Hearing examiner pauses decision on Duck Lake Drive wetland exception amid shoreline jurisdiction and neighbor flooding concerns

The Ocean Shores hearing examiner left the record open on April 14 for RUE26000007, a request to allow development of a single-family home at 776 Duck Lake Drive NE that would impact a category 3 wetland and associated buffers, after an extended presentation and public comment on mitigation and shoreline jurisdiction.

Hearing Examiner Peregrine Sorter opened the matter by describing the scope: the site is heavily encumbered by two wetlands and overlapping buffers and is in R1 single-family zoning. City staff and the applicant’s expert said the parcel is effectively 100% encumbered, requiring mitigation sequencing and a mix of on-site and bank measures to compensate for unavoidable impacts. “Impacts are unavoidable,” the project expert said, and the design was revised to retreat the house landward, reduce footprint and place the garage within the house to minimize buffer encroachment.

Why it matters: the parcel sits between a high-quality estuarine wetland (category 1) and a lower-quality freshwater wetland (category 3). That combination triggers multiple buffer requirements and raises a procedural question the examiner pressed: whether the proposal is governed by the city’s critical areas ordinance or the Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The examiner requested a city memorandum clarifying that jurisdiction before issuing a decision.

What staff and the expert said: the expert explained two distinct wetland units, described rejected and revised designs, and said the current proposal limits the house footprint (reduced to roughly 1,800 sq ft in one design) and adds vertical living space so the development needs less ground area. He said on-site buffer restoration is proposed where possible and that remaining unavoidable wetland impacts would be mitigated with credits from the city’s Weatherwax mitigation bank. The expert also corrected an earlier data presentation to note a small on-site buffer impact (440 sq ft) could be mitigated on site.

City oversight and mitigation bank: Mr. Reed, the city’s lead planner and shoreline administrator, said the Weatherwax mitigation bank is a 27+-acre site established to provide off-site compensatory mitigation, and that the Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers participate in interagency oversight. Reed summarized the bank’s purpose and safeguards: “The Weatherwax Bank is actually physically a piece of property…27-plus acres in size that is comprised of pristine, undisturbed shoreline, wetland habitat…,” and the city holds escrow accounts to help fund long-term maintenance of the bank parcel.

Neighbor concerns and technical review: Judy Mitchell, who owns the house south of the subject lot, testified she does not have a bulkhead and that king tides and wave action already reach her steps. She warned that fill and new retaining walls next door could worsen erosion and inundation on her lower-elevation lot. The applicant, Darin DeLude, said he planned engineering measures (for example, a French drain) and would work with engineers to protect neighboring properties; the expert and staff said a later SEPA and permitting review, including engineering details, would address drainage, fill and retaining-wall permits.

Procedure and next steps: the hearing examiner left the record open until the close of business Wednesday to allow the city to submit a memorandum describing why the critical areas process (rather than an SMP variance process) applies in this case and to add the expert’s slides as exhibits. The examiner said decisions on the applications are intended to be issued within 10 business days after the record closes.

Context and limits: no formal vote or permit decision was made at the hearing. Technical permitting steps remain — including any required shoreline or variance determinations, SEPA review, and construction permits for fill and retaining walls — and the examiner noted those construction‑level approvals are handled separately from the RUE decision.

The hearing examiner closed the matter with the record left open for additional exhibits and information; the examiner will issue a written decision after reviewing the supplemental material.