Chapter 22.500
PERMIT PROVISIONS, REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT
Sections:
22.500.050 Statement of applicability and purpose.
22.500.100 Permit application review and permit types.
22.500.110 Enforcement and penalties.
22.500.050 Statement of applicability and purpose.
RCW 90.58.140(3) requires local governments to establish a program, consistent with the rules adopted by Ecology, for the administration and enforcement of shoreline development. Also, in accordance with RCW 90.58.050, which provides that this program is intended to establish a cooperative program between Kitsap County and the state, Kitsap County shall have the primary responsibility for administering the regulatory program, and Ecology shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity.
The applicable provisions of Title 21 shall govern the processing of permits required under this title. If any conflict should exist between Title 21 and this program, the provisions of this program will be followed.
(Ord. 598 (2021) § 4 (Appx. 1), 2021)
22.500.100 Permit application review and permit types.
A. Permit Application Review.
1. No authorization to undertake use or development on shorelines of the state shall be granted by Kitsap County unless upon review the use or development is determined to be consistent with the policy and provisions of the Act and this program.
2. No permit shall be issued for any structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines, except where allowed through a variance, and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
3. Consolidated permit review shall occur pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 21.04.
4. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance shall be required for non-SEPA exempt projects, pursuant to the procedures in Title 18.
5. Permit review times and procedures for projects on a state highway shall be processed in accordance with RCW 47.01.485 and 90.58.140.
B. Substantial Development Permit.
1. The Act provides that no substantial development shall be undertaken on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining a substantial development permit (SDP).
2. An SDP shall be classified under Chapter 21.04.
3. An SDP shall be granted only when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with the policies and procedures of the Act and this program, as well as criteria in WAC 173-27-150.
4. The Act provides a limited number of exceptions to the definition of substantial development. Those exceptions are contained in RCW 90.58.030 and are summarized below in subsection (C)(3) of this section, and do not require an SDP. Whether or not a development constitutes a substantial development, all development must comply with the requirements contained in the Act and this program and may require other permits or approvals under this master program. Permits may be issued with limitations or conditions to assure consistency with the Act and this program.
5. All applications for shoreline substantial development permits or permit revisions shall be submitted to the Department of Ecology upon a final decision by local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130. “Final decision by local government” shall mean the order of ruling, whether it be an approval or denial, that is established after all local administrative appeals related to the permit have concluded or the opportunity to initiate such appeals has lapsed.
C. Exemptions from Substantial Development Permits.
1. Certain activities, developments or uses are exempt from the substantial development permit requirements of the Act and this program. These developments are those set forth in WAC 173-27-040 (or as amended), and do not meet the definition of substantial development under RCW 90.58.030(3)(e). A summary of exempt developments is listed in subsection (C)(3) of this section, the application of which shall be guided by WAC 173-27-040 (or as amended).
2. Application and Interpretation of Exemptions.
a. Exemptions shall be construed narrowly. Only those developments that meet the precise terms of one or more of the listed exemptions may be granted exemption from the substantial development permit process.
b. An exemption from the SDP process is not an exemption from compliance with the Act or this master program, or from any other regulatory requirements. To be authorized, all uses and developments must be consistent with the policies and provisions of this master program and the Act and obtain a statement of exemption approved by the director on receipt of a qualifying shoreline exemption application and minimum submittal requirements established by the department. A development or use that is listed as a conditional use pursuant to this master program or is an unlisted use must obtain a CUP even though the development or use does not require an SDP. When a development or use is proposed that does not comply with the bulk, dimensional and performance standards found in Chapters 22.400 and 22.600, such development or use can only be authorized by approval of a shoreline variance (see subsection (E) of this section).
c. An exemption from the SDP process is not an exemption from a CUP or an administrative CUP where applicable.
d. The burden of proof that a development or use is exempt from the permit process is on the applicant.
e. If any part of a proposed development is not eligible for exemption, then an SDP is required for the entire proposed development project.
f. The county may attach conditions to the approval of exempted developments and/or uses as necessary to assure consistency of the project with the Act and this master program.
