03/20/2007: "Appeal Filed On Guest House GMB Decision"

If the County Council thought the last decision by the GMB (Western Washington Growth Management Board) was the last word on the Guest House issue in San Juan County, they were wrong. SJ Island property owner Donna Gavora of San Juan Island has filed an appeal in Superior Court, asking the Court to review specific parts of the GMB decision that found SJC to be in compliance with the Growth Management Act.

The appeal states "The San Juan County Ordinance violates the requirement of GMA to protect the rural character by forcing development outside of the natural limitations of a parcel". Gavora explained that "Where I fault, and challenge this Ordinance, is with the conditions attached to it". The appeal that Gavora filed in SJC Superior Court maintains that "By requiring a landowner to share a driveway, share septic, share water and be located within 100 feet of a main house, the county and the state may be condemning a parcel of land which is not conducive to these requirements. The former ADU ordinance, which was adopted pre-GMA, was written to give the Administrator discretion in applying the standards.

The appeal cites the language the Council removed from the original ordinance that had allowed specific site conditions to be considered in determining where a guest house could be placed:
"Locate new freestanding ADU's and their utilities and driveways in order to minimize intrusion on the most sensitive open space features of the site Use the same water system and driveway to serve the principal residence and freestanding ADU unless separate systems or driveway would have fewer impacts to the environment."

Gavora believes the Council and the GMB "went beyond the issues which had put us in non-compliance" when the Council "modified existing regulations contained in the County Code by requiring them, rather than allowing any discretionary powers to the permit center". Gavora sees some irony in this, as highlighted in a statement in the appeal: "GMA recognizes the varied rural characters of the counties. The San Juan County Ordinance violates the requirement of GMA to protect the rural character by forcing development outside of the natural limitations of a parcel".

Gavora said that in their decision to support this Ordinance "the Growth Management Board gave lip service to the unique rural character of the County and our attempts to balance the conflicting needs that these Islands present, and the GMA requires." But, she added, "The County Council took away the discretionary powers the Health Department and the permit center had at their disposal to work with land owners in minimizing the varied impacts of these ADU's to the land", and "Instead they have imposed arbitrary hard regulations without regard to the existing site and aesthetic conditions of these properties, and they have done so without the appropriate and required review".

Gavora recalled that the "Prosecuting Attorney advised the County Council not to go beyond the order of invalidity. He reminded them that there was an annual amendment process where it was appropriate to raise some of the factors they were discussing".

The County will now be forced to once again go to court, this time to explain why Gavora's appeal should be dismissed -without the court hearing arguments on the issues Gavora has raised- or failing that, argue that the GMB decision was correct, and the Court should decide in favor of the County, and deny the appeal.