A hearing examiner for Okanagan County closed the public record Aug. 6 on a shoreline conditional-use permit application to place a residential swimming pool and an outbuilding in a mapped severe channel-migration zone and said his written decision will be issued within 10 working days.

Hearing Examiner Andy Kotkam told the applicant and county staff he would consider testimony, written materials and the staff report before issuing a decision. Kotkam said, “I'll have my decision out within the next 10 working days,” and reminded parties that any appeal of his decision must be filed within 21 days after he issues it and that shoreline appeals are heard by the Shoreline hearing board.

Senior planner Rocky Robbins told the hearing examiner that the application included a geotechnical report and a habitat management and mitigation plan. Robbins said, “a geotech report was provided as well as, habitat management mitigation plan, and both items are favorable to this development.” The hearing record shows no members of the public spoke at the hearing.

Applicant Patrick Daniel Hyatt, the property owner, described the proposed pool's siting relative to the house and river. Hyatt said he has built residential pools for 45 years and estimated he has “probably put 250 pools in the ground.” He said his home’s lowest finished floor is about 3 feet, 6 inches above the 100‑year base flood elevation, and the planned pool would sit about 1 foot above that elevation and about 75 feet from the current high‑water mark. Hyatt told the examiner a local geologist and a Bellingham firm prepared the fluvial/geotechnical study and that Bill Sackman prepared a survey reestablishing the 100‑year base flood elevation.

Kotkam admitted exhibits A through L and the staff report as Exhibit M into the hearing record. He closed the hearing after confirming there were no further witnesses in the room and directed staff to proceed with the usual post‑hearing steps, including routing the matter to the Washington State Department of Ecology for review as required for shoreline matters.

Discussion versus decisions: Hearing testimony consisted of factual descriptions from staff and the applicant and the admission of written exhibits. The formal actions taken at the hearing were to admit exhibits into the record and to close the record; no permit was approved or denied at the hearing. Kotkam stated a written decision would follow; the record closing is an administrative step while the examiner finalizes findings and conditions.

Next steps and appeals: The examiner said he would prepare a written decision and that it must be issued before the 21‑day appeal clock begins. Kotkam advised that an appeal of a Shoreline permit decision would be heard by the Shoreline hearing board and recommended parties seek legal advice if they plan to appeal.

Background: The application is logged as Shoreline Conditional Use Permit SCUP‑2025‑1 (as referenced in the staff report). The county staff report and attached exhibits, including a geotechnical study and a habitat mitigation plan, are part of the administrative record and will be considered by the examiner before his written determination.

No timeline for construction or issuance of building permits was given during the hearing; Hyatt was told to wait until the examiner's decision and the Department of Ecology review were complete before proceeding.