3. The following list of developments, summarized from WAC 173-27-040, shall not require SDPs:
a. Any development of which the total cost or fair market value, whichever is higher, does not exceed $7,047.00, if such development does not materially interfere with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state. The dollar threshold established in this subsection is adjusted for inflation by the Washington State Office of Financial Management every five years. The total cost or fair market value of the development shall include the fair market value of any donated, contributed or found labor, equipment or materials;
b. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures or developments, including damage by accident, fire or elements;
c. Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single-family residences. A “normal protective” bulkhead includes those structural and nonstructural developments installed at or near, and parallel to, the OHWM for the sole purpose of protecting an existing single-family residence and appurtenant structures from loss or damage by erosion;
d. Emergency construction necessary to protect property from damage by the elements;
e. Construction and practices normal or necessary for farming, irrigation, and ranching activities;
f. Construction or modification of navigational aids such as channel markers and anchor buoys;
g. Construction on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-family residence for their own use or for the use of their family, which residence does not exceed a height of thirty-five feet above average grade level and which meets all requirements of Kitsap County or a state agency having jurisdiction thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of the ordinary high water mark;
h. Construction of a dock, including a community dock, designed for pleasure craft only, for the private noncommercial use of the owner, lessee, or contract purchaser of single-family and multiple-family residences. This exception applies if either:
i. In salt waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $2,500.00;
ii. In fresh waters, the fair market value of the dock does not exceed $22,500.00 for docks that are constructed to replace existing docks, are of equal or lesser square footage than the existing dock being replaced;
iii. In fresh waters, the fair market value does not exceed $11,200.00 for all other docks constructed; or
iv. In relation to subsections (C)(3)(h)(ii) and (iii) of this section, if subsequent construction occurs within five years of completion of the prior construction and the combined fair market value of the subsequent and prior construction exceeds the amount specified above, the subsequent construction shall be considered a substantial development;
i. Operation, maintenance, or construction of canals, waterways, drains, reservoirs, or other facilities that now exist or are hereafter created or developed as a part of an irrigation system;
j. The marking of property lines or corners on state-owned lands, when such marking does not significantly interfere with normal public use of the surface of the water;
k. Operation and maintenance of any system of dikes, ditches, drains, or other facilities existing on September 8, 1975, which were created, developed or utilized primarily as a part of an agricultural drainage or diking system;
l. Any project with a certification from the governor pursuant to Chapter 80.50 RCW;
m. Site exploration and investigation activities that are prerequisite to preparation of an application for development authorization under the Act and this program;
n. The process of removing or controlling aquatic noxious weeds, as defined in RCW 17.26.020, through the use of an herbicide or other treatment methods applicable to weed control that are recommended by a final environmental impact statement published by the Washington Department of Agriculture or Ecology jointly with other state agencies under Chapter 43.21C RCW;
o. Watershed restoration projects as defined at WAC 173-27-040(2)(o). Kitsap County shall review watershed restoration projects for consistency with this program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving all materials necessary to review the request for exemption from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing requests for exemption for watershed restoration projects as used in this section;
p. Consistent with WAC 173-27-040, a public or private project that is designed to improve fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage, and that conforms to the provisions of Chapter 77.55 RCW. The county may not require permits or charge fees for such projects;
q. The external or internal retrofitting of an existing structure with the exclusive purpose of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990, or as amended, to otherwise provide physical access to the structure by individuals with disabilities.
4. Exemption Documentation. For any project qualifying for a permit exemption that requires Federal Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permits, Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, or state hydraulic project approval, a shoreline exemption letter must be prepared on receipt of a shoreline exemption application and minimum submittal requirements in accordance with WAC 173-27-050. The county shall also prepare shoreline exemption letters for other types of exempt projects, generally for activities at or below the OHWM, including but not limited to single-use buoys and floats. Permit exemption requests may be obtained through the county permit center. The county shall document exemptions in the permit system.
D. Conditional Use Permits, Including Administrative Conditional Use Permits.
1. The purpose of a CUP is to provide flexibility in authorizing uses in a manner consistent with RCW 90.58.020. Accordingly, special conditions may be imposed to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the project with the Act and this program.
