Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

i t ~ I i I' ! ! I . ! I 1 .:. ~ . I ~ ; 't [ .~ ~ t, f I '. , ~ [ j ) ~ I' ! i , ! ~ I ...i.~ . . ,- .: t.. I ,. I (Ie......') 1 . , f:::.... (C/.'.) . .<. ,7 I~. "~- '.." ~,. ". ;... . ~ . Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 NO.1 . , See also~ Home Builders Ass'n of Cent. Arizona v. City of Scottsdale, 179 Ariz. 5, 875 P.2d 1310 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1993), review granted, cause remanded; (July 6, 1994) arid opinion supplemented, 183 Ariz. 243, 902P.2d 1347 (Ct. App. Div. 11995), opinion approved in part, 18'7 Ariz:479, 930 P.2d 993, 44 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1447 (1997). . Administration-Grant of overlay district permit, is challenged under Washington's Growth Management Act ..... : County maintains permit is not a rezone and therefore not subject to review under the Act Citation~ Feil v, Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd., 2009 WL 4348945 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 3 2009) WASIDNGTON (12/03/09)-Washingtop.'s Growth Management Act ("GMA") requires local governments to develop a comprehensive plan and adopt consistent development regulations to implement the policies of the comprehensive plan. This case addressed whether the granting of an overlay district permit is a zoning amendment that can be challenged under the GMA. ' The BackgroundlFacts: The Washington State Parks and Recreation' Commission ("State Parks") sought to build a five-mile, nonmotorized recreation trail along a river in the county. The proposed trail woutd link an existing trail system and extend a bicycle ~nd pedestrian path. The entire trail would be built on public property zoned as~ "Tourist Recreation Commercial";' "Residential Low"; "Commercial Agricul- ture 5 acres"; and "Commercial Agriculture.iO acres." In furtherance of its plansfor the trail, State Parks applied to the county for a "recre- ational overlay district permit." The county commissioners granted the recreational overlay designa- tion and approved State Parks' requested permit. Certain orchardists challenged the issuance of the permit. Those or- chardists leased portions of public property in the county. They grew fruit trees on those public lands. The proposed trail would require that nearly 24 acres of mature fruit trees be removed. In their appeal to the court, the orchardists argued that the grant of' the overlay district permit was a zoning amendment that could.be chal- lenged as a violation of the GMA. They further ~rguedthat th~s zoning amendment (i.e., the grant of the overlay district permit) violated the GMA. The county maintained that the issuance of the overlay district per- mit was not a rezone. Rather, they said, it was the issuance of a site- specific permit that was not subject to review under the GMA. I ii ,. i I' Ii II Ii i! II :J ,I Ii " :1 1\ I, ., I' ], II II --:-~- . ----,;J , @2010Thomson Reuters 9 .'. .. .. ~ , ."....... ''iJ ,."..:~. :.-: t ~ ~,'~- ~..;~~ 61