Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. It is 05:31, and we will be calling our meeting to order for the 04/07/2026 planning commission meeting. Before we begin this evening's proceedings, I'd like to no. So sorry. Going out of order there. Okay. Before we start the meeting, I would like to start with introductions, and I'd like to start online. Tammy Bowen, North Kitsap. Thank you.

David Vliet, North Kitsap. Ryan Wixon, Central Kitsap.

Kathy Meisenberg, North Kitsap.

Ken Fender, Central Kitsap.

Ashley Hall, South Kitsap.

Caleb Nelson, South Kitsap.

Danielle Douthat, South Kitsap.

Alright. And before we begin this evening's proceedings, I'd like to remind everyone that this is an official meeting of the Kitsap County Planning Commission conducted in accordance with Washington State Open Public Meetings Acts and Robert's Rules of Order. We we ask that all attendees remain respectful throughout the proceedings. Please refrain from cheering, clapping, calling out, displaying signs, any behavior that may make it difficult for others to hear or follow the discussion. Such behavior can also be intimidating to those who may wish to express deferring opinions.

These proceedings are intended to provide a fair and orderly opportunity for all voices to be heard on the record. If disruptions occur, any Planning commissioner may call for order, and the chair may ask for a break. Disruptive individuals may be asked to leave the meeting room. Thank you for helping us maintain a courteous, respectful, and professional environment. All right. And before we move into the adoption of our agenda.

Yes. Hey. Good evening, commissioners. So five weeks ago, we sent out a draft, script to the chair and the vice chair and then reviewed it at our meeting that we have with the chair and the vice chair ahead of time. In that script, we outlined a lot of we added a lot of things based on some issues or some some problems we had in previous commissions of of kind of clunkiness.

Right? So we were trying to we're trying to help. We're trying to provide some some help to the chair and the vice chair. In there, we also included a statement about ex parte communication. And your chair and your vice chair did a fantastic job pushing back on that piece of it and highlighted why they didn't think it was required. And we wrapped up that meeting, had a quick two second huddle, and then all agreed that they were correct in pulling that from them or from the script. So we changed that. That was only in the draft script. It never got to a script that the rest of you may or may not have seen. You know, if you did a records request, maybe you gathered it, but there was it was never sent to anybody other than the chair and the vice chair for that prebrief.

So I I sent an email, followed up with the chair and the vice chair thanking them for their candid comments, apologizing for why we got it wrong. We had full staff and myself had good intentions, but execution was poor. Since then, we have continued to hear concerns about the script, and those concerns are coming through meetings maybe some of you are having with your the commissioner that appointed you. So what you now see in front of you is a very, very, very watered down version of the script. It may cause it to be clunky at times because we took a lot of the stuff we were trying to help with with Ashley getting through it.

So we will we love to hear feedback though. If you think we've undershot, that's great. We will add stuff back in, but, we did hear you. You we heard that there was concerns with the script, so we we basically told everything out and just gave gave gave Ashley and Kathy, if she's ever running it, with bare bones what they need to get through it. You should have in front of you also a one pager on Robert's Rules, so that should help you with anything you need because that's a lot of the stuff we took out of the script.

But but just apologize to all of you for getting that wrong. I I think I've apologized to Kathy and Ashley if I didn't I thought I did in my email, but apologize to you for getting that wrong. And hopefully we found a good happy medium, but if we still get it wrong, please we welcome the feedback directly to us. Thanks.

Thank you, Rafe. Alright. I greatly apologize. I'm out of order of events. I didn't do our virtual meeting protocol prior to that, but I'm gonna do that now.

Please silence all electronic devices during the meeting. If you're attending in person, please refrain from having conversations with other attendees or staff during the meeting. If you wish to provide comments, please wait until the general public comment period. We offer four methods for public comment. In person attendees, please raise your hand if you wish to speak and you'll be called upon.

Please approach the podium and speak clearly into the microphone. Virtual attendees, Zoom, use your hand use the raise hand button at the bottom of the Zoom window at the appropriate time. Your name will be called and your microphone will be unmuted. Call in attendees, press star nine on your phone keypad to I call over meeting. Please include the meeting date, your name, and the agenda item or subject you are addressing.

Submitted comments will be entered into the record at the appropriate time. For all speakers, please state your name and the general area in which you live. Comments are normally limited to two minutes for general public comment and three minutes for public hearing comments. These time limits may be adjusted by the chair when appropriate. I'd like to now move into the adoption of the agenda. Do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting on 04/07/2026?

I move to adopt the agenda for April 7 as written.

I second.

Alright. Are there any amendments to the agenda this evening? None. Alright. Seeing none, the agenda is adopted as presented. And then next, I would like to move into the adoption of the meeting minutes from our March 27 meeting, I believe it was. Do I have a motion to adopt the minutes from our March 27 meeting?

March 17.

Sorry. I apologize. I knew there was a seven in there. Our March 17 meeting.

I move to adopt the minutes from the March 17 meeting as presented.

I second. Alright. Are there any amendments or changes to the March 7 March 17 meeting minutes? Alright. Seeing none, we are adopting the March oh, you're so sorry about that. Yes. All those in favor of adopting the March 17 meeting minutes, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye. I can't see Kathy, Clara. I'm so sorry. Or not sorry, Tammy. I'm looking at you. Alright. Oh, that's a hand raised. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. And

then I think we'll need to go back to adoption of the agenda because I don't believe we voted on that one.

No. We didn't. Okay. Thanks. Alright. Coming to the adoption of the agenda for tonight's meeting, 04/07/2026, do I hear a motion to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting?

I motion to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting.

Do I hear a second? I second.

Are there any amendments to the agenda? Seeing none, I will now vote. All those in favor of adopting the agenda for tonight's meeting, please raise your hand and say

aye. Aye.

Aye. Wonderful. It looks like all passed. We'll adopt the agenda. Thank you, Clara. Alright. The next portion of our meeting I'd like to open up is our first general public comment period. Are there any speakers in the room that would like to give public comment at this time? None. And is there anybody online that would like to give public comment on this time?

Yes. I see mister Palmer. Mister Palmer? Sorry. Give me one second.

I guess now you can hear me. I'm rather disappointed in my read the quote findings of fact for the action you're about to take on a, BLA code that, it doesn't reflect any of the testimony that was given at the last public hearing that the planning commission held. And according to my, observation of what took place back on March 17, the testimony was all negative. There weren't any positive aspects, but there were some very good points made, and some of those points should have been reflected in the findings of fact. I know you can't use what I'm saying now as quote testimony on it, but I'm it's a a disaster as far as I'm concerned.

And, also, I thought after the planning commission, split their vote that there was going to be kind of a, committee form to address a couple issues, and apparently, that never took place. So this process is really screwed up. That'll do it for now for now. Thank you, mister Palmer.

Seeing none other online, I just wanna call one more time for the room. Seeing no more speakers in the room, I'm gonna be closing our first general public comment period. And next, we will be talking to staff, Garrett Ballou, regarding the findings effect for the boundary line adjustment code.

