Related Pages

List of stories about Growth Management Act in San Juan County

Commissioners to appeal
guest house ruling

posted 12/07/00
After staff briefed them in executive session Tuesday, Dec. 5, San Juan County Commissioners voted unanimously to appeal to Thurston County Superior Court part of a recent Growth Management Board Hearings Board order. The hearings board ruled the county's analysis of the impact of guest houses is inadequate. Commissioners contend the county's work on guest houses does meet Growth Management Act Requirements.

"We decided to get it over with and have the court tell us what to do," said Rhea Miller, chair of the Board of County Commissioners.

Commissioner Darcie Nielsen said the most recent ruling was "inconsistent with previous hearings board decisions." She said the issue is not about construction of guest houses but the use of them: long-term versus short-term rentals.

"This is the first stage of what appears to be a never-ending process," said Commissioner John Evans.

He was irked by the hearings board ruling. Evans said the hearings board members were willing to open up issues brought by a dozen people, and "seem perfectly willing to ignore all the public testimony and all the work everybody else has done, including the county commissioners.

Commissioners will ask the hearings board to reconsider their invalidation of the redesignation of four parcels. The hearings board ruled the county did not follow its own public process, which is set in its Comp Plan, in redesignating 10 parcels. Commissioners contend the four parcels received adequate public review.

"I felt all 10 were perfectly defensible," Nielsen said. She noted omissions and errors may be corrected when responding to hearings board orders.

The BOCC also directed the county Planning Department to start the formal redesignation process for the other six parcels.

Moratorium imposed on guesthouse construction

posted 12/02/00
Anyone wishing to build a guesthouse in San Juan county will have to wait. As of Nov. 30, the county permit center will not process permits for the construction or modification of attached or detached guesthouses. Only permits which were complete on that date will be processed. In response to the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board order of invalidity, the county has imposed a moratorium on guesthouse construction.

According to county Prosecutor Randy Gaylord the ban is in effect until the invalidity order is lifted by the hearings board or reversed by a court.

Guesthouse provisions and redesignations
ruled invalid by hearings board

By Sharon Kivisto

posted 12/01/00
Redesignation of 1,000 acres of resource land and inadequate analysis of the impact of guest houses triggered a strong reaction from Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The county had asked the board to lift the orders of invalidity issued in July, 1999. After reviewing the county's revised Comp Plan, the hearings board issued new orders of invalidity.

In its Nov. 30, 2000 ruling the hearings board said:

Provisions of the 2000 Ordinances that redesignate resource lands and provisions of the UDC that allow new guesthouse construction in rural or resource areas are determined invalid.

The county had been given 180 days to address the July, 1999 ruling. After asking for two extensions, the county submitted its revised Comp Plan to the hearings board on Oct. 2, 2000. The county was supposed to address the four areas of invalidity, review the affordable housing element and the impact of guesthouses on density.

In its ruling, the hearings board said:

Superficially the four actions that the County took relating to invalidity would appear to remove the substantial interference determinations of the FDO (Final Decision and Order). The County did adopt a minimum 5-acre density in the areas surrounding Friday Harbor, adopted a minimum 5-acre density throughout the rural area, adopted a minimum 10-acre density for agricultural resource land (ARL), and a 20-acre minimum density for forest resource land (FRL), and adopted a minimum 5-acre lot size surrounding resource lands except in limited circumstances involving Lopez Village and Eastsound, where a 50-foot buffer was adopted. Had the County stopped at that point, we may well have found that the County had sustained its burden of showing that the actions "in response to the FDO" removed substantial interference.

The hearings board took exception to the BOCC's redesignation of almost 1,000 acres of resource land.

"The County bypassed its previously adopted process, provided virtually no public participation opportunities, and made the redesignations without any supporting evidence in the record. The County further adopted a new policy to review all resource lands designations over the next three years. It is contrary to the GMA to redesignate some 3 percent of the County's total resource lands piecemeal through a remand process that was not required by the FDO to address any resource land designation issues.

The county's lack of hard data on guesthouses and disregard of the Planning Commission's recommendations concerned the three members of the hearings board.

...In addition to what San Juan County did in response to the finding of noncompliance and invalidity, we are concerned about what the County did not do during the extensive remand period with regard to the guesthouse issue.

...The planning commission determined that "detached guesthouses have greater negative environmental impacts that attached guesthouses" and ...determined that "the conclusions developed by the County (staff) for the use of guesthouses are based substantially on conjecture." The PC concluded that detached guesthouses functioned much as a main residence, had the same impacts as a principal residence and thus should be treated as a "separate dwelling unit" for purposes of density analysis. .

...We find that the County's current policies and regulations regarding guesthouses continue to fail to comply with the Act. In addition the UDC provisions which authorize construction of new guesthouses in the rural and/or resource designations of San Juan County substantially interfere with Goals 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14. While we have serious questions about the impact of both long-term and short-term rental of guesthouses in rural and/or resource lands, we will address that issue at the January 17, 2001 hearing.

To comply with the Growth Management Act the county must:

1. Redesignate resource land only after complying with previously adopted county processes; and
   
   
2. Withing 180 days, adequately analyze the effects of new guesthouse construction in rural and resource areas.

The hearings board will hold another hearing on Jan. 17, 2001 in Friday Harbor.

Just what is the GMA?

Washington voters approved the state's Growth Management Act in 1990 and 1991. The intent of the act was not to stop growth, but rather to control it.

Planning must cover the projected growth for the next 20 years. Comprehensive plans must include details of how needed infrastructure will be funded. Communities cannot designate areas at non-rural densities without providing for the utilities and services.

Comp plans are reviewed by a hearings board before they are finalized.

Three types of land under GMA

Urban Growth Areas are characterized by intensive use of land. The size of UGAs is limited to the area needed to support growth at urban densities and to the ability to provide urban services.

Rural Lands: are generally not more dense than one unit per five acres. AMIRDs are the only rural lands where further subdivision for residential use at densities greater than one unit per five acres is permitted. Infill, redevelopment and development are allowed in AMIRDs.The boundaries of AMIRDs must be set up so as not to encourage low-density sprawl.

Resource Lands are designated to conserve agricultural and forest and mineral resources lands. They cannot be more dense than one unit per 10 acres in AG land and one unit per 20 acres in forest lands.

Background on San Juan County's Comp Plan

The Board of County Commissioners adopted a comprehensive plan Dec. 31, 1997. The newly elected BOCC revoked that plan early in 1998. A new comp plan was adopted Dec. 20, 1998.

Parts of that plan were ruled invalid by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board in July of 1999.

Density was the big issue. At the start of the planning process in 1993, the BOCC decided that the 1979 comp plan densities would stand. While land use designations were changed, densities were untouched.

The hearings board ruled that densities higher than one house per five acres could not be called rural. That level of density allows for surburban sprawl. Density levels in resource land -- agricultural and forest-- also needed to be reviewed.

As a result of the GMHB's decision a moratorium on land divisions was enacted. At first the moratorium only included land in the areas ruled invalid, in September the BOCC decided the moratorium would cover the whole county.

The hearings board also told the county more work needed to be done on the boundaries of activity centers and areas of more intense rural development (AMIRD).

The affordable housing element of the comp plan and the impact of guesthouses were other items that needed to be addressed by the county.

The county was given 180 days to address all of these issues. The clock started in August of 1999. At that time the GMHB said a time extension-- of 60 to 90 days would likely be allowed.