Hearing on proposed Shaw Island dock continued to March after neighbors raise shoreline concerns

The San Juan County hearing examiner continued a contested application for a joint-use dock on Shaw Island to the March docket after neighbors raised concerns about shoreline impacts and public notice.

The hearing, for permit file LandUse-23-0162 near Neck Point Cove, was opened on the county’s February docket but the applicant requested a continuance. The examiner told attendees the hearing would be continued to March and offered members of the public an opportunity to speak at the February session; he later stated, “this matter is continued to March.”

Why it matters: neighbors said the proposal could change shoreline use in a small community that already relies on a large, existing community float and raised ecological concerns tied to eelgrass near the float. They also asked the county to consider a 1996 hearing-examiner decision and subsequent appeals when reviewing the application.

County staff and schedule: San Juan County planning staff told the examiner the county had not yet issued a staff report because the applicant requested the continuance. Planner Colin Maycock told the hearing he was “aiming to have [the staff report] out by the end of the first week of March, so around the seventh,” and that written comments intended to be addressed in the staff report should be submitted by March 5. The examiner said the minimum public-notice timing would mean the staff report should be available no later than March 12.

What residents said: John Christofferson, a neighbor whose property adjoins the applicant’s lot, told the examiner he and others first learned about the application only recently and asked that the record include a 1996 hearing-examiner decision by Wick Dufford. He described neighborhood concerns about the cumulative effect of docks at Neck Point. Neighbor Skip Bold, a long-time Neck Point resident and former homeowners association director, told the examiner that when the community float was built in the 1950s the bay was “absolutely full of eelgrass,” and said today eelgrass near that float is largely gone. He said the community values the area’s “wild look” and opposed another float in the Neck Point area.

Procedural and documentary record: The examiner and staff confirmed the record already includes written public comments and applicant responses; staff said those responses will be attached as exhibits to the forthcoming staff report. The 1996 hearing-examiner decision and the Shoreline Hearings Board decision referenced by speakers are part of the record; the neighbor offered to leave a hard copy of the 1996 decision so staff can confirm exhibit records.

Next steps: The examiner continued the matter to the March hearing docket (the applicant requested the continuance). Staff expects to post a staff report in early March; Maycock said written comments intended for inclusion in the staff report should be submitted by March 5. The examiner said the hearing will reopen in March and the record will accept further oral and written testimony as specified in the public notice.

Votes at a glance: No formal vote was taken on substantive permit approval or denial. The only formal action recorded in the hearing was the continuation of the matter to the March docket.