05/11/2005: "BOCC Passes Ordinance on Guest Houses"

Board of County Commissioners hold Public Hearing

Perhaps the public has lost interest, or feels it is in the hands of the Courts and the Politicians -both public and private-, or felt the Commissioners were doing the right thing with an ordinance that helps out some citizens who got trapped by regulations, but for whatever reason, the turnout at the Public Hearing for an Emergency Ordinance on guest houses, drew only three speakers in favor of the ordinance, (Pat O'Day, John Evans & Scott Lancaster) and one against. The against argument was presented by Stephanie Buffum Field of the Friends of the San Juans. The surprise speaker was Commissioner John Evans (Ret.), who made the trip over from Olga to give testimony in favor of the passage of the ordinance.

Mrs. Field, Stephanie Buffumfield speaking for the Friends of the San Juans, said the exemptions in the ordinance gutted the ordinance. Read her GUEST EDITORIALand click below bottom right to read the full text of her testimony.

John Evans thanked the Board and Randy Gaylord (prosecuting attorney) for their work, but said "if he had any criticism, it was that he wished the BOCC and the Prosecutor were more aggressive in the right (for one) to have a guest house." If the vote was up to him, he said he would tell the State Growth Management Board "Thank you very much, but we are going to go in the direction our citizens want us to go". He went on to say "I think it is very telling that 70%+ of the citizens of San Juan County are supportive of guest houses…there is only one very small elitist group that seems to define that (guest houses) as a problem". Read Evans column on this topic: Friends

Pat O'Day Pat O'Day also spoke for the ordinance, and as a well known radio announcer drew laughter from the Board and the audience when as he was instructed on the proper use of the microphone said "being unaccustomed as I am to a microphone". He then testified to "the broader issues", and like John Evans before him, reminded the Board the results of the citizens advisory ballot on guest houses spoke loud-and-clear: that guest houses were not troublesome to them; and that the planner at the time had shown in his report to the Board that the "impacts from guest houses was insignificant". He also felt that those against guest houses were operating on a subjective level, and not an objective level. An approach he called interesting in that there is no evidence of environmental impacts.

The Board voted unanimously to pass the ordinance.

Public Testimony of Stephanie Buffum Field

May 10, 2005

TO: San Juan County Board of County Commissioner

FR: Stephanie Buffum Field, Friends of the San Juans

Dear Commissioners:

Friends of the San Juans respectfully submit the following public testimony on the Emergency ADU Ordinance 3-2005. We appreciate that two of the three commissioners have inherited a four year legal battle that, we have argued, for the past four years would result in increased density on a number of rural and resource parcels throughout the County. This emergency ordinance is a quick-fix, short term attempt by the County to comply with the Growth Board's December 3, 2004 order.

San Juan County's most recent action, as documented in Ordinance No. 03-2005, continues the County's long standing five year non-compliance with the GMA by continuing to allow the construction of up to two freestanding structures on rural and resource land parcels of less than 10 acres.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 30, 2000, the Board found the provisions of the County's 2000 comprehensive plan amendments that allowed for new guest house construction in rural and resource lands failed to comply with the GMA and were invalid.

On April 6, 2001, the Board issued an "Order Clarifying Invalidity." According to that order the Board found:

[w]e answer the County's question of whether the determination of invalidity also prohibits the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a principal residence if the property owners have previously constructed a guest house on the property in the negative. However, the previously constructed or permit-vested "guest house" must meet the definition of SCC 18.40.240. Otherwise the second residence would fall within the determination of invalidity.

Town of Friday Harbor, et al., WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0010c, (Order Clarifying Invalidity, April 6, 2001).

On April 17, 2003, the Board confirmed, as a finding of fact, that a "freestanding ADU is not any different structurally than any other single-family dwelling unit." The Board subsequently found the County's regulations allowing freestanding ADUs and principal residences on rural and resource land lots less than ten acres to be noncompliant and invalid. Friends of the Sand Juans, et al., WWGMHB Case No. 03-2-0003c (Corrected Final Decision and Order and Compliance Order, April 17, 2003).

