Hearing examiner takes testimony on two Ocean Shores requests to build homes that would impact wetlands

On Aug. 13, 2025, Yoshi Kumara, hearing examiner with Laminar Law, opened a hearing for the City of Ocean Shores on two reasonable-use exception (RUE) applications seeking permission to build single-family residences that would impact a Category 4 wetland and its buffer at 1006 and 1010 January Court SW.

The hearing matters would allow development of otherwise-permitted residential uses on parcels encumbered by wetlands and buffers; the examiner admitted prefiled exhibits into the record and said he will issue a written decision within 10 days after the record closes.

Marshall Reed, lead planner for the City of Ocean Shores, told the examiner the two parcels are zoned R-8 (multifamily high-density) and summarized the staff report. Parcel 1006 January Court is 9,985 square feet; staff reported proposed impacts of 2,611 square feet of wetland and 5,373 square feet of buffer. Parcel 1010 January Court is 10,317 square feet; staff reported proposed impacts of 3,720 square feet of wetland and 4,769 square feet of buffer. Reed said both parcels were previously cleared under earlier permitting practices and that current city practice requires on-site critical-areas evaluations.

Christian Fromuth, an environmental consultant with Agua Sierra Land and Water Services, described the wetland delineations and the proposed mitigation sequence. Fromuth said portions of the lots have been previously cleared in two generations of permits, that wetland and buffer are present on-site and off-site, and that the project design shifts building envelopes toward the street to minimize impacts to rear wetlands. He said the proposal includes on-site restoration where practicable and purchase of mitigation-bank credits where on-site mitigation is infeasible; the consultant identified the city’s mitigation bank (Weatherwax Preserve credits) as the likely off-site compensation mechanism.

Fromuth described long-term protection measures staff is recommending: delineation fencing (two-rail fencing where required or posts only where appropriate), placement of critical-area signs on each delineated run, and a maximum spacing of 10 feet between posts. He said Ocean Shores typically uses a 1:1 ratio for buffer impacts unless best available science recommends otherwise, and that, because many lots in Ocean Shores are small, on-site mitigation alone is often impracticable.

Applicant Jason Passage (one of the property owners identified in the staff report) testified he purchased the properties in October 2022 and said he wants to comply with city requirements. He said his short-term preference is to install an RV pedestal and utilities and later build one house on each parcel; he stated he does not intend to operate transient rentals on these lots. Reed confirmed that R-8 zoning does not allow transient rentals and that prior rezone requests had been denied.

A public commenter, Vita Pierra, submitted written comments and spoke at the hearing raising technical and administrative questions about the consultant’s report. Pierra noted apparent discrepancies in citation dates for the city’s critical areas ordinance and shoreline master program and questioned which version of Washington State Department of Ecology’s wetlands-rating system was applied. She asked that the record remain open if material changes were required. Fromuth acknowledged template-date errors and said the methodological elements of the wetland boundary delineation and buffer scoring had not changed in a way that would materially affect the delineation; he said the team would correct the referenced dates in the report.

No formal final decision was issued at the hearing. Kumara closed testimony for each matter, admitted exhibits submitted prior to the hearing, and said he would issue a written decision within 10 days after the record closes. The examiner and staff discussed conditioning any approval on a city‑approved wetland buffer mitigation plan that would specify delineation, fencing, signage, monitoring, and compensation via bank credits where necessary.

Next steps: the record will close at the end of the hearing day and Kumara will issue a written decision within the stated time frame; any conditions and the detailed mitigation plan would be reflected in that decision if the RUE is granted.