050.B.2 is also exempt from the request for a major conditional use permit.

3. The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.100 when the application is for a conditional use permit. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.100 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

4. Temporary uses and events may be exempt from some or all of the major conditional use permit requirements if the director determines that their impacts on the immediately surrounding area will be minimal.

C. General Procedures. Major conditional uses shall be approved through the general procedures applicable to quasi-judicial decisions by the hearing examiner in BIMC 2.16.100 except as described below.

D. Review Procedures – Proposal Stage. Review of major conditional use permit proposals shall include all of the following in the order listed:

1. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference in accordance with the provisions and requirements in BIMC 2.16.020.I.

2. Conceptual Review. The conceptual review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The applicant will present a short project description, zoning summary, and a thorough narrative of design context in accordance with the Design for Bainbridge manual and appendices. This meeting is a means of providing feedback on projects in their earliest stages before applicants are committed to a particular design. The conceptual review meeting is an opportunity to ensure that the applicant understands the design review process, and the design standards and guidelines. This early touch allows the design review board and applicant to consider optional concepts for a project that may be better suited to the Island community, to dialogue in an informal manner with the applicant, and review the design standards and guidelines applicable to the project. Project design submittal requirements are described in the administrative manual and include a statement of intent, site analysis, and context map. An applicant may request a waiver from the conceptual proposal review if the applicant demonstrates knowledge and understanding of the city’s permit processing procedures.

4. Design Guidance Review. The design guidance review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The design guidance review meeting is intended to provide input and guidance to an applicant that the proposed project is responding adequately to the Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines, including recommendations for how the project could be revised to achieve greater consistency. The applicant shall also make known the potential need and rationale for any departure from the design standards and guidelines and construction standards and specifications. Submittal requirements are described in the administrative manual and include a schematic design and completed design guidelines checklist. Additional design guidance review may be required if significant project changes occur after the initial design guidance review.

E. Review Procedures – Application Stage. Review major conditional use permit applications shall include all of the following:

1. Application. An applicant may submit an application for a major conditional use permit at any time after completion of the required steps in subsection D of this section or approval of a waiver in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.I.3 or I.4 or subsection D.1 of this section. The applicant shall submit a complete application with all required submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

2. Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission.

a. In the case of a major conditional use permit application, the planning commission shall review the application prior to the review and final decision by the director.

f. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation.

3. Review by Director.

a. The director shall review the application materials, staff report, and the recommendations of the planning commission and shall prepare a report to the hearing examiner recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application.

b. The planning commission’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the director. Any deviation from that recommendation shall be documented in the director’s report.

c. The director shall adopt a planning commission recommendation of denial of an application unless the director concludes that the recommendation:

i. Reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceeds the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

4. Review and Public Hearing with Hearing Examiner.

a. The hearing examiner shall consider the application materials and the director’s recommendation at a public hearing following the procedures of BIMC 2.16.100.C and applicable provisions of BIMC 2.16.020.

b. The hearing examiner shall make compliance with the recommendations of the planning commission a condition of approval, unless the hearing examiner concludes that the recommendations:

i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

c. The hearing examiner shall adopt a planning commission recommendation of denial of an application unless the hearing examiner concludes that the recommendation:

i. Reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceeds the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

d. The hearing examiner may approve, approve with conditions, deny, or remand an application.

F. Decision Criteria. A conditional use may be approved or approved with conditions if:

2. The conditional use will not be materially detrimental to uses or property in the vicinity of the subject property; and

3. The conditional use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted community plans, including the Island-Wide Transportation Plan; and

4. The conditional use complies with all other applicable provisions of the BIMC; and

5. All necessary measures have been taken to eliminate or reduce to the greatest extent possible the impacts that the proposed use may have on the vicinity of the subject property; and

6. Noise levels shall be in compliance with BIMC 16.16.020 and 16.16.040.A; and

7. The streets and nonmotorized facilities as proposed are adequate to accommodate anticipated traffic; and

8. The city engineer has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria:

a. The conditional use conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and

b. The conditional use will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use of properties downstream; and

d. If a traffic study shows that the use will have an adverse impact on traffic, including nonmotorized traffic, the impact shall be mitigated as required by the city engineer; and

f. The conditional use conforms to the “City of Bainbridge Island Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications” unless the city engineer has approved a deviation to the standards; and

9. The Kitsap public health district has determined that the conditional use meets the following decision criteria:

b. If the health district recommends approval or disapproval of the application the health district shall so advise the director; and

10. The Bainbridge Island fire department has reviewed the application and determined that the conditional use will ensure fire protection.

11. If a major conditional use is processed as a housing design demonstration project pursuant to BIMC 2.16.020.S, the above criteria will be considered in conjunction with the purpose, goals, policies, and decision criteria of BIMC 2.16.020.S.

12. A conditional use may be approved, or recommended for approval, with conditions. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the permit meets the decision criteria of this chapter, then the permit shall be denied.

G. Additional Decision Criteria for Institutions in Residential Zones. Applications to locate any of those uses categorized as educational facilities, governmental facilities, religious facilities, health care facilities, cultural facilities, or clubs in Table 18.09.020 in residential zones shall be processed as major conditional use permits and shall be required to meet the following criteria, in addition to those in subsection F of this section:

1. All sites must front on roads classified as residential suburban, collector, or arterial on the Bainbridge Island functional road classification map.

2. The scale of proposed construction including bulk and height and architectural design features is compatible with the surrounding area.

3. If the facility will have attendees and employees numbering fewer than 50 or an assembly seating area of less than 50, the director may waive any or all the above requirements in this subsection G, but may not waive those required elsewhere in the BIMC.

H. Approval of Additional Height.

1. In the NC zone district a maximum height of 45 feet can be approved through the major conditional use permit process if the director determines that all conditional use permit requirements are met and that: (a) view opportunities are not substantially reduced; (b) fire flow is adequate; and (c) solar access of neighboring lots is not substantially reduced.

2. In the B/I zone district a maximum height of 45 feet can be approved through the major conditional use process if the director determines that all conditional use permit requirements are met and that: (a) view opportunities are not substantially reduced; (b) fire flow is adequate; (c) solar access of neighboring lots is not reduced; and (d) the appearance of the neighborhood will not substantially change.

3. In the WD-I zone district a maximum height of 45 feet can be approved through the major conditional use process if the director determines that all conditional use permit requirements are met and that: (a) view opportunities are not substantially reduced; (b) fire flow is adequate; (c) solar access of neighboring lots is not reduced; and (d) each setback requirement shall be increased one foot for each additional foot of building height allowed. In portions of the WD-I district located within the shoreline jurisdiction regulated by Chapter 16.12 BIMC, a shoreline variance may be needed before additional height can be approved.

I. Effect of Approval.

1. Once a conditional use permit is approved, no building, use or development shall occur contrary to that specified in the conditional use permit.

2. The owner shall record a declaration with the Kitsap County auditor showing the land to be bound by a conditional use permit. No building permit shall be issued for structures other than those specified in the conditional use approval.

a. The declaration shall reference the official files of the city through which the permit was granted; and

b. The declaration shall be a covenant running with the land; and

c. No building permit shall be issued unless such declaration is recorded.

J. Amendments to Approved Major Conditional Use Permit.

1. Minor adjustments to an approved major conditional use permit may be made after review and approval by the director. Minor adjustments are those that entail small changes in dimensions or siting of structures or the location of public amenities, but do not entail changes to the intensity or character of the use.

2. Major adjustments to an approved major conditional use permit require an amended application and shall be processed in the same manner as a new conditional use permit application. Major adjustments are those that change the basic design, intensity, density, and/or use. (Ord. 2021-12 § 6, 2021; Ord. 2021-03 §§ 5, 6, 2021; Ord. 2019-24 § 1 (Exh. A), 2019; Ord. 2018-20 § 10 (Exh. E), 2018; Ord. 2017-02 §§ 1, 6, 2017; Ord. 2016-36 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2016-04 § 1, 2016; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.120 Major variances.

B. Applicability.

1. The major variance process may be used for deviations from zoning standards in BIMC Title 18 that the director determines exceed the threshold for minor variances under BIMC 2.16.060. A variance is authorized only for lot coverage, size of structure or size of setbacks. Variances are not authorized for changes in density requirements, building or structure height requirements, open space requirements, or expanding a use otherwise prohibited.

2. This procedure is not available to obtain variances from subdivision standards in BIMC Title 17 or to obtain variances from BIMC Title 18 zoning standards cross-referenced in BIMC Title 17 as part of a short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision approval or amendment process.

3. This procedure is not available to allow the siting for an accessory dwelling unit where it would not otherwise be permitted.

4. A variance shall not be granted solely because of the presence of nonconformities in the vicinity of the subject site.

5. Variances from the city’s noise regulations in Chapter 16.16 BIMC are available through the noise variance process in Chapter 16.16 BIMC and are not available through the major variance process in this section.

6. The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.100 when the application is for a major variance. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.100 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

C. Procedures. Major variances shall be approved through the general hearing examiner review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.100 except as described below.

D. Referral to the Planning Commission. Major variance applications shall be processed as set forth in BIMC 2.16.100 except that prior to a final decision the director or the hearing examiner may refer a project to the planning commission for review and recommendation.

E. Decision Criteria.

1. A major variance may be approved or approved with conditions if:

a. The variance is consistent with all other provisions of this code, except those provisions that are subject to the variance, and is in accord with the comprehensive plan;

b. The need for a variance has not arisen from previous actions taken or proposed by the applicant;

c. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, but that is denied to the property in question because of special circumstances on the property in question, and will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity in which the property is located;

d. The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and

e. The variance is requested because of special circumstances related to the size, shape, topography, trees, groundcover, location or surroundings of the subject property, or factors necessary for the successful installation of a solar energy system such as a particular orientation of a building for the purposes of providing solar access.

2. If no reasonable conditions can be imposed that ensure the application meets the decision criteria of the BIMC, then the application shall be denied. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.125 Preliminary long subdivisions.

A. Purpose. This section provides a procedure for review and approval of preliminary long subdivision applications in compliance with the provisions of RCW Title 58, BIMC Title 17, and other applicable provisions of Washington State law and this municipal code.

B. Applicability. This procedure applies to all applications for preliminary long subdivisions. Long subdivisions involve the division or redivision of land into more than four lots.

C. General Procedures.

1. Long subdivisions shall be approved through the quasi-judicial hearing examiner approval procedures described in BIMC 2.16.100 except as described below.

2. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for a long subdivision. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

3. Vesting. A proposed long subdivision shall be considered under the subdivision ordinance, zoning or other land use control ordinances, and the State Environmental Policy Act in effect at the time a fully completed application for preliminary approval of the subdivision has been submitted to the city. The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by the administrative manual.

D. Review Procedures – Proposal Stage. Review of long subdivision proposals shall include all of the following in the order listed:

1. Preapplication Conference. The applicant shall participate in a preapplication conference in accordance with the provisions and requirements in BIMC 2.16.020.I.

4. Design Guidance Review. The design guidance review will be held at a meeting of the design review board. The design guidance review meeting is intended to provide input and guidance to an applicant that the proposed project is responding adequately to the Design for Bainbridge standards and guidelines, including recommendations for how the project could be revised to achieve greater consistency. The applicant shall also make known the potential need and rationale for any departure from the design standards and guidelines. The design submittal requirements are described in the Design for Bainbridge appendices and the administrative manual and include documentation of the four-step design process, schematic design, and completed subdivision design guidelines checklist. The four-step design process includes:

d. Draw Lot Lines. Upon completion of the preceding three steps, draw lot lines to delineate the boundaries of individual lots.

Additional design guidance review may be required if significant project changes occur after the initial design guidance review.

E. Review Procedures – Application Stage. Review of long subdivision applications shall include all of the following:

1. Application. An applicant may submit an application for a long subdivision at any time after completion of the required steps in subsection D of this section or approval of a waiver in accordance with BIMC 2.16.020.I.3 or I.4 or subsection D.1 of this section. The applicant shall submit a complete application with all required submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

2. Review by Kitsap Public Health District.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the health district.

3. Review by City Engineer.

a. Upon receipt of the application and determination of completeness, the director shall transmit a copy of the application to the city engineer.

4. Review and Recommendation by Planning Commission.

a. The purpose of the planning commission review and recommendation meeting is to review a proposed project for consistency with applicable design guidelines, BIMC Titles 17 and 18, and the comprehensive plan.

b. The planning commission shall consider the application at a public meeting where public comments will be taken. The planning commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions or denial of an application. In making a recommendation, the planning commission shall consider the applicable decision criteria, all other applicable law, and the recommendation of the design review board. If the applicable criteria are not met, the planning commission shall recommend that the proposal be modified or denied.

c. The design review board’s recommendation shall hold substantial weight in the consideration of the application by the planning commission. Any deviation from the recommendation shall be documented in their written findings of facts and conclusions.

d. The planning commission will forward its written findings of facts and conclusions, their determination of the project’s consistency with the comprehensive plan, and their recommendation, including any conditions attached by the planning commission and design review board, to the staff planner. The planning commission’s written findings, conclusions, and recommendation will be included in the staff report transmitted to the director.

e. A planning commission recommendation is not a final decision and therefore there is no appeal of the recommendation.

5. Review by Director.

a. The director shall review the application materials, information provided by the health district and city engineer, staff report, and the recommendations of the planning commission and shall prepare a report to the hearing examiner recommending approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the application.

6. Review and Public Hearing with Hearing Examiner.

b. The hearing examiner shall make compliance with the recommendations of the planning commission a condition of approval, unless the hearing examiner concludes that the recommendations:

i. Reflect inconsistent application of design guidelines or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii Exceed the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflict with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflict with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

c. The hearing examiner shall adopt a planning commission recommendation of denial of an application unless the hearing examiner concludes that the recommendation:

i. Reflects inconsistent application of design guidelines, the comprehensive plan, or any applicable provisions of this code;

ii. Exceeds the authority of the design review board or planning commission;

iii. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the project; or

iv. Conflicts with requirements of local, state, or federal law.

F. Decision Criteria for Preliminary Long Subdivisions. The hearing examiner’s decision shall include written findings of fact that the application meets all the requirements of the following subsections. The preliminary long subdivision may be approved or approved with modification if:

1. The applicable subdivision design guidelines and development standards of BIMC Titles 17 and 18 are satisfied; and

2. The preliminary long subdivision makes appropriate provisions for the public health, safety and general and public use and interest, including those items listed in RCW 58.17.110; and

3. The preliminary long subdivision has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the four-step design process; and

4. Any portion of a long subdivision that contains a critical area, as defined in Chapter 16.20 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

5. Any portion of a long subdivision within shoreline jurisdiction, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, conforms to all requirements of that chapter; and

6. The city engineer’s recommendation contains determinations that the following decision criteria are met and such determinations are supported by substantial evidence within the record:

a. The long subdivision meets the requirements of Chapter 17.12 BIMC related to streets and pedestrian access, and water, stormwater, and septic facilities; and

b. The long subdivision conforms to regulations concerning drainage in Chapters 15.19, 15.20 and 15.21 BIMC; and

c. The long subdivision will not cause an undue burden on the drainage basin or water quality and will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of properties downstream; and

d. If the long subdivision will rely on public water or sewer services, there is capacity in the water or sewer system (as applicable) to serve the long subdivision, and the applicable service(s) can be made available at the site; and

7. The proposal complies with all applicable provisions of this code; Chapters 36.70A and 58.17 RCW; and all other applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations; and

8. The proposal is consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan; and

9. Appropriate provisions for maintenance in perpetuity of natural and/or community space have been made; and

10. The preliminary subdivision design is compatible with the physical characteristics of the proposed subdivision site.

G. Repealed by Ord. 2018-20.

H. Repealed by Ord. 2018-20.

I. Civil Plan Review.

1. The applicant shall submit civil engineering plans and designs to the city for review by city staff and acceptance by the city engineers before submitting an application for final long subdivision approval.

2. No construction on or to the site may take place until civil engineering plans have been received and approved by the city.

3. After the preliminary long subdivision and civil engineering plans have been approved, the subdivider is authorized to develop the subdivision’s facilities and improvements in strict accordance with the standards established by this title, related standards in BIMC Titles 17 and 18, and any conditions imposed.

J. Phased Development of Long Subdivision.

1. Portions of an approved preliminary long subdivision may be processed separately for recording in phases; provided, that (a) the phases were identified in the preliminary long subdivision; and (b) recording of phases is consistent with the conditions of preliminary approval and will meet all the requirements for final approval if subsequent phases are not recorded.

2. Prior to the approval of a phase of a final subdivision, the city engineer or the director may require assurance devices submitted for construction of improvements in subsequent phases if such improvements are necessary for the phases being approved to meet requirements of the subdivision and other applicable ordinances.

K. Modification of Preliminary Long Subdivision.

1. An alteration of an approved preliminary long subdivision that does not change the general plat layout, increase off-site impacts of the subdivision, or modify a provision or condition that was a matter of dispute by any party during the preliminary approval process may be made by the director after notice and opportunity to comment are provided to the applicant and all parties of record. The director shall review and approve or disapprove the request for modification following the process set forth in BIMC 2.16.030.

2. Other modifications to an approved long subdivision must be reviewed in accordance with the process for a new subdivision application and shall be approved consistent with the procedures and requirements of this chapter.

3. The following exemptions shall not constitute changes in the preliminary long subdivision approval and do not require further review as provided for under subsection K.1 or K.2 of this section:

a. Engineering detail, unless the proposed detail modifies or eliminates features specifically required as an element of the preliminary long subdivision approval. For purposes of this section, “engineering detail” shall mean minor changes to proposed road or lot grading or drainage design that do not significantly affect the location of those facilities, and minor changes to locations of utility pipes, swales, or wires that do not significantly affect their visibility from adjacent roads or properties, and similar minor changes;

b. Minor changes in lot lines or lot dimensions; or

c. Minor alterations regarding homesite location and/or open space usage. (Ord. 2021-12 § 7, 2021; Ord. 2021-03 § 7, 2021; Ord. 2018-20 § 11 (Exh. F), 2018; Ord. 2017-02 § 7, 2017; Ord. 2011-21 § 5, 2011)

2.16.130 Quasi-judicial review by city council – In general.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to describe those general procedures that apply whenever state law or the BIMC requires a quasi-judicial decision by city council on a land use matter.

B. Applicability. This section applies each time a provision of the BIMC authorizes a final decision by the city council for a land use application including without limitation site-specific rezoning or a long subdivision.

C. Procedures. A land use application requiring a city council decision shall be reviewed as follows:

1. Environmental Review. For a land use application subject to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 16.04 BIMC, the SEPA threshold determination shall be issued and comment period shall be completed prior to a public hearing.

2. Hearing Examiner Recommendation. A land use application requiring a city council decision also provides opportunity for the hearing examiner to make a recommendation to the city council prior to the final decision. The hearing examiner will consider the land use application at a public hearing following the procedures of BIMC 2.16.100.C and applicable provisions of BIMC 2.16.020.

3. Single Report. The hearing examiner shall prepare a single, consolidated report setting forth all the recommendations and decisions made on the application as of the date of the report. The report shall state any mitigation required or proposed under the development regulations or as required by SEPA, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and shall include the SEPA. The report and the documents on which a decision was made shall be presented to the city council.

D. City Council Public Meeting. The city council shall hold a public meeting to consider the land use application prior to issuing a decision. Notice of city council consideration of recommendations from the hearing examiner shall be posted in the official posting places of the city.

E. Elements to Be Considered. The city council shall consider the following in deciding upon an application:

1. The contents of the application; and

2. The minutes of any public hearing on the application and any written material submitted as part of the public hearing process; and

3. The recommendation of the applicable department director; and

4. The recommendation of the hearing examiner; and

5. Any testimony presented at the public hearing; and

6. The decision criteria listed in each section of this code under which the application was made.

F. City Council Action. The city council shall take one of the following actions:

1. Adopt an ordinance or resolution, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, approving the proposal; or

2. Adopt an ordinance or resolution, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, approving the proposal with conditions; or

3. Adopt an ordinance or resolution, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, denying the proposal; or

4. Refer the proposal back to the hearing examiner for further proceedings. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.140 Site-specific rezones.

A. Purpose. This chapter establishes the process and criteria for changing the zoning classification of specific property from one zoning designation to another, or to change conditions imposed in a development agreement. A property rezone may reflect changed circumstances or new land use needs and shall be consistent with the city’s current comprehensive plan.

B. Applicability. This procedure shall apply whenever one or more private property owners or the city applies for an amendment of the official zoning map to redesignate one or more parcels of property from one zone district designation to another.

C. Procedure.

1. Site-specific rezones shall be approved through the general quasi-judicial city council review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.130 except as described below.

2. The provisions of this section supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.130 when the application is for a site-specific rezone. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.130 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

D. Who May Apply.

1. Any owner or authorized agent, or group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly and representing at least 75 percent of the assessed valuation of the subject property or properties, or their authorized agent(s), may apply for a site-specific rezone. In the case of a site-specific rezone initiated by a property owner(s), the applicant shall pay the fee for a rezone application set forth in the administrative manual.