On June 30, 2004, the Board issued an Order Finding Continued Noncompliance and Invalidity and required the County to take action within 60 days to comply with the Board's April 17, 2003 Order. Friends of the San Juans, et al, sought reconsideration of the Boards June 30, 2004 and asked specifically that the Board direct the County to immediately discontinue its policy of permitting a second single-family dwelling unit on all lands with existing dwelling units smaller than 1000 square feet. In its December 3, 2004 Order on Issues for Reconsideration, the Board indicated that the County's policies with respect to ADU's in resource and rural lands, are non-compliant and invalid. The Board was unequivaocal in its decision:

Since April 17, 2003, the Board has never varied from its finding that the County's ordinances and policies with respect to ADUs in resource and rural lands are non-compliant and invalid. The County is in violation of the GMA until it revises its ADU policies and regulations to comply with the Board's April 17, 2003 decision and order.

Friends of San Juans et al., WWGMHB Case No. 03-2-0003 (Order on Issues for Reconsideration, December 3, 2004) . The Board was equally unequivocal in its Order:

We find that Ordinance 21-2002 as it pertains to the permitting of freestanding ADUs in rural and resource land is in continuing noncompliance with RCW 36.70A.110, RCW 36.70A.020(2) and RCW 36.70A.020(8) and continues to substantially interfere with RCW 36.70A.020(2) and (8), and therefore, continues to be invalid pursuant to RCW 36.70A.302(1). The County must bring its ordinance regarding freestanding ADUs in rural and resource lands into compliance with the Board's order of April 17, 2003 as modified by Thurston County Superior Court, within 120 days of this order.

ORDINANCE 3-2005 CONTINUES NON-COMPLIANCE

Unfortunately, the County's latest action, as documented in Ordinance 3-2005, unabashedly flouts this Board's unequivocal prior Orders. While Section 2 of Ordinance 3-2005 correctly states that the County shall not accept building permits for ADUs on rural and resource lands, Section 3 essentially guts the limitation:

Section 2 of this ordinance shall not apply to an application for a principal residence on a parcel with a structure which existed or for which permits had been obtained before November 30, 2000, which structure, by its dimensions and the site design plan demonstrates that it meets the requirements of the Order of the Growth Management Hearings Board dated April 6, 2001 and the current regulations of San Juan County.

Under this latest ordinance, the County ignores the Board's narrow April 6, 2001 ruling allowing construction of a primary residence where there was either an existing or vested permit application for a "guest house." Instead, County ordinance allows construction of a second principal residence on any lot where there any structure existed or was permitted prior to November, 2000 – so long as the structure meets the size limitation for a "guest house." This includes, obviously, properties with the pre-November 2000 structure was a small primary residence. Under Ordinance 3-2005, any owner of a lot of 10 acres or less with an existing small primary residence, can simply apply for a permit to build a second primary residence, by simply calling their existing house a "guest house." This is a direct contradiction to the Growth Board's prior Orders.

The issue before the San Juan County Board of Commissioners and the Growth Board is quite simple. The Board's previous Orders are unequivocal. The Growth Board has consistently ruled that new construction of a second detached SFR does not comply with the GMA for rural and resource lands. As the Growth Board correctly found in April, 2003, a freestanding ADU is not any different structurally than any other single-family dwelling unit. The County departed from the letter and spirit of Growth Board's Orders when it allowed an existing residence to be labeled a "guest house" even if the owners built it or used it as a primary residence.

Permitting of principle residences in cases in which an existing residence of 1000 square feet or less was permitted specifically as a guest house between January, 1999 and December 30, 2000 is clearly within the scope of this Board's order. However, expanding the Board's order of April 6, 2001 to permit a second dwelling that is a replacement principle residence for all houses of 1000 square feet or less whenever built and however permitted authorizes the doubling of density on an unknown number of parcels throughout the County, a potentially very large number of parcels.

I request that this Board act in accordance with the Growth Board's orders.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Buffum Field