Business Community Government Health & Wellness
Hearing examiner denies Kensington Gardens expansion
After several months of deliberation, the Pierce County hearing examiner denied platting approval for new buildings at Kensington Gardens, a luxury retirement living community in rural Gig Harbor.
Kelly and Mark Watson, Kensington Gardens’ owners, requested county approval to plat — or subdivide — a 23.5-acre parcel of land into five single-family residences and six tracts to build six buildings. Four buildings would house elders, while two would serve as administrative offices.
Two other residential buildings, the Manor House and Hawksworth villa, already exist on the site, as does The Carriage House, which holds offices. The proposed new buildings would be similar to the Hawksworth villa.
Hearing Examiner Robert E. Mack’s decision came in mid-December. It followed three lengthy days of hearings in August, in which Kensington Gardens neighbors Dana and Erika Zimmerman appealed to stop the development on environmental grounds. The Zimmermans’ experts testified during the first two days of the hearing. The Watsons’ experts testified on the third.
Both parties filed appeals of the decision.
Asked for a reaction to the decision, Kelly Watson submitted a statement that you can read here.
Decision and appeal
Mack denied the plat for several reasons, including that the villas did not appear to be either residential or single-family residences, as the Watsons claim. The buildings appeared instead to be commercial and some designation other than single-family, he wrote.
Mack further stated that the development did not promote general welfare and did not conform to zoning standards, plans, and policies, as required under state law.
The Hawksworth Villa at Kensington Gardens, as seen from the road on Aug. 17, 2025. Photo by Carolyn Bick. © Carolyn Bick
He also found that the county should withdraw its determination that the development would have no significant environmental impacts, because it was based on an incomplete proposal and insufficient, “piecemeal” information.
Mack pointed to contradictions within the Watsons’ statements, as well as the inference that they could, after preliminary approval and without hearing examiner oversight, change the use designation of the villas.
Mack sustained only part of Zimmermans’ appeal. Among the parts he sustained included that “the villas should have been considered as something other than single-family residences, traffic information and analysis was inadequate, and impacts from development on both the western and eastern parcels” — where Kensington Gardens’ other facilities sit — “should have been considered.”
The Watsons filed a Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) petition to appeal Mack’s decision in Pierce County Superior Court in late December. The Zimmermans filed a LUPA petition in early January. Both parties summoned each other and Pierce County to court. An initial hearing is scheduled for Feb. 13, with trial scheduled to begin on May 12.
“What’s happening here should concern everyone,” Kelly Watson said in an email. “When housing for older adults can be stalled or stopped by misinformation and delay, it highlights how unprepared our policies are to meet the needs of an aging population.”
Commercial facility vs. single family residence
Mack stated in his decision that comments supporting the development used words to describe a commercial facility — not a single-family living structure, as the Watsons have claimed.
“A number of residents also spoke or wrote about their appreciation for — as one put it — ‘a private chef who delivers our food,’ ” Mack noted. “Meal service is an element of the tenancy agreements between KG and its residents. Meal service is a service more commercial than residential.”
Moreover, expert testimony on behalf of the Zimmermans supported the opinions of county staff that aspects of the buildings’ designs disqualify them as single-family residences.
The experts’ “primary conclusion was: ‘The patterns and features presented in the Hawksworth floor plans and façade renderings are demonstrably characteristic of multi-family construction and not single-family home design,’” Mack wrote. “The opinions of [the Zimmermans’ expert] are generally consistent with the analysis of County staff, and were not successfully rebutted. I give them considerable weight. The villas, at least as currently depicted, evidence characteristics inconsistent with the design of single-family residences, and more consistent with those of other structures, such as multi-family residences.”
During the hearing, Kelly Watson told the hearing examiner that Kensington’s “goal is to create a sustainable and innovative housing option for our aging population and disabled population,” providing “quality housing and caring for aging and disabled individuals.”
Mack said that Kensington Gardens “is more than merely a residential development; it includes certain non-residential services for its residents. Those services include commercial and personal care elements.”
How many dwelling units?
In questioning what, exactly, Kensington Gardens’ villas are, Mack also pointed out incongruous statements from the Watsons.
Mack wrote that the villas are designed mainly for elders or retirees, but that the Watsons say they are not retirement homes. They house up to 16 people, he continued, not all of whom are related and all of whom receive various levels of care, including health care — but the Watsons say they are neither group homes nor multifamily residences.
