08/30/2006: "GMB Declines To Rule On "Vesting" Ord"

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMB) has reviewed the recently passed ordinance by the County Council (CC), and found they have no jurisdiction. The ordinance was passed by the CC in an attempt to address "vesting" issues of guest houses.

Referring to the ordinance as a "Rules Ordinance", the GMB has now ruled that "The Rules Ordinance clarifies the extent to which rights vested under San Juan County rules to develop principal residences where lawful ADUs were already in place. The Ordinance is not a comprehensive plan or development regulation or does not amend a comprehensive plan or development regulation. For these reasons, the Board concludes it has no jurisdiction over (the) Ordinance".

The passing of the ordinance resulted from the ban by the CC on construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) -also called a "guest house"- even if an ADU had previously been legally constructed on a property. The problem for individual citizens arose for those property owners who had legally build a guest house, but as a result of the current ban on guest houses, except when constructed under a new set of regulations not in effect previously, were now trapped from building their main residence unless it met the new regulations of the "Rules Ordinance". For many, this was not practical, or in some cases, practically impossible due to site conditions, but in any case was not what they had originally been told they could do.

The concern for the CC was that the ordinance designed to address the problem would not be allowed by the GMB. Because of this concern, the CC decided that it would be best to simply pass the ordinance, hold a public hearing, wait out the appeal period, and then -as they say, "move on", without sending the ordinance to the State for review.

Randy Gaylord told the CC he was required by law to send it to the State for their review. The CC expressed it's concern that if the State reviewed it and found fault with it, this could present problems. Gaylord maintained the only proper way to find out was to send it to them and let them decide; and that it was opinion that he was required by law to do so. The CC discussed it, and it was decided by Lichter and Ranker to pass a motion (Myhr voted against it) instructing Gaylord to not send it off to the State. Gaylord told the CC that he had no choice, and regardless of the motion, would send it to the State; he would, however, put it in the "best light" that he could. Previous story

A number of citizens have expressed objections to the ordinance as not going far enough in responding to all of those who have been trapped by the ADU ban, and going too far by passing new regulations that are not necessary, or required, by the GMB to bring the County into compliance, or to solve the vesting issue. As a result, a number of appeals have been filed, and more legal action may be taken in the courts to correct what some are calling an over-reaching by the County Council to impose new regulations outside of the normal process. Previous story