(1) 
The purpose of a preapplication conference is to discuss the nature of the proposed development; application and approval requirements, fees, review process, and schedule; and applicable policies and regulations. As appropriate, the director shall invite representatives of affected agencies, such as other city departments and special purpose districts, to attend any preapplication meeting. The preapplication conference may be recorded.
(2) 
Requests for scheduling a preapplication conference shall be submitted on forms provided by the city along with payment of the associated fee pursuant to the city's current fee schedule.
(3) 
Potential applicants or their designees are encouraged to request and attend a preapplication conference with city staff for all Type II, Type III, and Type IV land use actions. When a preapplication conference is requested, the applicant shall meet with the director and any other staff members, as appropriate, to discuss the proposed development.
(4) 
Applicants may also request an optional preapplication conference if not otherwise required.
(5) 
Whether the preapplication conference is mandatory or requested by the applicant, the following information shall be provided to the city by the applicant at least 14 calendar days prior to the date of the preapplication conference:
(a) 
Identification of the subject property;
(b) 
Description of the type of planned development, including proposed uses, estimated density; and
(c) 
Identification of any requests for deviation from code requirements.
(6) 
Failure of the director or any city staff member to provide any of the information required by this section shall not constitute a waiver of any of the standards, criteria, or requirements for the application. Any discussion at the preapplication conference is for the purpose of acquainting the applicant with the known requirements for an undefined proposal. As a result, the discussions shall not bind the city in any manner or prevent the city's future enforcement of all applicable codes, plans, and regulations.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 019-24 § 6)
(1) 
A master permit application is required for all land use and development projects and shall be submitted in conjunction with the associated permit application(s) required for the project. The master permit application may not be submitted alone.
(2) 
The director shall establish and may revise at their discretion submittal requirements for the master permit application. At a minimum, the master permit application shall require the following:
(a) 
Name and contact information of applicant;
(b) 
Signature by the property owner or person having authorization to sign on behalf of the property owner;
(c) 
List of all project permit applications submitted with the master permit;
(d) 
List of any permits or decisions applicable to the project proposal that have been obtained prior to filing the application or that are pending before the city or any other governmental entity;
(e) 
Indication of whether review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) applies to the project, or if the project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC; and
(f) 
Indication of whether stormwater drainage review applies to the project pursuant to Chapter 20.150 POMC.
(3) 
For purposes of this subtitle, all references to an "application" refers to both the master permit and associated permit application(s).
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 017-23 § 1 (Exh. A))
(1) 
The director shall establish and may revise at their discretion submittal requirements for each type of land use and development permit application required under this title. The submittal requirements shall be in the form of a counter-complete checklist. The requirements shall be made available to the public in a form that clearly explains what material must be submitted for an application to be considered complete, including type, size, detail, and number of copies for each item.
(2) 
At a minimum, the following shall be completed and submitted by the applicant for all land use and development applications:
(a) 
Master permit application form, pursuant to POMC § 20.24.020;
(b) 
Appropriate application form, provided by the department, for each permit submitted with the master permit, including all required items stated therein;
(c) 
Payment of any and all applicable permit fees pursuant to this title and the city's current fee schedule at the time of application;
(d) 
Environmental checklist (if not exempt from SEPA review pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC) and any requirements for SEPA review, when applicable; and
(e) 
Applicable signatures, stamps, or certifications, and attestation by written oath of applicant to the accuracy of all information submitted for an application.
(f) 
Requirements for related permits shall also be provided when applicable.
(3) 
The director may require additional material when the director determines, after a determination of technical completeness pursuant to POMC § 20.24.050, that such information is needed to adequately assess the proposed project.
(4) 
When not required by law, submittal requirements may be waived by the director, in writing, only if the applicant can demonstrate that normally required information is not relevant to the proposed action and is not required to show that an application complies with applicable city codes and regulations.
(5) 
The city's acceptance of documents from an applicant using a counter-complete checklist is used only for purposes of documenting what was submitted by the applicant; it is not a technical review for completeness or compliance with state or local laws and regulations. See POMC § 20.24.040 for the counter-complete review process.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 017-23 § 1 (Exh. A))
(1) 
Applications may be submitted to the city in any of the following manners: electronically, mailed to the city, or brought in person to the city. All three of these systems are acceptable methods for counter-complete review. However, in no case will an application be deemed counter-complete until such time as the submission requirements listed in POMC § 20.24.030, including the minimum required application fees, are received by the city.
(2) 
An application is counter-complete if the director finds that the application purports and appears to include the information required by the master permit application and associated permit application(s) and all required fees have been paid; provided, no effort shall be made to evaluate the substantive adequacy of the information in the application(s) in the counter-complete review process. No effort shall be made to determine ownership of land as part of the counter-complete review process.
(3) 
Timing of Counter-Complete Determination.