Alright. Well, good evening, Planning Commission. Garrett Ballou, long range planner. And today, we have the findings of fact for the proposed boundary line adjustment code going over the events of the March 17 meeting, and essentially, the findings of fact documents that. And so the findings of fact, just to previous point, is not a document of any public testimony.

It is a document specifically to affirm what the decision was at a previous meeting. And so the comment matrix, and the public processes where that would be incorporated, but a findings of fact, is not necessarily the place for that. So the purpose of this meeting is to adopt the findings, the findings of fact from the 03/17/2026 deliberations meeting with the Planning Commission. And so the final motion of that that deliberations meeting resulted in a tie vote, four to four, the Planning Commission. Therefore, the motion did not pass, and the findings of the findings of fact that you see before you reflects this.

And so in that findings of fact document here, it's a two two page document. You'll you'll note that section two is the general procedural findings, and this this motion the failure of this motion to amend the or excuse me, propose recommendation to the findings of fact from the Planning Commission did not move forward, and that's reflected in paragraph nine on the backside of that page. You'll also notice there are a couple of items that are highlighted, and those are a couple of minor wording changes that were added in between when that findings was posted initially, to today. And so, you'll see those in section two as well, in both, paragraph one, which is amended to include, that the public outreach regarding both the proposed code and those code amendments, which we took a look at on the seventeenth towards the end of the meeting. And then in paragraph eight as well to reflect that 42 public comments were received throughout the duration of the project as of March 3, because of the that we will still have another public comment period before this goes to the board.

So just a clarifying point there. Okay. So because the final motion did not pass, the planning commission recommendations are not required to be incorporated into the findings of fact. You'll remember there was a series of recommendations that were voted upon by the Planning Commission for different sections, different line items of that proposed boundary line adjustment code. And although those do not officially move forward because the ultimate motion did not pass to recommend those.

Most of the Planning Commission amendments are included in our recommendation that will be going to the Board of County Commissioners. So you'll see once that draft ordinance is posted here in a few weeks that that is reflected or most of those changes have been incorporated in that draft. Some additional feedback from the planning commission during deliberations was that we'd like to see some more outreach specifically to surveyors and to realtors in the community. And so DCD held recent meetings with the South Puget Sound Chapter of the Land Surveyors Association of Washington or LSW, and that occurred on March 26. And that was a very productive meeting.

We had some great conversations and discussions with with those folks, and we got some great insight regarding their profession and how they view these boundary line adjustments. And in general, we were surprised to see that there was support for a boundary line adjustment code in Kitsap County from a majority of the surveyors. There were nine present in that meeting. And so we got some some excellent feedback from them and discussed the the code further and incorporated their their feedback and suggestions. We also met with the Kitsap County Association of Realtors on April, And that was also a great opportunity for us to present this code to them in its draft form and gather their feedback and see what their concerns were.

Also, discuss how how often something like a boundary line adjustment might hold up a sale and also get some get some feedback about what an appropriate time line would be to prioritize those in in the case that it does happen. Because it it can happen from time to time, although it's not particularly common. We want to ensure that those could be prioritized if a sale is pending a boundary line adjustment. Overall, from the meeting we had with the realtors, there was opposition to proposed code almost entirely on the basis of its its additional regulation, additional cost to applicants. But we did educate them on why we're proposing this code and and the exhibits that you have seen in previous meetings, showing the, the issues that can result on some of these unregulated BLAs when they circumvent subdivision regulations or lead to, potentially unbuildable illegal lots, when they aren't caught ahead of time.

And so with that recap of our previous meetings over the last couple of weeks with those groups, we have some next steps outlined. And so you'll notice that the public hearing for the proposed boundary line adjustment code has been moved. Now it is scheduled for June 8 at 05:30. And so this gives us additional time to meet with the board of county commissioners and discuss our findings from our our recent meetings with the surveyors and with the realtors. And so that will help us develop the draft ordinance as we get closer to that hearing.

So a couple about two and a half weeks before the public hearing, we will post a draft ordinance along with a comment form on the project web page, and then we can gather comments. That way, we're also accepting comments right now through the code updates email, and you can find that on the website. But official comment form alongside the draft ordinance with more pointed instruction to comment specifically on items in that draft ordinance will be posted two and a half weeks prior to the June 8 meeting or the public hearing. So comments for that will be accepted through June 9 or as the board directs if there's additional time that they would like to see in there. And so after that, the deliberations with the board of county commissioners is to occur in June or July.

We still need to get that scheduled. And then tentative adoption, if approved by the board, would be in late July, and then the implementation would follow most likely in the fall. Alright. So do we have any questions on the findings of fact or any of the materials I presented?

Ryan. Just more of a comment. I'd like to thank you guys for listening to the concerns that many of us had and having those additional meetings with those people.

Yeah. Of course. Yeah. It was really helpful for us to speak with with those folks and get their their insights and help develop the the ordinance. So it was it was good. Thank you.

Even if it's not in an official capacity, will we be able to see that amendment before it's presented to the commissioners?

The draft ordinance?

Yeah. The amended one that you were mentioning.

We don't have that available right now. No. We we will be posting in that two and a half weeks ahead of the the hearing. Right now, it's it's essentially in the draft format that you've you've seen in the past with a few other additional changes, but that will be coming soon.

So roughly two weeks, I guess, that we posted to the two weeks prior to

the public hearing that we

posted two on the point five. 2.5.

Yes, for the because we have a noticing window two point five weeks ahead of the hearing, and that's when documents will be posted.

Perfect. Mhmm. Thank you.

I know it's not material to this, but are you can you, like, just give a quick overview on what was not included from our previous meeting? What you what DCV decided not to include from the ask?

Let's see.

I think one of one of the items that comes to mind was building into code the a five day review time for for for BLAs that were pending a sale or sales pending a BLA. And so that's something that we don't necessarily want to include in the code itself. It would be more of a procedural, update. So something to have, maybe in the checklist or in a, an educational form, or or which would be something like a a brochure to to walk folks through the process. Just because that's not, something that we we want we don't have that type of language in code unless it's something like an RCW requirement.

And it's it's something that we don't foresee occurring all that often. We in our conversations with the realtors and with surveyors, it seems fairly uncommon for that to occur. We also see that I mean, with a with a type one administerial permit like this, we need to get the first cycle review done within sixty five days. But on our our most similar permit type right now, which is a legal lot review, this is taking much less time than that. And those are often more complicated projects.

So those I think those take no more than maybe a couple of weeks on the more complicated ones. So while we didn't include that in the draft, it's we don't see it foresee it being as permit that's gonna drag on and on for for weeks and months. It it should be a fairly quick review.

And then I just wanted to confirm that I had heard you earlier correctly when you're talking about the additional outreach. Did you say that ELSO is now pro the BLA code after your meeting with them that they are now more they are now in favor of this. Is that correct?

That that was the consensus from majority of the surveyors. Not not all. I will say not all. Specifically, the folks that we've seen testify, the Kitsap County surveyors are are not of the exact same opinion as as everybody else in that all Elsa meeting. But in general, those those folks who do work in Kitsap County as well as other jurisdictions had stated in in that meeting that this is this is gonna be beneficial for for the community to have these these items caught before they end up becoming larger problems later on down the line when developments proposed in that.

