Washington State Supreme Court considers county sprawl ruling
A battle over Thurston County’s land-use rules likely is headed for the state Supreme Court, where county officials hope they’ll get a quick resolution to the problem that caused them to stop subdivisions in rural parts of the county.
The county is appealing a ruling from a state agency that found some of the county’s land-use rules violated state policy meant to prevent sprawl. The July 20 ruling by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board found that the county’s urban growth areas were too big, and that zoning rules in rural parts of the county allowed too much housing density.
A Supreme Court commissioner decided Tuesday that the court will consider legal briefs on the case, and will send it to the Court of Appeals or take the case itself. County officials bypassed lower courts to bring their case to the state’s highest court in hopes they could get a ruling faster and not face subsequent appeals.
“Whatever the eventual ruling from the Supreme Court, it will provide some certainty for Thurston County property owners and for Thurston County government,� wrote county Commissioner Bob Macleod.
After the July ruling, county commissioners placed a moratorium on subdivisions in unincorporated areas of the county, essentially preventing most new development. They’re going ahead with changes to rural zoning and the size of the urban growth area in case the Supreme Court rules against them.
The July ruling was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the environmental public interest group Futurewise, which has filed similar suits against other counties.
The outcome of a Supreme Court hearing will affect other counties facing opposition over their interpretation of the Growth Management Act, and that’s part of the reason the court agreed to consider the case.
“I concur that the matter warrants review at a court level that can issue a precedential decision,� Court Commissioner Geoffrey Crooks wrote in his Tuesday decision.
“At this stage, however, I remain unsure that the case requires a decision by this court rather than the Court of Appeals,� Crooks added.
County officials hope to get a Supreme Court ruling by the end of the year, which would bring closure to the debate on the growth hearings board ruling. That would allow planners to make final changes to their land-use plans or give commissioners a green light to lift the subdivision moratorium.
“There are really good questions that come out of the decision the hearings board made in relation to the county’s growth management work,� said Don Krupp, the county’s chief administrator. “If you have an urban growth boundary created 10 years ago that hasn’t been expanded, and the only difference between today and 1994 is that it’s fuller today than it was back then, that raises a precedential question: Can you turn back the clock?�
The Supreme Court’s decision pleased county officials.
“They could still decide to remand it down to the Court of Appeals, but even at that, at least they are willing to receive briefs and consider the matter,� Krupp said.
This story is republished courtesy of The Olympian:
Supreme Court considers county sprawl ruling
