Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Regulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers permit‑timeline code changes to Sept. 2 after legal questions
Summary
Ordinance 20-26 to align Oak Harbor permit‑review timelines with recent amendments to the Local Project Review Act (SB 5290 / RCW 36.70B) was the subject of a July 1 public hearing; council continued the hearing to Sept. 2 to allow staff and legal counsel to check code language and exemptions.
The Oak Harbor City Council held a public hearing on ordinance 20-26, a set of edits to OHMC chapter 18.20 intended to align the city’s permit‑review timelines with state law changes enacted by SB 5290 to chapter 36.70B RCW.
Associate Planner Nolan Grunska told the council the state changes shorten review periods for many permit types and require calendar‑day counting; the draft updates would adjust internal definitions, remove obsolete procedural language, and reflect current digital submittal practice. He said code currently requires a 120‑day review for certain permit types while the amended state law sets shorter timelines (65 days for many project reviews without public notice) and that staff had edited the municipal code to mirror the RCW language.
Public commenter Jeff Ward raised a related concern about exemption language and argued the draft omitted RCW language that requires specific ordinance or resolution documentation for certain exemptions. City legal counsel Bob Zidemann reviewed the cited sections live with staff and said he would research the precise statutory wording; councilmembers said staff should ensure the city’s edits match statutory requirements. Councilmember Wiesner moved and council approved continuing the public hearing to Sept. 2 to allow staff and legal counsel time to review and, if needed, return with a corrected draft.
No written comments had been filed in advance on the item; one resident spoke in person. The council gave staff direction to return with legal analysis and possible edits at the Sept. 2 meeting.