So I think we we had nine folks in that meeting. I wanna say it was about maybe six to three on whether the code was beneficial or or opposed.

Okay. Wanted to clarify. That's a really big swing from where

we were just

two weeks ago, so that's

kinda shocking. Surprised to hear some of the feedback in that meeting. We were we were assuming we'd be defending the code quite a bit. Yeah. But it actually the conversation was more so what what should we require? What should the checklist look like? That was what dominated a lot of the conversation. You know, what should be required, what shouldn't be required, what you know, we have a draft checklist now that we shared with them, and so that's been in development, and and meeting with them was very helpful. So yes. But you're right. It was definitely a swing from what we were expecting.

So can I can I comment really quick? So just to clarify a couple of things Gary said. So there were nine people on there. Seven of them were were suggesting that they needed we needed code in Gitsap County. To what if I would say that they said would have said no. And it wasn't that we presented to them and then they said, okay. Yeah. You need it. The first comment was, you guys, this is something that you absolutely need. We didn't have to we didn't sell it to them. So in fact, I think it's also important to say that general consensus was that we had undershot on what our requirements were. They thought we needed to actually beef up what we were our code. Just just to be to clarify some of the things that Garrett said.

Yeah. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Rafe.

So that draft checklist has come up multiple times. Will we will that be posted to the website also

we can get That will be posted as oh, excuse me. That'll be posted along with the draft ordinance for public comment. So we've we've gotten that cleaned up quite a bit, and that'll be on online as well. Perfect.

And, Garrett, just to chime in, is the you're saying it's gonna be on the comp plan remand website. Is that the best place that they can find? The boundary line adjustment. Sorry. Boundary line adjustment. Sorry.

Yeah. The boundary line adjustment web page, it'll be posted right at the top with a link to a comment form as well. So there'll be a link to the draft ordinance, a link to the checklist.

Yeah. It won't be on the planning commission web page, so just wanted to clarify that.

K. Caleb, once we've got it ready, we're gonna share it with with you guys directly. You guys won't have to go find it.

Okay.

We're gonna go ahead and send that out so that you guys have it directly because I think we owe it to you guys to do that. Perfect. So don't want you won't have to find it. Once we're ready to post it, we'll send it to you. It might be a couple days in advance of that, but it will be before it gets posted online.

What are the odds that that draft ordinance is with is hand in hand with that? Would we be able to see that also or we just need to wait for that?

We will give you everything that's when we're ready to post it, we're going give you everything that we have that we're going to post. We'll just give it to you guys ahead of time for review and you can comment or whatever, provide feedback, however you want to do it.

Perfect. Thank you.

Absolutely.

Do you have any more comments or questions for Garrett? All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Alright. And do I hear a motion, to adopt the findings of fact?

Do I hear a motion to adopt the findings of fact?

I have a question.

Is it too late to ask a question?

For Garrett? Yes. No, I think that would be just fine. We haven't moved into a motion yet, so. Do

you have any thoughts as to why the Kitsap surveyors were opposed, the surveyors from outside Kitsap were in favor? They came prepared to endorse regulation. There's too little regulation in your proposal. What how how did that bifurcation occur?

Yeah. So a lot of the feedback that we received from the surveyors at large is that boundary line adjustments in Kitsap County can can be, messy, especially to to to retrace and that kind of, which is where there may not be very obvious markers and lines, and so that can be an issue. And so that was one of the comments and just to get that cleaned up. But there was also an understanding for the types of issues that we've been seeing with with BLAs creating subdivisions when that's not something that BLAs are allowed to do. And so that's some one of the things we're trying to address with this.

Also, just protecting the public was a big a big part of this. And they said that, you know, as surveyors, it's it's their role to protect the public as well. And when you have a potential to create lots that unbeknownst to the purchaser are not buildable, that's that's not doing maybe that's not doing all that we can to protect the public when these lots are are getting BLAs through the county. And and recording a BLA is in itself not an illegal process. It's it's legal, but the resulting lot might not be legal in that you can't build anything on it.

And so that's something that they agreed with, and that was one of the pieces that they were citing. And and really just protecting the public is something that they they value throughout all of their work and what they're doing, and ensuring that these issues are eliminated upfront rather than having to uncover them later. And then that can create a lot of work and rework for surveyors as well, trying to figure out what's what when there's been maybe some bad BLAs that have occurred.

Yeah. All right. Any other questions or comment for Garrett before we move into voting? None? All right. Do I hear a motion? Thank you so much, Garrett. Apologize So about sorry. Do I hear a motion to approve the findings of fact?

I motion to approve the findings of facts for 2026 boundary line adjustment code for the planning commission findings of fact.

Do I hear a second? Looks like Tammy is seconding online. Is that acceptable? Just the hand raise? Or

Tammy, do you mind coming on and saying second?

I second passing the finding your pact. Okay. Thank you. I'm not sure if I can open it up for amendments at this time or not. Yeah. Do any of our commissioners have any amendments they'd like to make defining as a fact? Alright. Hearing none, imagine we'd have to vote at this point. Alright. All those in favor of moving forward findings of fact, please raise your hand and say aye.

Aye. One, two, three, four. Four in favor? And then one two three. Oh, all opposed?

Three opposed? Oh.

And then I'm waiting for abstentions.

Oh, I'm so sorry. And any anyone abstaining. David Vliet. Thank you. Should we vote one more time, Clara?

And if I might just add, this is you're not approving your deliberations. You're approving basically, you're documenting the findings of fact. So you're this vote is to basically establish the findings of fact. So that just want to make sure that you all understand the process.

Or or perhaps put another way is you're acknowledging by approval of the findings, process that occurred and that the motions that were made were in fact accurate. So this is the Planning Commission's record of how the BLA process went forward via the motions and the amendments that were made. So it's no longer about opinion on whether BLA is the right thing for Kitsap County or not. It's about does it reflect the record accurately.

Okay. I think I was

not clear on how I voted. I was thinking I don't if I'm allowed to discuss right now but think I would have voted differently had I heard that first.

Yeah. If it's okay with DCD staff, I'd like to re poll the votes and re rerun this motion now that there's clarity and understanding if that's okay with DCD staff.

Sure. And and if I can just add, anybody who is absent for that, but then went and watched the proceedings are also eligible to vote at this time as well. Just wanted to clear that up.

Okay. All right. All those in favor of approving the findings of fact as presented this evening, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Alright. It looks like it's unanimous. Oh. I didn't Oh, so sorry. All those opposed? One. So sorry, Clara. Yeah. Alright. And it looks like the findings of fact will be moving forward to BOCC.

Thank you so much, DCD staff. I just wanna say thank you so much for your time and your effort. I know it's a lot of work, and I know that this was a contentious, tough topic. And I just I really do wanna say thank you, and thank you for your diligence. And I wanna echo Ryan's sentiments around just reaching out to these key stakeholders and just revisiting that conversation one more time. I think that it's important, and it and, obviously, it shows, right, and the importance of doing that. And so thank you for listening. We really do appreciate it. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. And next brings us to our next topic this evening, which is our 2025 Planning Commission annual Report presented by Scott Diener.