2. CUPs shall be classified as a Type III permit under Chapter 21.04. Where administrative CUPs are allowed, they shall be classified as a Type II permit under Chapter 21.04. Unless specified otherwise in this program, the CUP criteria apply in addition to the applicable SDP criteria, and shall be combined into a single review process.
3. Shoreline CUPs shall be granted only after the applicant can demonstrate compliance with WAC 173-27-160 and this section as follows:
a. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and this program;
b. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines and does not conflict with existing water-dependent uses;
c. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project are compatible with other authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the Comprehensive Plan and this program;
d. That the proposed use will not result in significant adverse effects or a net loss to the shoreline ecosystem functions in which it is to be located;
e. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect;
f. That consideration has been given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area and shall not result in substantial adverse effects or net loss of shoreline ecosystem functions. For example, if CUPs were granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the use preference policies and shall not produce substantial adverse impacts to the shoreline environment. Consideration shall be demonstrated through preparation of a cumulative impacts report, if requested, that substantially conforms to the applicable provisions of Chapter 22.700 (Special Reports);
g. Other uses which are not classified or set forth in this program may be authorized as conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in the master program;
h. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this master program may not be authorized pursuant to this section.
4. All applications for shoreline CUPs, including administrative CUPs, approved by the county shall be forwarded to Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-27-200, for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial. No approval shall be considered final until it has been acted upon by Ecology.
E. Variances and Administrative Variances.
1. The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional, or performance standards (not uses) set forth in this program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to the property such that the strict implementation of this master program will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020.
2. Variances shall be classified as a Type III permit under Chapter 21.04. Administrative variances shall be a Type II permit and may be granted where allowed under the use and modifications matrix or applicable permit requirements.
3. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances, extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
4. Variance permits for development that will be located landward of the OHWM, except within those areas designated as marshes, bogs, or swamps pursuant to Chapter 173-22 WAC, may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in Chapters 22.400 and 22.600 precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b. That the hardship described in subsection (E)(1) 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 this program, and, for example, not from deed restrictions or from the actions of the applicant or a predecessor in title;
c. That 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 this program, will not cause net loss to shoreline ecological functions and does not conflict with existing water-dependent uses;
d. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;
e. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
f. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
5. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM, or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in Chapters 22.400 and 22.600 preclude all reasonable use of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under subsections (E)(4)(a) and (b) of this section; and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely affected.
6. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if variances were granted to other developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the variances shall remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment. The applicant shall demonstrate such consideration through submittal of a cumulative impacts report, where required (Section 22.700.130).
7. Variances may not be granted to authorize uses different from the shoreline use and modifications matrix in Section 22.600.105.
8. All applications for shoreline variances approved by the county, including administrative variances, shall be forwarded to Ecology pursuant to WAC 173-27-200, for final approval, approval with conditions, or denial. No approval shall be considered final until it has been acted upon by Ecology.
(Ord. 598 (2021) § 4 (Appx. 1), 2021)
22.500.105 Procedure.
A. Permit Process Summary.
1. An application for a permit or exemption shall be made on forms prescribed by Kitsap County’s permit procedures.
2. The application shall be made by the property owner, lessee, contract purchaser or other person entitled to possession of the property.
3. No applications are required for exceptions to local review as set forth in Section 22.100.120(B).
4. Where exempt, the permit shall be reviewed pursuant to exemption criteria at WAC 173-27-040 and Section 22.500.100(C) (Exemptions from Substantial Development Permits).
5. If not exempt, a pre-application or staff consultation meeting may be required as described below or for new dock proposals as described in Section 22.600.160(B)(1).
6. If the application involves state-owned land, a pre-application conference with the Washington Department of Natural Resources land manager shall be held prior to submittal of the application. Confirmation of the pre-application conference shall be submitted as a requirement of the county’s application process.
7. For nonexempt proposals, the county shall provide notice of application pursuant to Title 21.
8. A hearing date will be set before the hearing examiner. Notice of the hearing will be provided consistent with Chapter 21.04.
9. The public hearing will be conducted pursuant to Chapter 21.04.
10. Following a decision by the county, the application will be forwarded to Ecology in accordance with the filing procedures at WAC 173-27-130.