2. The city may apply for a rezone of one or more properties as necessary to improve consistency between the official zoning map and the comprehensive plan. In order to maintain consistency between the zoning map and a successful city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment, the owner(s) of the property or properties involved in the rezone shall not be required to pay the rezoning fee.

E. Application. An application for a rezone may be filed only if the proposal is consistent with the Bainbridge Island comprehensive plan. If it is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, a comprehensive plan amendment shall be filed concurrently with the rezone. The applicant shall pay the fees for any rezone application and any comprehensive plan amendment required to maintain consistency with the rezone. The city may defer review of a rezone proposal if that area is scheduled for comprehensive plan review or review of the comprehensive plan is reasonably likely to occur within the following year.

F. Public Hearing Before Hearing Examiner. Within 30 days after receipt of a complete application for a site-specific rezone, the department shall forward its findings and recommendations to the hearing examiner, who shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the hearings procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.130.

G. Council Action.

1. Within 30 days after receipt of the recommendation of the hearing examiner on a site-specific rezone, the council, in accordance with the procedures set forth in BIMC 2.16.130, shall, in a public meeting, make a decision on the rezone or remand the application to the hearing examiner.

2. If the council approves a site-specific rezone, the council shall adopt an ordinance that makes the appropriate changes on the official zoning map as required in Chapter 18.03 BIMC.

3. The council may reverse an earlier approval of a site-specific rezone by approving a subsequent rezone of the property back to its former zone district as provided in this section and related provisions in BIMC 2.16.020. However, if the applicant has defaulted or failed to perform his or her duties under a development agreement as described in subsection I of this section, only subsections D through F of this section shall apply.

H. Decision Criteria. The following criteria shall be considered in any review for a site-specific rezone in order to establish a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions:

1. The site-specific rezone will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the immediate vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and

2. The site-specific rezone is warranted because of changed circumstances and the proposed designation is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property, or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zone, and the proposed designation is appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; and

3. The subject property is suitable for development in general conformance with zoning standards under the proposed zoning designation; and

4. The property will be served by adequate public facilities including roads, water, fire protection, sewage disposal facilities and storm drainage facilities for the intensity to which it is being rezoned; and

5. The site-specific rezone is in accord with the comprehensive plan; and

6. The site-specific rezone complies with all other applicable criteria and standards of the city; and

7. The site-specific rezone would not devalue surrounding or nearby property; and

8. The site-specific rezone will not result in an adverse environmental consequence.

I. Development Agreements.

1. Any applicant for a rezone of any property shall be subject to the signing of a development agreement as a condition to the council’s granting the rezone when the council finds that such an agreement is necessary to protect the public health, safety or general community welfare. Whenever such an agreement is signed, it shall be recorded with the Kitsap County auditor and officially entered as a covenant upon the land. Any purchaser of such property is subject to the development agreement. The applicant may be required to pay the cost of the preparation of the development agreement.

2. When the justification for a site-specific rezone includes an intended use or development of the property, a development agreement shall be used to require the applicant to proceed with specific development consistent with the rezone within a time period agreed upon by the city and the developer. In that case, upon the expiration of the agreed-upon time limit after the rezone approval, if construction is not underway, the director shall institute proceedings to rezone the property to its prior classification; provided, however, that if the landowner, within that agreed-upon time period, demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director that he or she has in good faith attempted to begin construction as contemplated by the rezone, the director may defer instituting the proceedings for up to one year. If the latest rezone classification is found to be the most appropriate for the property, the director may elect not to institute the rezone proceedings. The time period prescribed in this section shall not commence until the completion of any court challenges to the rezone. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.160 Final long subdivisions.

A. Purpose. This section provides a procedure for city council approval of final long subdivision applications in compliance with the provisions of RCW Title 58, BIMC Title 17, and other applicable provisions of Washington State law.

B. Applicability. This procedure applies to all applications for final long subdivisions, as the term “long subdivisions” is defined in Chapter 17.28 BIMC, and that definition shall prevail over the following summary. Long subdivisions generally involve the division or redivision of land into more than four lots, where some of the lots are smaller than five acres in size.

C. Procedure.

1. Final long subdivisions shall be approved through the quasi-judicial city council approval procedures described in BIMC 2.16.130 except as described below.

2. The provisions of this section shall supplement those of BIMC 2.16.020 and 2.16.030 when the application is for a final long subdivision. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of BIMC 2.16.020 or 2.16.030 and this section, the provisions of this section shall govern.

D. Vesting. A proposed final long subdivision shall be reviewed under all applicable city ordinances and the State Environmental Policy Act in effect at the time of complete application, unless a different result is required by provisions of Chapter 58.17 RCW. A later request for additional information shall not change the date on which the application is considered vested.

E. Timeline for Review of Final Plat. A final long subdivision shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant within 30 working days from the date of a complete application, unless the applicant provides written consent to an extension of such time period.

F. Submittal of Final Plat. A final plat shall be submitted containing all of the submittal requirements listed in the administrative manual.

G. Review of Final Long Subdivision.

1. The city engineer shall review the final subdivision to determine compliance with the requirements of RCW 58.17.160 and forward recommendations for approval or disapproval to the department.

2. The health district, when appropriate, shall review the final subdivision and forward recommendations for approval or disapproval to the department.

3. The director shall forward his or her recommendation for approval or disapproval to the city council, evaluating compliance with any conditions imposed on the preliminary subdivision and other applicable ordinances.

4. In accordance with RCW 58.17.140, final subdivisions shall be approved, disapproved or returned to the applicant within 30 days from the date of filing of a complete application, unless the applicant consents to an extension of the time period. The director and the city engineer shall have authority to return the application for correction or modification with a request for additional information before city council review, and city council shall have authority to return the application for correction or modification with a request for additional information during its review.

H. City Council Review and Approval of Final Long Subdivision.

1. The city council shall approve the final long subdivision if it determines:

a. That the conditions imposed through the preliminary subdivision have been met; and

b. Bonds or other assurance devices, if any, by their essential terms assure completion of all plat improvements; and

c. The requirements of state law, the BIMC, the comprehensive plan, and any other applicable ordinances in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval have been satisfied by the subdivider.

2. The city council can approve the final subdivision with minor modifications recommended by the department and the applicant.

3. If the city council approves the final subdivision, the council chair shall sign the face of the final plat to indicate the council’s approval; provided, that upon approval of the final plat the city council may direct and authorize the mayor or another council member to sign the face of the final plat to indicate the council’s approval.

4. If an applicant voluntarily sets aside more than 25 percent of the site as designated open space, that fact will be noted on the plat.

5. The original mylar of the final subdivision shall be recorded with the county auditor, and one copy with the auditor’s recording number shall be filed with the city.

I. Modification of Preliminary Long Subdivision Before Filing.

3. The following exemptions shall not constitute changes in the preliminary long subdivision approval and do not require further review as provided for under subsection I.1 or I.2 of this section:

b. Minor changes in lot lines or lot dimensions; or

c. Minor alterations regarding homesite location and/or open space usage.

J. Requirement for Filing Plat. Approved long subdivisions shall be subject to the same requirements for filing plats that apply to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.K.

K. Amendment of Disapproved Application. When an application for approval of a final long subdivision is disapproved, an applicant shall have 180 working days following the decision in which to file an amended application to remedy the matters that led to the disapproval. Upon receipt of such an amended application, the application shall be reviewed as set forth in this section. If an applicant files no such amended application within the period allowed, the application shall be considered denied.

L. Assurance of Improvements. Approved final long subdivisions shall be subject to the same provisions regarding assurance of improvements that are applicable to short subdivisions as described in BIMC 2.16.070.N.

M. Amendment to Approved Long Subdivision.

1. Proposals for alteration of a subdivision shall follow the provisions of RCW 58.17.215. Alterations of a subdivision are also subject to the provisions of RCW 64.04.175, except as described in subsection S.2 of this section.

2. The contents and procedures for minor alterations of open space and/or open space usage in an approved final long subdivision shall be administratively reviewed consistent with the procedures and requirements of BIMC 2.16.030.

N. Expiration of Final Long Subdivision. Any lot in a final long subdivision plat filed for record shall be a valid land use for a period of five years from the date of filing the final subdivision, notwithstanding any change in zoning laws. Any lot in a final plat shall be governed by the terms of approval of the final long subdivision at the time of vested application, unless a change in conditions creates a serious threat to the public health or safety. (Ord. 2011-21 § 6, 2011: Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.165 Shoreline master program administration.

A. General Purpose. The shoreline master program administrative system is designed to assign responsibilities for implementation of the master program and shoreline permit review; to prescribe an orderly process by which to review proposals, exemptions and permit applications; and to ensure that all persons affected by the master program are treated in a fair and equitable manner.

B. Administrative Responsibilities.

1. The city of Bainbridge Island director of planning and community development or his/her designee, herein known as the administrator, is responsible for the administration of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) (Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor) and the shoreline master program (SMP) of the city and is vested with the following:

a. Overall administrative responsibility for the master program;

b. Authority to grant statements of exemption from shoreline permits;

c. Authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline substantial development permits and permit revisions in accordance with the policies and regulations of the master program; provided, that the decision may be appealed in accordance with subsection I of this section);

d. Authority to decide whether a shoreline variance permit application is minor, qualifying it for administrative decision; if the shoreline variance is not minor, it will be processed following the procedures in subsection G of this section;

e. Authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny shoreline variance permit applications determined to be minor; provided, that the decision may be appealed in accordance with subsection I of this section;

f. Authority to refer any application for a shoreline substantial development permit or a shoreline variance or conditional use to the planning commission for a recommendation; and

g. Authority to determine compliance with Chapter 43.21C RCW, State Environmental Policy Act, or its successor.

