[Previous entry: "Eat Cajun/Creole, Help Gulf Coast Victims"] [Next entry: "Youth Drug Use Continues to Decline"]

09/14/2005: "Gaylord & Bahrych At Odds On Sherman Case"

(Randy Gaylord)

The President of the Friends of the San Juans, Lynn Bahrych, has sent out a press release in response to a story in The Island Guardian about the recent law suit filed in San Juan County Superior Court by Mr. Sherman over the Growth Management's order on ADUs, also known as "guest houses" ("Growth Board Sued In Local Court") The suit argues that even though he, and others, had applied for a permit prior to the Friends appeal of the San Juan Counties regulations that govern where, and when, a guest house, or a main house, can be built, that they are now improperly restricted from developing their properties by not being allowed to have both a guest house, and a main house.

Sherman believes that because their applications clearly stated that their intent was to build a guest house and a main house, they were "vested" under Washington law, and that later decisions of the Growth Board in response to the Friends does not negate their rights to proceed.

In the press release, Bahrych states she wishes "to clear up any misunderstanding about this", and that "neither I nor the Friends of the San Juans has taken the position that Mr. Sherman should not be allowed to build his main house. On the contrary, we have argued in our briefs, which are public records, that he has a vested right to build his main house. Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord agrees that Bahrych has argued this position, but told the Guardian that in his legal opinion, the arguments she has presented in support of the Friends position are simply incorrect.

Bahrych maintains that the Friends are "not standing in Mr. Sherman's way. We think that it is unreasonable to prevent him from building a main house when he had a bona fide guest house permit in September of 2000 and a county-approved site plan. To prevent him from building his main house under those circumstances seems unreasonable and unfair." While Gaylord may, or may not, feel that Mr. Sherman and the others are being treated unfairly, Gaylord believes that Bahrych and the Friends are attempting to say it is the County who is making a determination on vesting, but Gaylord says it is the Growth management Board that has made the determination, and that he is simply doing his job as the attorney for the BOCC.

Gaylord states that he has asked Bahrych for the legal authority for her interpretation, but believes the cases she has cited are not legally controlling in the current case. Gaylord maintains that based on his role as County Prosecutor "My job is to make the call" on how the County must respond to the Growth Board orders. Because of the recent suit filed in SJC Superior Court, Gaylord has also invited the attorneys that are involved in the case to cite any case law that they believe has relevance on the issue, but points out his job is to deal with the parties in the case, and while Bahrych and the Friends action to appeal the County to the Growth Management Board has resulted in the current lawsuit, Gaylord said his responsibility is to respond to the case at hand, and the question will be resolved, not in the court of public discourse, but in a court room.