Good evening, Commissioners. Before you, you have the 2025 Planning Commission Annual Report. You'll see that there is a code site in the executive summary that suggests two things, that we have to have an annual report and that it be adopted by the Planning Commission. And secondly, that there will be a joint meeting with the Board. The joint meeting with the Board is scheduled to happen in quarter three or quarter four, which we think is really a better time of the year because then we are getting into next year's work plan and perhaps the Planning Commission has ideas about what that work plan should look like.

But as to the report itself, it's pretty straightforward. I know we had ten minutes scheduled for this, but I think it's really more like a couple. I'll go through what the key actions were in 2025. It's on page four of the annual report as well. So we had administrative code updates for both Title 16, Land Division and Development, and Title 17, Zoning.

We had the PROs Plan, is also known as the Parks and Recreation Open Space Plan. That was done in early twenty twenty five. We had, if you recall, some of you, the standards for sanitary sewer construction that was presented by Public Works in May of twenty May of no. Sorry. September 2025.

We had one open space application also in September 2025. The Year of the Rural had public hearings in October 2025 that included the comp plan land use chapter update, the rural and resource lands additions, three specific sorry, three land reclassification requests, the rezones, and updates to both agricultural code and childcare code. We had training and informational presentations occurring a couple times. We had an hour parliamentary training video called Great Planning Commission's Great Planning Commission meetings live workshop recording. That was the Jurassic Parliament that you'll never forget.

And then we also had some other briefings that that are not shown here on on this page, but are shown in the record. We had several miscellaneous briefings, including housing targets, battery energy storage systems and work planning, just to name a couple of those. And so this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to make any changes to the report as they see fit.

Do any of the Planning Commissioners have any amendments, comments or questions for Mr. Diner?

This is talking about the previous year? Yes. Not the upcoming year.

2025.

Alright. Any others? Alright. Seeing none. Thank you so much, Scott. I appreciate it.

Alright. I had the easiest job tonight.

Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you.

And we will need to have that affirmed as well by a vote. Oh. So

Okay. That's wild. Okay. Thank you so much. Do I have to make a motion to approve? Okay. Do I hear a motion to approve the 2025 Planning Commission annual report as presented?

I move to approve the 2025 Planning Commission annual report as presented. I second.

Wonderful. Are there any amendments from the Planning Commission regarding the report? All right. Seeing none, we'd like to now vote for all those in favor of approving the 2025 Planning Commission annual report. Please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. All those opposed? Ryan, are you gonna vote?

It or approve it. I wasn't here. He's gonna Yes. I'm staying.

I didn't know that. I apologize. I just thought it was on the presentation itself, not on the participation.

It's not on the participation. If you agree with the record as as stated.

I just wasn't here, so I can't.

That's fine. I think if you want to abstain from that, there's no problem with that.

Okay. If the commission doesn't mind, I'd like to just do that one more time just for clarity of record. All the Caleb seconded. Yeah. All those in favor of approving the 2025 Planning Commission annual report as presented, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Seven, eight, seven ayes. All those opposed? None. And those abstaining? One abstaining. Thank you so much. And this is approved. Yeah. Thank you so much. Alright. Our next item tonight is a briefing on the Equestrian Facility Assessment by Heather Cleveland.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Heather Cleveland. I'm a long range planner with Kitsap County Department of Community Development, and I'll be presenting, tonight an update on the equestrian, facility assessment as you all were a part of that process. These are the topics that I'll be going over. So an overview of the project very quick, touching on the working group. An impact assessment, it was a very important part of the next steps. And then potential courses of action and then the actual next steps of what happens after. So the project overview, I'll go over this very quickly. Most of you are already aware of this.

Land use compatibility was a topic in the year of the rural and then specifically as it related to commercial equestrian facilities. This moved over to 2026, and it it was specifically asked of us to do a case study on Roundup Lane. So these are the things so the research and assessment that, kinda took place after it shifted involved, the following steps. So case study of Roundup Lane and what had happened there since 2018. Historic and versus recent code information.

So the fact that there used to be a CUP requirement for equestrian facilities is something we looked into and how did that change over time. Co compliance data was another piece that we looked at, back to 2012. Existing code, so for example, when there was a complaint, what existing code already exists that could be applied or should be applied? Cross jurisdiction, analysis, so what do other jurisdictions do? And then, another part of this was best management practices, was another part, I think a critical part of our assessment.

And then along with that, we did engagement and outreach. So an equestrian working group was formed that began September. We also conducted a survey and had a workshop. So this is the initial impacts assessment. So what I appreciate about this slide is it shows both sides of it.

It shows when this project first began, it was definitely looking at the, the land use compatibility was the topic, and regulation is something that we were looking into. And these are the impacts, on adjacent properties that were of concern based on looking at Roundup Lane as a case study, but also looking at the the co compliance cases. So noise, dust and odor, traffic and customers, runoff and water pollution, emergency evacuation and access, and enforcement. So in identifying these impacts, you'll see in the next slide how we're looking to address those impacts. Equally as important from what we heard from the community is the impacts on increased regulation on the equestrian community.

So increased regulation could lead to land conversion. So having just finished the year of the rural and talking about development pressures and conservation and preservation of rural land and rural character, this was a legitimate concern that was brought up. Increased regulation could lead to, less rural businesses including equestrian. Existing so a a big concern that was brought up was how existing equestrian facilities would be impacted by this. And although we talked about legal nonconforming, should a regulation be passed, well, how would that be confirmed?

Folks were very concerned about that. We proposed the idea of perhaps a registration process. Again, more that would be another process. There could be other positive to that, positives to that, but general concern of how if you already exist and this doesn't apply to you, what's to say that this couldn't actually impact you. The cost of administrative ACUPs, administrative conditional use permits or conditional use permits.

So when unclassified use permits for the several facilities in the nineteen nineties that existed, well, that cost several $100. I think it was around $800. In today's dollars, that would be between 1 and $2,000. But if you look at what an ACUP or CUP would be today, it's between 4,000 and $10,000. And not only that, there are increased other regulations that could have impacted this.

So the cost of it was a great concern. And what was shared with us from the equestrian community is this is a passion business, not a business that makes a lot of money. And so the return on investment would be really tough. Economic viability. So another topic that came up is if you had, you know, if you even had, if you maybe were a hobby or this was personal and you wanted to grow it and grow to where you hit that threshold, it was brought to our attention as well that sometimes growing is surviving.

So how would that be impacted? What would that threshold look like? Clear thresholds is another challenge. Setbacks in animal densities versus best management practices. So setbacks and animal densities, when you look at code, you look at what other jurisdictions do, those can be very clear. And that can sometimes be very helpful for the community and for code enforcement. However, it's not necessarily a good fit for Kitsap County. So what we have in our code is best management practices, and you'll see in a moment how we kind of take that a couple steps further in our recommendations, but we're recognizing that in Kitsap County. It's not a one size fits all, setbacks don't necessarily work. And then also the concern about rural character and community.

