Laserfiche WebLink
June 25, 2010 I Volume 4 (No. 12 Zoning Bulletin <br />Fees —Citizens group contends county shoreline <br />regulations violate state statutory prohibition <br />on direct fees on development <br />County says regulations are a product of state regulatory <br />action, which is not subject to that statutory prohibition <br />Citation: Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning v. Whatcom County, <br />2010 WL 1839407 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010) <br />WASHINGTON (05/10/10)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether county shoreline master programs, which restrict building ar- <br />eas, violate a state statutory prohibition on the imposition of direct or <br />indirect taxes, fees, or charges on development. <br />The Background/Facts: As required by Washington's Shoreline <br />Management Act ("SMA"), the county adopted a shoreline master <br />program ("SMP"). As part of that process, and also as required by the <br />SMA, the state's Department of Ecology ("DOE") reviewed and ap- <br />proved the SMP. <br />Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning ("CRSP") then sued the <br />county. CRSP alleged, among other things, that several provisions in <br />the SMP violated state statutory law, RCW 82.02.020. That statute <br />prohibits municipalities from imposing direct or indirect taxes, fees, <br />or charges on development. CRSP contended that the county's "SMP <br />provisions requiring various buffers from shorelines and restricting the <br />building area of non -conforming lots to no more than 2,500 square <br />feet [were] indirect taxes, fees, or charges imposed on development by <br />a local government," in violation of RCW 82.02.020. <br />The county and the DOE (which intervened as a defendant in the <br />case) asked the court to dismiss the case. They argued that since the <br />SMP was a product of state regulatory action —via the SMA—and <br />since state regulatory action was not subject to RCW 82.02.020—then <br />RCW 82.02.020 did not apply to the SMP. <br />The trial court dismissed the case. <br />CRSP eventually appealed. <br />The Court's Decision: Judgment of the trial court affirmed. <br />The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, agreed with the <br />county' and the DOE. It held that SMPs were not subject to RCW <br />82.02.020. <br />In so holding, the court first explained that RCW 82.02.020's statu- <br />tory prohibition on municipalities from imposing direct or indirect tax- <br />es, fees, or charges on development was "not limited to the extraction <br />of monetary payments." The court further explained that the purpose <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />178 <br />