County staff recommends denial of Arrowsmith dock at Neckpoint Cove; applicants and conservation groups disagree

County staff recommended denying an application by Jeff and Claire Arrowsmith for a joint‑use dock at Neckpoint Cove on Shaw Island, saying the proposal does not meet several San Juan County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) standards including the order of preference for overwater structures and requirements to demonstrate infeasibility of less‑intrusive alternatives.

Staff principal planner Rick Maycock summarized the staff recommendation and said the application "is not consistent with six code provisions" and two comprehensive‑plan provisions cited in the staff report, and that the county therefore recommended denial. Maycock told the hearing that the application does not adequately demonstrate that the existing combination of a mooring float and a mooring buoy is infeasible, writing in the staff synopsis that the county found the applicant had not shown that alternatives were infeasible. The file number for the application is LandUse‑23‑0162.

The Arrowsmiths' application seeks to replace an existing mooring float and retain a mooring buoy with a joint‑use dock consisting of a short pier, a ramp and a float. Maycock’s staff report stated the proposed dock would be about 436 square feet and would "replace an existing mooring float," with the float and an existing buoy retained. The county identified concerns under SMP sections cited in the record (for example, 18.52.40.A.9 and 18.52.50.A.1–2) about the "porcupine effect"—the proliferation of private docks along the shoreline—and about the applicant’s failure to show there are no feasible alternatives, such as continued use of the existing float and buoy or an expansion of the neighborhood community dock.

Applicant Jeff Arrowsmith told the examiner the project would be low‑impact, improve safety and environmental conditions, and noted practical access concerns: he said he uses a 25‑foot aluminum landing craft with twin 200‑horsepower outboards for transporting people and cargo and that his wife and daughters cannot safely use the present beach or buoy access. "I think safety should be considered," Arrowsmith said. He and his consultants argued the community dock expansion would be a multiyear project and not a feasible near‑term alternative, and said the proposed change would keep the physical footprint small while making access safer.

Friends of the San Juans — represented at the hearing by Kyle Loring and Tina Whitman — urged denial. Loring argued the site "would be the first dock in the Neckpoint Cove subdivision since the county adopted its shoreline master program in 1976" and said the existing float and buoy have served the property for roughly 30 years. Whitman, Friends’ senior science director, raised specific ecological concerns about kelp beds, shading, anchor‑disc disturbance, propeller damage and potential effects on juvenile salmon and forage‑fish spawning habitat; she said the applicant’s materials had gaps and omissions and recommended denial.

Neighbors and longtime Neckpoint Cove residents spoke against the dock. Resident Skip Bole (recorded and referenced variably as "Bold/Bole") described the beach as a high‑quality landing site used for decades; resident Jon Christofferson said the community dock has been upgraded and noted that applying for seasonal dock moorage is a straightforward procedure and that some seasonal turnover exists.

Applicant technical consultants with GenJ (biologist Kim Middleton and engineer/consultant Chris Boettcher) argued the proposed work would improve local conditions by replacing the existing solid‑deck float with a graded float and by reducing chain scour, and said the proposed anchoring would provide stable hard substrate for kelp. Boettcher asked to submit a written response to comments; the hearing examiner allowed the applicant team to submit responsive materials and gave the parties and county deadlines.

The examiner set a schedule for follow‑up filings: the applicant team may submit responsive materials (limited to replying to today’s comments, not new evidence) by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 2; staff agreed to review any applicant submittal and may supplement the staff report by April 9; the examiner afforded the applicant an opportunity for a final reply through Friday, April 11. The examiner also instructed participants to send PDFs of exhibits (photographs, aerials, diagrams) to the county planner for inclusion in the record. The hearing remained open for that limited, responsive record; no final decision was issued at the hearing.