Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..,c~", <br /> <br />( ) <br /> <br />( -'^) <br /> <br />September 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 17 <br /> <br />gument. The court noted that the GMA did not direct the county to <br />take the particular action of adopting the clearing limitations of the <br />Ordinance. Moreover, the court found no support in Washington law <br />for the county's argument. <br />Third, the county had argued ~. 82.02.020 did not apply because <br />another statute-the GMA-authorized the development condition. <br />The . court said that whether or not ~ 82.02.020 applied was not a <br />question of whether another statute authorized the condition. The <br />court said~ 82.02.020 did not confer authority on municipalities to <br />impose conditions on development; it merely prohibited direct or in- <br />direct taxes, fee, or charges on development activity, with exceptions. <br />The court also determined that the clearing limitations did not fall <br />under the exceptions to ~ 82.02.020 because they were not "reason- <br />ably necessary as a direct result of the proposed development ...." <br />The. court said that to meet the exception, development conditions <br />had to be tied to a specific, identified impact of a specific proposed <br />developmerit on a community. The court found that while theOrdi- <br />nance prescribed clearing limits in proportion to the size of the lot, <br />those limits were not proportionally related to the proposed devel- <br />opment. Rather, found the court, the clearing limitations under the <br />Ordinance imposed a uniform requirement; they were applied to all <br />developments, unrelated to any evaluation of the demonstrated im- <br />pact of proposed development <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that the Ordinance was invalid <br />because it violated ~ 82.02.020. <br /> <br />See also: Isla Verde Intern. Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 <br />Wash. 2d 740, 49P.3d 867 (2002). <br /> <br />See also: Yrimen Development Co. v. King County, 124 Wash. 2d <br />261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). <br /> <br />Case Note: Because the court resolved the challenge to the Ordi- <br />nance under the statutory law, it did not consider CAPR's other <br />challenges to the Ordinance. <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReutersJ\Nest <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />67 <br />