2. The duties and responsibilities of the administrator shall include:

a. Specifying the required application forms and submittal requirements including the type, details, and number of copies for exemptions, substantial development, conditional use, and shoreline variance permits. At a minimum, the application shall include the information required in WAC 173-14-110 or its successor.

b. Advising interested citizens and applicants of the goals, policies, regulations, and procedures of this program.

c. Making administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this program and the Shoreline Management Act.

d. Determining whether a shoreline exemption, shoreline substantial development permit, shoreline conditional use permit, or shoreline variance permit is required.

e. Collecting applicable fees and determining that all applications and necessary related information are provided.

f. Making field inspections.

g. Conducting a thorough review and analysis of permit applications and related materials, and making written findings and conclusions.

h. Making decisions pursuant to subsection B.1 of this section.

i. Referring applications to the planning commission for recommendations when requested by the applicant or when the director deems appropriate.

j. Submitting applications and all relevant information and materials along with written findings and recommendations to the hearing examiner pursuant to subsection B.1 of this section.

k. Providing technical and administrative assistance to the council, as needed, for effective and equitable implementation of this program and the Act.

l. Conducting ongoing monitoring of the master program’s effectiveness, identifying problem areas, and recommending program improvements.

m. Proposing amendments to this program as deemed necessary to more effectively and equitably achieve its goals and policies.

n. Seeking remedies for alleged violations of this program, the provisions of the Act, or of conditions of any approved shoreline permit.

o. Coordinating information with affected agencies.

p. Forwarding shoreline permits to Ecology for filing or appropriate action.

C. Permit or Exemption Required Before Undertaking Development or Activity.

1. Permits Required.

a. A development, use, or activity shall not be undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor) and the shoreline master program unless it is consistent with the policy and procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, applicable state regulations and the shoreline master program.

b. Any person wishing to undertake substantial development or exempt development on shorelines shall first make application to the administrator for an appropriate shoreline permit or a statement of exemption, and obtain all approvals, following the applicable procedures pursuant to this title.

c. A substantial development shall not be undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor) and the shoreline master program unless an appropriate shoreline permit has been obtained, the appeal period has been completed, any appeals have been resolved, and/or the applicant has been given permission by the proper authority to proceed pursuant to the procedures in this title.

d. If a development, use or activity is listed as a conditional use by the shoreline master program, such development, use, or activity shall not be undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor) and the master program unless a shoreline conditional use permit has been obtained, the appeal period has been completed, any appeals have been resolved, and/or the applicant has been given permission to proceed by the proper authority pursuant to the procedures of this title.

e. If a development, use, or activity cannot comply with the regulations of the master program, a shoreline variance must be obtained before commencement of development or construction, or beginning the use or activity pursuant to the procedures of this title.

f. If a project includes uses or activities that include permitted and conditional uses, or a major shoreline variance is required, all shoreline permits shall be heard and decided by the hearing examiner using the procedures, requirements, and criteria for a conditional use and/or shoreline variance pursuant to the procedures of this title.

g. See WAC 173-14-050 or its successor for a description of how the permit requirements apply to developments undertaken prior to the passage of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971.

h. See WAC 173-14-062 or its successor for a description of how the permit requirements apply to federal agency projects.

2. Statement of Exemption. If it has been determined by the administrator that a proposed development or activity is exempt from shoreline permits pursuant to WAC 173-27-040, a statement of exemption shall be required following the procedures provided in this chapter. No exempt development, use or activity shall be undertaken within the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor) and the master program unless a statement of exemption has been obtained from the administrator and all conditions are met.

D. Applications. The administrator shall provide the necessary application forms for statements of exemption and for permits for shoreline substantial development, shoreline conditional use, and shoreline variance. The application shall provide, at a minimum, the information required by WAC 173-14-110 or its successor along with the information required on the permit application.

E. Statement of Exemption from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.

1. Purpose and Applicability. Certain development activities identified in WAC 173-27-040 are exempt from the requirement to secure a shoreline substantial development permit; however, a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit may still be required. State law requires that exemptions be construed narrowly. Exemption from substantial development permit procedures does not constitute exemption from compliance with the policies and use regulations of the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW), the provisions of the master program, or applicable city, state or federal permit requirements. Applicants shall have the burden to demonstrate that the proposal complies with the requirements for the exemptions sought as described under WAC 173-27-040 or its successor. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then a substantial development permit is required for the entire proposed development project, pursuant to WAC 173-27-040(d) or its successor.

2. Procedure.

a. In the case of an emergency, the administrator may waive this requirement and authorize the use or activity orally or in writing. If authorized orally, the applicant shall submit a required application as soon as possible.

b. The administrator shall decide requests for a statement of exemption based on WAC 173-27-040 or its successor and the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.

c. Before determining that a proposal is exempt, the administrator may conduct a site inspection to ensure that the proposal meets the exemption criteria.

d. Exempt developments and activities shall comply with the Shoreline Management Act and the master program. The administrator shall condition statements of exemption to ensure the exempt development or activity complies with the Shoreline Management Act and the master program.

e. In the case of development subject to the policies and regulations of the master program, but exempt from the substantial development permit process, shoreline management requirements may be made conditions of the building permits and/or other permits and approvals. For example, the approval of a building permit for a single-family residence can be conditioned with provisions from the master program.

f. Whenever a development falls within the exemptions stated in WAC 173-27-040 or its successor, a letter exempting the development from the substantial development permit requirements of Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor shall be given to the applicant and the Department of Ecology.

3. Decision Criteria.

a. Exemptions shall be narrowly construed. When making the determination, the administrator shall grant a statement of exemption only when the development proposed is consistent with the following:

i. The applicable policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971; Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended; and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC or their successors;

ii. The goals, policies, objectives and regulations of the city of Bainbridge Island shoreline master program;

iii. The city of Bainbridge Island comprehensive plan and municipal code; all other applicable law; and any related documents and approvals.

4. Action of Administrator. The administrator may grant, deny, or conditionally approve the shoreline exemption request. The approval or conditional approval will become conditions of approval for any related development permit, and no development permit will be issued unless it is consistent with the statement of exemption. A copy of the city’s statement of exemption shall be filed with the Department of Ecology.

5. Application Time Frame. The approval for a shoreline exemption shall be the same as the expiration date of the development permit. All conditions of the approval for a shoreline exemption shall be included in the conditions of approval granted for the development permit.

6. Appeal. Any person aggrieved by the administrator’s determination on a shoreline exemption request may be appealed, except as stated below, using the applicable appeal provision of subsection I of this section. If a proposed development activity also requires approval through other permit procedures, any appeal of a shoreline exemption requires will be heard as part of that other process.

F. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.

1. Purpose and Applicability. Substantial development is any development of which the total cost or fair market value exceeds the amount established by WAC 173-27-040 (see city’s fee schedule) or any development which materially interferes with the normal public use of the waters or shorelines of the state, except those exempted developments set forth in subsection E of this section, consistent with WAC 173-27-040 or its successor.

2. Procedure. Shoreline substantial development permits shall be approved through the general administrative review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.030 except as described below. Application materials for shoreline substantial development permits can be found in the Administrative Manual.

a. Public Comment. The city shall not make a decision on the permit until after the end of the comment period.

i. A 30-day public comment period shall be given for shoreline permits.

ii. The public comment period shall be 20 days for substantial development permits for a limited utility extension or for erosion control measures to protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures. (See shoreline master program definition of “limited utility extension,” Chapter 16.12 BIMC.)

iii. SEPA review shall be conducted as provided by Chapter 16.04 BIMC, Environmental Policy, or its successor. The required SEPA notices should be included with the shoreline notices when possible. The SEPA documents should be circulated with permit documents where possible.

3. Decision and Criteria. After the 30-day comment period has ended, the administrator shall issue a decision on the application.

a. The administrator may approve, approve with modifications, or deny any substantial development permit.

b. Decision Criteria.

i. In making the decision, the administrator shall grant a substantial development permit only when the development proposed is consistent with the following:

(A) The applicable policies, guidelines, and regulations of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971; Chapter 90.58 RCW, as amended; and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC or their successors;

(B) The goals, policies, objectives and regulations of the city of Bainbridge Island shoreline master program;

(C) The city of Bainbridge Island comprehensive plan and municipal code; all other applicable law; and any related documents and approvals.

ii. The administrator shall also consider whether the cumulative impact of additional past and future requests that reasonably may be made in accordance with the comprehensive plan, or similar planning document, for like actions in the area will result in substantial adverse effects on the shoreline environment and shoreline resources.

c. The applicant(s) shall have the burden of proving that a proposed development is consistent with the approval criteria and master program policies and regulations (WAC 90.58.140(7) or its successor).

d. The administrator may require additional information if necessary.

e. The administrator shall issue a written decision which contains the following:

i. A statement indicating the application is approved, approved with modifications, or denied;

ii. A statement of any conditions included as part of an approval or approval with modifications;

iii. A statement of facts upon which the decision, including any conditions, is based, and the conclusions derived from those facts; and

iv. A statement of the right of any person to appeal the decision of the administrator pursuant to subsection I of this section.

f. The administrator may refer the application to the planning commission for review and recommendations prior to deciding the application. The application shall also be referred to the planning commission for a recommendation at the request of the applicant. The planning commission makes its recommendation following its review of the proposal, the environmental checklist, and the tentative threshold determination.

g. The permit, whether approved or denied, shall be in the form required by WAC 173-27-120 or its successor.

4. Distribution/Notification of Administrative Decision.

a. The administrator shall mail the applicant the original of the completed permit form and the findings and conclusions.

b. All persons who submitted comments on the application during the comment period (see subsection F.2 of this section) and anyone else requesting notification in writing shall be notified in a timely manner of the decision and shall be mailed a copy of the decision. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-130, the decision shall be filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington State Office of the Attorney General.

5. Application Time Frame.

a. Substantial Progress.

i. Substantial progress towards completion of a permitted activity shall be undertaken within two years after approval of the permit (WAC 173-27-090 or its successor). See definition of “substantial progress” in BIMC 16.12.080.

ii. The administrator may, with prior notice to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology, grant one extension of the two-year time period for substantial progress for up to one year based on reasonable factors which would justify the extension, including the inability to expeditiously obtain other governmental permits which are required prior to the commencement of construction (WAC 173-27-090 or its successor). The request for the extension must be filed with the administrator before the end of the time limit.

b. Five-Year Permit Authorization.

i. The authorization granted by an approved permit to construct any structure or conduct any use or activity shall terminate five years after the date the permit is approved by the city, except that the permit may be authorized for a lesser period of fixed duration.

ii. Where an approved permit authorizes construction, the use and maintenance of the structure or facility may continue after the five-year period, provided the structure was completed during the five-year time limit or any approved extension.

iii. Where an approved permit authorizes a use or activity which does not require a structure, such as mining or maintenance dredging, the use or activity shall cease at the end of the five-year limit or any extension as granted in subsection F.5.b.iv of this section.

iv. The administrator may, with prior notice to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology, grant one time extension of up to one year based on reasonable factors which would justify the extension. The request for the extension must be filed with the administrator before the end of the time limit.

c. The application time limits shall not include the time during which an activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of reasonably related administrative appeals or litigation.

d. When a permit is conditioned, the conditions shall be satisfied prior to occupancy or use of a structure, or prior to commencement of a nonstructural activity, provided an alternative compliance limit may be specified in the permit.

e. Revisions to permits may be authorized after the original permit has expired under subsection F.5.b of this section, provided this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements (WAC 173-27-060 or its successor).

