08/23/2006: "Council Moves To Withdraw Appeal Of ADU Case"

The County Council has reversed County direction and instructed the Prosecuting Attorney's office to withdraw the appeal of the Accessory Dwelling Unit case from the Court of Appeals. Chairman Lichter and Councilman Myhr made the decision in an executive session that was held near the end of the regular Council meeting on Tuesday. Councilman Ranker had attended the Tuesday meeting, but indicated to Lichter that he was not feeling well, and did not attend the executive session.

The appeal had been filed by former County Commissioners Evans, Miller, and Neilson, and had asked the Court of Appeals to allow the County to continue to allow detached ADUs ("guest houses"), as long as they met the limiting controls put on them by the county land use codes.

There has not been any indication at the staff meetings or in the regular Council meetings that the Council might vote to withdraw the appeal, and it is not known if somehow Ranker had prior knowledge of the upcoming executive session, but in any case the move by the Council comes as no surprise, given that the current County Council members have continually asked the Court to hold-off on giving a ruling, as they attempted to craft a new policy and set of regulation on ADUs that is more restrictive than the one the Court of Appeals had been asked to rule on.

The new ADU regulations were approved last Friday, by the very same Growth Management Board (GMB) that had found the old regulations to be in compliance, but after the Friends of the San Juans (Councilman Ranker was the Executive Director of the Friends at the time) appealed the regulations to them, the GMB found them to be out of compliance.

The approval of the new regulations will not take effect for a few weeks, as there is still an appeal period, and it is expected that a number of citizens will ask a Superior Court to step in and review the GMB recent ruling on the new regulations. At the Tuesday Council meeting Chairman Lichter asked Assistant Prosecutor Cameron Carter if it was possible that Superior Court would put a "stay" on the GMB ruling that could stop the new regulations from going into effect. Carter replied that he had not researched the subject, and in any case did not know what any of the appeals would state, since none have been filed at this time. At the present time it appears that there may be as many as eight appeals, and some, or all of them, may be combined. (Previous story)