05/04/2006: "Clallam County Files Against SJC Motion For Stay"

Clallam County has filed an Amicus Curiae ("Friend of the Court") brief in opposition to the motion by the SJ County Council to stay the proceedings on a ruling by the Court of Appeals on allowing guest houses in rural areas. The County Council has asked the Court to not rule on a SJC appeal that was filed by the prior Board of County Commissioners, in which they had asked the court to rule in favor of the county, and against the Growth Management Hearings Board, and the guest house appeal filed by the Friends of the San Juans.

The attorneys for Clallam County argue in their brief that the Court "has the opportunity to resolve a fundamental legal issue…does it violate the Growth Management Act to allow detached accessory dwelling units at densities greater than one dwelling unit per five acres outside urban growth areas?"

Clallam and Snohomish County have an interest in the outcome of the SJC appeal to the court, since they too have ADU issues that will be effected by the court's ruling, and a decision by the court will give guidance not only to what counties in the state can allow in their regulations, it will also define the Growth Management Hearings Boards rulings on future appeals against county regulations. According to the brief "Clallam County and others would benefit from the issuance of a decision as soon as possible".

The Clallam brief to the Court also gives voice to another aspect of the guest house issue that is relevant to them, and of particular relevance to SJC, and that is: "It is of considerable public interest to clarify the latitude the GMA grants to counties to utilize detached ADUs as part of their rural strategies, in particular to accomplish affordable housing goals.."

The move by a Clallam County may be the final push that will result in the Court of Appeals refusing the latest request by Councilmen Lichter, Myhr and Ranker to not rule on the case; a request that SJC Prosecutor Randy Gaylord has advised them is not in the best interest of the County, given that recent Court decisions have changed how the Court may rule on SJC's appeal to the Court. Gaylord's advise to the Council is also echoed by the Clallam County argument to the Court, stating that "In the recent Viking case, the Court found the urban density mandate to be erroneous,…hearings board do not have the authority to make public policy.."

At the last County Council hearing, Councilman Myhr stated that he now believes the County could argue to the Growth Management Board for some detached ADU's. Ranker has been back-and-forth on should the Council ask the Court to rule or not, but Lichter has been adamant that the Council needs to pass their ordinance before the Court rules.

Lichter and Ranker's justifications for sidestepping the Court has been based on a concern the Court would impose greater limitations on ADUs then their ordinance will. This concern has not been shared by the majority of the members of the public, who have testified in the recent hearings on the ordinance proposed by the Council.

Given the number of briefs now filed, and the unusual willingness of the Court of Appeals to allow them to be heard by the Court at such a late date, the Court may be on the verge of refusing to grant a stay of proceedings, and instead issue a ruling that will give true "closure" to the matter, as Councilman Ranker recently stated was an important goal to achieve.