Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/05/2009

Home

July 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 14 Zoning Bulletin the A6b Exemption because it did not mitigate all of the park impacts () of the development, but rather mitigated the impacts only to the extent of satisfying the neighborhood park and trail requirements. The hearing e~aminer ruled that Belleau had to pay the park impact fees under the Ordinance; with credit for the land dedication. Belleau appealed, and the superior court reversed. The court held that because Belleau had "fully mitigated - the park impacts of the develop~ ment by complying with Se!=tion 20 of the planned [C]ontract," the A6b Exemption applied. It ordered the city to refund the park impact fees collected from Belleau less the sum of $8,912.34. The city appealed. DECISION:.Reversed and remanded. The court held that the A6b Exemption for past mitigation did not apply here. It agreed with the hearing examiner's conclusions, and held that the city was therefore entitled to impose the fee so long as Be.lleau was given credit for the value of its prior contribution. In so holding, the court first explained that because impact fees do not affect physical aspects of a development-but simply add to the cost of a proj~ct-, they are not land use control ordinances and developers do "J not have vested rights related to the payment of such fees. . (. The court next interpreted the A6b Exemption. Again, the A6b Ex- emption applied to any "development activity for which park impacts have been mitigated pursuant to an agreement." The city had argued that the A6b Exemption "applied only when all park impacts of the de- velopment ha[ d] been mitigated, not just those localized to the imine..; diate neighborhood." Belleau had argued that the exemption applied if "any of the park impacts hard] been mitigated." The court agreed with the city's interpretation, finding its interpretation of "have been mitigated" was more harmonious with the rest of the Ordinance. The court pointed to the next section of the Ordinance, which allowed credit against a park impact fee to be given for development activity. The comt noted that if the A6b Exemption "gave a full exemption from park im- pact fees whenever a developer had previously contributed any land or money for parks pursuant to a condition of plat approval, there would be no need to provide a credit for such contribution as [wa]s done by [that next section]." - 'See also: Pavlina v. City of Vancouver, 122 Wash.App. 520, 94 P.3d 366 (Div. 2 2004). ( ) See also: State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.c., 146 '--....-/ Wash. 2d 1, 43 P.3d 4, 2002 WL 464544 (2002) 10 @ 2009Thomson Reuters 62 - I--- I i I !