PORT ORCHARD — The Kitsap County Commissioners voted Monday to expand the county’s shoreline buffers to an average of 50 feet, protecting those areas from new development while promising that existing structures can stay put.
“People who now have homes within the buffers will not lose their homes if there is a fire,” said North Kitsap Commissioner Chris Endresen. “They can always rebuild within the same footprint.”
Endresen voted with Central Kitsap Commissioner Josh Brown to modify the boundaries.
South Kitsap Commissioner Jan Angel provided a dissenting vote.
“I don’t agree that we should impose blanket limits,” she said. “To do so is to put the cart before the horse.”
Kitsap County approved the initial Critical Areas Ordinance in late 2005 with 35-foot buffers. The original CAO required a buffer zone of 35 feet between the shoreline and any proposed new construction. One new version will require 100 feet in addition to an additional 15-foot building setback.
Different buffers are imposed for rural, semi-rural and urban areas.
Successful challenges originated from a group that included the Hood Canal Environmental Council and the Suquamish Tribe.
The CAO also drew unsuccessful challenges from the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO).
Angel said the limits should not be imposed before completing a shoreline inventory, an action which is occurring in Pierce County.
“Pierce County used its best science to conduct a detailed marine shoreline inventory,” Angel said. “It ranked areas according to their quality as a habitat for salmon. It found that not all the saltwater shores should be designated as a fish and wildlife conservation area.”
Angel suggested the county defer action until after the shoreline inventory, but was overruled by Endresen and Brown.
While Angel spoke out against imposing a blanket solution, Brown maintained that “we have flexibility within this blanket.”
The decision was criticized by several members of the KAPO, including Port Orchard resident Richard Brown.
“You blew it,” he said. “You didn’t prove why 35 feet is any better or worse than 50 feet or 100 feet. This decision will be appealed.”
