Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

February 25, 2013 I Volume 7 1 Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin counties and cities relying on recently adopted GMA enactments (` (comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations) that are being challenged in an administrative appeal before the state's Growth Management Board. The Background /Facts: BSRE Point Wells, LP ( "BSRE ") owned a 61 -acre site (the "Property") on Puget Sound in unincorporated Snohom- ish County (the "County ") in the state of Washington. BSRE's Property had been used for industrial purposes. In 2007, BSRE sought to redevelop the site with residential and commercial uses. It sought a redesignation of the Property on the County's comprehensive plan map. The County council granted BSRE's redesignation request in two separate actions in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, under the authority of the state's Growth Management Act ( "GMA "), the County adopted ordi- nances redesignating the Property as an "urban center" on the County's comprehensive plan map. In 2010, the County council rezoned the Prop- erty to an "urban center" zone and adopted development regulations ac- commodating the mixed -use development at the site. The neighboring Town of Woodway ( "Woodway "), the neighboring City of Shoreline ( "Shoreline "), and the neighborhood group Save Richmond Beach, Inc. ( "SRB ") (collectively, the "Neighbors "), together challenged to the state's Growth Management Board (the "Growth Board ") the County's comprehensive plan amendments and the develop- ment regulations adopted for the urban center zone. Among other things, the Neighbors argued that the County's enactments were adopted partly in violation of the GMA and partly in violation of the State Environmen- tal Policy Act ( "SEPA "). In the meantime, following the Growth Board hearing on the chal- lenges, but before the Growth Board issued its final decision and order, BSRE applied to the County for several development permits. The County published notices indicating that BSRE's applications for these various permits were complete. Then, in April 2011, the Growth Board issued a final decision and or- der ruling that the County's challenged enactments were adopted partly in violation of the GMA and partly in violation of SEPA. The Growth Board also found the challenged comprehensive plan provisions, but not the development regulations, invalid under the GMA. The Growth Board remanded to the County, directing it to bring its comprehensive plan amendments into compliance with the GMA and SEPA. As to the regula- tions, the Growth Board found them noncompliant with SEPA and remanded for remedial action. In September 2011, Woodway and SRB filed a complaint in superior court. They asked the court to declare that BSRE's development permit applications had not vested to the County's urban center designation or development regulations in effect at the time of filing. They argued that BSRE acquired no vested rights because SEPA noncompliance rendered 6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters