The Bainbridge Island City Council is confused by the language and the affect of the Shoreline Hearings Board (SHB) ruling in the Stafford case. This is understandable if they are trying to interpret the meaning of the ruling without reading the entire 33 pages.

The ruling is a series of points. The Staffords won and the City lost on all but one point, the home location, and only because the Staffords decided to abandon the first location of the proposed home as approved by the Examiner.

The effect of the points that the Staffords won is the Staffords will get to build their house, and no shoreline variance is even required.

The effect of the one point the City “won” is that the Staffords would have to revise their application for a NVZ variance, if they needed one, for the new home location. However, because this location is now outside of the 25 foot NVZ setback determined by the SHB, no variance application is even required. In other words, the variance the City Council denied is no longer even necessary to obtain since the Staffords won on all their points.

Points in the SHB ruling:

1. The bulkhead constructed in 1991 is legal and stays.
2. Ordinary High Water Mark is at the foot of the bulkhead — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
3. The Native Vegetation Zone is 25 feet, not 50 feet — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
4. On variance criteria (all the criteria for a variance must be met)
   a) Is there a Hardship — YES — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
   b) Is the Hardship caused by Property Feature (size) — YES — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
   c) Is Design Compatible with the neighborhood — YES — the SHB ruled for the Staffords
   d) Is the variance a Special Privilege — NO — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
   e) Is the variance the Minimum Necessary — NO — the SHB ruled for the City because the Staffords agreed to move the house back by four feet, so Staffords must now make a new application.
   f) Is the Public Interest harmed — NO — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.
   g) Is there a Cumulative Impact — NO — the SHB ruled for the Staffords.

   The “original” variance for home location which was before the SHB was “denied” because it was abandoned — this is where Vann and Knoblock get confused, but all the criteria the Staffords need to build their house were ruled in the Staffords’ favor.

The City Council ruled the Staffords could not build a 1,736 square foot house on their Monroe Point lot.

The Shoreline Hearings Board ruled the Staffords could build a 1,736 square foot house on their Monroe Point lot, if they made the variance the Minimum Necessary by relocating the house back by four feet, which they offered to do at the hearing.

So who won? The Staffords — they get to build their house — and do not need a variance.

Who lost? The City — it will have to pay the Staffords’ legal costs because it misapplied the 50-foot setback, misinterpreted the Shoreline Management Act, improperly delineated the OHWM, and treated a variance application as a “de facto” enforcement action, as the SHB observed.

If the City Council still has questions, I would be happy to come to the City Council meeting and explain it — again.

Gary Tripp
Bainbridge Island