6. Adjustments to Approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.

a. Minor adjustments to an approved shoreline substantial development permit may be made after review by the administrator. The applicant must submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. If the administrator determines that the revisions proposed are within the scope and intent of the original permit, consistent with WAC 173-27-100 or its successor, the administrator may approve the revision as a minor adjustment.

b. A minor adjustment entails a revision that is within the scope and intent of the original permit, which means all of the following:

i. No additional over-water construction is involved, except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by 500 square feet or 10 percent, whichever is less;

ii. Ground area coverage and height is not increased more than 10 percent;

iii. Additional structures located landward and not within required buffer or setback areas do not exceed a total of 250 square feet;

iv. The revision does not authorize development to exceed height, setback, lot coverage, or any other requirement of the city of Bainbridge Island shoreline master program;

v. Additional landscaping is consistent with conditions, if any, attached to the original permit and with the applicable master program provisions;

vi. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and

vii. No adverse, environmental impact will be caused by the project revision (WAC 173-27-064(2)(a) through (g) as amended).

c. If the sum of the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions do not meet the criteria above, the revision shall be reviewed through a major adjustment process. This shall be processed in the same manner as a new shoreline substantial development permit application. If the adjustment involves a conditional use or shoreline variance which was conditioned by the Department of Ecology, the adjustment also must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Ecology (WAC 173-27-064 or its successor).

d. A city or the Department of Ecology decision on a minor or major adjustment to the permit may be appealed within 21 days of such decision, in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 or its successor, and WAC 173-27-064 or its successor.

e. Construction allowed by the revised permit that is not authorized under the original permit is undertaken at the applicant’s risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.

7. Appeal. The decision of the administrator may be appealed to the hearing examiner following the procedures of subsection I of this section.

G. Shoreline Variance, Minor or Major. This subsection applies to all applications for shoreline variances.

1. Purpose. The purposes 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. Applicability.

a. The minor variance process may be used for minor deviations from zoning standards in BIMC Title 18 and Chapter 16.12 BIMC as determined by the director. Minor projects should be limited to: (i) projects that are exempt from review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), or (ii) proposals for less than a 25 percent encroachment in required yards, or (iii) proposals of less than a 25 percent increase in lot coverage. All other variances shall be considered a major variance and processed as described in subsection G.2.b of this section.

b. This process may also be used for minor variation(s) from the engineering requirements of the adopted city of Bainbridge Island engineering and development standards if the requested variation will further the purposes of the BIMC and is approved by the department director, after recommendation by the city engineer and/or the fire marshal.

c. This procedure is not available to obtain variances from subdivision standards in BIMC Title 17 or to obtain variances from BIMC Title 18 zoning standards cross-referenced in BIMC Title 17 as part of a short subdivision, long subdivision, or large lot subdivision approval or amendment process, except for those engineering standards covered by subsection B.2 of this section.

d. This procedure is not available to allow the siting for an accessory dwelling unit where it would not otherwise be permitted.

e. A variance shall not be granted solely because of the presence of nonconformities in the vicinity of the subject site.

f. The project involves only one project.

g. The project has not generated a significant public input.

3. Procedure.

a. Minor Shoreline Variance. The administrator shall review a minor shoreline variance application following procedures in subsection F.2 of this section.

b. Major Shoreline Variance. Applications for shoreline variances that are more intensive than the minor shoreline variance as determined by the administrator shall be decided by the hearing examiner following the procedures in BIMC 2.16.100, or its successor, supplemented by the following provisions:

i. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be the final city decision, and may be appealed in accordance with subsection I of this section.

c. Notice of Application and Comment Period. In addition to the notice of application content established in BIMC 2.16.020.M, notice of application for shoreline variance permits must also contain the information required under WAC 173-27-110.

d. Notice of Hearing. When a public hearing is required, the procedures of BIMC 2.16.020.M.5 shall apply.

e. The administrator shall mail the final city decision to the applicant, the State Department of Ecology, and the State Attorney General. The permit must be received by Ecology within eight days of the date of the decision. Within eight days of the date of the decision, the administrator shall also mail the decision to any person who requested notice of the decision.

f. The State Department of Ecology shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all shoreline variances approved by the city. Ecology’s decision must be made within 30 days of the date the permit and other information required by WAC 173-14-090 or its successor are received by Ecology and the Washington State Attorney General. Ecology will send a letter to the applicant and the city informing them of the decision. Upon receipt of the Ecology decision, the administrator shall notify those interested persons who requested notification.

4. Decision Criteria. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-170 and 173-27-210 or their successors, the criteria below constitute the minimum criteria for review and approval of a shoreline variance permit:

a. Shoreline variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), and/or landward of any wetland, as defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, may be authorized, provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

i. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;

ii. The hardship described in subsection G.4.a.i of this section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant’s own actions;

iii. The design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;

iv. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;

v. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and

vi. The public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.

b. Shoreline variance permits, where the development will be located either waterward of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or within or within any wetland, defined in Chapter 16.12 BIMC, may be approved or approved with conditions or modifications subject to approval by Ecology, if the decision maker finds the applicant has demonstrated compliance with all of the following criteria:

i. The strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;

ii. The proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsections G.4.a.ii through vi of this section; and

iii. The public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.

c. In the granting of all shoreline variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if shoreline variances were granted to other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the shoreline variances should also remain consistent with the policies of Chapter 90.58 RCW or its successor and should not produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.

5. Time Frame. Construction and activities authorized by a shoreline variance are subject to the time limitations in subsection F.5 of this section (WAC 173-27-090 or its successor).

6. Adjustments to Approved Shoreline Variance.

a. A permit revision is required whenever an applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that approved as a shoreline variance. The applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit and demonstrating compliance with the following minimum standards pursuant to Chapter 173-27 WAC.

b. If the proposed changes are determined by the administrator to be within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with the Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW), the shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC), and the shoreline master program, the revisions may be approved as a minor adjustment.

c. A minor adjustment entails a revision that is within the scope and intent of the original permit, which means all of the following:

i. No additional over-water construction is involved except that a pier, dock or floating structure may be increased by 10 percent or 500 square feet, whichever is less, over that approved under the original approval;

ii. Ground area coverage and/or height may be increased a maximum of 10 percent over that approved under the original approval; provided, that the revised approval does not authorize development to exceed the height, impervious surface, setback or any other requirements of this program except as authorized under a variance granted for the original development;

iii. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original approval and with this program;

iv. The use authorized pursuant to the original approval is not changed; and

v. The revision will not cause adverse environmental impacts.

d. Revisions to shoreline permits and statements of exemption may be authorized after the original authorization has expired. Revisions made after the expiration of the original approval shall be limited to changes that are consistent with this program and that would not require a permit under this program. If the proposed change is a substantial development as defined by this program, then a new permit is required. The provisions of this subsection shall not be used to extend the time requirements or to authorize substantial development beyond the time limits or scope of the original approval.

e. A new permit shall be required if the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions in combination would constitute development beyond the scope and intent of the original approval.

f. Upon approval of a revision, the decision maker shall file a copy of the revised site plan and a detailed description of the authorized changes to the original permit with the Department of Ecology together with a final ruling and findings supporting the decision based on the requirements of this section. In addition, the decision maker shall notify parties of record of the action.

g. If the proposed revision is to a development for which a shoreline variance was issued, the decision maker shall submit the revision to the Department of Ecology for approval with conditions or denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this subsection. Under the requirements of WAC 173-27-110(6), the Department shall render and transmit to the decision maker and the applicant/proponent its final decision within 15 days of the date of the Department’s receipt of the submittal from the decision maker. The decision maker shall notify parties on record of the Department’s final decision.

7. Appeal of Decision on Shoreline Variance. The decision of the hearing examiner may be appealed to the following the procedures of subsection I of this section.

H. Shoreline Conditional Use Permits. Where a development includes several uses or activities and one or more uses or activities require a shoreline conditional use permit, all uses and activities shall be processed and decided following the shoreline conditional use procedures.

1. Purpose. The purpose of a shoreline conditional use permit is to allow greater flexibility in applying the use regulations of the master program in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 or its successor; provided, that shoreline conditional use permits should also be granted in a circumstance where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of state policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020 or its successor. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the permit by the city or the State Department of Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use. Uses which are specifically prohibited by the master program may not be authorized with approval of a shoreline conditional use permit.

2. Applicability.

a. Minor Conditional Use. As determined by the director, this procedure shall apply to (i) all minor conditional uses identified in Chapter 16.12 BIMC; (ii) where the director determines that the anticipated impacts of those conditional uses will be minor or minimal; or (iii) uses that are clearly consistent and compatible with other uses in the same zone or vicinity.

b. Major Conditional Use. As determined by the administrator, a major conditional use permit shall be secured from the city prior to establishing or expanding a use according to situations that include, but are not limited to: (i) the proposed use or expansion covers 50 percent or greater of the total lot area; (ii) the proposed use is accessed by a local or private road; (iii) the proposed use or expansion generates more than 36 total trips per day; (iv) the proposed use or expansion contains four or more units in a multifamily dwelling; or (v) requests for additional nonresidential building height pursuant to Chapter 16.12 BIMC.

3. Procedure.

a. Application. An application for a shoreline conditional use permit shall be submitted on a form provided by the city. The application should be accompanied by maps, a completed environmental checklist, applicable fees, and any other information specified in the master program or requested by the administrator.

b. Minor Shoreline Conditional Use.

i. The administrator shall review a minor shoreline conditional use application following procedures in subsection F.2 of this section.

c. Minor Shoreline Conditional Use. Applications for shoreline conditional uses that are more intensive than the minor shoreline conditional use as determined by the administrator shall be decided by the hearing examiner following the procedures in BIMC 2.16.100, or its successor, supplemented by the following provisions:

i. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be the final city decision, and may be appealed in accordance with subsection I of this section.

d. Notice of Application and Comment Period. In addition to the notice of application content established in BIMC 2.16.020.M, notice of application for shoreline conditional use permits must also contain the information required under WAC 173-27-110.

e. Notice of Hearing. When a public hearing is required, the procedures of BIMC 2.16.020.M.5 shall apply.

f. The administrator shall mail the final city decision to the applicant, the State Department of Ecology, and the State Attorney General. The permit must be received by the State Department of Ecology within eight days of the date of the decision. Within eight days of the date of the decision, the administrator shall also mail the decision to any person who requested notice of the decision.

g. The State Department of Ecology shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny all shoreline conditional use permits approved by the city. The State Department of Ecology’s decision must be made within 30 days of the date the permit and other information required by WAC 173-14-090 or its successor are received by the State Department of Ecology and the Washington State Attorney General. The State Department of Ecology will send a letter to the applicant and the city informing them of the decision. Upon receipt of the State Department of Ecology decision, the administrator shall notify those interested persons who requested notification.

