What Does 'Rural' Mean in Kitsap? Planners Hope to Find Out

By Christopher Dunagan, Kitsap Sun
Friday, October 23, 2009

PORT ORCHARD -- Kitsap County planners say next year will be the “year of rural Kitsap.”

A 2010 work schedule drafted by long-range planners is loaded with rural issues — such as zoning codes for industrial development, rules for “rural wooded” lands, policies for tiny “legacy lots,” and more.

Several urban issues also are scheduled for review.

The trouble is that the proposed workload is too great for the county’s three full-time planners to reasonably complete in a year, officials say.

Grants from the state Department of Commerce will help pay for state-mandated projects — including a growth-management audit, population allocations among urban areas and other requirements of the state’s Growth Management Act. With state funding, a consultant or temporary staffer could be hired for those projects.

Kitsap County commissioners are not talking about adding other planning staff, but they are wondering which initiatives they can postpone for another year, given the intense interest in many items on the list.

“Some of this stuff may have to be thrown out of the lifeboat,” declared Commissioner Steve Bauer during a meeting with planners and fellow commissioners this week. “I’m concerned that with a very small staff, you have more than you can do. This is a very ambitious program.”

Larry Keeton, director of the Department of Community Development, said the rural issues are highest on his list, beginning with a formal characterization of what the term “rural” means to Kitsap County.

“If we don’t fix that, we will be struggling down the road,” he said.

Included in the characterization would be new policies dealing with agricultural lands in the county.

“I want us to understand what is rural and define what is rural in Kitsap County,” Commissioner Charlotte Garrido said.

Kitsap County’s rural areas are not typical of urban counties to the east nor the more rural counties to the west, Keeton noted.

“It is different from what people normally expect,” he said.

In Kitsap, businesses can be found clustered throughout rural areas. It may be best to recognize these areas by drawing a formal boundary around them, such as what happens when an area is designated as a LAMIRD, which stands for “limited area of more intense rural development,” he said.

Also up for discussion are the tiny “legacy lots,” created by subdividing property before 1937 when modern zoning laws first went into effect. These lots need to be addressed, officials say, because they have the potential to create pockets of urban density in rural areas, contrary to the Growth Management Act.

Another need is to update rural sections of the county’s comprehensive plan to include a list of commercial and industrial uses allowed in rural areas, with or without permits. Several development projects requested by rural property owners are waiting for this review.

The community of Chico, along Chico Way and Erlands Point Road, represents a historical business use in a rural area. Formalizing the future of that community is something that should be done, perhaps with a special zone, Keeton said.

At the same time, it is essential to address large blocks of forestland owned by Pope Resources and other timber companies, county officials agree. Several years ago, the commissioners approved a “rural wooded incentive program” to encourage the clustering of development in exchange for preserving large blocks of forestland — yet the program remains under a moratorium and cannot be used.

Scott Diener, who heads the county’s long-range planning group, said the moratorium will need to be extended again next year, but he would like to resolve the matter once and for all.

Bauer said the county should engage in discussions with Pope Resources about the future of forestland in North Kitsap.

“I think that will be a significant issue,” he said.

Olympic Property Group, a subsidiary of Pope Resources, is proposing a new population center near Port Gamble along with a permanent forestry reserve — including an extensive trail network, nicknamed the “string of pearls.” The plan relates to both the Rural Wooded Incentive Program and new population allocations, according to county legal advisers.

As part of the rural-planning process, aquifer recharge areas need to be identified and protected, Keeton said, because groundwater is so critical to the county’s future water supply.

Also on the table are discussions about:

Shifting boundaries for the urban growth areas of Silverdale and Central Kitsap.

Possible mixed-use zoning in a “Silverdale Loop” road network parallel to Highway 3.

Annexation agreements between the county and various cities.

Ongoing planning by citizen advisory councils.

And scheduled five-year updates to the Kingston and Suquamish subarea plans, which are likely to be postponed a year.

To help set priorities, Diener told the county commissioners that he would return with a possible schedule and detailed estimates of the time to complete various tasks.

COMMENTS

Posted by roger2012 on October 23, 2009 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder if the County planners or even the present County Commissioners will actually talk to people who live in rural Kitsap. The main area of concern seemed to be with Pope Resources and developing more of "rural" Kitsap. Protecting aquifers and creating more formal boundaries sounds like "rural" Kitsap will grow smaller and smaller, no matter what they finally decide the term "rural' means.
Kitsap County has managed to take on millions upon millions of dollars in debt, ignore and put on "hold" land use issues, and allow a few cities to annex and gain the income from present and future economic development in large areas of the county. Somehow after this and many other things that put their leadership into doubt we are supposed to believe this "rural planning process" will actually benefit the taxpayers and property owners? I will follow this with great interest. Much like the Port of Bremerton Commissioners, Kitsap County Commissioners have a long way to go to gain the public trust. If the last five years have been any indicator, it will be an uphill battle, at the taxpayers expense.
Roger Gay
South Kitsap

Posted by PennyRobinson on October 23, 2009 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This project should have been conducted two decades ago, when there was still a "Rural Kitsap" and a more robust county. The county is, let's face it, shrinking, as the cities grow larger and absorb more land. The county's efforts will become less important in the long run. My guess is, the county will become more protective of the little amount of rural land they have jurisdiction over and tie that up in lawsuits and planning litigation, just to justify it;s existence. Meanwhile, the cities, like Port Orchard and Bremerton, will absorb. Then, Silverdale will incorporate and kill the county. Look, it's Kitsap County's breadbasket/ Without Silverdale, Kitsap County will collapse like Superman under a green kryptonite ray.

Posted by usedbookman on October 24, 2009 at 12:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rural is only a figment of their imagination. Elsewhere in the country, rural involves earning one's living from the land. I hardly see that anywhere in Kitsap. So called rural kitsap is low density sprawl at it's worst. A giant bedroom for people employed in Seattle. It's gotten so bad that recently the Port Orchard urban growth boundary was extended all the way out to Long Lake. Yes, Long Lake. It't only be a matter of time before Port Orchard runs from Gorst to Southworth.
Any vestiges of so called rural kitsap will vanish unless the commissioners deal with legacy lots. Not just the ones in Manchester. In the current Comprehensive Plan, most so called rural ares were downzoned to one house per five or ten acres. One or two and a half acres lots created before 1994, are grandfathered in, and allowed to be developed. The result, where I live, which is zoned one house per ten acres, is that the area is being developed at closer to one house per two acres. So much for preserving rural characteristics.

Posted by STucker on October 24, 2009 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is more than high time that Silverdale incorporated, putting the County Commissioners out of the business of running a de-facto city and taking their cash cow away - then maybe they can get back to the long-neglected realization that under GMA a County government is supposed to deal with primarily RURAL issues, something that (according to this article) just seems to have occurred to them for the first time. Pathetic.

Posted by MrsM on October 24, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let us hope that in their plans they do not build beyond the resources that are available. We are personally tired of all the electrical outages, the water shortages in dry weather, etc. Stop building until these and other infrastructures issues are resolved.

Posted by TomRosendale on October 24, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why am I worrying that rural we be defined and then redefined by urbanites? I will include in this category those who fled the urban areas to the rural, bringing with them exclusive urbanite ideas.
I can't imagine the concept of rural not including "neighborly" where people respect what they 'have', not what they 'want'. "Want" certainly doesn't include taking away what others have to increase one's idea of utopia. If government really wants to preserve what is rural, it won't destroy the concepts of rural life and treat it as a reserve for urbanites' viewing pleasure or future living quarters.
Where is the zoning based on the productiveness of the soil vs the distance from town? Having stolen much of the prime alluvial soil for HUGE 'buffer' areas that urbanite people 'think' fish need, protecting the tillable soil left for possible production is imperative for real rural living. In western Washington it seldom comes in 10-20 acres chunks and owners need to live near it to use it.
So many people have no concept of the huge amount of vegetables, eggs, and other cottage industry products that 2.5 acres of decent land can support.
Environmentalism should be getting in tune with the environment not classifying it as something apart from us to be awed in ignorance.