B. Pre-Application and Staff Consultations.
1. A pre-application conference, described in Section 21.04.120, is required when the proposal involves state lands, and is highly recommended for any activities near or below the OHWM. This conference will result in clarification with regard to required permits and potential conditions as recommended by applicable state and tribal agencies.
2. A staff consultation, described in Section 21.04.120, is required for any over-water structure, shoreline armoring, or new primary structures or additions within the standard buffer (Section 22.400.120(B)(1)), except where waived by the department.
3. For leases of over-water structures on state-owned aquatic lands managed by Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), approval will be conditioned in accordance with state standards, including but not limited to buffer requirements.
C. Minimum Application Requirements. A complete application for a substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain, at a minimum, the following information:
1. The name, address and phone number of the applicant. The applicant should be the owner of the property or the primary proponent of the project and not the representative of the owner or primary proponent.
2. The name, address and phone number of the applicant’s representative if other than the applicant.
3. The name, address and phone number of the property owner, if other than the applicant.
4. Location of the property. This shall, at a minimum, include the property address and identification of the section, township and range to the nearest quarter, quarter section or latitude and longitude to the nearest minute. All applications for projects located in open water areas away from land shall provide a longitude and latitude location.
5. Identification of the name of the shoreline (water body) with which the site of the proposal is associated. This should be the water body from which jurisdiction of the Act over the project is derived.
6. A general description of the proposed project that includes the proposed use or uses and the activities necessary to accomplish the project.
7. A general description of the property as it now exists including its physical characteristics and improvements and structures.
8. A general description of the vicinity of the proposed project including identification of the adjacent uses, structures and improvements, intensity of development and physical characteristics.
9. A SEPA checklist, when required.
10. Special reports, when required (see Chapter 22.700).
11. A site development plan consisting of maps and elevation drawings, drawn to an appropriate scale to depict clearly all required information, photographs and text which shall include:
a. The boundary of the parcel(s) of land upon which the development is proposed.
b. The OHWM of all water bodies located adjacent to or within the boundary of the project. This may be an approximate location; provided, that for any development where a determination of consistency with the applicable regulations requires a precise location of the OHWM, the mark shall be located precisely and the biological and hydrological basis for the location as indicated on the plans shall be included in the development plan. Where the OHWM is neither adjacent to or within the boundary of the project, the plan shall indicate the distance and direction to the nearest OHWM of a shoreline.
c. The location of the shoreline buffer and setback upland from the OHWM to determine the extent of the work proposed within the buffer.
d. Existing and proposed land contours. The contours shall be at intervals sufficient to accurately determine the existing character of the property and the extent of the proposed change to the land that is necessary for the development. Areas within the boundary that will not be altered by the development may be indicated as such and contours approximated for that area.
e. A delineation of all critical areas and critical area buffers including but not limited to wetlands, streams, geologically hazardous areas, floodways, and flood hazard areas that will be altered or used as a part of the development.
f. A general indication of the character of vegetation found on the site.
g. The dimensions and locations of all existing and proposed structures and improvements including, but not limited to: buildings, paved or graveled areas, roads, utilities, septic tanks and drainfields, material stockpiles or surcharge, and stormwater management facilities.
h. Where applicable, a landscaping plan for the project.
i. Where applicable, plans for development of areas on or off the site as mitigation for impacts associated with the proposed project shall be included and contain information consistent with the requirements of this section.
j. Quantity, source and composition of any fill material that is placed on the site whether temporary or permanent.
k. Quantity, composition and destination of any excavated or dredged material.
l. A vicinity map showing the relationship of the property and proposed development or use to roads, utilities, and existing development and uses on adjacent properties.
m. Where applicable, a depiction of the impacts to views from existing residential uses and public areas.
n. On all variance applications, the plans shall clearly indicate where development could occur without approval of a variance, the physical features and circumstances on the property that provide a basis for the request, and the location of adjacent structures and uses.
12. The applicable permit fees in accordance with the department of community development fee schedule.
D. Notice of Application. Following receipt of a complete application, the county will issue a notice of application for nonexempt projects, pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 21.04. In addition to the requirements of Section 21.04.210, the notice of application must provide for a thirty-day comment period, and include the date, time and place of public hearing (if applicable and scheduled), in accordance with WAC 173-27-110(2)(e).
