Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing examiner reviews Yudy family’s after‑the‑fact shoreline permit after storm damage
Summary
San Juan County staff recommended approval of an after‑the‑fact shoreline conditional‑use permit for a San Juan Island property damaged by recent storms; applicants said emergency work in 2024 and subsequent repairs were necessary to protect a boathouse and garage and asked the examiner to ease two staff conditions. No members of the public spoke.
SAN JUAN COUNTY — The San Juan County hearing examiner heard testimony April 22 on an after‑the‑fact shoreline conditional‑use permit for a property owners Dennis and Roberta Yudy, who say emergency work completed in 2024 and later storms made larger repairs necessary to protect waterfront structures.
Staff lead Maycock told the examiner the application follows an emergency authorization in 2024 and that the revised design expands the originally reported earthwork (about 63 cubic yards) to roughly 500 cubic yards, which triggered a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review issued March 25. "This is an application for a shoreline conditional use permit for a shoreline flood hazard reduction measure," Maycock said, and recommended approval subject to standard conditions.
The applicant, represented by counsel O'Day, described long‑term drainage problems caused by increased upland development and presented aerial photos dating from 1962 through 2016. Under oath, Dennis Yudy described years of increased runoff and two atmospheric‑river events that washed out earlier reinforcement. "We're doing this to protect our property," Yudy said.
Counsel said the project followed BMPs and that a no‑net‑loss biological assessment and engineering drawings are in the record. O'Day asked the examiner to strike condition No.2 — a requirement to submit a planting plan within 90 days of construction — and objected to condition No.11 only to the extent it would require a new, costly survey. "I prefer to strike it," O'Day said of the planting plan condition. Staff responded that, while revegetation is a standard BMP, it was "not wedded" to the specific planting‑plan language and that an as‑built submittal (condition No.11) is a standard requirement to ensure constructed improvements mirror approvals.
Maycock also said the county received a Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife comment after the SEPA comment period closed questioning whether a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) would be needed; staff had received no Department of Ecology comments prior to the hearing. The examiner accepted a late biologist memo and photographs into the record as additional exhibits and closed the public comment period after finding no one in the room or online wished to speak.
The hearing examiner left the matter under advisement and instructed parties to submit PDFs of the late exhibits. The county decision will still be subject to Department of Ecology review for shoreline permits.
