Anacortes planning staff proposed reclassifying several permit-review types to shorten timelines and reduce legal risk, including moving shoreline substantial development permits to an administrative decision and assigning shoreline conditional-use and variance permits to a contracted hearing examiner. Libby Grage, Planning Manager, told the Planning Commission that “this proposal would move Shoreline substantial development permits, to a type 2 administrative decision,” and that conditional-use and variance permits would become Type 3 hearing-examiner decisions.

The change matters because state and local law currently layer multiple review and appeal steps for shoreline permits. Grage said the city currently offers a local appeal to City Council after a local decision and then must file the permit with the Washington State Department of Ecology, which triggers a separate state-level appeal period to the Shorelines Hearings Board. Grage said that local appeals add an additional 14-day delay before Ecology filing and that “there's a long, drawn out...a lot of waiting, for multiple appeals.”

The planning-manager presentation framed the proposal as both a streamlining and a risk-management measure. She said many jurisdictions now ask hearing examiners—land-use professionals under contract with the city—to make quasi-judicial decisions because they reduce city and individual liability and are more consistently applied to strict code criteria. “Planning commissioners are people in the community...you might be sympathetic to your friends and neighbors,” Grage said, explaining the legal-risk rationale for moving quasi-judicial decisions to a hearing examiner.

Commissioners asked practical questions about the proposal. Commissioner Ryan raised the need for clear public instructions on how to appeal and asked whether appeal forms and filing procedures are available; Grage confirmed an appeal form exists and that planning staff will assist the public. Commissioner Juretsky asked about hearing-examiner availability; Grage said the market is catching up and that examiners can generally be scheduled. Commissioner Mills pushed back on restricting neighborhood meetings for some administrative permits, saying residents want to be informed; Grage clarified that the change would make pre-application neighborhood meetings discretionary for certain minor Type 2 permits but would not remove the public notice and comment periods required for those permits.

The commission also discussed cost implications. Commissioners noted that hearings before a contracted examiner increase fees for applicants because the city typically passes examiner costs to parties; Grage said fees depend on how the examiner bills (often hourly) and that larger projects sometimes accept higher costs in exchange for timelier, predictable schedules. The commission did not take a binding vote on the proposal during the meeting; staff said it will return with recommended code language and additional details in forthcoming packets and meetings.

For now, the record shows staff intends to revise Anacortes Municipal Code Title 19 procedures to: reclassify shoreline substantial development permits as Type 2 administrative decisions; move shoreline conditional-use and variance permits to Type 3 hearing-examiner decisions; and consider whether the city should retain or eliminate local appeals for shoreline substantial development permits, given the existing state-level appeal to Ecology and the Shorelines Hearings Board. Staff also noted other related edits—such as clarifying who must receive notice and the timing of appeals—will be provided in later drafts and packets.

The Planning Commission scheduled follow-up review of the draft development-regulation amendments at special meetings and regular sessions; staff said a redline of proposed changes will be published to commissioners and the public before the next meeting. John Coleman, Director of Planning, Community and Economic Development, confirmed the comprehensive plan public hearing remains open and will continue through the September 24 meeting, where some of these code amendments will be discussed again.

Less critical details: commissioners requested clearer written language in the draft code so applicants and public know who makes which decisions and how appeals are filed. Staff committed to adding clearer cross-references and to providing examples of the procedural steps in the next packet.