Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners propose 2026 administrative code cleanups; commission pauses removal of master‑planning chapter
Summary
DCD staff presented a package of non‑substantive administrative code edits for 2026 including adding 'co‑living' to the group‑living definition, clarifying multifamily to include side‑by‑side units, correcting tree‑canopy math, and adopting two director's interpretations; commissioners asked to remove the master‑planning chapter from the minor‑edits package for further review.
Department of Community Development staff presented proposed 2026 administrative code updates to the Planning Commission on June 2, describing the edits as largely non‑substantive clarifications, grammar corrections, and codifications of existing director’s interpretations.
April Gasman (long‑range planner) said the objectives are to eliminate conflicting provisions, add clarity without changing substantive meaning, and codify two director’s interpretations. She told the commission the public‑comment period for the SEPA DNS had begun, the draft ordinance had been published, and a public hearing was scheduled for June 16 with deliberations planned for July 21.
Major proposed edits summarized by staff included:
• Adding “co‑living” to the group‑living definition (responding to state House Bill 1998) so shared‑kitchen co‑living units are treated consistently with boarding‑house style group living rather than as household units.
• Expanding the multifamily definition to explicitly include side‑by‑side (horizontal) attached units so that a three‑unit side‑by‑side configuration is clearly treated as multifamily rather than single‑family.
• Minor grammar fixes to allowed‑use language for clubs and places of worship, moving a footnote referencing lot‑size rules into a table for clarity, and correcting a math error in the deciduous‑tree credit for the tree‑canopy standard.
• Codifying two director’s interpretations into code: one clarifying that leasehold divisions created for wireless facilities may be exempt from minimum lot‑size requirements when certain performance conditions are met (to allow appropriately sized lease parcels for towers), and another allowing replacement of certain legal nonconforming manufactured homes with structures up to 10% larger if variance criteria are met.
Staff also proposed removing a long‑unused master‑planning chapter of Title 17. That proposal prompted extended discussion: several commissioners urged caution and asked to retain or revisit the chapter rather than delete it, citing potential future use for very large or creative developments; staff acknowledged the code had not been used for decades and that the Kitsap Builders Association had no objection to removal but agreed to pull the item from the minor edits package for further consideration.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft materials based on the commission’s input, publish updated documents for the June 16 public hearing, and bring the package back for deliberations (July 21) with the master‑planning chapter removed pending further review.
