Council listens to accessory building appeal; plans new amendment to law

By Stan Matthews
County Communications Program Manager

Three weeks after hearing complaints from contractor Tom Nolan that he was unable to get permits to build a garage on a client’s residentially-zoned property because there were no pending plans to build a residence, the Council Tuesday asked the County Administrator to prepare an amendment to the Uniform Development Code (UDC) to allow such construction.

Though it will take at least a few months and at least one public hearing before an Ordinance amending the UDC could be enacted, Administrator Pete Rose indicated that, practically speaking, the change would take effect immediately.

Ron Henrickson, director of the Community Development and Planning Department, had told the Council Monday that in the more than three years he has headed the department, issuance of permits for accessory buildings in residential areas has been predicated on the existence or planned construction of a primary residence. He said that appears to be the way the current code is written, though he said, “I know that in the past some permits for accessory buildings were granted without primary residences.”

County Prosecutor Randall Gaylord generally agreed with Henrickson about the interpretation of the existing code, noting that it refers to accessory buildings as “located on the same lot as the main building.”  But he added, “There is ambiguity in the rules” and advised the Council to clarify the Code.

According to Henrickson, the UDC as written appears to be designed to avoid having accessory structures built which “turn into temporary residences with people living in unsanitary, unsafe conditions.”

He noted that there is no size limit on the structures that can be built and they may include bunkhouses or – arguably – even structures which could be used to establish “home occupations” (business) even though no actual home exists on the property.

After Henrickson’s remarks Monday, the Council opened the discussion to interested parties attending the meeting. All of the six speakers identified themselves as being involved in building or real estate, and all favored eliminating the restrictions.  

Realtor John Lackey questioned why any restrictions were needed. “It’s been like this [without restrictions] for a long time,” he said, “do we have a lot of people living in garages and shacks?”

The only dissent came in the form of an email from a San Juan Island resident who asked the Council to “consider this scenario.” She described how an accessory building on the lot next door to hers was permitted as a garage/bunkhouse, but turned into a weekend party house that regularly accommodates more than a dozen visitors. She said that use is not in keeping with the rural nature of her neighborhood and stresses the capacity of a common well.

Tuesday, the Council voted unanimously to start the process to adopt regulations which would allow construction of accessory buildings without consideration of whether a primary residence exists.