4. Decision Criteria – Conditional Use Permit.

a. Uses classified as conditional uses may be authorized; provided, that pursuant to WAC 173-27-140 and 173-27-160 or their successors, the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:

i. The proposed use will be consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 or its successor and the policies of the master program;

ii. The proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of the public shorelines;

iii. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master program;

iv. The proposed use will cause no unreasonably adverse effects to the shoreline environment designation in which it is located;

v. The public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect (WAC 173-14-140(1) or its successor); and

vi. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the zoning ordinance (BIMC Title 18).

b. Other uses which are not listed in the master program as permitted or conditional uses and are also not prohibited may be authorized as conditional uses, provided the applicant can demonstrate, in addition to the criteria set forth in subsection H.4.a of this section, that (i) extraordinary circumstances preclude reasonable economic use of the property in a manner consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020, or its successor, and that (ii) the proposed use would not produce significant adverse effects on the shoreline environment.

c. In the granting of all shoreline conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area.

5. Time Frame. Construction and activities authorized by a shoreline conditional use permit are subject to the time limitations in subsection F.5 of this section (WAC 173-27-090 or its successor).

6. Adjustments to Approved Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.

a. A permit revision is required whenever an applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that approved as a shoreline conditional use permit. When a revision of a shoreline conditional use permit is sought, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes in the permit and demonstrating compliance with the following minimum standards pursuant to Chapter 173-27 WAC.

b. If the proposed changes are determined by the administrator to be within the scope and intent of the original permit, and are consistent with the SMA (Chapter 90.58 RCW), the shoreline guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC), and the shoreline master program, the revisions may be approved as a minor adjustment.

c. A minor adjustment entails a revision that is within the scope and intent of the original permit, which means all of the following:

iii. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original approval and with this program;

iv. The use authorized pursuant to the original approval is not changed; and

v. The revision will not cause adverse environmental impacts.

e. A new permit shall be required if the proposed revision and any previously approved revisions in combination would constitute development beyond the scope and intent of the original approval.

f. Upon approval of a revision, the decision maker shall file a copy of the revised site plan and a detailed description of the authorized changes to the original permit with the State Department of Ecology together with a final ruling and findings supporting the decision based on the requirements of this section. In addition, the decision maker shall notify parties of record of the action.

g. If the proposed revision is to a development for which a shoreline conditional use or variance was issued, the decision maker shall submit the revision to the State Department of Ecology for approval, approval with conditions, or denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this subsection. Under the requirements of WAC 173-27-110(6), the Department shall render and transmit to the decision maker and the applicant/proponent its final decision within 15 days of the date of the Department’s receipt of the submittal from the decision maker. The decision maker shall notify parties on record of the Department’s final decision.

7. Appeal of Decision on Conditional Use Permit. The decision of the hearing examiner may be appealed to the following the procedures of subsection I of this section.

I. Shoreline Application Appeals.

1. Appeal – Administrative.

a. The decision of the administrator on shoreline exemptions or shoreline substantial development permits may be appealed to the hearing examiner within 21 calendar days following the issuance of a written decision by the administrator.

b. Appeals shall be initiated by filing with the city clerk a notice of appeal setting forth the action being appealed and the principal points upon which the appeal is based together with a filing fee as prescribed by resolution of the council.

c. If an appeal is filed, the case shall be reviewed as an open record hearing by the hearing examiner, who shall follow the procedures established in BIMC 2.16.130 or its successor.

d. The hearing examiner shall consider the criteria in subsection I.1.c of this section and may refer the application to the planning commission for a recommendation. The decision of the hearing examiner shall be the final city action.

e. Within eight days of final action by the city, including completion of appeals or expiration of appeal periods, the administrator shall file copies of the action with the Department of Ecology and the Attorney General pursuant to RCW 90.58.140(6) or its successor.

2. Appeal – Shoreline Variance and Shoreline Conditional Use Permits.

a. If a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is denied by the city, the 21-day appeal period begins on the day the denied permit or shoreline variance and other information required by RCW 90.58.140(6) or its successor are received by Ecology and the Attorney General.

b. If a shoreline variance or shoreline conditional use permit is approved by the city, the 21-day appeal period begins on the day the shoreline variance or conditional use permit is approved or denied by Ecology.

c. During the appeal period, the city and/or Ecology decision on the permit may be appealed to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58.180 or its successor. The applicant or any other party authorized to conduct activities or uses by the decision shall not begin construction, development, or any authorized use or activity until after the 21-day appeal period. Construction or use may occur during the time a court appeal is underway, provided (i) the permit was approved by the local government and the State Shorelines Hearings Board, and (ii) permission is granted for the construction, use or activity under RCW 90.58.140(5) or its successor.

3. Washington State Department of Ecology Appeal Period.

a. On the day the permit and other information required by WAC 173-27-090 or its successor are received by Ecology and the Attorney General, the 21-day appeal period begins. (Ecology generally sends a letter to the administrator and the applicant informing them of the date the application was received.)

b. During the 21-day appeal period, the city decision on the permit may be appealed to the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board as provided by RCW 90.58.180 or its successor and Chapter 461-08 WAC or its successor.

c. Development pursuant to a shoreline permit shall not begin and is not authorized until 21 days from the date of filing, as defined in RCW 90.58.140(5)(b) and (c) or its successor and WAC 173-27-090 or its successor, or until all review proceedings initiated within 21 days from the date of such filing have been terminated, except as provided in RCW 90.58.140(b) or its successor. (Ord. 2020-03 § 1 (Exh. A), 2020; Ord. 2014-04 § 5 (Exh. 3 § 3), 2014)

2.16.170 Consolidated project review.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to offer a consolidated process for use at the applicant’s option when a proposed development or use of land will require more than one of the approvals listed in BIMC 2.16.010. The intent is to provide a single process in which a single decision-maker will make all land use decisions on the application.

B. Applicability. This section is available to any applicant for a single project proposal requiring more than one land use application who chooses to follow the consolidated project review process. The procedures include consolidation of various land use applications, public notification of an application and opportunity for public comment prior to a final decision. Any combination of land use applications except for building and other construction permits may be processed under the consolidated project review process.

C. Procedures.

1. A consolidated project permit application shall follow the application and notice procedure listed below that results in the most extensive review and decision process.

2. For purposes of consolidated project review, the ranking of review and approval procedures, in order from least to most extensive, is:

a. Administrative review;

b. Planning commission review;

c. Hearing examiner review;

d. City council review.

D. Planning Commission and/or Hearing Examiner Review. Any consolidated application containing a land use permit that requires planning commission recommendation shall be considered by the planning commission at a public meeting in accordance with BIMC 2.16.030.D.3. Any consolidated application containing a land use permit that requires hearing examiner recommendation shall be considered by the hearing examiner at a public hearing in accordance with BIMC 2.16.100.C.

E. Public Hearing. If a public hearing is required for any of the related land use applications of a consolidated project, the public hearing shall combine all the applicable permit application requests. Related applications requiring a public hearing shall be considered at only one public hearing. If the SEPA threshold determination is appealed for a proposal under the consolidated project review process, the SEPA appeal hearing shall be combined with the public hearing for the consolidated project application. (Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.180 Legislative review of land use regulations and area-wide rezones.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to describe the procedures used when the city council makes legislative (not quasi-judicial, site-specific) decisions related to certain sections of the BIMC.

B. Applicability. This section applies to adoption of or amendments to the BIMC related to land use procedures and regulations, including area-wide rezones initiated by the city and area-wide rezones accompanying privately initiated amendments to the comprehensive plan.

C. Who Can Apply. Any person, entity, or the city may propose an amendment to the BIMC. The city may propose a rezoning on an area-wide basis, and private entities may request the city to consider an area-wide rezoning. If the proposed area-wide rezone is not consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan the applicant shall also submit an application for a comprehensive plan amendment with the rezone application. However, any owner or authorized agent, or group of owners of contiguous property acting jointly, must represent at least 75 percent of the assessed valuation of the subject properties.

D. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation.

1. Planning commission review and recommendation is required for amendments to this chapter, and BIMC Titles 16, 17, and 18, area-wide rezones initiated by the city, or area-wide rezones associated with a privately initiated amendment to the comprehensive plan.

2. The planning commission shall hold a public hearing for all amendments to the official zoning map and municipal code of the city prior to issuing a recommendation to the city council.

3. Any person may participate in the public hearing. The planning commission has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, nonrepetitive comments and to set time limits.

4. Any person may submit written comments, photographs or other exhibits on the proposed amendment to the planning commission prior to or at the public hearing.

5. The planning commission shall maintain a record of the exhibits presented and a tape recording of the testimony and arguments presented, which shall be kept by the city clerk.

E. Planning Commission Action and Written Recommendation.

1. In making a recommendation, the planning commission shall consider applicable decision criteria of this chapter, all applicable law, the comprehensive plan, public comment, and any necessary documents and approvals.

2. The planning commission shall issue a written recommendation that contains (a) a statement recommending that the proposed amendment be approved, approved as amended, or denied, and (b) a statement of facts upon which the recommendation is based and the conclusions derived from those facts.

3. The planning commission’s written recommendation and other documents upon which its decision is based shall be immediately transmitted to the city council and department director.

F. City Council Review.

1. The city council shall have the option to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Any person may participate in the public hearing, if held. The city council has discretion to limit testimony to relevant, nonrepetitive comments and to set time limits.

2. Any person may submit written comments, photographs, or other exhibits on the proposed amendment to the city council prior to or at the public hearing.

3. The city council shall maintain a record of the exhibits presented and a tape recording of the testimony and arguments presented, which shall be kept by the city clerk.

G. City Council Action.

1. The city council shall either adopt an ordinance amending the BIMC, reject the proposal, or remand the proposed amendment to the applicable department, the city council committee, or the planning commission for further consideration.

2. The city council shall consider the following in deciding upon a proposed regulation:

a. Testimony presented, or the minutes of any city council public hearing, on the proposed amendment; and

b. Any written material submitted as part of the public hearing process; and

c. The recommendation of the planning commission and applicable department director; and

d. Any applicable decision criteria; and

e. Any relevant RCW or WAC.