How important to question facilities are to community and people's well-being and recreation, but also that it does add to rural character. So potential courses of action, we presented to the Planning Commission kind of how we were looking at this, putting it into three different buckets. So status quo, so nothing, nothing happens. That is always an option. Refined simple, what we call these quote unquote refined simple options.

These are some examples, which I'll go into detail in a moment. And then what we called undertake longer term, and these are not simple. In this list here I'll kind of go in a little bit more into it. So we consider so registration for existing agriculture and commercial equestrian facilities. That's a project that would take a lot of work to figure out how that would work. Defining commercial equestrian facilities and what threshold that is. That is what we consider a longer term project. Tiered thresholds for commercial equestrian facilities, again, how would that work? How would that fit? How would that be determined?

Lots of variables are involved in something like that. And then bringing up another one, these are just some examples of directions that something like this could go, but it would take a significant amount of effort to shake it out. But create use standards for equestrian event facility events. Similar to tourism assembly events have very specific standards. Something like that could be introduced for equestrian facility events, which are also events that have particular impacts.

So this is, these, there's two slides here that I'm going present. These are the next steps that are underway or already exist. So we shared this with the Board of County Commissioners as these things are already moving forward. This is for awareness. So farm plans, so this is something that Kitsap Conservation District plays a major role in and something that they will be adding in the future is the emergency evacuation and access.

So on the right side you'll see the impact that this is addressing that goes back to that impact slide. Also, farm plans already exist that address runoff and water pollution and odors. So but the evacuation aspect of that is something new to the farm plans, and truly emergency evacuation and people's health, safety, and welfare is something that's very important. But that is being addressed in in a variety of different ways. Also, a phone tree already exists. It's known as cow 911. Could that be more formalized? Could that be connected? So if the sheriff has a question, there's somebody that will be called. This is an informal process, but could that be more formalized?

Because there was an incident that happened with Roundup Lane where horse trailers were being evacuated. It blocked the road, and that and there was a fire nearby. That is a concern. How are people evacuating? How is that being organized and communicated?

Also, Kitsap County or Kitsap Conservation District applied for a grant. And this is not just for a question, but this is coordination between farm stables and Kitsap County Department of Emergency Management. So all around this idea of emergency evacuation is there are other things that are working to address that right now. And so let's see how that plays out and and if that can be helpful. Agriculture specific support, so connection with Agriculture Advisory Council.

The Agriculture Advisory Council was recently the resolution was adopted to form it. And part of the resolution and the direction for that Agriculture Advisory Council is to consider evaluating complaints and concerns. And so talking about, you know, what are those complaints? How do they relate to the Right to Farm Act? How are best management practices working?

I think having that counsel and a place to go to have that discussion before things go further, I think will be very helpful. So that is underway and exists. And then something that we also wanted to bring up that continues to be a concern is private roads. So this we weren't able to address this and we're not proposing to address this specifically with Equestrian Facility Code or in this effort right now. It's a civil dispute and it's not just about Equestrian facilities.

It's a it's a topic for other situations as well. And these are what ended up moving forward then after we presented to the Board of County Commissioners. These are simple options that are going to be moving forward in some capacity. So a director's interpretation or a code update, we're currently working on a director's interpretation for the farm stand and making it distinctly different or under I guess, laying out more clearly the difference between a farm stand and a moderate home business. And we're hoping to do that through a director's interpretation, and that's in progress right now.

We're also working alongside code enforcement to understand how those things can be enforced and what type of questions can be asked. Because if you if you look at the farm stand definition, it's about percentage that's grown on-site, the percentage that's grown within adjacent counties, how is that calculated, how is that enforced. That's what we're working on right now. Farm plan education and best management practices education. So working alongside, hopefully, Kitsap Conservation District, I know they've already mentioned this, perhaps having some workshops, some extra education materials.

And not just for the community, but perhaps for there's multiple entities that do code enforcement, especially as it relates to livestock and equestrian, including Kitsap County Humane Society, Kitsap County and then Conservation District, and also our own code enforcement. But how are we interpreting noise, dust, odors? And when is it Right to Farm Act? And when is it time to enforce? It's not enforceable, but those best management practices and having a discussion about that together.

Another thing that came out of this, and this is from the Equestrian Working Group, is business specific guidance. I think this was a really great offering from that's coming out of the Equestrian Working Group, is when it comes to dust and noise, especially in August, in talking about dust, it is an issue. And it can be it can become a public health concern for the equestrian, but also for the folks, for the people. So what are those resources? How much do they cost?

Where can folks find those? So I see that as a way as the community helping the community, so that we can all hopefully have compatibility. Mediation is another option that came up and I think was was favored. Easier said than done though, how would that work, who would we contract with, but it is something that has been brought up multiple times. And I think as we talk about land use compatibility and rural and our agriculture and Right to Farm Act, is this something that could move forward in the future?

We have it on the list, but that one's not as doable and maybe not as further along, but I think should remain on here for consideration. And then finally, notifications. This is a topic that came up from the Year of the Rural. There are notifications in code when it comes to forest resource lands and mineral resource overlay. When somebody moves within a certain distance to that, they automatically get a letter saying this is activity that occurs here.

We struggle with that when it comes to agriculture because we have no agricultural zoning. So this is something, how could that be triggered? How can we let folks know that this is an activity that could occur? It's something that will be a topic for the Agriculture Advisory Council to continue to consider. With that, I don't have any further information.

I just am here to provide an update on where we're at with it. There is there have been updates then, you know, information on the equestrian assessment webpage and happy to answer any questions. And I will say we have one more meeting. It will be April 15. I don't know if we'll have subsequent meetings, but the Agricultural Advisory Council has been formed and had their first meeting, and majority of these topics will most likely shift over to the Agricultural Advisory Council moving forward.

Any questions or comments for Heather? So

I just wanna say thank you. This has been a huge undertaking for DCD, and I can speak for the majority of everybody up here for us as well. And to see it come full circle is wonderful. And thank you very much for sticking with it and finding where we can connect the dots to to get to a resolution. Using advisory groups and committees that actually live this field, this work, this this subject matter is, I think progress, and I'm glad to hear that there is an agricultural advisory committee being formed, if not already with a group of people, and they're there for a purpose, and I think it's really great to tap into their knowledge.

One more thing, you know, in Kitsap County, the comprehensive plan talks a lot about agriculture, and I think this solidifies that. And having these committees and working together as a collaboration with DCD and the people that are out there that live it is great. So thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you. This is great.

Yeah. Great. Thanks, Heather, for bringing this forward today and all the work on it. I just had one I had a first one clarification. We're just talking about commercial facilities, right? We're talking about Equestrian.

That's what this the focus one was on was commercial, but nothing is moving forward regardless. Equestrian facility is listed in the agriculture code, but the different and what we were always looking at was that higher level of impact. But nothing is moving forward and there will be no changes at this time. And the best management practices apply to agriculture primary use, but it also applies to anyone, you know, who's you could not have a commercial and still have an impact on your neighbors. So I think it's more about the impact.

