03/08/2006: "CC Wants to Extend Timelines For ADUs"

In what some are saying was confusion on the part of the County Council on what date the Court of Appeals Stay of Proceedings expired, the CC realized that they will not have time to past an ordinance on where, and how large, a guest house can be; and if they follow the Planning Commission's recommendations, they will drastically redefine and tighten up guest house regulations (see story below)

County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord presented the Council with a time-line of dates that set out what has to be done, and when. Based on comments made by the Council, it appeared they had confused the April 17th date that comments are due to the GHB (Growth Hearings Board), with the expiration date of the Stay of Proceedings that they had requested from the Court of Appeals

Gaylord then began to give arguments against asking for the extension of the stay from the Court of Appeals, repeating his previously presented arguments that to have the case settled by the court would end the on-going litigations, and would also be of value to other counties, who are awaiting the outcome of the case, to see how it will effect them. He also pointed out that to let the court decide the issue would be the most cost effective approach, since it would give clear guidance as to what the County could, and could not do, with respect to allowing guest houses.

At this point he was interrupted by Councilman Lichter, who informed him the Council had already came to an agreement at a Council Staff Meeting and Work Session on Monday, and that he "wanted to move forward with this in discussion now". Gaylord appeared to be momentarily taken by surprise by the news that the Council had already entered into discussion at a staff and work session. He said he would be glad to answer any questions the Council might have as they now discussed the matter.

Ranker asked Gaylord if they could continue working on compliance after the expired date, and Gaylord responded that they needed to have completed the process prior to expiration dates.

After a brief discussion, the Council voted to ask for an additional 180 day stay, and to also request an extension from the GHB. If granted, the County can proceed with the course they have chosen of passing an ordinance that they hope will be acceptable to the GHB. But because it will not have been tested in Court, the whole process of appeals can start all over again, and at some point may very well end up in court anyway.