HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrder, Denying Request for Reconsideration, Rock Point Oyster SSDP, March 2025
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY AQUACULTURE
PROJECT IN TARBOO BAY –
FILE NO. SDP2024-00001
Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Before Hearing Examiner
Gary N. McLean
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY
Application for an “after-the-fact” Type
III Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit for Aquaculture, submitted by
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY,
Applicant
(Location: The Project area is located in the waters of
Tarboo Bay, immediately above and forming the
northern extent of Dabob Bay, just west of the existing
upland facilities for Rock Point Oyster Company,
addressed as 133 Dabob Post Office Road, east of the
Quilcene community in unincorporated Jefferson
County.
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. SDP2024-00001
ORDER DENYING
REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION
BACKGROUND
1. On February 19, 2025, the undersigned Hearing Examiner issued a Decision
approving the above-captioned application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
subject to detailed conditions of approval.
2. On March 5, 2025, Marilyn Showalter, a local resident who provided personal
testimony at the public hearing and submitted written comments that are included as part of
the record, filed a Request for Reconsideration, seeking modifications to Finding of Fact No.
13, on page 12 of the Decision. The Request included the following note in italics: “The
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY AQUACULTURE
PROJECT IN TARBOO BAY –
FILE NO. SDP2024-00001
Page 2 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
proposed language does not change the outcome of the decision.”
3. After receiving a copy of the Request for Reconsideration, the Examiner asked staff
to transmit a copy to the Project Planner (Ms. Frostholm) and the applicant’s attorney (Mr.
Smith) who participated in the public hearing process for this matter.
4. JCC 18.25.50(4) addresses requests for reconsideration, and reads as follows:
“The applicant/proponent or any party of record may request reconsideration of any
final action by the decision maker within 10 days of notice of the decision. Such
requests shall be filed on forms supplied by the county. Grounds for reconsideration
must be based upon the content of the written decision. The decision maker is not
required to provide a written response or modify his/her original decision. He/she
may initiate such action as he/she deems appropriate. The procedure of
reconsideration shall not preempt or extend the appeal period for a permit or affect
the date of filing with the Department of Ecology, unless the applicant/proponent
requests the abeyance of said permit appeal period.”
5. At the outset, the Request was filed 14 days after the Decision issued, though actual
notice of the decision may have been provided at some later date. The Hearing Examiner
Rules of Procedure provide for transmittal of Decisions by email, if the party has consented.
(See H Ex Rule 1.12). If notice was provided on the date of issuance, the Request appears
untimely.
6. In any event, the Request expands the general thrust of comments already included in
the record by Ms. Showalter, expressing her frustration with defects in original notices that
required corrections before the public hearing occurred, and seeking assurance that public
noticing errors that occurred in this review process will not be used to excuse errors in other
cases. The request suggests modifications that are more akin to editorial preferences of the
requestor, not shared by the Examiner.
7. As explained in the Finding addressed in the Reconsideration Request – “No one
presented any preponderance of evidence to establish that any members of the public were
unable to or somehow discouraged to participate in the hearing process for this matter. Public
notices issued for this proposal were modified as needed and included information to inform
interested parties of their opportunities to submit comments, participate in a public hearing,
where the project is located, and what the project generally entails.”
8. Staff shall maintain a copy of the Request and a copy of this Order in the project file
for the application, and should use this matter as a learning experience, to ensure that future
public notices include correct information at the time they are issued, without need for
subsequent corrections. As with all application reviews, public notices should be prepared
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF SHORELINE
SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
ROCK POINT OYSTER COMPANY AQUACULTURE
PROJECT IN TARBOO BAY –
FILE NO. SDP2024-00001
Page 3 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
JEFFERSON COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER
621 SHERIDAN STREET
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
and issued in accord with applicable law. Nothing in this Order, or the underlying Decision
approving the applicant’s permit, should be construed or interpreted to excuse errors in public
notices provided in connection with other applications processed by County staff.
ORDER
The Record for this matter fully supports the Decision and all Conditions of Approval.
The reconsideration request fails to provide any legal or factual basis to reverse or modify
such decision. The Request for Reconsideration is respectfully denied. The Decision
approving the applicant’s shoreline permit application stands as written.
ISSUED this 17th Day of March, 2025
_____________________________
Gary N. McLean
Hearing Examiner