Right. Okay, great. And then you mentioned something about like farm stands and like producing product on I'm trying to have could you kind

of like so were we

talking about equestrian when we were talking about that?

Yes. And so

So like give us an example of like a farm stand for equestrian. So Amount of produce or products produced on the property itself.

Right. So to reference the code, which, you know, you can look at it exactly, but that's where this dilemma has come is what is allowed in a farm stand if you're not producing anything on the land as the code describes. So that so a farm stand being used if you're not producing anything is where that's where we wanna have some clarification. So nothing's being changed with the farm stand other than to clarify and kinda layout if you're not producing or you don't meet the provisions as they're listed, there's five of them, you don't qualify for a farm stand. Therefore, if you have these other impacts, which are listed under moderate home business, that's the process that you have to use, which requires an ACUP.

Okay. Thanks for that clarification. You're welcome.

Quick question. First of all, thank you. I've thanked you a few times because I think you have our job dealing with this, and there's been a lot of passionate people and you've had to deal with them and I think you've dealt with them in a graceful way. I I am a little bit con not I don't know if I'm concerned or confused, but you say it's not moving forward, but then when we look at simple steps, there's something called director's interpretation. Is that part moving forward?

That part is moving forward.

Because Inter the director's interpretation, if I understand it right, and I'm new to this commission, wouldn't that essentially give the director of DCD the ability to implement the full code at their discretion?

No. So but I'm glad you asked. It's an interpretation of what already exists. So if it crosses the line and becomes an update, that has to go through a public process. It if it's clarifying what is already in code, which that is our intent, then that's a director's interpretation.

Okay. And then just one last part, the the simple steps talked about moderate home businesses. Mhmm. And I would just wanna differentiate that from Equestrian if there isn't a lot of moderate sized home businesses that are getting complaints about it, I'd like to have those in two different buckets just to protect those people. Like, Stuart Johnson had an Olympic view that'd be a moderate kind of home business. I don't think they have the zoning for it. But if they're not getting complaints but a lot of horse people are, I don't wanna see a code update that impacts all sorts of businesses if certain types aren't getting complaints.

Right. So code enforcement only comes in if there's complaints.

Okay.

So we're not looking we're this doesn't change that. But it's providing a distinction, a clearer distinction between the code that already exists between farm stand and moderate home business. So nothing's changing other than and they're in the co compliance case review that we did. There was a similar example, but the difference was and why this wasn't automatically applied, you know, like, oh, that's a precedent setting, and they were required to obtain a moderate home business ACUP, is they weren't agriculture. So I think the fact that their agricultural primary use is what leads to that gray area.

So nothing's changing, but providing clarification to move forward with something that's already there.

Would the percentage on the farm stand, the percentage grown on the property, would that part be changing? No. Okay. So would you continue to have the problems like you've had with the farm stand permit on Roundup Lane if it's not changing?

So if it's not a farm stand, then it's a moderate home business and that requires an ACUP. So if they don't qualify for a farm stand meeting those provisions, those five that are laid out, which includes 50% grown on-site, 75% adjacent counties, if they don't qualify for that, then in it's like, well, how do and how is that information verifiable? Those are the type of things that we're working to make clearer. Mhmm.

Since we've talked about Roundup Lane a lot, they did get a farm stand permit. Right?

It's not. Their a permit's not required.

But didn't they have a farm

It's stand permitted outright. But if you so if you're doing it and you that's what you're you're falling under, we're saying that you don't. This is what's required if you don't meet the provisions of a farm stand.

Okay.

So it's permitted outright. Agriculture is permitted outright. Agriculture primary use. And then that's an accessory use that is permitted by right. There is no permit process. I think if there were a permit process, it would solve some things. But there isn't one. It's permitted outright.

I thought that they had a farm sand permit. I thought that was presented to us.

It's the assumption sales. It's the assumption that they're operating under that. So but because it's permitted outright, there isn't a piece of paper that says that. It's so when enforcement needs to, it needs to be clear that you don't meet these qualifications, the provisions under firm stand. And so that's where we're providing the director's interpretation to provide that clarification.

Okay.

So operating under it is a better maybe a better way to say it than having a permit because it's permitted outright.

I'll I'll stop for now. I it's a it's a little bulky for my understanding, but I think I I guess that was just a little confusing for me, but I thank you for explaining it

to me. I agree that it's confusing. I'll say even when it comes to which I'll I'll update this in a moment. When it comes to childcare, for example, that's permitted outright, meaning it's you're allowed to do it. If it's not permitted, it's not allowed. The other options are an administrative conditional use permit or conditional use permit. So, yeah, it's it's an interesting I can understand why it's confusing.

Thank you for explaining it though.

You're welcome.

In the simple options and next steps, you mentioned enforcement, multiple agencies doing enforcement. And you said Kitsap Conservation District does code enforcement.

Not code enforcement, so thank you for clarifying that. They don't do code enforcement, but what they provide is support for farm plans. It is a matter of Kitsap and they provide education for the best management practices, which is in our code. So it kind of becomes this kind of circular thing of it's required, and it's our how we it's how we describe we use best management practices rather than clear animal densities. And so how is that enforced? It's tricky. We're not proposing to change it. But if we wanna keep it that way, we have to kinda level up.

Understood.

Yeah.

Okay. And maybe I misheard you. I'm sorry. But I got concerned when you said kids

are interested future. That word and it I agree, and it gets a little tricky, but I'm glad you clarified because I probably I perhaps lumped that altogether.

No worries. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome.

I just have a quick question. I apologize. I was taking notes on the ag the ag group. Is the equestrian group, is that being disbanded, or is that gonna continue on?

It will be eventually. Okay. Our next meeting is April 15. We had two penciled in for May and then June, not knowing what this process would look like moving forward. But we'll decide at that April meeting if it moves forward. And I think the majority of the topics can move to the Agricultural Advisory Council. But we do have that April 15 meeting where we'll discuss these same things and who's doing what and where will this live moving forward.

Okay. Thank you so much for your clarification.

No. You're

welcome. Thank you. Do we have any more comments or questions for Heather on question? None. Thank you so much, Heather. We really appreciate it. Thank you. And then please don't go anywhere. Yep. I think I have you next. Alright. And next, we have our final briefing this evening. We are the rural implementation by Heather Cleveland. I'm back.

Okay. I am here again to I think it's, it feels good for us to communicate and, you know, just in general in work to, like, what's next? How do we implement this? Where does this go from here? So this is another update. Again, my name is Heather Cleveland. I'm a long range planner with Kitsap County Department of Community Development, and I was a project lead for, the Year of the Rural. And this is an update to kind of where it landed and and what's moving forward. So just an overview again, of the public process, the ordinance that was updated, the deliverables that were involved in that project, and then implementation and what that looks like, for us. So this was the public process.

