Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

June 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin See also: Marble Technologies, Inc. v. City of Hampton, 279 Va. 409, 690 S.E.2d 84 (2010). See also: Shealor v. City of Lodi, 23 Cal. 2d 647, 145 P.2d 574, 575 (1944). Vested Rights— ' evelo er's applications are submitteunrer ordinances later foun to b noncompliant with state law Development opponents contend that permits did vest because the ordinances were "void" Citation: Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County, 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014) WASHINGTON (04/10/14) This case addressed the issue of whether Washington's vested rights doctrine applies to permit applications filed under plans and regulations that are later found to be noncompliant with the State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") (chapter 43.21C RCW). More specifi- cally, the case addressed whether a developer's development rights vested to comprehensive plans and development regulations that were later found to be flawed under SEPA. The Background/Facts: BSRE Point Wells LP ("BSRE") owned a 61- acre strip of waterfront land in unincorporated Snohomish County known as "Point Wells." For approximately 100 years, the property had been used for petroleum storage and other industrial purposes. Prior to 2009, BRSE's prop- erty was in an area zoned "Urban Industrial." In 2006, BSRE asked Snohomish County to amend its comprehensive plan and zoning regulations to allow for a mixed use/urban center designation and redevelopment of the Point Wells site. BSRE wanted to redevelop the prop- erty by adding over 3,000 housing units and over 100,000 square feet of com- mercial and retail space. The Town of Woodway ("Woodway") and Save Richmond Beach Inc. ("Richmond Beach") (collectively, the "Opponents") opposed the BSRE's proposed development project. The Opponents cited a lack of infrastructure needed to support an urban center, namely sufficient roads and public transit, which they feared they would end up bearing the burden of providing to the site. Snohomish County granted BSRE's request in two separate actions. First, in 2009, the county adopted two ordinances amending its comprehensive plan to allow the redesignation of Point Wells from "Urban Industrial" to "Urban Center." Second, in 2010, it adopted two ordinances amending its building regulations to accommodate Point Wells as an Urban Center. The county pre- pared a draft supplemental environmental impact statement ("EIS"), took comments, and finalized the EIS for the comprehensive plan amendments in 4 ©2014 Thomson Reuters