Keeping everyone happy with the latest revision to the Shoreline Master Program may be challenging. The subject is technical and difficult for homeowners to understand. The policies do not easily translate into the perceived benefits to society, and waterfront homeowners may feel unfairly burdened. As in much of national politics, communities are having to choose between freedom and equality - two of the cornerstones of our government and way of life. 

As required by the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, Kitsap County is in the process of updating its Shoreline Master Program. Communities within the County are also producing updates (info here on Poulsbo’s update, info here for Bainbridge Island, info here for Bremerton). It has been 10 years since the last update, and the County is required to submit a revised plan for approval by the Department of Ecology in 2012. The process appears behind schedule compared to the original timeline. The County Web site describes the main purposes of the plan:

• Encourage reasonable and orderly development of shorelines, with an emphasis on water-dependent and related uses that control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment.
• Protect the natural character of Washington shorelines, the land, vegetation, wildlife, and shoreline environment.
• Promote public access and provide opportunities to enjoy views and recreational activities in shoreline areas. 

In June, the Kitsap County Commissioners approved the 415+ page Shoreline Inventory and Characterization document. This document is thick with the jargon and terminology of experts and academics in the field of ecology. For instance, the nearshore assessment unit prioritization recommendations map in appendix C appears to categorize much of Liberty Bay, Port Orchard Bay, Dyes Inlet, and Bremerton waterfront areas as “Enhance, Create”. The management options for areas designated “Enhance, Create” in Chapter 4 include recommendations such as, “Promote establishment of marine riparian vegetation including large trees by requiring a vegetation conservation plan for activities impacting marine riparian vegetation.” What activities might trigger that such a requirement be placed upon a homeowner? How much would it cost to prepare and implement such a plan?

   Given the level of technical expertise required to interpret the inventory and characterization document, one might wonder about the ability of the Commissioners to judge the validity of the science or the effectiveness of the remedies. The average citizen, much as he or she may have been encouraged to participate, might not have a ready opinion about all this stuff.

The County has produced a shoreline booklet with example methods for shoreline restoration. The examples given appear mostly to have been funded by large public organizations with deep pockets. They have also produced a useful section on shoreline ecology, providing the layman with information behind some of the proposed requirements. The handout on existing development is somewhat encouraging, but there is no indication how this County stands on the issues discussed therein.

Needless to say, more than a few waterfront homeowners are up in arms about the potential that the County may force burdensome requirements upon them, or that their property will be devalued simply because a new map has been published showing such things as shoreline labeled “Enhance, Create”. Potential waterfront buyers may start to worry about what these designations might mean for the future of the property. 

The Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners (KAPO) has aggressively raised issues regarding the plan, including challenges to the science underlying the shoreline assessment. Examples of these challenges can be seen in recent KAPO newsletters (see the July issue for example). It’s not apparent to us whether the County has provided any kind of technical response to these challenges. In July KAPO sent a postcard to many waterfront homeowners, alleging that as many as 7000 waterfront properties may be designated as legally non-conforming and be required to be phased out over time, that if you need a building permit you may be forced to remove your lawn and install a no-touch vegetation zone, that lenders will not finance the purchase of a non-conforming home. The County posted a response on their web site, stating that:

“Many of the “issues” stated in the postcard have yet to be addressed in the SMP update by County staff, the SMP Task Force, the Planning Commission or by the Board of County Commissioners. To date there have been no new regulations, buffers, or setbacks proposed drafted, as stated. We have no evidence that banks have refused or would refuse to finance real estate involving shoreline parcels, conforming or non-conforming.
More importantly, this Board has directed that the update continue to recognize and protect private property rights.”

The County then cites the numerous compliments they have received that this is the most open and transparent of any code update and encourages citizens to stay involved. The County doth protest too much, methinks.

No doubt some property owners overestimate the practical impact of these regulatory changes, and the requests from communities that the County leave current regulations in place will probably fall upon deaf ears. Perhaps it is a lot to expect that a committee with an unpopular task to protect the environment by amending current property rights be asked to unambiguously state the regulations that will be proposed to the Department of Ecology for approval in 2012. Until they do, it’s apparent that property owners will continue to be suspicious about the outcome.