Posted by KitsapVoter on October 24, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You said a mouthful, Tom. Indeed 2.5 acres CAN and DOES support mini-farms all over this country. Hell, urban area's are finding even smaller plots useful or they wouldn't be promoting "green roof's" and limiting the number of chickens city dwellers can own.

Posted by informedvoter on October 24, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Another case of politicians micromanaging other people's property and lives.
And to think we pay for this.

Posted by Nate on October 24, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps the legislature should consider temporarily suspending the growth management act given the dire economic times we are facing. The GMA is clearly not a vital governmental service, and temporarily suspending it's provisions would likely result in massive cost savings to city and county governments. Furthermore, the legislative authorities of County and City governments could still implement their own growth management policies within their local jurisdictions if they so desired.

Posted by Jackal on October 24, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Rural=Seabeck, Crosby, Holly, Ollala etc... Rural is not=Bremerton, Port Orchard, Silverdale, Hansville, Bainbridge or Poulsbo.
If you want the areas to stay rural then all land should be rezoned to 1 home per 5 - 10 acres. Personally I'd prefer 1 home per 20 acres. Need groceries or supplies? Forget Wal-Mart etc... Open local markets, auto repairs etc...

Posted by dahl on October 24, 2009 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here, let me help the commissioners out. This should save them a year's worth of work:
"The United States Census Bureau has taken the lead in creating a working definition of rural by defining what is urban or metropolitan, then defining rural by exclusion. The Bureau defines an urbanized area (UA) as consisting of adjacent, densely settled census block groups (BGs) and census blocks that meet minimum population density requirements along with adjacent densely settled census blocks where together they encompass a population of at least 50,000 people. Urban clusters (UC) have a similar definition, however, the overall population can be 2,500 to less than 50,000. The Census Bureau defines all other areas as rural."

Posted by quackula on October 24, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rural Kitsap Means:
1. Living in cabin with no power.
2. Living in cabin with 5 other families.
3. There is a still on your property.
4. Your father and mother are brother and sister.
5. You have no income.
6. You are the only one around for 20 miles.
7. Your education is not above the 6th grade.
Did I miss anything?

Posted by taxpayer2 on October 24, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the Greater Hansville area is no longer Rural
may be if Eglon had its own zip code

Posted by dahl on October 24, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
quackula,
"7. Your education is not above the 6th grade." But you are still smarter then a politician.

Posted by 440.volt on October 24, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Posted by Jackal
"If you want the areas to stay rural then all land should be rezoned to 1 home per 5 - 10 acres. Personally I'd prefer 1 home per 20 acres."
So your telling me that my home that has been on 1 acre SINCE THE 40's should be torn down because of non compliance?
And just what kind of elitist snob are you to dictate that those that can not afford 5 acres of land to put a house on (checked the cost of just 1 acre in Kitsap lately?) should be barred form the "American Dream" of home ownership?
The GMA is already dictating minimum plot sizes, which I happen to feel is going too far for private party ownership.
How much more government do you really need in your life?

Posted by dahl on October 25, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
440.volt
"How much more government do you really need in your life?"
For many, the sky's the limit. They believe that government can create utopia.

Posted by jlharless on October 26, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Deja Vu once again.
Kitsap goes through this navel-gazing "what is rural" exercise every ten years or so for at least the last 50 years, since well before the GMA was even dreamed of. We have had a succession of citizen committees, "rural roundtables", blue ribbon committees and various other soon-to-be-forgotten-and-ignored exercises in defining rurality in Kitsap. Then ten years later we do it all over again.
These futile attempts to get people with mutually exclusive agendas to "find consensus" usually result in the battle lines being redrawn and everyone retrenched as the developer/speculator/realtor alliance seeks to move the urban boundary ever outward and those who wish to be left in peace push back.
Same as it ever was and probably ever will be until the last cul-de-sac is paved.

(c) http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/oct/23/what-does-rural-mean-in-kitsap-planners-hope-to/

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.