Building new home (King co. vs. Kitsap co.) (Auburn: apartment, lawyers)

[Lopeses]

Hi all,

I live in rural King County right now, and I know that KC has practically banned new construction for homeowners by making the permit process and building codes ridiculous.

Anybody know how Kitsap is in comparison? If I purchased vacant land, would I be allowed to build a house, and say, a separate grandmother apartment on it without too much hassle from the local government?

That is - without a years-long-wait for permits, lots of fees and inspections, lots of red tape, a required sprinkler system (for crying out loud), etc., etc.?

Thanks!

[bigtrees]

You're not required to install a sprinkler system in King County. It's sometimes a lot easier to do that than the alternative, but they're not mandatory.

I am also trying to build a house and generally agree that they make it really difficult...very unfortunate since what I'm proposing sounds like a real simple thing to me, but I hear nothing but negativity and pushback from the county.

See blgospot.com to read about some of my rants (this blog is specific to the proposed ourdoorburning ban)

[jinj]

I tried to buy land in King County, but there are a LOT of restrictions. You need at least 5 acres if you have to have septic and a well. I gave up and bought an ok house with land next to streams.

If the land has any wetlands on it, you need more land for the setbacks.

They made it so only developers who create more damage than a single person can build houses. The fees are very high, they are an income for the county.

It will take you 3 months to get a septic approval, a few months for a clearing permit, 3 months for a building permit, around 9 months before you can start building.

Sprinklers are required if a fire truck can not get to your house.

Kitsap will be cheaper all around.

The outdoor burning ban just bans land clearing, which is a good thing. Not burn piles. I wrote to the group about this.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by jinj

The outdoor burning ban just bans land clearing, which is a good thing. Not burn piles. I wrote to the group about this.

The ban they enacted in 2008 is only for landclearing burns. Unfortunately it's not over and they are going to propose to ban residential burning again in the near future.

The PSCAA will be holding focus group meetings with the King County Area Councils starting in May to try to rally support for the burn ban.

I also wrote in to the PSCAA and told them it wasn't practical nor reasonable. Unfortunately, we are governance around here seems to be the elite tell the ordinary people what to do. Not sure the elite listen to us ordinary people.

One big reason I like Auburn is the government seems to stay out the way. I don't hassle with the Auburn City Government and they seem very reasonable to deal with them.

[bigtrees]

Originally Posted by jinj

I tried to buy land in King County, but there are a LOT of restrictions. You need at least 5 acres if you have to have septic and a well. I gave up and bought an ok house with land next to streams.

If the land has any wetlands on it, you need more land for the setbacks.

They made it so only developers who create more damage than a single person can build houses. The fees are very high, they are an income for the county.

It will take you 3 months to get a septic approval, a few months for a clearing permit, 3 months for a building permit, around 9 months before you can start building.

Sprinklers are required if a fire truck can not get to your house.

Kitsap will be cheaper all around.

The outdoor burning ban just bans land clearing, which is a good thing. Not burn piles. I wrote to the group about this.

I agree with you that rich developers can get away with murder while us ordinary folks (who don't damage things) get the runaround. We don't have enough money or enough attorneys to take on DDES. They're very expensive and generally don't give you any useful information.

I'm preparing to take on the rural stewardship people. I tried to create a rural stewardship plan, and they just came back with a million reasons why I shouldn't create one. It's not supposed to be an argumentative process, but quickly degraded into one.

Wetlands are a pain. No two ways about it.

Your timelines are about right. It takes too long in my opinion.

[jinj]

Originally Posted by lgmagone

The ban they enacted in 2008 is only for landclearing burns. Unfortunately it's not over and they are going to propose to ban residential burning again in the near future.

The PSCAA will be holding focus group meetings with the King County Area Councils starting in May to try to rally support for the burn ban.

I also wrote in to the PSCAA and told them it wasn't practical nor reasonable. Unfortunately, we are governance around here seems to be the elite tell the ordinary people what to do. Not sure the elite listen to us ordinary people.

One big reason I like Auburn is the government seems to stay out the way. I don't hassle with the Auburn City Government and they seem very reasonable to deal with them.

I did not know they are still pushing for an outright burn ban, when are they trying to get this passed by?

I have been in contact with the county a few dozen times about the crazy rules they pass, and then how they do not plan the for prepossessions. They make it illegal to throw electronics/TVs/CFL away in the trash/dump, then they don't expect much more illegal dumping in the rural areas from the idiots. They do not see the connections.

I explained to this clean air council, that people will start to dump yard waste even more if they pass an outright ban.

Do you live in the city of Auburn? I live near there in the county. I read recently how those two little pockets of Klump and Totum rejected annexation, partly because of the city rules. I'd be interested to know about their reasons.

[jinj]

Originally Posted by lgmagone

I agree with you that rich developers can get away with murder while us ordinary folks (who don't damage things) get the runaround. We don't have enough money or enough attorneys to take on DDES. They're very expensive and generally don't give you any useful information.

I'm preparing to take on the rural stewardship people. I tried to create a rural stewardship plan, and they just came back with a million reasons why I shouldn't create one. It's not supposed to be an argumentative process, but quickly degraded into one.

Wetlands are a pain. No two ways about it.

Your timelines are about right. It takes too long in my opinion.

What is a rural stewardship plan? My land has a forest plan.

With the DDES, it seems its easier to get forgiveness than permission.
I do like living around wetlands, but the big developers 100% destory and remove the wetlands, where us normal guys don't do anything to them, yet we can't do anything near them, that wouldn't do anything to them.

If you fight the DDES, you pay for lawyers to argue your side, and lawyers to argue their side, $$$$.

[ST CRoix To Seattle]

Kitsap permit and developing process is much easier and less costly, with the exception of Bainbridge IS.

[FernCreek]

We're currently building a home on 5 acres in Kitsap County. The permit review took around a week. Wetlands and "critical areas" such as steep slopes can add to the review time -- we have both -- but we found the process to be reasonable. We had to delineate a 25-ft buffer for the wetland, and the county wanted to be sure (and we did too!) that our erodible sandy slopes don't slide.

Friends of ours are building nearby with an "accessory dwelling unit" (ADU) for their mom. The ADU added significantly to the review time, but it was still doable.