Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port asks school board to let it study adjacent district land for housing and to resolve boundary encroachment
Summary
At a South Whidbey School Board workshop, Port officials asked permission to expand a feasibility study onto School District land to resolve an encroachment and to evaluate whether workforce housing and rebuilt concession stands could be placed above existing structures. Board members requested maps, legal analysis and that the Port pay for feasibility work; no vote was taken.
Port of South Whidbey officials asked the South Whidbey School Board on Monday night for permission to expand a feasibility study onto adjacent district land as they seek to resolve a boundary encroachment and explore placing limited workforce housing above rebuilt concession stands at the fairgrounds.
The request was presented by Port representative Kurt Gordon, who said Island County provided an initial $150,000 grant to study feasibility. Gordon told the workshop the Port has surveyed the site, produced conceptual designs and prepared draft zoning language with the City of Langley. He emphasized that any Port involvement must show economic viability: “Port districts can’t provide low‑income housing or homeless housing…everything Port districts do is scrutinized and has to be economically driven,” he said.
Why it matters: The district owns the fairgrounds property where the Port currently operates concessions, and Port activity has encroached onto district land. Board members and community speakers said the technical question of where the legal property line lies must be settled before any change of use. They also flagged environmental constraints (septic, wetlands, water table), fairground operations and vendors’ access, and long‑term district needs for land.
Board members asked the Port to return with a written request that includes explicit maps and a defined scope of the land to be surveyed. Several board members said the Port should pay for feasibility work and provide its findings for the district’s legal counsel to vet; the district would not use general education funds to underwrite Port feasibility analyses. One board member summarized the district’s position: resolve the property‑line encroachment first, then separately consider whether residential use is feasible and appropriate.
Public commenters had mixed reactions. Doug Hofus, an architect and Island Roots Housing board member, urged using surplus public land for housing and noted the district’s interest in stabilizing families. Fair Association members and vendors asked to be included in planning and cautioned that taking fairground space could harm annual events and vendor revenue. An online commenter wrote that the Port should not be “taking public lands for private housing”; Port speakers said the Housing Authority of Island County, not the Port, would operate any units built.
Next steps: The Port was asked to submit a clear written proposal with maps and a scope by the timeline requested at the meeting (asked for “by next Wednesday” by board staff). The board agreed that any member who wants the item on the business‑meeting agenda should email the chair; the board did not take a final vote at the workshop and instead signaled it may place an item on a future business agenda after reviewing written materials and legal analysis.
Quotes: “We have funding from Island County to do feasibility,” Kurt Gordon said, adding that the Port’s initial designs considered 10–18 apartments above a rebuilt concession structure. A board member said the district would “vet this through our own legal counsel and we would not expect to cover the cost” of that legal review.
Context and constraints: Port staff noted the Port’s statutory limitations and said they had consulted legal counsel about whether options include a boundary adjustment, lease or sale. Participants emphasized that questions about septic, wetlands, city setbacks and square‑footage constraints make feasibility uncertain; one public speaker estimated the current encroachment at roughly 400–500 square feet based on the site scale.
The workshop did not approve a lease, sale or zoning change; rather, it produced a direction to the Port to provide detailed written materials and to the board to consider placing the matter on a future business agenda after review. The Port and the district agreed the Port will fund initial feasibility and legal research and the district will run any returned materials through its counsel before any decision about use or transfer of property.
