03/30/2006: "GUEST EDITORIAL "

(Note: The following is from three members of the SJC Planning Commission that were in the minority on some of the final votes taken by the PC as the Commission worked on the proposed draft ordinance the County Council had sent to them for review, and possible suggestions. )

On March 9th the Planning Commission voted 6 to 3 to recommend that San Juan County ban the construction of guest houses (AKA- Accessory Dwelling Units -ADUs) on all rural and resource lands- unless attached to the main house. We are the three Planning Commissioners who voted against this restrictive ban and this is why we oppose the Planning Commission's final recommendation and draft ordinance.

Growth Board decisions reference three categories of ADUs for San Juan County and other Washington counties.

● Type #1 "Freestanding" detached ADUs are not connected in any way to the main house or to any other structure.

● Type #2 Attached ADUs which are physically connected to the main house.

● Type #3 Attached ADUs which are only connected to accessory structures, like a garage, shop or similar building which is already allowable.

Type #1 Freestanding ADUs will be prohibited. It is clear from the Growth Board decisions of April 2003 and July 2005 that Freestanding ADUs will not be allowed in San Juan County. They have been disallowed by the Growth Board in several other counties where challenges to ADU regulations have occurred. This is unlikely to change unless the county wins their pending court case regarding this issue. That is why the county should be asking for an immediate decision on their case rather than trying to delay a final court decision as they are doing now.

Type #2 ADUs connected to the main house are not at issue and would continue to be allowed in San Juan County. Our local regulations already allow these and were found valid by the Growth Board.

Type #3 ADUs attached to accessory structures (like a garage) would be prohibited in all rural areas. We disagree with our fellow Planning Commissioners on this prohibition and believe that they should be allowed in all residential land use designations. The Growth Board has not indicated that our local ordinance would be invalidated if we allow them locally.

Several State laws promote the construction of ADUs. The Growth Management Act requires development of an adequate supply of affordable housing to meet the needs of people of all income levels. The Washington Sate Housing Policy Act encourages the construction of ADUs. The State Department of Community Trade and Development (CTED) Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance Study encourages local ordinances to allow ADUs for the purpose of providing homeowners rental income, companionship, security, services and to add affordable units to existing housing appropriate for people in a variety of stages in the life cycle. We believe that adding restrictions to the construction of ADUs beyond what the Growth Board requires, is counter productive to the spirit and intent of the law.

In three workshops and two hearings the Planning Commission heard testimony of approximately 39 citizens. The vast majority of them expressed a strong desire and need for detached guest houses in San Juan County. In the November 2004 ballot measure voters were asked to vote on this question: "Do you support local land use provisions for San Juan County that retain the right to allow one guest house (detached, accessory dwelling unit) on any parcel with a single family residence, subject to restrictions on size, location, ownership, occupancy and proximity to the main house? Some Planning Commissioners asserted that the public did not understand what they were voting for when 73.55% answered "yes" to the ballot question. They claim that the vote results don't really matter. We find that argument absurd at best.

Because of this clear mandate the citizens of San Juan County should have the right to locate and design their home and a small guest unit on their property without having the county micromanage their decisions. Arbitrary rules imposed by county government are a poor substitute for the many thoughtful design decisions that a property owner or their design professional must make in the process of creating the owner's dream. Simple and reasonable requirements for building screening and setbacks could be required to mitigate any adverse impacts on neighboring property owners from an ADU.

We believe that the County Council should adopt regulations which honor the wishes of the voters to the maximum extent possible and allow guest houses to be attached to either the main house or a garage or similar building. This would leave the property owner with flexibility in designing their home in a way that best suits the site and their needs. It would adequately provide for the many property owners who for economic reasons want to build a garage with a guest house to live in until they can afford to eventually build their dream home.

The Planning Commission and the County Council have a responsibility to be respectful advocates of the wishes of the clear majority of the citizens of San Juan County. They should adopt changes that will allow the maximum freedom of choice that the Growth Board will permit. Our County Council should be willing and active in their support to achieve this goal.

The Growth Board will not force the county to ban the construction of ADUs attached to a single family house or garage. If the County Council decides to ban the construction of ADUs attached to a garage it would be a voluntary choice on their part to adopt the most restrictive rules possible. The Growth Management Act does not mandate that they take this approach.

We believe that such a restrictive outcome would dishonor the will of 73.55% of the voters who clearly expressed their will in the 2004 election. They believed that their vote mattered. We also believe strongly in protecting the rights and desires of property owners in San Juan County. To ignore the majority and proceed to enact legislation which fails to reflect the will of the people is a complete failure to recognize the true role that government is intended to serve.

Sincerely,

Ri Warren, Planning Commissioner
Jim Nelson, Planning Commissioner
Teri Williams, Planning Commissioner