Planning commission weighs larger wetland and stream buffers; residents seek exemptions and grandfathering

The Newcastle Planning Commission discussed proposed updates to the city’s critical areas ordinance July 22, focusing on larger wetland and stream buffers, how to apply state “best available science,” and potential exemptions or grandfathering for existing lots.

Director Erin Fitzgibbons and consultants from Shockey Planning Group presented the draft. Darcy Miller, senior wetland biologist with Shockey Planning Group, described wetland categorization (categories 1–4) and how habitat score and land-use impact (low, moderate, high) factor into buffer-size recommendations. Miller said the draft also retains options such as buffer averaging and mitigation measures that can reduce required buffer widths when applicants implement specified best-practice measures.

Fitzgibbons and the consultants said the proposed changes are intended to align Newcastle’s code with state guidance — principally the Growth Management Act (RCWs), the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) guidance on best available science, and recommendations from the Department of Ecology and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). For streams, DNR’s riparian management zone guidance and tree-height science were discussed; staff noted DNR suggests a 100-foot minimum buffer in many cases and that DNR’s method can produce substantially larger buffer widths than the city currently uses.

Residents who received July 2 notification letters told commissioners the proposed setbacks could cut into home footprints and yards. Jan Drange, who said her family has owned property on Lake Boren since the 1930s, asked the commission to keep a 110-foot setback rather than increase it to 150 feet so future owners could build and see the lake. Deb Huizenga, of Pleasant Cove, and Chelsea Adams, of the Lake Washington Bridge neighborhood, said the draft’s language in the notice was unclear and asked whether existing homes would be grandfathered, whether rebuilds after fire or earthquake would have to conform to new setbacks, and whether property tax assessments would change to reflect lost development rights. Jerzy Bialchevski and other residents said some mapped wetlands appeared to be runoff or temporary features, not true wetlands.

Commissioners pressed staff for clarity on exemptions and grandfathering options. Fitzgibbons and the consultants described three main approaches: adopt DNR-style riparian management zones (which can require very large buffers tied to tree heights), use a hybrid, or adopt more traditional fixed-width buffers with required restoration to reduce buffer widths. The consultants pointed to other cities’ models: Sammamish and Anacortes have used differing approaches (Sammamish used smaller buffers with restoration requirements; Anacortes implemented riparian management zones and offered recorded-subdivision exemptions and specific square-foot limits for additional clearing).

Staff proposed options to reduce the burden on existing homeowners, including:
- Exempting existing recorded subdivisions or existing building footprints from new buffer rules, with objective criteria (examples discussed included limits on additional cleared area — staff cited a 2,500–2,800 square-foot threshold used by other cities).
- Allowing administrative variances that would let existing structures or modest additions remain or be rebuilt (staff suggested a 5-foot building setback administrative variance for existing, nonconforming structures in some cases).
- Shortening required mitigation monitoring from five years to three years for smaller plantings (staff suggested 2,500 square feet as a cutoff consistent with clearing/permit thresholds).

Commissioners sought an analysis of how many properties would be affected under a 100-foot minimum buffer versus the draft buffers and asked staff to map those impacts. Fitzgibbons said staff will produce GIS analyses showing the number of parcels affected and will post links and resources on the city website, including plat maps and the public mapping tool used for notifications. Staff also noted the draft has been submitted for the 60-day Commerce review and that the public hearing is scheduled for Sept. 24 at 6 p.m.

The commission agreed to continue the discussion in August and asked staff to return with more detail on exemption and grandfathering options, the legal and tax implications, examples from Sammamish and Anacortes, and parcel counts for a 100-foot buffer scenario. Fitzgibbons said she would also include assessor-related guidance in response letters to residents who asked about tax consequences.

Ending: Staff emphasized that the proposal remains a draft and that changes are likely before the September public hearing. The commission encouraged continued public input and said staff would circulate additional materials and GIS analyses in advance of the next meeting.