The drafts were published on September 2. And interestingly, it's not like this for all things, but when it comes to comp plan and I guess comp plan specifically, you can only update the comp plan once per year. So to push this out to another year is not ideal. So it's ideal to get this done. So when this timeline was placed, it was locked. We were pretty locked to what this what this timeline looked like. So September 2 is when the drafts were published. The public process began, and we worked towards, adoption on December 8. And then here's just some other information and highlights and milestones that were part of that process that you all were a part of. These were the three deliverables.

We had the land use chapter and the rural the land use chapter and the rural and resource lands chapter. The land use chapter is briefly mentioned because anything related to rural and resource lands was previously part of the land use chapter. So there's a strikeout in referencing now the new rural and resource lands chapter. So those edits were minimal, and then the rural and resource lands chapter was a a brand new We had several code updates and then also the reclassification, our site specific amendments. With the rural and resource lands chapter, so that was a brand new chapter.

It hadn't been a standalone chapter since 2012, and it was woven into the land use chapter ever since then. It was noticed definitely noticed and felt during the 2024 comprehensive plan periodic update that with the focus in the growth management act being on housing population and employment that we needed a special attention paid to rural and resource lands. And so hence, the year of the rural was proposed for 2025. Couple interesting things were added to included in the rural and resource lands chapter. We mentioned earlier, rural character is a big theme of this chapter, and that's through guidance of the Growth Management Act.

And we introduced here, you know, these are the five categories that kind of where this where we broke this down. It is similar to in the past, but something that kind of was elevated and I think it's important to note based on the conversation we just had, is working the idea of working lands was introduced. Because we do not have agriculture resource lands, and that was determined in the nineteen nineties, but we do have agriculture. So when I was looking at previous chapters, you know, whether it was in land use or the rural resource lands chapter previously, Agriculture was awkwardly placed or separate from resource lands because we don't have agricultural zoning. So the idea of working lands and that forestry and agriculture exists outside of those resource lands and how can we protect them is something that we want to look into into the future.

So that concept was introduced. Another thing to point out is the rural environment part of this chapter was really expanded, including wildlife habitat corridors. Water was a big focus of that chapter, so this has now been updated. And two codes. So code update doesn't always have to go hand in hand with a comp plan chapter update, but sometimes it does.

These were priorities that were provided to us by the Board of County Commissioners. Childcare was provided as a priority because it's a it's a crisis here in Kitsap County and across the country. And then you're wondering why did that happen in the year of the rural? Well, specifically in rural, it was not allowed. So we talked about things being permitted or is an ACUP required as a CUP?

It was not allowed in rural wooded. So when when we were beginning to look at that, we just we took that several steps further and removed barriers for childcare, including in home daycare and childcare centers in the majority of zones throughout Kitsap County. Agriculture was another priority. An agriculture working group steering committee was formed as part of this. That was the only group that I was directed by the Board of County Commissioners to form that helped support this the process of the Year of the Rural.

And specifically looking at one of their top priorities, which happy to see was the agriculture advisory council, but also generally economic viability and farmland preservation. So codes were there were several code updates related to that as part of the agriculture code update. There were three reclassification requests and this is showing where they landed. So these were all three were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. So it could go either way in the end of this.

But it was adopted, all three were adopted. I think one change to point out here with the middle one, Moran, we had made the recommendation and it also moved through the planning commission to include that parcel to to the north to go also to rural industrial. They moved that back. That's where their residence is. And so that was something that did not move forward.

So just wanted to note that. What and then another thing, I guess, important part to note for that chain that was different from the application is that Northeastern parcel in the Stokes Campbell was removed and it remain and our recommendation was to not include it, and that remained, through the Board of County Commissioner process. So what you're seeing here is what was adopted. What happens after this is the zoning maps are changed and also a letter is submitted to all applicants informing them of their updating their updated zoning. So next, after something's updated is implementation.

So this this ordinance was adopted and the ordinance was attached in your executive summary, you can look at that. But these are the next some of the next steps that happen afterwards. So the rural resource lands chapter, there will be an update to the comprehensive plan. It's in progress. We also, at the same time, DCD is working on accessibility for our documents that are public facing and this is looped into that.

So maybe taking a little bit longer, but it will be published very soon, and that will be our new so it'll be the 2024 period periodic update saying 2025, and then we're working to put a table on the inside showing any update in tracking those and referencing the ordinance for these updates to help folks keep track of what's changed since that 2024 periodic update. The Agricultural Advisory Council resolution to form it was adopted, and we had our first meeting in March. All nine positions for the the three three districts, so three positions in each district were appointed. And the only two that we're missing yet is youth and we're everyone's recruiting and hoping to have those there's two positions appointed. So if anyone knows any youth, please point them towards that.

It's a great opportunity. So that has been formed. They have they're working through establishing bylaws, operational guidelines, and then also working on their action plan of what what to work on in 2026, paying close attention to the rural and resource lands chapter as a guide to what can we reference and leverage from that. And then also, all are familiar with the rural lands analysis that is coming out of this work, you'll hear more about that in future meetings. The child care and agriculture code updates, brochures are in progress right now.

The child care brochure was published, I think, yesterday or today. And I'll also be working on an agriculture code update. That's to provide a summary of these are the changes that were made. Otherwise, folks would have to look through the ordinance and then look through the new one and kinda connect these dots. So these brochures kinda help summarize what what changes have been made.

Also internal updates whenever a code update is made, have to inform our colleagues on how that may or may not change part of their process. And then also, especially as it relates to childcare, an ACUP is no longer needed. So what is the new permitting process and what does that look like? We're having conversations with respect to that right now. And then I also mentioned the reclassification request, the next steps that happened for implement implementation for that, and those were quick steps that could happen right after the, ordinance was adopted.

And that's the update for the year of the rule.

Thank you so much, Heather. We really appreciate it. Any of my fellow commissioners have anything? Kathy? This

is probably a very broad question, not specific necessarily to this entire presentation. But I do know that the county has implement implemented in the past zoning, different zoning types across the county. Why did the county not entertain agricultural zoning?

So it was and I can share with the planning commit. I'll share it with Clara to share with the planning commission. It was in the nineteen ninety's that that was determined. And there's a variety of factors that are listed in RCW of what determines agricultural land of commercial significance. I might have those words a little mixed up. But part of it is the size of our parcels, the connectedness of those parcels. So it was determined in the nineteen nineties that we didn't have we didn't have agricultural lands of commercial significance. That was that was determined then. Is it something that we continue to look at and assess? Yes.

But it feels like it feels tough. So and I will say in proposing working lands doesn't mean that that's over, but it also means like what are some other options in case that should never move forward. Yeah. But it was a decision that was made in the nineteen nineties, and I'm happy to share the documentation of that. Yeah. That we're living with today. You're welcome. And and I will say too, there's been some great presentations on on that through Kitsap Conservation District. Diane Fish had given a presentation about the history, and I thought she did a great job of and I can send a link to that too.

Mhmm.

A question on the child care code. Is that an active current code, or is that something that will be proposed?

It's effective. Yep. It was effective January 1.

So as a permitted use, child care in the rural area, I'm completely in support of child care. There's not enough child care.

Mhmm.

