Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin zoned as rural. Clearing limits varied depending on the parcel size, limiting clearing up to a maximum fifty percent. Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights, a political action com- mittee, and five landowners in the county (collectively, "CAPR") brought an action against the county. They alleged that the Ordi- nance violated Washington statutory law, Revised Code of Wash- ington (RCW) S 82.02.020. CAPR argued that the clearing limita- tions imposed under the Ordinance were a prohibited "tax, fee, or charge" under the statute. Section 82.02.020 prohibited municipalities from imposing "any tax, fee, or charge, either direct or indirect, on ... the development ... of land," with exceptions. Under the exceptions, taxes, fees or charges were allowed for dedications of land or easements within the proposed development if the municipality could demonstrate they were "reasonably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development.... " The trial court granted the county's motion for. summary judg- ment. It found there were no material issues of fact and decided in favor of the county. CAPR appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded with directions. The court agreed with CAPR. The court first concluded that the clearing limitations imposed under the Ordinance were an in kind indirect "tax, fee, or charge" under RCW S 82.02.020. Therefore it found that S 82.02.020 applied. In reaching this conclusions, the court rejected all three of the county's arguments that S 82.02.020 should not apply. The county had first argued that the Ordinance's clearing limits raised no reve- nue directly or indirectly, and as such, did not constitute a "tax, fee, or charge." The court disagreed. The court explained that the plain words of S 82.02.020 indicated that it did not apply only to "taxes." The court said a "tax, fee, or charge" forthe purposes of S 82.02.020 could be in kind or in dollars. The court found Washington case law was clear in concluding that S 82.02.020 applied to ordinances that required developers to set aside land as a condition of development. Second, the county had argued that because it adopted the clearing limits pursuant to the GMA mandate to protect critical areas, the Or- dinance was not subject to S 82.02.020. The county had argued that because the State was not bound by the requirements of S 82.02.020, local jurisdictions were also not bound by the requirements when they acted on direct state authority. The court also rejected this ar- 6. @ 2008 Thomson ReutersIWest 66 ,~ \ I ! ') i, , I I i I , I ! j 1 i I , I I I 1 I j I I I j l I I i ! i ! i I !