Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors appeal county sign‑off on septic repair near shoreline, citing notice and erosion concerns; hearing examiner reserves decision
Summary
Nancy and Brad Zakes appealed San Juan County's final approval of a septic installation on a neighboring property, arguing the county issued final sign‑off before required shoreline/critical‑area steps and without adequate notice. County health staff said the work was an emergency repair processed under state repair rules; the hearing examiner took the record under advisement.
Neighbors who live near Broken Point told the San Juan County Hearing Examiner on March 25 that a septic installation on an adjacent property was approved without required preconditions and that cleared vegetation and installation near the shoreline create erosion and safety risks.
Counsel for appellants Nancy and Brad Zakes argued the county approved the system and accepted the record drawing on Dec. 2, 2025, before critical‑area elements (a critical‑area report) and the shoreline variance were concluded and publicly available. Witnesses produced photographs showing staged clearing and a new drain field area, and described being unaware of the installation until equipment blocked the access road. Ms. Zakes told the examiner she first learned of the work after a contractor blocked the road and later saw excavation and tree removal; she said she did not receive individualized notice from the county about the installation and only obtained the final approval documents through a public‑records request.
"My biggest concern is that there is final approval without proper procedure being followed," Ms. Zakes said.
The county’s health‑department witness, Tom Tompkins, testified that the work was processed as a repair sewage design application and approved on Jan. 15, 2025; he described the work as an emergency repair to correct a failing septic system, said that the designer determined soils and setbacks under the state repair rules allowed the proposed drain field, and said the department accepted the record drawing and start‑up verification after the tank was decommissioned and the system installed. "That system was reviewed and approved by William Patterson in January 2025," Tompkins said.
Appellants pressed that site maps and planting plans overstate the buffer distance between the road and shoreline and that clearing removed trees and plants that stabilize the bank; Mr. Zakes said two large trees subsequently fell across the access road, which they attributed to increased exposure following clearing. The county argued the repair met the definition and technical standards for an emergency repair under state code, that enhanced treatment was included to mitigate proximity to shoreline, and that record drawings accurately reflect installation.
The hearing examiner reserved ruling on a motion to dismiss, admitted exhibits including staff reports and pre‑hearing briefs, heard testimony from multiple witnesses and said he would issue a decision after reviewing the record. The record was closed at the end of the hearing.
What happens next: The examiner will issue a written decision on the appeal and on the related shoreline variance; that decision can be appealed to superior court under the Land Use Petition Act if parties are dissatisfied.