I just I was wondering when we looked at Roundup Lane, different subject, we were looking at private easements and how the county doesn't have jurisdiction. And

one of

the problems at Roundup Lane was neighbors complaining about traffic. Mhmm. With childcare as a permitted use, if there are people that share an easement and there's a new permitted childcare center, is there any part of the code that allows director's interpretation to look at access to easements? I'm just worried that maybe neighbors could get negatively affected by a center opening up on a small shared private easement, and then we'd be right back where we started with the agricultural folks.

And that did come up. How we're addressing that is that it's on the applicant to comply with their homeowners association of that private road. So it's something so that's part of our permitting process right now. And I'll also say this does go through so when it comes to when I mentioned earlier permitted outright, that means that there's, like, essentially no process, no checks. But when it comes to childcare, there's still a state license.

There's still building permit inspections. There's still other that's I'll also say this too. Although we removed perhaps some land use barriers, there are still there are still other barriers that are in place. So, yeah, we what we're doing is looking to put that acknowledgment of that homeowners association, that acknowledgment on permits. We're trying to figure out where to put that. But, yeah, I think I we hear what you're saying.

For example, like event centers, I believe in the event center code, there is a requirement that you have to access county maintained road. And that protects neighborhoods from huge amounts of traffic. I'm not against childcare. Right. And I I I risk sounding like I am, but some of those folks on Roundup Lane did have good grievances with amounts of traffic on their road, and I'd hate to see people negatively impacted from traffic from a child care center.

Right. So there are standards that are still in place that talk about accommodating it. It's also yeah. So I'll I'll just say it's something that we continue to think about. I think it's gonna continue to be a challenge for rural businesses. But we're also trying to address it where we can. So I don't know that it's not gonna happen at all, but we're trying to put things in place to help protect that in the future. But it's not foolproof. You know, they're yeah.

And does the child care code have it's permitted use.

It's permitted outright. Mhmm. But there are standards. So there's still things that you have to meet, but you don't have to come in and go through a process.

So is there a requirement for health department approval?

Yep. All those all those requirements are still in place. It's a matter of the land use aspect of it and going through an ACP or a CUP to get it, and also it's simply being allowed. But all of those other requirements, especially because state licensure is still a part of this, their requirements, and yes, the health and and we reference that in the standards that you have you still have I believe we do. You still have to meet those requirements.

I'll also acknowledge as we were looking at this, there are other codes in place. So I would say when when we initially drafted this, I listed all the codes that already exist and it's like we don't have to repeat those, Heather. Those already exist somewhere else. But I think I know that there is a child care business task force that is working towards a tool kit that I think will help connect all these dots. And I will say it's often hard for us to stay in our lane.

The land use part is what we do and then these other pieces I think something like a tool kit would help because there's so many other potential barriers or potential things that folks have to go through to open up a day care and have a business. We only address this one piece. All of those other requirements still exist. I hope that makes sense. Yes. Because I think of the water aspect, whether it's access to water or septic, those things are still gonna be assessed and that could be the barrier. It's just a matter of us not being a barrier in particular ways anymore.

Okay. Thank you for the explanation.

You're welcome.

Can I just also add a comment? I think going to your earlier comment about access easements and so on, the county is very, very extremely reluctant to get into the business of moderating covenants between landowners. And so it will likely stay out of that. So there's little hope that we'll be involved in access easements or easement disputes, what really are civil issues. The reason you see that restriction that you mentioned like for event venues is because that's quite obvious that you're seeing a mass maybe slow infiltration onto a piece of property, but a mass exodus off property several times in a month or a couple of times in a week.

And so it was recognized that those uses quite clearly needed more regulation. But circling back to access easements and private covenants, the county is not likely to get involved in that. And that's usual and standard practice.

The rezone requests, I think last year you mentioned there were 17 maybe?

Initially, the rural to rural deferrals as we called them. Yep. So there were 17.

Yep.

Initially that came over to the year of the rural.

And you we focused on where you addressed three of them. Are there is there a thought that now that this is implemented that the other 14 will be brought back to the table or what's

No. So those were removed from the docket. And any future site specific amendments will go through a brand new process. So Gotcha. It's like clean slate moving forward.

Reapply and

go through. Yeah. And yes. Okay.

Can I speak to that too? Mhmm. Originally, there was over 60 rural reclassification requests.

I would

say talking about 17, but this process started, like, four years ago. Yes. Elton Poff was one of the original people, but there was a lot of involvement. And I would just like to ask that next time if the county does another batch of reclassification requests that it be handled in a different way to save staff time and applicants time. We agree. I'm sure you do.

Yeah. So something that we're looking at potentially in the future is updating that part of our code. It's 2108060107O. So we agree.

Because I'm under the impression that was the first time the county had ever done it like that where it used to be is it not?

No. It was it was done for an earlier comp plan iteration, but it was a we didn't call it site specific amendments, we called it land use reclassification request so that then you got to avoid 2,108 requirements and how you treat essentially rezone applications through the comp plan. And so it basically relaxed the standards. Now in even earlier iterations, there was an application fee, so you had to have skin in the game. And then there was a meeting with staff to determine whether it was even feasible to do. And that that process has been avoided and we're looking to revise something similar.

When that process was started, it was pushed as something some new aspect of it was that there was no cost to the applicant.

Mhmm. Is that correct? And there wasn't in the prior iteration as well. Yeah.

I guess, all I'm trying to say is there is a cost to staff when you're taking huge amounts of time to review it. Absolutely. And then when we're using the Growth Management Act as reasoning for not allowing it, if we were just upfront about that, it would have saved staff and applicants a lot of time.

Right. And so we're looking at pre application meetings in the future for when the comp plan or reclassification requests or sorry, site specific amendments come back before the Planning Commission no sooner than 2029.

Thank you, Scott. And thank you, Heather.

You're welcome.

Any other comments or questions for Heather Cleveland? I just wanted to say thank you so much. This was a big undertaking. And and not that all of your work on this was not appreciated, but especially around childcare. Personally, I have folks that I know close to me that own childcare facilities or were wanting to have their own, and then also folks that have been on waiting lists for a very long time. And so this was a huge net win for Kitsap County in childcare. So thank you so much. And and any staff that had an involvement was a big win. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Alright. Any other questions? No? Seeing none? Thank you so very much.

Alright. And now this brings us to our second general public comment period. I'd like to formally open our second general public comment period. I'd like to start with those in the room. Is there anyone in the room that would like to provide general public comment today? Alright. Seeing none and now going online. Is there anyone online that would like to provide public comment? I see none. Alright.

Seeing none online and none in the room, I would like to formally close our second general public comment period. And moving forward onto for the good of the order or any commissioner comments for the evening, I'd like to open that up. Does anyone here on the commission have anything for good of the order? No? No, Tammy? No? Okay. Wonderful. Thank you so much, DCD staff. Thank you so much, commissioners, for the meeting this evening. Thank you, Clara. I appreciate your help this evening as I move through this. And I'd like to formally adjourn this meeting at 06:57PM for the 04/07/2026 planning commission meeting. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night.