(a) 
For applications submitted electronically or mailed to the city, within two business days of receipt of the application, the director shall either: (i) determine that the application is counter-complete if the requirements of subsection (2) of this section are met; or (ii) determine that the application is not counter-complete if the requirements of subsection (2) of this section are not met, in which case the director shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter-complete. If the city does not provide a counter-complete decision for an electronically submitted or a mailed application within two business days of receipt, the application shall be deemed counter-complete as of the third business day from receipt; provided, that all required application components and fees are included with the application. If the city determines that an electronically submitted or a mailed application is not counter-complete and informs the applicant in writing what is needed to make the application counter-complete, the application shall be determined or deemed to be counter-complete within five business days of the notification only if the missing application components and all required application fees are received by the city no later than four business days following the notification to the applicant.
(b) 
For applications brought in person to the city, the director shall make a counter-complete determination while the applicant is present. If the director decides that the application is counter-complete in accordance with subsection (2) of this section, then the applicant shall pay the appropriate fees at the time of submittal. If the director determines that the application is not counter-complete, then the director shall reject and return the application and identify in writing what is needed to make the application counter-complete.
(4) 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, no application shall be automatically deemed counter-complete due to the passage of time unless the submission requirements listed in POMC § 20.24.030, including the application fees, are timely received in accordance with this section.
(Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 011-23 § 2; Ord. 019-24 § 7)
Within five business days of determining an application as counter-complete, the director shall transmit a copy of the application, or appropriate parts of the application, to each affected government agency and city department for review and comment to determine technical completeness of the application. The affected agencies and city departments shall have 15 calendar days from the date of the transmittal to comment on whether the application is technically complete and to provide a list of missing information if it is not complete. The agency or city department is presumed to have no comment if comments are not received within this 15-calendar-day period from application transmittal. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual circumstances, provided comments are received at least three business days prior to the 28-day deadline for determining technical completeness.
(Ord. 056-19 § 3)
(1) 
Within 28 calendar days of determining an application as counter-complete, the director shall provide a written determination as to whether the application is technically complete. A project permit application is technically complete for purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of this chapter as well as the submission requirements contained in other applicable sections of the code. This determination of technical completeness shall be made when the application is sufficient for continued processing even though additional information may be required or project modifications may be subsequently undertaken.
(a) 
The written determination shall state either (i) that the application is technically complete, or (ii) that the application is incomplete and that the procedural submission requirements have not been met, in which case the determination shall outline what information or steps are necessary to make the application procedurally complete.
(2) 
A determination of technical completeness shall not preclude the city from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or at some later time. Such new information may be required to establish whether the proposal meets applicable city codes and regulations, whether additional environmental study is required, or, more generally, when there are substantial changes in the proposed action.
(3) 
The city may determine that a counter-complete application is not technically complete because the information submitted is not sufficient for further processing, is incomplete, or is factually incorrect. If the applicant receives a written determination from the city that an application is not technically complete, the applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit the necessary information to the city. Within 14 calendar days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the city shall determine whether the application is technically complete.
(4) 
If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be terminated.
(5) 
If the director does not provide a written determination that an application is technically incomplete within the 28-day period, the application shall be deemed technically complete for processing as of the twenty-ninth calendar day following the determination of counter-completeness. If the director does not provide a written determination that an application is technically incomplete, the city may still seek additional information or studies as provided in this section.
(Formerly 20.24.050; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 019-24 §§ 8, 9)
(1) 
Within 14 calendar days of determining an application as technically complete, and before making a decision on the application, the director shall issue a notice of application as set forth in POMC § 20.25.010. The director shall grant an extension of time only if the application involves unusual circumstances.
(2) 
Except when a land use action is categorically exempt from SEPA, environmental review shall be conducted concurrently with review of other proposed land use actions requested by an applicant. When a proposed development requires more than one land use action, the applicant may request concurrent review of all proposed land use actions.
(Formerly 20.24.080; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 002-19 § 2; Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 019-24 § 10)
(1) 
Following a determination of technical completeness and the commencement of project review, the director may make a determination in writing that some information is incorrect or that additional information is required. The applicant shall have up to 90 calendar days to submit corrected/additional information.
(2) 
Within 14 calendar days of receiving corrected/additional information, the director shall determine whether the information, plans, or other review materials are now correct and sufficient for further review. If the city determines that the information submitted by the applicant is insufficient, or if additional information is required, the city shall notify the applicant of the deficiencies and the procedures of this section shall apply as if the city made a new request for information.
(3) 
If an applicant either refuses in writing to submit additional information or does not submit the required information within 90 calendar days, the application shall be canceled.
(Formerly 20.24.060; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3)
(1) 
If, in the judgment of the director, the content of an application is so substantially revised by an applicant, either voluntarily or as corrections, that such revised proposal constitutes a substantially different proposal than that originally submitted, the director shall deem the revised proposal to be a new application.
(2) 
In reaching a decision whether a revision is substantial, the director shall consider the relative and absolute magnitude of the revision, the environmental sensitivity of the site, any changes in location of significant elements of the project and their relation to public facilities, surrounding lands and land uses, and the stage of review of the proposal. Lesser revisions that would not constitute substantial revisions during early stages of review may be substantial during later stages due to the reduced time and opportunity remaining for interested parties to review and comment upon such changes.
(3) 
Written notice of such determination of substantial revision shall be provided to the applicant and all parties of record.
