Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

I . I i I \ I j I I l :1 ! 'I J ~ 1 i ;i ~ . .~ /, !i :1 I, I. I' I! February 25, 2008 I Volume 21 No.4 () that the BOCC decision was a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts because the environmental review was incomplete and failed to disclose simultaneous rezones in the county. The superior court reversed the rezone. On appeal, the court of appeals said that the superior court lacked jurisdiction unde:!; LUPA to decide whether a site-specific land use decision complied with the GMA. The court of appeals therefore did not address whether the rezone complied with the GMA. As to Woods' other challeng- es, the court of appeals found that the BOCC's decision was sup- ported by sufficient evidence. The court also found that the BOCC did not misapply" the law. Woods petitioned to the Supreme Court of Washington. That court,granted her appeal. DECISION: Affirmed The court agreed with the court of appeals' decisions on juris- diction. The court found that a challenge alleging GMA violations was a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Growth Man- agement Hearing Board (GMHB). GMHBs, the court said, had '---", been created for that purpose by the legislature. Accordingly, the ) court only addressed Woods' remaining challenges to the rezone. The court found that the BOCC properly approved CESS's site- specific rezone application. The court noted Kittitas County's seven criteria for approval of a site-specific rezone application. The court found that, aside from Woods' GMA challenge, Wood's challenges to the rezone were only as to four of the criteria. Those criteria were that the proposed rezone must: (1) be compatible with the comprehensive plan; (2) have merit and value for the county or a sub-area of the county; (3) be appropriate because of changed circumstances or because of a need for additional property in the proposed zone or because the proposed zone was appropriate for reasonable development of the subject property; and (4) be suitable for development in general conformance with the zoning standards for the proposed zone. For each of these criteria, the court found that the BOCC's conclusion that the rezone met the criteria was not an erroneous interpretation of the law or application of the law to the facts. The court concluded that because the county's comprehensive . plan expressly recognized the It-3 zone as a rural zone, the BOCC ,~ ') properly found that CESS's rezone did not violate the plan. The court rejected Woods' argument that the plan required five acres in a rural zone. The court noted that language in the plan explicitly 3 155