The Newcastle Planning Commission on Nov. 19 reviewed proposed changes to the city's critical-areas ordinance that leave the existing wetland buffer regime largely intact but spell out clearer criteria for which buffer level applies and when exceptions or mitigation options are available.

Director Erin Fitzgibbons told the commission staff used Department of Ecology guidance to keep wetland buffers "the same as what they currently are," while reorganizing the rules so applicants and staff know which buffer applies when certain minimization measures are used. "You can have this one. If you do these things, you get this moderate buffer. And if you don't, you get this high impact buffer," Fitzgibbons said, describing the code's new structure.

The package adds a 10-foot building setback from the critical-area boundary so primary structures cannot be built directly up to the buffer; Fitzgibbons said decks and similar accessory improvements remain possible but the proposal would prevent main buildings from abutting the buffer. She also proposed allowing rebuilding in the same footprint and a one-time expansion of up to 500 square feet into previously disturbed (altered) areas, subject to sequencing and mitigation.

During public comment, Arnie Arnovec read a statement from property owner Jan Drange who argued the current classification of her Lake Boren parcel and the effective setbacks reduce her property's value and leave her little usable area. "I propose that the council grant me relief of the hardship by considering Lake Boren as a lake for the purpose of setback in use," the written remark said through the reader. Fitzgibbons responded in the meeting that although staff could not promise relief, a reasonable-use exception process exists for parcels where strict application of the code would remove reasonable use.

Staff and consultants also addressed mitigation requirements. For small mitigation sites (2,500 square feet or less), staff proposed shortening monitoring from five years to three if mitigation is meeting requirements, and clarified that mitigation plantings cannot be double-counted toward the city's significant-tree-retention calculations. Darcy, a wetland scientist on staff, said the city currently allows use of the King County Wetland Mitigation Reserves Program when an off-site mitigation mechanism is needed.

The update clarifies when stream and wetland buffers can be considered to stop at public roads: a wetland biologist must document a lack of functional connectivity if staff are to exclude a buffer on the far side of a roadway. Fitzgibbons said the language reflects recommendations from the Department of Ecology and Department of Fish and Wildlife and aims to reduce gray areas in code interpretation.

Next steps: staff will prepare redlines and supporting materials for a future hearing and a GIS dashboard that will allow property owners to see how proposed changes affect specific parcels is expected in January. The commission indicated it would return to stream-related topics at a later meeting after additional consultation with DFW.