(4) 
A determination that any revision is substantial shall result in the time periods mandated by the Regulatory Reform Act, Chapter 36.70B RCW, and set forth in this title to reset and start from the date at which the revised project application is determined to be technically complete.
(5) 
A revised project application shall be subject to all laws, regulations, and standards in effect on the date of receipt of such technically complete substantial revision.
(Formerly 20.24.070; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3)
The criteria set forth below shall apply to all Type I through IV land use and development permit applications:
(1) 
Determination of Consistency. The applications are reviewed by the city to determine consistency between the proposed project and the applicable land use and development regulations and the comprehensive plan. A proposed project's consistency with the city's land use and development regulations shall be determined by consideration of:
(a) 
The type of land use;
(b) 
The level of development, such as units per acre or other measures of density;
(c) 
Availability of infrastructure, including public facilities and services needed to serve the development; and
(d) 
The character of the development, such as development standards.
(2) 
Upon review of an application, the decision-maker shall also determine whether the building and/or site design complies with the following provisions:
(a) 
The comprehensive plan;
(b) 
The applicable provisions of this title;
(c) 
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), pursuant to Chapter 20.160 POMC, if not otherwise satisfied;
(d) 
The city's public works design standards.
(3) 
Additional Review Criteria. Additional review criteria appear in each chapter or section of the POMC relating to the development regulations for an individual project permit application or other approval. All of the criteria in this section and the criteria relating to the individual application(s) must be satisfied in order for the city to make a determination of consistency and issue an approval.
(4) 
Limitations on Review. During project review, the city shall not reexamine alternatives to or hear appeals on the review requirements of this section except for issues of code interpretation.
(5) 
Burden of Proof. The burden of proof for demonstrating that the application is consistent with the applicable regulations is on the applicant.
(Formerly 20.24.090; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3)
(1) 
Contents. The notice of decision issued by the director for Type I and II actions, and the findings of fact and conclusions of law issued by the hearing body on Type III and IV actions shall include the following, as a minimum:
(a) 
A list of all project permits included in the decision, including all permits being reviewed through the consolidated review process;
(b) 
Date and description of the decision;
(c) 
Statement of any threshold determination made under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW);
(d) 
Procedures for an administrative appeal, if any;
(e) 
Statement that the affected property owners may request a change in property tax valuation notwithstanding any program of revaluation by contacting the Kitsap County assessor;
(f) 
Duration of the permit approval and a statement summarizing the permit expiration and extension procedures (if any); and
(g) 
Statement that the complete project permit file, including findings, conclusions, and conditions of approval, if any, is available for review. The notice shall list the place that the file is available and the name and telephone number of the city representative to contact about reviewing the file.
(2) 
Persons Entitled to Receive Notice of Decision. A notice of decision, or the written findings of fact and conclusions, shall be provided to the applicant, to any person who submitted written comments on the application (other than a signed petition), to any person who testified at the hearing or any person who requested in writing a copy of the decision, and to the Kitsap County assessor.
(3) 
For project permit applications, the city shall issue a notice of decision within the following timelines, unless the time period has been modified pursuant to RCW 36.70B.080 or 36.70B.140, or unless the applicant has agreed to a different deadline:
(a) 
For project permits which do not require public notice of application under RCW 36.70B.110, the city must issue a final decision within 65 days of issuance of the determination of technical completeness on the application;
(b) 
For project permits which require public notice of application under RCW 36.70B.110, the city must issue a final decision within 100 days of the determination of technical completeness on the application; and
(c) 
For project permits which require public notice of application under RCW 36.70B.110 and public hearing, the city must issue a final decision within 170 days of the determination of technical completeness on the application.
(4) 
In calculating the time periods for issuance of the notice of decision, the number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following periods:
(a) 
Any period between the day that the director has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application and the day when responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant to the city;
(b) 
If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the particular insufficiencies and the procedures set forth in POMC § 20.24.060 for calculating the exclusion period shall apply;
(c) 
Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.160 POMC;
(d) 
Any period after an applicant informs the city, in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the application until the time that the applicant notifies the city, in writing, that they would like to resume the application;
(e) 
Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until the administrative appeal is resolved and any additional time period provided by the administrative appeal has expired; provided, that the city may set conditions on the temporary suspension of a permit application;
(f) 
Any extension of time mutually agreed to in writing by the director and the applicant; and
(g) 
If, at any time, an applicant informs the director, in writing, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the review of the project for more than 60 consecutive days, or if an applicant is not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is required to further process the application, an additional 30 days may be added to the time periods for the city to issue a final decision on the application. Any written notice from the director to the applicant that additional information is required to further process the application must include a notice that nonresponsiveness for 60 consecutive days may result in 30 days being added to the time for review. For purposes of this section, "nonresponsiveness" means that an applicant is not making demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information to the local government, or that there is no ongoing communication or willingness to provide the additional information.
(5) 
The time limits established in this section do not apply to applications that:
(a) 
Are not project permit applications (such as amendments to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation);
(b) 
Require siting approval of an essential public facility;
(c) 
Are substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director.
(Formerly 20.24.100; Ord. 019-17 § 18 (Exh. 1); Ord. 056-19 § 3; Ord. 033-20 § 4; Ord. 019-24 § 11)