Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

28 Page 8 October 25, 2002 Z.B. Gobin paid the required fees and submitted an environmental checklist, addressing environmental, transportation, and public services impacts. The commission reviewed her proposal and held public heatings on the applica- tion. The tribe notified the county Of Gobin's proposal, but the county did. not appear at the public hear/ng and offered no other substantive comments, it indicated if the trust land was to be developed, it had to.be in accordance with applicable county zoning regulations. This would have reduced the number of possible homes on the subdivision from 25 to I0. The tribe conditionally approved Gobin's application for'the 25-home sub' division. The conditions involved grading restrictions, the addition of a buffer area near a wetland, erosion and runoff controls, and the approval of a public water system by another tribe agency. Gobin could not start construction, how- ever, without exposing herself to liability to the county, in connection with its asserted land use jurisdiction, and Gobin's lender refused to finance the project until the conflict was resolved. Gobin, and then the'tribe asked the court to fred the county had no juhsdiction over reservation land and no author/ty to impose county regulations on reservation property development. The county argued Congress had expressly authorized its jurisdiction over reservation land when it made those lands freely alienable and encumberabte. The court rejected the count's argument, finding no justification for the inter- ference with the tribe's goVernance of its reservation. The county appealed. DECISION: Affirmed; Congress' dec/sion to make Indian fee lands freely alienable was not an express authorization for the county to enforce its regulations over those lands. The rights of Indians to dispose of their property freely did not give the county a concomitant right to exert its jurisdiction over those lands. Further, the county's land use regulations, which prohibited Gobin from developing her property, encumbered 'the proposed activities connected with the land. The county's density requirement.did not burden the 'land itself but instead burdened Gobin's proposed use of the land. The court properly re- jected the county's broad interpretation of "encumbrance," finding instead the county's land use regulations, apart from Gobin's proposed use, had no force and were only loosely tied with the land itself. Though the county maintained an interest in regulating its roads and sew- ers, providing a continuum of land use enforcement for all fee lands and com- pliance with health and safety codes, together they were not sufficiently "ex- ceptional'' to outweigh the tribe's interest in self-determination. Citation: Gobin v. Snohomish County, 9th U.S. Ci-rcuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-36031 (2002). The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction Alaska, Arizona, California, GUam, HaWaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, OregOn, and Washington. see' also: County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251, if2 S. Ct. 683, 126 L,Ed. 2d 687 (1992). see also: California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians~ 480 U.S. 202, 107 S. Cr. 1083, 94 L. Ed. 2d 244 (1987). I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I