03/22/2006: "100% Guest Houses Allowed??"

The County Council met in a work session on Tuesday to discuss various County issues, and voted to move forward with a public hearing on adopting the draft recommendations on accessory dwelling units from the PC (Planning Commission). A draft that Councilman Ranker called "a much stricter ordinance then the Council had drafted, but I am pleased to see it", and said that he believed it had a better chance of being approved by the GB (Growth Management Hearings Board) then "what we put forward", to which Lichter agreed that "the GB will say ‘This is exactly what we want' "

There can be little doubt that Ranker is correct, in that all the Growth Board had ordered the County to do, was address the issue of accessory dwellings that had the potential to impact farm and forest lands -but contrary to Lichter's statement, the GB did not require the County to ban them outright. After receiving, and rejecting as un-workable, the Ranker draft that the Council and the Friends of the San Juans had worked out, the PC had simply cut the Gordian knot by allowing every building to have an accessory dwelling unit (essential an attached apartment) as long as it was small, and a part of a primary residence. In other words, a duplex, or a "mother in-law apartment". A move that Lichter repeatedly called "brilliant, by cutting through the issues"; and noting that the Council and the PC had been repeatedly reminded that "74% of the citizens had voted to allow guest houses…this will proved the citizenry 100% guest houses!". The statement seemed to fall a bit flat with the other members of the work session, and after a pause, Ranker softly suggested that the vote had really been about allowing free standing guest houses, and not about attaching apartments to the main building"; but one did get the impression from Lichter that he was aware of the distinction.

Ranker asked Prosecutor Gaylord if adopting the new proposed ordinance would make the case before the Court of Appeals moot, since the old ordinance, which was the issue before the court, would no longer exist. Gaylord explained that, for a number of reasons, it may not be that simple. While it may be that the old ordinance is to be replaced by the new, he said, there will be a period of time before the ordinance, if passed by the Council, would become law. The ordinance would still have to approved by the GB, and it also was subject to appeal, just as the old one was.

Council Chair Lichter was obviously pleased with the PC recommendations, and read from the proposal that an intent of the PC recommendations was to bring the County into compliance with the GB, and then told the Chair of the PC "What a refreshing approach... Thank you!", and that he was ready to move forward with the recommendations of the PC. Ranker moved to accept the recommendations of the PC draft so that the Council could go forward with holding a public hearing on the recommendations.