The threat of a lengthy courtroom battle weighed heavily on a delicate debate as the San Juan County Council struck down a “mini-initiative” designed to give property owners with approved site-plans four years rather than six months to build.

In a 5-1 decision, the County Council rejected the so-called “vesting initiative” at a Feb. 23 public hearing in which even the initiative’s main backer on the council hesitated to support it.

“If four of us voted for it I think it would end up in court forever,” said Councilman Rich Peterson, who cast the lone vote in favor of initiative. “I think we need to do something but that wouldn’t get us any closer.”

Backed by the San Juan County Association of Realtors, the mini-initiative sought to extend from six months to four years the duration that a binding site plan is “vested” and is subject to rules in place at the time that plan is approved and, as a result, would be immune from any change in local land-use regulations, such as expanded wetland buffers or increased shoreline setbacks.

Members of the association contend that the pending update of the county critical areas ordinance, and the increased limitations on property development which it may spawn, has placed additional drag on an already sluggish real estate market by planting seeds of uncertainty in the mind of potential buyers.

According to Sam Buck of Coldwell Banker San Juan Island, those who might otherwise invest in local property have resisted doing so because of the cloud of uncertainty that surrounds the CAO.

“It’s really pretty simple,” Buck said. “You can’t buy property if you don’t know what you can do with it. We have a very fragile little economy based on custom-home building. You have to (approve the initiative) for the economy.”

Supporters argue the initiative would simply do for building plans what the county already allows in its “vesting” of septic system designs.

However, Prosecuting Attorney Randy Gaylord maintains the council would run afoul of state law and the Growth Management Act by supplanting its vesting rules unless it does so through a process that’s well-established in county code. That process, he said, covers any proposed change to the “official controls” that the county employs in its land-use regulations.

It includes, he noted, review and recommendation by various state agencies, the planning commission, an evaluation under the State Environmental Policy Act, and ultimately, a forum that “brings all to the table in a public process”.

While the council has authority to alter the vesting rules, Gaylord said the route it must follow “trumps” the process of initiative and referendum afforded by the county charter. He added the duration that a site-plan is vested determines the land-use rules that apply to it.

Debate over its legality isn’t the only criticism leveled at the initiative.

Stephanie Buffum, director of the Friends of the San Juans, said in addition to being “unlawful”, it would distract the council from its top three legislative priorities of the year; producing a balanced budget, completing the CAO update by December and dealing with the solid waste crisis. She doubts the real estate market will be revived simply by extending the amount of time a site plan is vested.

“A vesting ordinance is not going to change the reality of the economy in San Juan County or the nation,” Buffum said.

While uncertainty may be a factor in the real estate market, Councilman Jamie Stephens, Lopez/Shaw, questioned whether it’s the council’s role to ensure everyone’s investment is protected.

“There are five empty storefronts in Friday Harbor and there’s six on Lopez,” Stephens said. “Nobody gave them any guarantee. It’s all part of the economy.”