Related Pages

List of stories about Growth Management Act in San Juan County

The county may become more blue

By Sharon Kivisto and Matt Pranger

posted 11/16/00
More land will become "blue" in San Juan County if the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) agrees with issues raised by petitioners at the Nov. 14, 2000 invalidity hearing. The hearings board -- Presiding Officer William H. Nielsen, Nan Henriksen and Les Eldridge -- listened to arguments for and against a motion to rescind the findings of invalidity of the Comprehensive Plan.

The county maintains the Comprehensive Plan adopted Oct. 2, 2000 is in compliance with the Growth Management Act. If the hearings board agrees, the order of invalidity will be rescinded and the moratorium on land division on the affected land (which is colored blue on county maps) will be lifted. The deadline for ruling on the motion is 45 days from Oct. 16 -- the day the motion was filed.

Petitioners included Lynn Bahrych, John Campbell, Fred R. Klein, and the Town of Friday Harbor. Intervenors Friends of the San Juans and Joe Symons also submitted briefs.

Besides the motion to rescind the findings of invalidity, the Nov. 14 hearing also dealt with compliance issues regarding rural densities (including guest houses) and new requests for findings of invalidity.

The Town of Friday Harbor had appealed the county's 1998 Comprehensive Plan because of concerns over potentially having to provide urban-level services to Turn Point/Pear Point. The new Comp Plan downzoned that area. Citing the similar level of service concerns, Town Attorney Don Eaton noted the Comp Plan would impact the town. "...the County's allowance of guesthouses on those property where Town water is used has a direct and measureable impact on the Town's available water capacity."

The town's brief asked the hearings board to make a separate finding "that they (the county) are not compliant with the consistency requirements of GMA when applied in the three areas adjacent to Town."

In her brief, Bahrych said "this petitioner concluded that the BOCC intentionally refused to address the big picture of overall density and population allocation." According to her nothing in the new Comp Plan shifts residential development from rural lands into the Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). She also took issue with the "blanket five-acre minimum lot size throughout rural lands...Rural lands must not only consist of lot sizes of five acres or more according to the Final Decision and Order (FDO) but must also contain a variety of densities larger than five acres."

She requested the hearings board expand its order of invalidity to include all rural and resource lands, all new construction of guest houses, all permitting of transient rentals in rural and resource lands and invalidate all special exceptions made to density limits in rural and resource lands until the county does its work on density.

Eldridge asked Bahrych: "Where in the GMA do I find the requirement that I need to consider average parcel size?"

Bahrych said densities have to be looked at to meet the statute requiring a variety of densities. "Average numbers get us to realities," she said.

Henriksen said to Bahrych: "I don't understand how we could invalidate the rental of guesthouses."

Bahrych pointed out the current plan doesn't restrict transient rentals of guesthouses.

Henriksen noted the Growth Management Act and the Community Trade and Economic Development Agency (CTED) encourage guesthouses. She asked why they wouldn't be "admirable" in San Juan County.

Bahrych responded density still needed to be counted, especially when a guest house is detached. "It's all about density," Bahrych said.

Henriksen asked if septic and water systems and driveways were required for a main residence and a guesthouse or if it was "not a flat-out requirement?"

County Deputy Prosecutor Alan Marriner said exceptions are allowed under "only unusual circumstances."

Bahrych also took issue with the county's rural cluster concept.

Henriksen asked her what authority the growth board had to rule the rural clustering invalid.

Bahrych noted a new, invalid provision had been introduced. "Rural clustering is actually regressive," she said.

Henriksen said the 45-day timeframe did not permit them enough time to consider the issue. Bahrych agreed about the timing and said the rural clusters would be part of another petition.

One of the issues raised by the Friends of the San Juans concerned the redesignations of some resource land during the last month of the Comprehensive Plan revision process. In their brief they said: "While Friends understands the BOCC's motivation to preserve the right of some of our islands residents to divide their land, the BOCC's plan to allow increased density in specific resource lands owned by residents who expressed their frustrations during the hearings does not address the GMHB's Final Decision and Order (FDO)."

Henriksen asked Marriner about the county's redesignation methodology stipulated in the Unified Development Code. He explained it and then Henriksen asked: "Am I correct that that process was not followed" for redesignations submitted with the county's response to the growth board's order. Marriner: "Yes."

"How did they (the redesignated lands) suddenly become an issue in this case? Henriksen asked. Marriner said the lands had R-5 zoning and commissioners "felt compelled" to look at them.

Henriksen wondered why the county took "a non-issue" and "circumvented its process. Marriner noted the county was under a deadline to respond to the growth board and that there was "definite public participation" before the redesignations.

Henriksen continued, "Why didn't the county use its process set up in the development code?" Marriner again mentioned the deadline.

Eagle Lake Development Limited Partnership submitted a brief supporting the new Comp Plan. They said: "Petitioners' arguments regarding the redesignation of resource lands in the Comprehensive Plan are just another example of a general approach to the Comprehensive Plan amendment process; if the result is not to your liking, grind the whole process to a halt by asking for more process regardless of whether that process is required by the Act or will yield a different result. More process is not what was needed here; what was required, and what the County did, was make a decision based on the information before it. The fact that the Petitioners do not like the end result does not mean such decision fails to comply with the Act. The Petitioners have failed to meet their burden to show that the redesignation of resource lands in the amendment process failed to comply with the Act." Eagle Lake's 269 acres were some of the resource land redesignated by the BOCC.

In his 54-page brief, Joe Symons brought up issues of increased density from guesthouses, lack of a mix of densitities, and lack of consistency with the county's vision statement.

He wrote: "The County's behavior has shown that, under a subsequent "out of compliance" order, it would not work to bring the Comp Plan into compliance, or would do the work so slowly that preservation of San Juan County's rural character would be moot. The limited incentive under a "not in compliance" order for fixing the Comp Plan will be overridden by San Juan County's desire to avoid local political heat." He asked the hearings board to require the county meet all GMA planning goals and insure the Comp Plan is consistent with the vision statement.

In the county's brief, the re-election of county Commissioners Darcie Nielsen and John Evans was cited as proof the county residents are satisfied with the Oct. 2, 2000 Comp Plan.

Invalidity hearing set

posted 10/27/00
Western Washington Hearings Board will hold a hearing at 9 a.m. Nov. 14 in KeyBank in Friday Harbor. The hearing is in response to a motion by San Juan County asking the hearings board to rescind the findings of invalidity of the Comprehensive Plan.

If the motion is granted, the moratorium on land division for the "blue land in the county will be lifted. The land affected is colored blue on county maps. According to county Deputy Prosecutor Alan Marriner the hearings board could decide to rescind all, none or some of the invalidity findings. "There could be a narrowing of the blue maps," he said. The hearings board is under a 45-day deadline to rule on the county's Oct. 16 motion.

The hearings board will also hear arguments from a number of petitioners -- Lynn Bahrych, Fred Klein, John Campbell and Joe Symons -- seeking new findings of invalidity. Their area of concern is compliance related to rural density including guest houses.

On January 17, the hearings board will return to Friday Harbor for a 10 a.m. hearing. (The site is still to be determined.) The topic will be a motion to find the county in compliance with the Growth Management Act. All other compliance issues related to the Comprehensive Plan will be dealt with at this hearing according to Marriner.

Anyone seeking to file petitions related to the Comp Plan amendments adopted Oct. 2 must do so by Dec. 11, 2000.