H. Transmittal to State. The department shall notify the appropriate Washington State Department of Commerce of its intent to adopt a development regulation at least 60 days prior to final passage and shall also transmit a copy of all adopted amendments within 10 days after passage by the city council. (Ord. 2018-20 § 12, 2018; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.190 Legislative comprehensive plan amendments.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish the process and criteria for changing the comprehensive plan and/or land use map. Amendments may include additions, deletions, corrections, updates, modifications or revisions to maps, goals and policies in the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan amendment process provides for simultaneous review of proposals to allow for cumulative impact analysis of all applications on a citywide basis in conjunction with budget decisions, and honors the community’s long-term investment in the comprehensive plan, through public participation and neighborhood planning processes.

B. Applicability. Any owner or authorized agent, or group of owners of contiguous properties acting jointly and representing at least 75 percent of the assessed valuation of the subject properties, or their authorized agent, may apply for an amendment to the comprehensive plan. There are two types of amendments: policy adjustments or map changes. An amendment may include both of these types of amendment requests. If a private applicant is submitting an application for a comprehensive plan amendment in anticipation of a proposed development, the applicant must also submit an application for a rezoning and pay related application fees simultaneously with the comprehensive plan amendment application.

C. Policy Amendments. A policy amendment may be considered if the applicant can demonstrate that the request is consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, and that policy amendments or map amendments are needed to further the vision, goals or policies of the plan. An amendment may also be considered if the applicant can demonstrate that community values, priorities, needs and trends have sufficiently changed to justify a fundamental shift in the comprehensive plan. The burden of proof rests entirely with the applicant to demonstrate or document the need to depart from the current version of the comprehensive plan.

Proposed policy amendments that are intended to be consistent with the comprehensive plan should be designed to provide correction or additional guidance so the community’s original visions and values can better be achieved. The need for this type of amendment might be supported by findings related to monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the comprehensive plan. Examples of such findings could include:

1. Growth and development as envisioned in the plan is occurring faster, slower or is failing to materialize; or

2. The capacity to provide adequate services is diminished or increased; or

3. Land availability to meet demand is reduced; or

4. Population or employment growth is significantly different than the plan’s assumptions; or

5. Plan objectives are not being met as specified; or

6. The effect of the plan on land values and affordable housing is contrary to plan goals; or

7. Transportation and/or other capital improvements are not being made as expected; or

8. A question of consistency exists between the comprehensive plan and its elements and Chapter 36.70A RCW, the Kitsap County-wide planning policies, or development regulations; or

9. Assumptions upon which the plan is based are found to be invalid; or

10. Substantial change or lack of change in circumstances dictates the need for such consideration or conditions have changed substantially citywide and/or in the area within which the subject property lies.

D. Map Amendments. Changes to the land use map may only be approved if the proponent has demonstrated that all of the following are true:

1. The designation is in conformance with the appropriate land use designation purpose statement identified in the comprehensive plan; and

2. The map amendment or site is suitable for the proposed designation; and

3. The map amendment implements applicable comprehensive plan policies better than the current map designation.

E. Amendments Submitted by the City. Amendments submitted by the city will be processed every year or within the context of a comprehensive plan update, or more frequently than once per year under the circumstances authorized under RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a).

F. Frequency of Amendments.

1. Amendments. Except in the event of an emergency as determined by the city council or in the event of amendments related to updating the capital facilities plan, plan amendments will be considered together so that the cumulative effects of all proposed amendments can be analyzed for consistency and the overall effect on the comprehensive plan. As part of the city’s periodic 2016 comprehensive plan update, the city will accept comprehensive plan amendment requests between May 1 and June 30, 2015, and those amendments will be considered through the update process. The next comprehensive plan amendment submission cycle will be in 2019, and thereafter no more often than every three calendar years, the planning commission may recommend and the city council may adopt amendments to the land use map, or the text of the comprehensive plan, upon finding that each proposal meets all of the applicable conditions and requirements of this chapter.

2. Emergency Amendments. The city council may determine, by resolution, that a proposed amendment be processed as an emergency amendment to the comprehensive plan.

G. Review Process. The city shall process comprehensive plan amendment applications in accordance with the following procedures:

1. Preapplication Conference. Prior to submittal of a comprehensive plan amendment application, the applicant or applicant’s representative shall attend a preapplication conference in accordance with the procedures of BIMC 2.16.020.I. City staff will notify the planning commission if preapplication conferences are scheduled and representatives from the planning commission may attend the preapplication meeting to provide early identification of potential comprehensive plan consistency issues. Interested persons may attend the preapplication meeting.

2. Application. Proposed amendments shall be submitted between January 1st and the last day in February, starting in 2013 and subsequently every third year, except as described in subsection F.1 of this section in connection with the 2016 comprehensive plan update.

3. SEPA Review. The applicant is responsible for conducting any environmental analysis, including the preparation of an environmental impact statement, if necessary. Environmental review shall be completed prior to planning commission review.

4. Written Analysis. For each proposed amendment, staff will prepare a written analysis for the planning commission. The analysis will be accompanied by a recommendation that the proposed amendment be approved, denied, or approved with modification. Proposals may be grouped and evaluated by geographic sector and/or subject matter to be assessed for cumulative impact.

5. Planning Commission Review. Subsequent to completion of the analysis and SEPA review prepared by staff, the planning commission shall conduct one or more public hearings as defined in BIMC 2.14.020.G. The planning commission shall also solicit comments regarding the proposed amendment from the public or from government agencies in any other manner it determines necessary and appropriate to the nature of the proposed amendment and consistent with RCW 36.70A.140. The notice and public hearing for proposed comprehensive plan amendments may be combined with any notice or public hearing for proposed amendments to the land use code or for other actions of the planning commission; provided, that all appropriate noticing is conducted as required by law.

6. Planning Commission Recommendation. The planning commission shall base its recommendation on whether the application meets the required decision criteria contained in subsection H of this section and consider public input, conclusions from any required studies, the staff recommendation, and findings from the SEPA analysis. The planning commission may recommend to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the proposed amendment. The planning commission must make findings supporting their recommendation. If the planning commission recommends denial of a proposed amendment, the findings shall include that (a) the proposal does not comply with the decision criteria contained in subsection H of this section, or (b) a majority of the planning commission finds that the proposal would be more appropriately and effectively addressed through another aspect of the city’s work program. The planning commission’s findings and conclusions regarding its recommendation shall be forwarded to the city council within 30 days of their final hearing.

7. City Council Review and Decision.

a. The city council considers whether the application meets the required decision criteria contained in subsection H of this section and also considers staff’s recommendation and the planning commission’s recommendations within the context of its budget discussions, and may act on the amendment proposals prior to or at the same time as it adopts the city budget.

b. The council may decide to approve, deny, or approve with modification the proposed amendment.

c. The council shall base its decision on consideration of the record and the required decision criteria contained in subsection H of this section and shall cite these in their findings and conclusions.

8. Denied Amendments. Denied amendments will not be accepted for the next comprehensive plan amendment cycle, unless the proposed amendment is substantially modified or circumstances related to the amendment request have significantly changed. The planning director shall make this determination.

H. Decision Criteria. The planning commission and city council shall base their respective recommendation or decision on a proposed comprehensive plan amendment on the following criteria:

1. Compliance with Law. Amendments to the comprehensive plan shall comply with the Growth Management Act and other state and federal laws.

2. Resources.

a. The city must have the resources, including staff and budget, necessary to implement the proposal.

b. The amendment will not result in development that has significant adverse effects on community resources, including but not limited to: water resources, utilities, transportation, parks or schools.

c. The amendment must not adversely affect the city’s ability to provide the full range of public facilities and services at the planned level of service, or consume public resources otherwise needed to support comprehensive plan implementation strategies.

3. Internal Consistency. Amendments shall be consistent with the land uses and growth projections that are the basis of the comprehensive plan and with the overall intent of the comprehensive plan, including the community vision, overriding principles, and overall goals that guide the plan.

4. Cumulative Effect. All amendments must be considered concurrently in order to evaluate their cumulative effect on the comprehensive plan text and map, development regulations, capital facilities program, adopted environmental policies and other relevant implementation measures.

5. Land Use Impacts. Amendments shall not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. An amendment must be compatible with neighboring land uses and surrounding neighborhoods, if appropriate. In addition, applications should be reviewed for their cumulative land use impacts.

I. Public Involvement.

1. Standard Procedures. All complete applications for amendment to the comprehensive plan are considered and reviewed by the planning commission and city council. Depending on the content, scope or potential impact of a proposed modification, additional review by other citizen committees and opportunities for public comment may occur. Various public meetings, forums, presentations and outreach may be conducted in order to ensure:

a. Broad dissemination of proposals and alternatives;

b. Opportunity for written comments;

c. Provision for open discussion;

d. Information services; and

e. Consideration of and response to public comments.

2. Neighborhood Meetings. Since all proposals are required to be compatible with neighboring land uses and surrounding neighborhoods, persons proposing site-specific amendments may address issues of compatibility by participating in a neighborhood meeting organized by the city, with notifications as specified by the city.

3. Emergencies. Amendments outside the regular annual amendment cycle, such as emergency amendments, still carry a requirement for appropriate public participation.

4. Revocation. A comprehensive plan amendment may be reversed by the city council outside the regular amendment period upon the finding of any of the following:

a. The approval was obtained by fraud or other intentional or misleading representations; or

b. The amendment is being implemented contrary to the intended purpose of the amendment or other provisions of the comprehensive plan and city ordinances; or

c. The amendment is being implemented in a manner that is detrimental to the public health or safety.

J. Transmittal to State. The department shall notify the appropriate Washington State Department of Commerce of its intent to adopt a comprehensive plan amendment at least 60 days prior to final passage and shall also transmit a copy of all adopted amendments within 10 days after passage by the city council. (Ord. 2021-03 § 8, 2021; Ord. 2015-08 § 1, 2015; Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.200 Shoreline master program amendments.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide the process for amending the shoreline master program and/or designation map. Amendments may include additions, deletions, corrections, updates, modifications or revisions to maps, goals and policies or regulations of the city’s adopted shoreline management program.

B. Shoreline Master Program Reviews. The shoreline master program shall be periodically reviewed by the administrator and the city council and adjustments made as necessary to reflect changing local circumstances, new information or improved data, and/or changes in state statutes and regulations. This review process shall be consistent with WAC 173-26-090 and 173-26-100 or their successor requirements and shall include a local citizen involvement effort and public hearing to obtain the views and comments of the public.

C. Amendments to the Shoreline Master Program. The provisions of the shoreline master program may be amended as provided for in RCW 90.58.120 and 90.58.200 or their successors and Chapter 173-26 WAC or its successor.

