Court rules against county in guesthouse case
posted 07/28/01
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Wm. Thomas McPhee denied San Juan County's appeal of Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board's (GMHB) ruling on guesthouses. The hearings board had told the county the impact of guesthouses on density must be considered. An order of invalidity concerning the guesthouse provisions of the county's Comprehensive Plan was issued in November 2000. The provisions allow a 1,000 sq. ft. guesthouse for every single-family residence (SFR).
San Juan County Commissioners can choose to accept the Court's analysis
and do the planning required by the GMHB or they can appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals. San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord said he will discuss the options at the next BOCC meeting.
A moratorium on guesthouse construction went into effect Nov. 30, 2000. In August 1999, the hearings board told the BOCC :
"If the county wishes to allow guesthouses as an accessory dwelling unit for each SFR it must first do an analysis which includes existing conditions, a reasonable projection of future guest house additions and the need for them as well as the potential cost of public services and facilities for this new growth."
The county was given 180 days to complete the analysis. The deadline was extended and in November 2000 the hearings board again reviewed the guesthouse issue. The hearings board found:
- The county staff analysis of the impact of guesthouses was incomplete and inadequate.
- The planning commission recommended treating detached guesthouses as a separate residence.
- Even though the incomplete staff analysis found a 12 percent impact on density, the BOCC took no action to revise densities in either rural or R/L (Resource Lands) designated areas, continuing to allow new guesthouse construction.
- Challengers have sustained their burden of showing noncompliance and substantial interference with goals, 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, and 14 in the allowance of new guesthouse construction in rural and resource areas.
In its appeal to Thurston County Superior Court, the county argued the hearings board had no authority to review the guesthouse provisions since the county enacted them to comply with the Housing Policy Act. Judge McPhee ruled: "No reasonable reading of this section (RCW 43.63A.215) suggests that the accessory apartment provisions are exempt from GMA review or that they are to be somehow separated from other regulations and controls that are governed by the GMA.
"...At the first stage of review, the Final Decision and Order (FDO) and Order on Reconsideration completed in 1999, the board focused on compliance with the process of planning (the complete absence of analysis) and did not address validity. Only at the second stage of review, the November 30, 2000 Order on Rescission, did the board address validity, and then only after noting that the near complete absence of the ordered analysis precluded a finding that the goals of GMA had been considered."
In the second part of the appeal the county argued that the hearings board was wrong when it said the analysis was incomplete.
McPhee responded:
"The record establishes that the county's research was limited to an examination of the assessor's database, from which, in the absence of any hard data about guesthouses, it extrapolated an estimate that approximately one in four single-family residences in rural and resource land areas have a guesthouse. With no further research or data, the county predicted that the one in four ratio would continue for new construction, that the impact on density would be either 10 or 12 percent, and that no significant change in guesthouse policy was necessary.
"...Much of the argument offered in the county's brief seem designed to convince a reviewing court that the analysis order by the board was not necessary. Examples of these arguments include the extensive sections on the county's definition of family and the limiting conditions on guest home construction. However, a close reading of those arguments shows that they are based on the same type of conjecture and unsubstantiated assertion that caused the county's guest home provisions to be rejected by the board in the first place."
The judge also ruled against the the county's third argument -- that the ruling was arbitrary and capricious. "The board's decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Initially, the board only declared the guesthouse provisions to be noncompliant with the process of planning under the GMA. It was only after the board directed further specific analysis by the county and then determined that such analysis was incomplete and inadequate did the board further declare the guesthouse provisions invalid. This was not an arbitrary or capricious action."
The ruling was filed in Thurston County Superior Court July 23 and received in San Juan County Prosecutor's office July 26.
In a July 27 press release Gaylord said, "This is not the decision we wanted, but it is not a decision that forecloses any options. I am disappointed that the Court did not give more weight to the balancing of competing interests by the Commissioners,"
|
