Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2012

Home

February 10, 2012 J Volume 61 No. 3 Zoning Bulletin In 2010, BD Lawson Partners LP and BD Village Partners LP (collec- tively "Yarrow Bay ") sought approval from the City to build two MPDs. The City granted the two MPD permits by ordinance (the "2010 Ap- proval Ordinances"). A citizens group led by Toward Responsible Development ( "TRD ") filed challenges to the 2010 Approval Ordinances both in superior court under the Land Use Petition Act ( "LUPA ") and with the Board under the GMA. The LUPA case was stayed pending the GMA appeal. In proceedings before the Board, the City argued that the 2010 Ap- proval Ordinances were project permits that were consistent with the City's ,comprehensive plan and development regulations. As project per- mits, the City maintained that the Board did not have jurisdiction over the 2010 Approval Ordinances. TRD, on the other hand, argued that 2010 Approval Ordinances were not project specific permits but were development regulations, and thus the Board should have jurisdiction. The Board agreed with TRD that it had jurisdiction. It determined that the 2010 Approval Ordinances were development regulations over which it had jurisdiction. Yarrow Bay appealed. It argued that the Board erred by asserting juris- diction over the 2010 Approval ordinances. It contended that the Board's assumption of jurisdiction constituted an improper collateral attack on the City's 2009 comprehensive plan and development regulations. DECISION: Reversed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, agreed with Yarrow Bay. It held that the 2010 Approval Ordinances were project permit ap- provals, and therefore the Board lacked jurisdiction to review them. The court explained that the Board's jurisdiction is "limited to decid- ing petitions challenging comprehensive plans, development regulations, or permanent amendments to comprehensive plans or development regu- lations." The court said that the "Board does not have jurisdiction to decide challenges to project permit applications or site - specific land use decisions, because such decisions do not quality as comprehensive plans or development regulations." Thus, if the 2010 Approval Ordinances amended development regula- tions or the City's comprehensive plan, the Board would properly have jurisdiction here. However, if the 2010 Approval Ordinances were per- mit approvals or site - specific land use decisions, then they would fall outside the scope of the Board's jurisdiction, and would only be properly challengeable in a LUPA petition to superior court. Here, the court found it undisputed that the 2010 Approval Ordinanc- es approved permits and that those permit applications were consistent with the development regulations established in 2009. Since the 2010 6 © 2012 Thomson Reuters