Petitioners argue that Section 1 of Ordinance 16291 unambiguously imposed a prohibition on rezones and that Ordinance 16331 amended Section 1 to remove this prohibition. Such an amendment clearly would be substantive and subject to a SEPA threshold determination. The County and Intervenors argue that Section 1 s language is ambiguous and could be interpreted as creating a new zoning classification of Non-Resource lands and as prohibiting the County from considering rezone requests which would not otherwise be precluded by law. Neither of these interpretations were intended by the County. The County argues that Ordinance 16331 merely clarified the intent of Ordinance 16291 and its adoption did not substantively alter Ordinance 16291.
Ambiguity exists if reasonable persons can find different meanings in a statute, document, etc.
One reasonable interpretation is that Section 1 s original language prohibits all rezones at least until completion of the County s GMA planning process. However, a prohibition on rezones is not the only possible interpretation. Also reasonable is an interpretation that Section 1 s original language ensures that lands which had natural resource type zoning classifications, but which were located outside of Natural-Resource designated lands, would retain their existing zoning classification. Section 1 s original language can also be reasonably interpreted as creating a new zoning classification, Non-Resource lands. Section 1 s original language is ambiguous.