They also have individual suites with bedrooms, living rooms, bathrooms, storage areas, and food preparation areas, he continued. But the Watsons “[insist] that the entire 18,000 square foot building is a single ‘Dwelling Unit; that does not contain individual dwelling units.”
He then noted that each of these suites “has an assigned ‘Unit’ number, and each unit may house a single individual or couple in their own living space, as testimony and comments indicated. Residents congregate together in large central areas on occasion, but they ‘reside’ separately in numbered dwelling ‘units.’”
Hawskworth villa
Mack also wrote that though the county designated the existing Hawksworth villa as a single-family residence, this does not mean that any future villas should also therefore be designated as such.
“This Decision must determine whether the villas truly are single-family residences — and therefore allowed in an R5 [rural] zone — or something else,” Mack wrote. “This record is full of comments by the Watsons and their residents about the special, unique nature of the living arrangements at Kensington Gardens. These living arrangements, and the conditions of tenancy under which they are allowed and experienced, are relevant in determining whether the proposed residential structures are indeed single-family residences, or some other categorized or hybrid use.”
Later in his decision, Mack said that the villas did not match the rural character of the surrounding area. Buildings must maintain the “pastoral” character of a rural area, as mandated by both the Gig Harbor Community Plan and the state’s Growth Management Act. He also said they did not structurally match a single-family home designation.
The Hawksworth villa — upon which the four other villas would have been based — is more than 18,000 square feet, with a 9,000-square-foot underground garage and nearly 3,400 square feet of decks and covered porches.
Both the law and the villas’ descriptions may have changed over the course of the permitting application and issuance, Mack elaborated, but “the essence of the [Kensington Gardens] development is the same now as it has been for at least the past four years.”
The Hawksworth Villa at Kensington Gardens, as seen from the road on Aug. 17, 2025. Photo by Carolyn Bick. © Carolyn Bick
Permanent food preparation appliances
He later wrote that the county’s rules prevent the villas’ individual units from having permanent food preparation appliances, if they are to be approved as single-family residences.
If the condition that permanent food preparation appliances were to be removed, Mack continued, the county would consider the villas to no longer be single-family residences and therefore not allowed in that area, per the testimony of one of the county’s senior planners.
“The Villas are proposed to function as residential buildings with some common spaces, but mostly with individual dwelling units that contain separate bedrooms, living rooms (or dens), bathrooms, and food preparation areas (with sinks),” he continued. “The Villas are not designed, and are not proposed to operate, as single-family residences. … If the villas were to be placed in the one category that best fits, it may be the multi-family residence use category.”
Notably, in the Hawksworth villa — which the county approved as a single-family residence — Mack said that Kensington Gardens contractors violated a similar condition, Mack wrote. He said that a “Hawksworth resident wrote that she enjoyed using her microwave,” and said that the condition of not having food preparation and associated appliances in each unit was “nearly impossible to enforce over time.”
‘Determined in the future’
Mack said that he requested after-hearing statements from the Watsons’ and Zimmermans’ attorneys. He asked that these statements include “testimony and written communications” about “the relationship of residents to Kensington Gardens, and the nature of that relationship,” as well as “a copy of the standard, or most recent, agreement or agreements for residency in Hawksworth (Villa 1).”
The statements he received, he wrote, “possibly inadvertently — inherently lead to” several important findings or inferences.
First, Mack said, the Watsons’ lawyer wrote that “‘the actual use will be determined in the future when specific buildings are submitted, . . .’ (emphasis added),” and that the ‘subjective description for its residents is not the actual use for the County review process, . . .” (emphasis added).”
Mack also noted that the Watsons’ lawyer stated, “it is our understanding that Kensington is revising its written documentation and potentially some of its operations because of working with DSHS more broadly.”
Strategies vs. stratagems
Any hearing examiner will base decisions on the application for preliminary plat approval. Therefore, Mack stated, that application must accurately reflect the building’s use. It should not be assumed that this can simply be changed at a later time.
If, he wrote, “an applicant believes that, once approval has been obtained based on one stated use, the use may be changed without having examiner review at later decision-making points … the subdivision approval process … would be significantly undermined, if not made purposeless.”
He also noted that details, especially those concerning use, are important. An applicant shouldn’t just be able to change important or major aspects of a plan without any review or approval by a hearing examiner. Should any process actually function like this, Mack wrote, it would be “feckless; misleading to neighbors, County staff, and the general public; and inconsistent with the public interest.”
“Strategies to obtain plat approvals may be advisable,” he continued, “but stratagems are not.”