Dear Neighbors,
San Juan County residents are rightly proud of the natural beauty, rural character, and ecological integrity that define our islands. Those values did not happen by accident — they exist because generations before us demanded thoughtful land-use decisions, strong environmental review, and public accountability. Today, those protections are being tested, and the community’s voice is urgently needed.
A proposed development for a nearly 13,000 sq ft 4 bay hangar in a residential neighborhood classed Rural Farm Forest, currently under review by San Juan County would require clearcutting a forested lot and converting approximately ~50% of the parcel into impervious surface (primarily concrete, asphalt, and roofing). That level of land disturbance is not minor. It fundamentally alters hydrology, wildlife habitat, and downstream environmental conditions — impacts that do not stop at a property line. The structure would run property line to property line as a sheer metal wall, 35’ tall at its peak (possibly taller if the average roof height is 35’ tall but the actual peak beyond that).
This proposal has a history. In 2022, neighbors filed a SEPA appeal that went before the County’s Hearing Examiner. The Examiner ruled in favor of the neighbors that filed the SEPA appeal, clearly identifying deficiencies in the environmental review and directing that unless the proposal was substantially modified, the County would be required to issue a Mitigated Determination of Significance (MNDS) or a Determination of Significance (DS), at minimum, a more rigorous environmental review. That ruling was not ambiguous. It was explicit about what needed to be studied, clarified, and resolved.
Fast-forward to today: the County has issued a Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) — despite the fact that no changes were made to the proposal. The same clearcutting remains. The same scale of impervious surface remains. And critically, many of the specific issues the Hearing Examiner identified remain either unresolved or inconsistently addressed.
Among the most concerning issues are wetlands, hydrology, stormwater management, and impervious surfaces. Across multiple submissions, wetlands appear, disappear, or shift in classification depending on the document. Drainage assumptions change. Some studies rely on outdated stormwater guidance. Others fail to analyze cumulative impacts — despite SEPA’s clear mandate to consider not just isolated effects, but how development interacts with existing conditions, nearby properties, and sensitive ecosystems over time.
Equally troubling is the County’s current position regarding building size. The DNS issued last week states “the hangar’s size and scale are consistent with noncommercial personal use.” This hangar would be the second largest hangar on SJI and second only to FedEx which is on Port of Friday Harbor property. The size of this hangar exceeds Island Air’s as well as aviation maintenance facilities (actual commercial operations). For context, this hangar would be more than four times the size of the next largest hangar in Bridle Trails, a single-family residential neighborhood. It would be more than twice the size of the STEM building at FHHS and 1.6 times bigger than the library.
This hangar could hold 12 Cessna 172s. Alternatively if you think about seeing San Juan Airlines and Kenmore flying in and out of the islands, imagine 4 Cessna Caravans in this hangar plus 3 Cessna 172s in the same hangar. This is the scale of what we are talking about. You can tell a lot about what types of planes a hangar is meant to accommodate by the height of the door. The height of this door would be 23 feet tall. For context, only when pushed by the Hearing Examiner decision in 2022 did the applicant submit a table of four types of “representative aircraft” they may have for personal use. The tallest of those aircraft is 8’11” tall. Something doesn’t seem right here. That’s a lot of cost to incur in building materials for volume you don’t plan to use. Four years ago under oath, I asked the respondent on this lot if he was a registered FAA pilot. The answer was no. I also asked the respondent if he owned any aircraft. The answer to this was also no.
SEPA exists precisely to evaluate whether the environmental impacts of a proposal are significant. When a single structure rivals or exceeds the size of many civic or institutional buildings, when it necessitates extensive clearcutting, and when it drives half a parcel into impervious coverage (standard for rural farm forest is 15%), environmental review is not optional — it is required. The County’s third-party consultant has come to this conclusion that this has been adequately studied. In the public records request I placed, it appears documents are still missing that would be helpful and some of the notes lead me to believe that not all documents were reviewed by the third party.
Allowing projects of this scale to proceed without meaningful SEPA scrutiny sets a dangerous precedent. If one forested lot can be clearcut and paved at this level with a DNS, then others will follow. Over time, the cumulative effect will be fragmented habitat, altered groundwater behavior, increased runoff, and irreversible loss of rural character — exactly what our Comprehensive Plan is meant to prevent. It seems wild that a review wouldn’t be based on current laws and code.
This is not an anti-development argument. It is a pro-process argument. Thoughtful development depends on accurate data, transparent analysis, and adherence to prior rulings. When a Hearing Examiner identifies deficiencies and the same proposal resurfaces without meaningful change or ANY CHANGE, issuing a DNS undermines public trust and weakens the integrity of environmental review countywide.
San Juan County residents still have a voice — but only if we use it.
I urge community members to write to the San Juan County Department of Community Development (DCD) (DCD@sanjuancountywa.gov referencing LANDUSE21-0172, DEADLINE JANUARY 28th) and ask for:
- Accountability to the 2022 Hearing Examiner decision and clear explanation of how the current proposal differs materially from what was previously rejected
- A thorough analysis of wetlands, stormwater, and cumulative impacts including a review to update a new stormwater management plan that properly accounts for all impervious surfaces
- Recognition that scale and impervious surface matter. My lot and the taxiway are currently so saturated right now I wouldn’t walk on them in anything but rainboots. But the applicant claims this is just the result of a plugged culvert. The applicant barely addresses the taxiway, yet how do they plan to get aircraft to a hangar without a taxiway?
SEPA is only as strong as our willingness to defend it. Once we allow large-scale clearcutting and high impervious coverage to slide through without scrutiny, we do not get those protections back.
This decision will echo beyond a single parcel. It will signal whether San Juan County still takes environmental review seriously — or whether precedent and public process can be quietly eroded.
Now is the moment for residents to speak up — respectfully, clearly, and collectively — before the impacts are locked into the landscape forever. It is heartbreaking for me to think about this happening next door. And even more disheartening to think about multiple lots that this would set the precedent for in my neighborhood and the County at large.
You can find the HEX’s 2022 ruling here:
On behalf of concerned neighbors,
Caitlin Ness Hardy