The Common Sense Alliance (CSA) and P.J. Taggares Company filed a motion requesting the Growth Management Hearings Board stay the implementation of San Juan County's Critical Areas Ordinance. The update to the ordinance was adopted by the county council in December 2012. MOTION TO STAY:
Under the terms of WAC 242-03-860 the Board has the authority to grant a stay when the conditions below have been addressed:
The presiding officer pursuant to RCW 34.05.467 or the board 38 pursuant to RCW 34.05.550(1) may stay the effectiveness of a. final order upon motion for stay filed within ten days of filing an appeal to a reviewing court.
Common Sense Alliance and P.J. Taggares Company filed appeals with the Superior Court of San Juan County on October 2, 2013
A stay may be granted if the presiding officer or board finds:
(1) An appeal is pending in court, the outcome of which may render the case moot; and
The petitioners have identified a number of issues that would render the Board's decision moot, including but not limited to:
• The imposition of buffers based on the fact of development not impact.
• The failure to specifically identify shorelines that meet the test for a FWHCA critical area contrary to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.480.
• The failure to classify potential habitats, identifying those that met the requirements of WAC 365-190-030(6) in violation of WAC 365-190-130(2).
• The adoption of "bright line standards" identified in the Board's FDO are contrary to adopted laws and regulations governing compliance with Chapter 36.70A RCW.
Success on any one of these topics would require a fundamental rewrite of the County provisions now subject to this Board's FDO and under appeal to the Court.
(2) Delay in application of the board's order will not substantially harm the interest of other parties to the proceedings; and
The County deferred implementation of the ordinances under review until March 2014, so the ordinances under review are not presently in effect and a delay in the implementation of the Board's FDO will not alter the implementation of the current ordinance.
(3}(a) Delay in application of the board's order is not likely to result in actions that substantially interfere with the goals of the GMA, including the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act; or
The County deferred implementation of the ordinances under review until March 2014, so the ordinances under review are not presently in effect and a delay in the implementation of the Board's FDO will not substantially interfere with the goals of the GMA. No finding of invalidity was made in the present case.
(3)(b) The parties have agreed to halt implementation of the noncompliant ordinance and undertake no irreversible actions regarding the subject matter of the case during the pendency of the stay; and
By copy of this motion we have requested the County to agree that they will take no irreversible actions regarding the subject matter of the case during the pendency of the stay.
(4) Delay in application of the board's order furthers the orderly administration of justice.
If the Board does not stay its present FDO, the County will be forced to adopt changes to an ordinance that could well require material modification by decision of the Superior Court, and multiple appeals to this Board and the courts on compliance issues (which are under appeal). The orderly administration of justice supports a stay.
We believe the issues mentioned above are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a stay and given a prompt resolution of the appeal by the Superior Court, should occur before the scheduled implementation date and as such would not harm the status quo.