[Previous entry: "County Manager On The Job"] [Next entry: "San Juan County Not Affected By Oyster Closure"]

07/26/2006: "CC & Citizens Make Their Case Before GMB"

(Preparing to testify before the GMB at Anacortes hearing)
Last Friday representatives of the County and the Friends of The San Juans testified at a hearing before the GMB (Growth Management Board) held in Anacortes as to why the Board should find that the County's new ordinance on ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) brings the County into compliance. The County and the Friends were not alone. A second group of citizens also appeared before the Board to argue that the ordinance did not meet the demands of the Board, and further, that it imposed new regulations, and it did so without followed the proper procedures required by the Growth Management Act in adopting them.


continued from front page
The Friends had appealed the original ordinance, complaining that various aspects of the ordinance were noncompliant with GMA. The County and the Friends of the San Juan's had then drafted a "settlement" of the Friend's appeal of the County's original 2002 guesthouse ordinance.

The original ordinance had been found compliant by the State in all areas that it was required to addressed, except on how density in land use areas is calculated for parcels in rural areas. The original ordinance allowed a property owner to build a 1000 square foot guest house on a rural parcel that also allowed a single family residence.

The Friends appealed the original ordinance to the GMB, and were successful in convincing the Board that allowing "guest houses" -or as the ordinance calls them: Accessory Dwelling Units- had the potential to "double" the otherwise allowable density calculations that had been determined to be appropriate for rural lands. The GMB was not persuaded by the County's arguments that this was a non-issue, citing evidence that historically the County had allowed ADUs, without any limits, and yet only 16% of the developed parcels in the county had had a guesthouse.

The arguments in support of the ordinance at the hearing last Friday were presented by Cameron Carter, SJC Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Lynn Bahrych of the Friends of the San Juan's, and their attorney Robert Mann. Those appealing the ordinance represented themselves, and stated they also spoke on behalf of the 74% of the citizens of the County who had voted in favor of the original ordinance that had been appealed by the Friends.

Eleven citizens attended in opposition to the ordinance. Of the eleven, ten spoke at the hearing, and also presented proxies from additional citizens who were not able to attend the hearing. The Board indicated that they may allow evidence to be admitted that was specific to recommendations the SJC Prosecutor had made to the Council. The information had been acquired -by those opposed to the ordinance- through the freedom of information act. The Deputy Prosecutor and Lynn Bahrych objected to allowing the information to be received by the GMB, arguing that it was protected by attorney client privilege. The Board heard arguments from both sides on the question, then said they would make a decision on the evidence issue after written argument from both sides was submitted to the Board.

Those who spoke against the ordinance stated the ordinance did not address the issue of freestanding guesthouse density that the GMB had raised as a result of the appeal. Concerns by those against were also expressed to the Board on other specific issues, such as the inclusion of new regulations not required by GMA: examples of which were new water adequacy requirements; the lack of flexibility for siting requirements that could potentially lead to unnecessary environmental damage; unnecessary restrictions on guesthouses based on parcel size and shorelines; and the County's failure to follow the GMA requirements for a full public process when proposing a new ordinance.

Near the end of the hearing, the three members of the Growth Management Board asked questions of both sides. The Board cautioned both sides to not read anything into the questions as to the Board's opinions about the ordinance, or the validity of the complaints against the ordinance, or the arguments made for the ordinance. With that, most of the questions were directed toward the County.

The Board asked questions about the County's position that the ordinance as presented should be approved, rather than just the element that dealt with density; which was all that the Board had ordered to be addressed in the first place. The Board asked questions relating to how the County, in the process of adopting the ordinance, could show in the record that they had balanced the requirements of the Growth Management Act (those opposed to the ordinance have maintained that the County could not say they had done so, based on a review of the record).

The Board also asked questions about the public process the County had gone through in adopting the ordinance, and about the required process and procedures required to amend the county shoreline rules. At one point, when Lynn Bahrych responded to questions from the Board, she stated that the SJC Prosecutor agreed with her position. Former County Commissioner John Evans was at the hearing as one opposed to the ordinance, and he told the Board that his recollection of the Prosecutors position was not the same as Lynn's. County Prosecutor Gaylord was not present at the hearing.

The GMB has taken the testimony of all of the parties, and will make a decision at some point in the future. In the meantime the ordinance is "on hold".