Thurston County commissioners hear appeal of hearing examiner’s approval for shoreline setback on Johnson Point

Thurston County commissioners on March 19 heard oral argument in a closed‑record appeal of a hearing examiner’s January 17, 2025, decision that granted a reasonable use exception and shoreline variance to allow construction of a single‑family residence 50 feet from the ordinary high water mark at Johnson Point.

The appeal was filed January 31, 2025, by neighboring property owners Scott B. Gustafson and Burton T. Miller, who asked the board to reverse the examiner’s approval or remand the matter for further proceedings. Appellants’ counsel argued the property is a 1.84‑acre tax parcel that still meets minimum zoning requirements, that the proposed shoreline house would add significant value to an already high‑value parcel, and that the examiner improperly deferred threshold issues including whether a shoreline substantial development permit is required and whether legal lots and utility connections (septic and potable water) have been resolved.

Appellants’ attorney said the record shows the “sea lots” at the tip of Johnson Point have never been consolidated by boundary line adjustment and that critical utilities and a legally recognized building site have not been established, and therefore the reasonable use exception (RUE) standard—requiring that the existing zoning deny all reasonable use of the property—was not met. The appellants asked the board to enforce code provisions that bar permits where land‑use violations exist, asserting there is an existing unpermitted building and “bootleg” utility hookups on the parcel.

Counsel for the applicant, Heather Burgess, told commissioners the examiner’s decision rests on a lengthy, robust record. Burgess said the relevant application concerns the original platted Lots 5C–7C (the proposed building site) and that Thurston County historically has recognized those lots as a legal lot of record separate from the parcel containing the existing residence. Burgess said the applicant does not seek to avoid shoreline requirements and confirmed the project will require either a shoreline exemption or a shoreline substantial development permit before a building permit can issue. She asked the board to deny the appeal and affirm the examiner’s decision.

The board opened and managed oral argument under the county’s rules for quasi‑judicial appeals; each side had 15 minutes with the appellants reserving a short rebuttal. Commissioners announced they would meet in closed session under RCW 42.31.040(2) to deliberate the quasi‑judicial matter. At the meeting’s close, the board said it would issue a written decision on or before April 1, 2025.

Why it matters: the dispute centers on how Thurston County applies critical area and shoreline rules on sensitive marine riparian habitat and floodplain lots, and whether the administrative record supports a finding that the owner is denied ‘all reasonable use’ without relief. The county’s resolution will affect how shoreline setbacks and RUEs are applied to other small shoreline parcels where lot configuration, utility availability, and prior permits are contested.

The board did not take a public vote on the merits at the meeting; it convened a closed session for deliberations and committed to a written decision due April 1, 2025.