Lack of public process cited by court
posted 07/30/01
Redesignation of the Sandwith property on San Juan Island is remanded back to the county. Lack of adequate public participation in the redesignation process was cited by Judge Wm. Thomas McPhee when he ruled against the county's appeal of a Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board ruling.
The county contended the redesignations for the property was before the public for a sufficient amount of time. It was also stated that the Sandwith property redesignation was part of a twenty-year-old legal agreement between the county and the Sandwith family regarding the number of homes that could be built on their property.
"The Court's decision was not based on whether we can accomplish what we set
out to do, but rather whether there was adequate public participation. It
appears the Court said we should follow a different process for changing the
designation of this land. It seems an unnecessary process, given the
contractual commitments that the County is obligated to honor," said San Juan County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord.
In the meantime, the density designations for the Sandwith property are
invalid. Action by the county commissioners would be necessary before any
subdivision of the Sandwith Property.
"This is a narrow decision involving just one parcel of land, but it
demonstrates the process that must be followed if the land-use designation
of any property will be changed," said Gaylord.
The ruling concludes:
If upon the remand the county proceeds with redesignation of the Sandwith parcel, the rights and responsibilities created by the contract between the owners and the county may become part of the planning process, or they may be resolved in a different forum; but whatever the forum, there will be an opportunity to create an adequate record that may then be subject to judicial review. That record does not exist now.
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:
- Redesignate resource land only after complying with previously adopted county processes; and
- 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.
|