1. Any person, including the city, may submit an application for an amendment to the administrator together with any required fee.

2. Any amendment to the shoreline master program must satisfy the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (Chapter 43.21C RCW or its successor) and Chapter 197-11 WAC or its successor.

3. The city council shall approve, modify, or deny an application for an amendment after conducting at least one public hearing to consider the proposal.

4. Prior to conducting the hearing, the city shall publish notice of the hearing in one or more newspapers of general circulation a minimum 10 days prior to the date of the hearing. The notice shall include:

a. Reference to the authority under which the action is proposed;

b. A statement or summary of the proposed changes to the master program;

c. The date, time, and location of the hearing, and the manner in which interested persons may present their views; and

d. Reference to the availability of the proposal for public inspection at the local government office, or upon request.

5. As provided by state law, amendments and revisions to the master program are not effective unless approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology.

6. Proponents for shoreline environment redesignations (i.e., amendments to the shoreline maps and descriptions) have the burden of demonstrating consistency with shoreline environment designation criteria of the master program and WAC 173-26-191 and 173-26-211 or their successors.

7. The administrator shall transmit a copy of any locally approved amendment and the information required by WAC 173-26-110 or its successor to Ecology within 14 days of the date of the city’s decision.

8. The Department of Ecology shall review the amendment pursuant to WAC 173-26-120 or its successor.

D. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.190 and RCW 36.70A.280, a decision by the city of Bainbridge Island city council to amend the shoreline master program shall not constitute a final appealable decision until the Department of Ecology has made a decision to approve, reject, or modify the proposed amendment. Following the decision of the Department of Ecology regarding the proposed amendment, the decision may be appealed to the Western

Washington Growth Management Hearings Board as provided in RCW 90.58.190. (Ord. 2014-04 § 5 (Exh. 3 § 4), 2014)

2.16.210 Subarea planning process.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide a subarea planning process that enhances the livability of the city by recognizing the unique characteristics of the city’s designated centers and neighborhoods and by providing opportunities to accomplish the goals of the city’s comprehensive plan in a way unique to each designated center or neighborhood.

B. Applicability. This chapter does not apply to the Winslow Subarea Plan. This chapter applies to:

1. Neighborhood and industrial designated centers that have been identified in the adopted land use element of the comprehensive plan; and

2. Discrete neighborhoods outside of designated centers.

C. Beginning the Process. The subarea planning process may be started in two different ways:

1. The city council may begin the process through the annual development of department work programs or biennial budget process; or

2. Upon the written request of at least one owner of property located within a designated center or neighborhood, the city council by resolution may approve the commencement of the subarea planning process. Neighborhoods outside of designated centers must demonstrate to the city council that subarea planning is generally desired by the neighborhood.

D. Interdepartmental Staff Team.

1. Upon the city council’s approval to commence the subarea planning process, the director of planning and community development shall establish an interdepartmental staff team.

2. At the director of planning and community development’s request, the director of each city department shall assign a representative to the interdepartmental staff team. The Bainbridge Island fire district, the Bainbridge Island school district, the Bainbridge Island metropolitan park and recreation district, and the Kitsap public health district shall each be invited to participate on the interdepartmental staff team.

3. The interdepartmental staff team shall:

a. Compile the city’s existing data and materials relating to the designated center or neighborhood (including comprehensive plan text and map); and

b. Identify in writing issues raised by the public during the comprehensive planning process and issues identified by staff relating to the designated center or neighborhood; and

c. Identify interested persons and groups, including all property owners within the designated center or neighborhood according to the Kitsap County auditor’s records, and notify the interested persons and groups in writing by regular mail of the commencement of the subarea planning process; and

d. Provide expertise and guidance to the subarea planning steering committee.

E. Subarea Planning Steering Committee.

1. Upon the city council’s approval to commence the subarea planning process for a designated center or neighborhood, a subarea planning steering committee for that designated center or neighborhood shall be appointed, and the appointments and confirmations of those members shall be governed by Chapter 2.01 BIMC. The steering committee shall be comprised of an odd number of members, totaling no more than nine, with the total number of members to be determined by the city council. The majority of the committee shall be comprised of representatives from categories in subsections E.2.a. and E.2.b. of this section. The term of the steering committee members shall be until the completion of the subarea planning process under this chapter. The removal and resignation of members shall be governed by Chapter 2.01 BIMC. Demotion of the chairperson shall be governed by Chapter 2.01 BIMC.

2. The steering committee shall represent a wide spectrum of interests and expertise and shall include at least one representative from each of the following groups:

a. Residents living within and/or owners of property or businesses within the designated center or neighborhood; and

b. Residents and owners of property located adjacent to the designated center or neighborhood; and

c. Residents of and/or business owners in the city, not residing within or adjacent to the designated center or neighborhood.

3. The steering committee shall:

a. Establish a planning process consistent with this chapter for developing the subarea plan, which shall include a work plan, timeline, and budget, and which shall be submitted to the city council for approval;

b. With the advice and assistance of the interdepartmental staff team, develop a subarea plan consisting of a report and a proposed comprehensive plan amendment, if appropriate, for the designated center or neighborhood;

c. As a part of the work plan, establish a public participation process that includes public meetings in addition to the initial public meeting conducted under subsection F of this section, and work with city staff to ensure outreach to the community during the subarea planning process; and

d. Ensure that the subarea planning process provides adequate opportunity for participation by property owners and residents who live in or near the designated center or neighborhood.

F. Initial Public Meeting.

1. After approval of the subarea planning process by the city council, the steering committee shall conduct an initial public meeting.

2. At the initial public meeting, the following shall occur:

a. The interdepartmental staff team shall provide an overview of the comprehensive plan and review citywide goals and policies that must be addressed in the subarea planning process.

b. The steering committee, with input from the interdepartmental staff team, shall discuss the purpose of the subarea planning process for the designated center or neighborhood and the city’s existing data and materials for the area.

c. The steering committee shall provide opportunity for the public to comment on the vision and goals for the subarea plan, the boundaries of the designated center or neighborhood that may be included within a subarea plan, and issues relevant to the designated center or neighborhood, including mix and type of land uses, density of development, surface water, greenways, open space, fish and wildlife habitat, drinking water, sewage disposal, and nonmotorized transportation.

3. The interdepartmental staff team shall prepare a report setting forth the results of the meeting. Upon the steering committee’s approval of the report, the interdepartmental staff team shall transmit the report to the planning commission for review and comment.

G. Plan Development. Upon receiving the planning commission’s comments on the report prepared under subsection F.3 of this section, the steering committee shall develop the subarea plan in accordance with the steering committee’s work plan. In developing the subarea plan, the steering committee shall:

1. Develop a profile of characteristics or attributes of the designated center or neighborhood (including boundaries) and of issues to be addressed during the subarea planning process; and

2. Develop goals for the subarea plan; and

3. Consider and utilize the following criteria, and any other criteria developed by the steering committee, in preparing and selecting alternatives for the designated center or neighborhood:

a. The citywide goals and policies of the city’s comprehensive plan; and

b. The goals and policies for the subarea plan developed by the steering committee; and

c. Relevant criteria specified in the Washington State Environmental Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW, and the applicable Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 197-11 WAC; and

4. Prepare a report setting forth the profiles, goals, and criteria developed by the steering committee pursuant to subsections G.3.a through c of this section, and transmit the report to the planning commission for review and comment; and

5. After receiving the planning commission’s comments on the report prepared under subsection G.4 of this section, develop alternatives for the designated center or neighborhood that include policies, strategies and programs to implement the vision and goals for the subarea plan; and

6. Review the alternatives for the designated center or neighborhood against the criteria developed for the area, and select an alternative for the designated center or neighborhood to be incorporated into a subarea plan.

H. Incorporation of SEPA Review. An owner of property in a designated center or neighborhood may elect, at the owner’s expense, to have a SEPA review sufficient in scope and depth of inquiry to be legally adequate for a specific project incorporated into the city’s SEPA process for the subarea plan. The SEPA official for the city shall establish the scope, depth and method of the SEPA review pursuant to Chapter 16.04 BIMC.

I. Final Plan. The steering committee shall prepare a final report containing the subarea plan for the designated center or neighborhood. The subarea plan shall include the profile and characteristics of the designated center or neighborhood, the goals of the subarea plan, the policies, strategies, or programs recommended by the steering committee, and proposed comprehensive plan amendments or changes to the municipal code for the designated center or neighborhood, if appropriate. The steering committee shall forward its final report and proposed subarea plan to the planning commission for action. The planning commission will review the subarea plan and proposed comprehensive plan and municipal code amendments and make recommendations to the city council, as required by BIMC 2.16.180 and 2.16.190. (Ord. 2023-04 § 1, 2023; Ord. 2021-16 § 4, 2021; Ord. 2019-01 § 8, 2019; Ord. 2017-02 § 8 (Exh. A), 2017: Ord. 2011-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2011)

2.16.220 Critical area permits – Minor or major.

A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide an administrative review process for critical area permits to ensure compliance with the city’s critical areas regulations, as defined by Chapter 16.20 BIMC, and to provide a mechanism for tracking and monitoring development, uses, and activities within critical areas.

B. Applicability.

1. Minor projects should be limited to the following unless otherwise determined by the director:

a. Tree and vegetation activities requiring a critical area permit pursuant to BIMC 16.20.090;

b. Designation of an aquifer recharge protection area pursuant to BIMC 16.20.100.E;

c. Proposals for development, uses, or activities within geologically hazardous areas and their setbacks; and

d. Development uses and activities specified in BIMC 16.20.110.G and 16.20.140.H that do not require submittal of a critical area report as determined by the director.

2. The major critical area permit process shall be used for all other development, uses, and activities within critical areas and their buffers; provided, that submittal of a reasonable use exception or buffer enhancement plan do not require a critical area permit.

C. Procedures. Application materials for critical area permits can be found in the administrative manual.

1. Minor Critical Area Permit. City review and director preapproval is required. Such authorization may occur over-the-counter and requires written approval. Minor critical area permits may be approved through the building or construction permit process if one is required for the proposal.

2. Major Critical Area Permit. Major critical area permits shall be reviewed through the general administrative review procedures described in BIMC 2.16.030.

D. Decision Criteria. Applications for critical area permits, unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, shall be reviewed and approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on the proposal’s ability to comply with all of the criteria in BIMC 16.20.070.B. (Ord. 2018-08 § 7, 2018)

Code reviser’s note: Ord. 2016-11 adds BIMC 2.16.050.F. The subsection has been relettered to avoid duplication of lettering.