E. Public Hearings and Notice of Decision.
1. The applicant has the burden of proof to establish that the proposed development is consistent with the Act, this program, and other applicable county policies and regulations. Upon consideration of the evidence offered at the public hearing, the hearing examiner will issue a decision. The decision will contain findings of fact and conclusions describing the manner in which the decision is consistent with the Act and this master program. The decision will be mailed to the applicant and other interested parties, Ecology, and the State’s Attorney General.
2. Hearings shall follow the process as described in Chapter 21.04. The “hearing examiner rules of procedure” shall also serve as reference for the hearing procedure.
F. Initiation of Development. As set forth in WAC 173-27-190, each permit for a substantial development, conditional use or variance issued by local government shall contain a provision that construction pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one days from the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review proceedings initiated within twenty-one days from the date of such filing have been terminated.
G. Permit Revisions.
1. A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, this program and/or the policies and provisions of the Act.
2. A revision shall be classified as a Type I permit under Chapter 21.04.
3. When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the applicant shall submit detailed plans and text describing the proposed changes. If the county determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original permit, the county may approve a revision. “Within the scope and intent of the original permit” means all of the following:
a. No additional over-water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction may be increased by five hundred square feet or ten percent from the provisions for the original permit, whichever is less;
b. Ground area coverage and height of each structure may be increased a maximum of ten percent from the provisions of the original permit;
c. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or any other requirements of this program except as authorized under the original permit;
d. Additional landscaping is consistent with conditions (if any) attached to the original permit and with this program;
e. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
f. No adverse environmental impact and no net loss to shoreline ecological functions will be caused by the project revision.
4. If the sum of the revision and any previously approved revisions violates the provisions in WAC 173-27-100 or the proposed change itself constitutes a substantial development, the applicant shall apply for a new permit in the manner provided for herein rather than proceeding under this section.
5. Administrative appeals of revision decisions shall be processed in accordance with Section 21.04.290, in addition to the following:
a. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the provisions of subsection (G)(3) of this section regarding whether or not the revision was “within the scope and intent of the original permit.”
b. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.
6. The county’s final approval of the revision, along with the revised site plan, text and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with Ecology. In addition, the county shall notify parties of record during the original issuance of the permit. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final approval by the county.
7. If the revision to the original permit involves a conditional use or variance that was conditioned by Ecology, the county shall submit the revision to Ecology for its approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The revision shall indicate that it is being submitted under the requirements of WAC 173-27-100. Upon receipt of Ecology’s decision, the county shall notify parties of record of Ecology’s final decision. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final approval by Ecology.
H. Time Requirements and Expiration.
1. The time requirements of this section shall apply to all substantial development permits, variances or a conditional use permit, and to all activities exempt from shoreline substantial development permits.
2. Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a substantial development permit or shoreline exemption. A single extension for a period not to exceed one year may be authorized based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the substantial development permit and to the Department of Ecology.
3. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the effective date of an SDP. A single extension for a period not to exceed one year may be authorized based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record and to the Department of Ecology.
4. The effective date of an SDP shall be the date of filing as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6). The permit time periods identified herein do not include the time during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to the pendency of administrative appeals or legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals.
5. Revisions to permits under WAC 173-27-100 may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired so long as this procedure is not used to extend the original permit time requirements or to authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit.
6. Kitsap County shall notify Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of a permit, as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change. Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as amended shall require a new permit application.
I. Shoreline Master Program Amendment.
1. General.
a. This master program carries out the policies of the Act for Kitsap County. It shall be reviewed and amended as appropriate in accordance with the review periods required in the Act and in order to:
i. Assure that this program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the time of the review; and
ii. Assure consistency of this program with the county’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations adopted under Chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local requirements.
b. This program and all amendments thereto shall become effective in accordance with RCW 90.58.090(7).
c. The program may be amended annually or more frequently as needed pursuant to the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(iii).
