At its March 26 meeting the Newcastle Planning Commission heard a detailed presentation from Associate Planner Tyler Coyle and Development Director Fitzgibbons on draft code changes aimed at implementing recent state middle‑housing and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) laws.

The proposed amendments respond to state bills identified at the meeting (HB 1110 and HB 2123 for middle housing; HB 1337 for ADUs) and the Department of Commerce model middle‑housing ordinance. Coyle told commissioners that the city must align its zoning with the state rules or risk having the state model code temporarily override Newcastle’s local regulations.

Coyle, Associate Planner Tyler Coyle, outlined the main changes: allowing duplexes on all buildable lots in single‑family zones, adopting unit‑lot subdivision to permit fee‑simple ownership of units that were previously condominium interests, and revising ADU rules to reflect state limits. “We need to allow duplexes on all conforming lots in single family zones,” Coyle said while explaining the statute‑driven requirement and options for where denser middle‑housing types could be allowed beyond duplexes.

Why it matters: state law sets deadlines and a model ordinance; if Newcastle does not adopt compliant local code by the state’s deadline, the model ordinance (and any bolded required provisions identified by the Department of Commerce) would govern locally until the city adopts its own replacements. Commissioners and staff emphasized the goal of retaining local control by adopting a compliant local code on the state timeline.

Key provisions and discussion points described at the meeting

- Duplexes and middle housing: The draft would require that duplexes be permitted on all buildable lots in single‑family zones. Commissioners discussed whether to allow duplexes in higher‑intensity zones (for example R‑24/downtown) or to limit duplexes to lower‑density single‑family zones; the staff presentation noted that available redevelopment sites in higher‑intensity zones are limited and that allowing greater intensity there may be unnecessary.

- ADUs: Under the state law summary presented by staff, the city must allow up to two ADUs per lot in single‑family zones, allow sale of ADUs, and may not require owner occupancy. Staff proposed keeping the local ADU size cap at 1,000 square feet and discussed a proposed maximum building height for ADUs near 24 feet (compared with the existing 30‑foot cap), noting the 24‑foot figure comes from the minimum height the state law would allow as a limit. Commissioners debated how height, bulk and setbacks should apply in practice.

- Setbacks: Newcastle currently requires the sum of side yards on new single‑family work to total 15 feet (for example 5 feet on one side and 10 on the other). Staff proposed allowing a reduced side‑yard sum (a 10‑foot minimum total) in some cases to enable middle housing and ADUs, especially on legally nonconforming lots with narrow frontages (examples cited: many older cul‑de‑sacs with 40‑foot frontage). Public commenter Bryce Given urged parity in how the side‑yard sum would apply when an existing small house is converted to an ADU and a new primary dwelling is built adjacent to it; Given said “the end result ... is the same, an ADU and a single family house,” and urged the commission to apply the same side‑yard logic to both conversion and new‑build scenarios.

- Parking: Staff presented a proposal to require one off‑street parking space per ADU. Under current local practice ADUs are not separately listed and the primary dwelling is often treated as having an implied extra parking requirement; staff said the practical proposal is to continue the logic of the present code by adding one required space per ADU. Staff also noted greater flexibility on parking for lots within a half‑mile of major transit stops as defined in state law.

- Unit lot subdivision (ULS): Staff explained ULS as a legal mechanism that allows fee‑simple ownership of individual units (including townhouses or detached units on the same parent parcel) without creating additional density beyond what the developer is otherwise permitted to build. Coyle described ULS as a vehicle for enabling fee‑simple ownership where a condominium process would otherwise be required; he noted ULS does not permit additional units beyond the parent lot’s entitlements and that typical issues such as access and utilities are handled through easements and HOAs in practice.

- Design standards and cottage housing: Staff said many of the model‑ordinance restrictions on design cannot be applied only to middle housing; if Newcastle keeps design requirements they must not be more onerous for middle housing than for single‑family detached homes. The commission also reviewed proposed adjustments to the city’s existing cottage‑housing provisions (staff proposed raising the typical cottage average to around 1,500 sq ft with a capped maximum example cited at 1,700 sq ft to reflect market realities).

What the commission asked staff to do

Commissioners flagged several items for follow up. Most notably, commissioners expressed support for permitting reduced side‑yard requirements on narrow, legally nonconforming lots when an ADU and primary dwelling are both present, and asked staff to draft specific code language that would apply the 10‑foot side‑yard total in that narrow‑frontage context for commission review. Staff also agreed to bring back clarifying language on ADU parking, the 24‑foot height proposal, and operational details for unit‑lot subdivision if the commission wishes to proceed.

Public comment and context

In public comment, resident Bryce Given described a personal example of a small existing home he would like to convert to an ADU and asked the commission to treat that scenario the same as a lot with a large existing house that adds an ADU. Carol Simpson, a Newport Hills resident and former planning commissioner and council member, urged commissioners to “learn and understand our zoning code” and to base recommendations on careful review.

Next steps and timing

Staff noted the state’s timeline and the Department of Commerce model ordinance; Coyle explained the commission’s goal is to adopt a locally tailored, compliant code before the model ordinance is applied automatically. Staff will return with redraft language on the items described above and with code‑tracker materials that break proposed revisions into required, consistency, and discretionary categories.

Ending note: the commission’s conversation was largely detailed and technical; commissioners and staff framed the immediate task as making local choices where state law allows discretion while ensuring compliance with state deadlines to avoid temporary state model‑ordinance preemption.