Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Code Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Harbor staff propose code updates to implement SB 5290 and consolidate land‑clearing and grading rules
Summary
City staff told the council they will revise municipal permitting timelines to reflect Senate Bill 5290, remove obsolete permit references, and move land‑clearing review into the engineering division under a single chapter to streamline review.
Oak Harbor city staff on Monday told the City Council they plan a package of housekeeping and substantive code changes to update local permit timelines, remove obsolete procedures and consolidate land‑clearing and grading rules.
The changes respond to Senate Bill 5290 and related state code language and would modify sections of Oak Harbor’s municipal code to match the new project‑permit definitions and timelines the state adopted earlier this year.
Development Services staff member Nolan said the draft ordinance would update seven sections of chapter 18.20 of the municipal code and remove references to permit processes that “no longer exist in our code,” including the PIP and PBB processes and a “counter complete review procedure.” He told council the package also corrects an inaccurate accessory‑dwelling reference in the list of Type 2 permits.
Nolan described the timeline changes in the draft: “We used to require 120 days review timeline for all type 2, 3, and 4 permits. That’ll be changing, to 65 days for projects that do not require public notice or all of our type 1 projects. A 100 days for projects requiring public notice, so all of our type 2 projects,” and an increase “to that time line of a 170 days for projects requiring a public hearing.” He said the state legislation also requires that days be counted as calendar days.
Nolan added that the draft clarifies how applicant responses affect the clock: when staff notify an applicant that the file is waiting on information, the timeline effectively stops while it is with the applicant and, when returned, the city will add 30 days.
Separately, Dennis, who introduced a related proposal on land‑clearing and grading, said the city intends to combine land‑clearing and grading rules into a single chapter (anticipated chapter 1947) and to move land‑clearing review to the engineering division, under the city engineer or the engineer’s designee. Dennis said state reviews — the Department of Natural Resources forest practices review and Department of Ecology stormwater review — would remain part of engineering staff responsibilities.
Dennis outlined next steps: a presentation to the Planning Commission that evening, a Planning Commission draft review in March, a council workshop in March and a target of a draft ordinance for adoption by the June council meetings.
Council members asked clarifying questions about the calendar‑day requirement and the applicant pause rule. Council Member Wiesner confirmed the timelines are calendar days and sought confirmation about the pause and 30‑day addition; Nolan confirmed the draft includes language to address that scenario. Council discussion also noted that some items Nolan will update depend on the proposed land‑clearing changes, and staff said they may remove further vestigial references once the land‑clearing code is revised.
Council did not take action at the meeting; staff said they will bring formal ordinance language and supporting materials back for future hearings and adoption.
Ending: Staff indicated the ordinance language will be refined with legal counsel and cross‑checked with the land‑clearing draft; a Planning Commission review is scheduled in March and city staff expect to return with a draft for council adoption by June.