2. Amendment Process and Criteria.
a. Initiation. Future amendments to this program may be initiated by any person, resident, property owner, business owner, governmental or nongovernmental agency.
b. Application. Applications for master program amendments shall specify the changes requested and any and all reasons therefor. Applications shall be made on forms specified by the county. Such applications shall comply with Section 21.08.050.
c. Public Review Process – Minimum Requirements. The county shall accomplish the amendments in accordance with the procedures of the Act, Growth Management Act, and implementing rules including, but not limited to, RCW 36.70A.106, 36.70A.130 and 90.58.080, WAC 173-26-100, and Part Six, Chapter 365-196 WAC.
d. Roles and Responsibilities. Proposals for amendment of this program shall be heard by the planning commission in accordance with Section 21.08.100. Final local review and approval shall be in accordance with Section 21.08.110.
e. Finding. Prior to approval, and in addition to the findings required by Section 21.08.110, the county shall make a finding that the amendment would accomplish subsection (I)(2)(e)(i) or (ii) of this section, and would accomplish subsection (I)(2)(e)(iii) of this section.
i. The proposed amendment would make this program more consistent with the Act and/or any applicable Ecology guidelines;
ii. The proposed amendment would make this program more equitable in its application to persons or property due to changed conditions in an area;
iii. This program and any future amendment hereto shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes on a programmatic basis in accordance with the baseline functions present as of the effective date of this program.
f. Upon local adoption, the program or its amendment shall be forwarded to Ecology for review and approval in accordance with Chapter 90.58 RCW and WAC 173-26-110.
J. Administrative Interpretation. The county shall make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this program and the Act in accordance with Section 21.04.040. The county shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent with the purpose and intent of Chapter 90.58 RCW, and Chapters 173-26 and 173-27 WAC.
K. Monitoring. The county will track all shoreline permits and exemption activities to evaluate whether the master program is achieving no net loss of ecological functions. Project monitoring is required for individual restoration and mitigation projects consistent with the critical areas regulations (Section 22.400.115). In addition, the county shall conduct systemwide monitoring of shoreline conditions and development activity that occur in shoreline jurisdiction outside of critical areas and their buffers, to the degree practical. Activities to be tracked using the county’s permit system include development, conservation, restoration and mitigation, such as:
1. New shoreline development.
2. Shoreline variances and the nature of the variance.
3. Compliance issues.
4. Net changes in impervious surface areas, including associated stormwater management.
5. Net changes in fill or armoring.
6. Net changes in vegetation (area, character).
Using this information and information about the outcomes of other actions and programs of the other county departments, a no net loss report shall be prepared as part of the program update required by RCW 90.58.080. Should the no net loss report show degradation of the baseline condition documented in the Kitsap County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report (2011), changes to the master program and/or shoreline restoration plan (Appendix C to the ordinance codified in this title) shall be proposed at the time of the eight-year update to prevent further degradation and address the loss in ecological functions.
(Ord. 598 (2021) § 4 (Appx. 1), 2021)
22.500.110 Enforcement and penalties.
A. Authority. Kitsap County may bring such declaratory, injunctive or other action as may be necessary to assure that no uses are made of the shorelines subject to Kitsap County jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of this program or the Act. Ecology shall also have enforcement authority pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW and Chapter 173-27 WAC, “Part II Shoreline Management Act Enforcement.”
B. Process.
1. Any action taken by Kitsap County shall be in accordance with civil enforcement provisions of the code enforcement chapter of Kitsap County Code along with the following provisions.
2. The choice of enforcement action and the severity of any penalty should be based on the nature of the violation, the damage or risk to the public or to public resources, and/or the existence or degree of bad faith of the persons subject to the enforcement action.
3. Whenever an authorized official determines that a violation has occurred or is occurring, he or she should pursue reasonable attempts to secure voluntary corrections prior to taking any other action. Failing voluntary correction, the authorized official may issue a notice of infraction. Upon receipt of a notice of infraction, a person may request a hearing to explain mitigating circumstances surrounding the infraction.
C. Civil Penalties. Pursuant to RCW 90.58.210, any person who fails to conform to the terms of a permit issued under this program or who undertakes development on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required under this program shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 for each violation. Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required permit shall constitute a separate violation.
D. Criminal Penalties. Any person found to have willfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation of the Act, this master program, or any rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, pursuant to RCW 90.58.220.
(Ord. 598 (2021) § 4 (Appx. 1), 2021)