News Release 2002-3
April 5, 2002
GROWTH BOARD APPROVES SIX OF NINE PROPERTY REDESIGNATIONS
County Will Appeal Only On One Property
On March 29, 2002, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board approved six of the nine resource land redesignations made by the County in December 2001. The Growth Board found that the County’s redesignation of the Lawrence, Bond, Eagle Lake, Griffin Bay, and Sandwith (southern portion) properties complied with the GMA. "A finding of compliance means the property has been properly designated under the standards of the Growth Management Act," said Prosecutor Randall K. Gaylord.
"This case is significant because it establishes the standards the Growth Board will use when citizens seek to change the designation of their property," added Gaylord. Before this case, the Western Growth Board had not adopted a standard for when it would allow the redesignation of resource land to rural land. Using a prior case from the Central Growth Board and two state Supreme Court decisions, the Board found that the GMA creates a resource land "conservation imperative."
"The conservation imperative" means that we protect resource lands first," said Gaylord. In this way, the GMA assures the maintenance and enhancement of the agricultural and forest resource industries. The Growth Board stated that it would subject resource land redesignations to close scrutiny and would require a conclusive showing by local government of changed circumstances, such that the criteria which resulted in the initial resource land designation will no longer apply.
In its Order, the Growth Board declined to rescind its finding of invalidity for the Sandwith (northern portion), Wood, and Bell properties. The Growth Board found that the County had failed to show that the GMA criteria for redesignating these resource lands had been met. The Growth Board noted that all three properties met the County’s forest resource criteria and were adjacent to other resource lands.
In redesignating the Sandwith property, the County relied on a 1984 contract between the Sandwiths and the County that gave the Sandwiths certain development rights. The Growth Board found that it lacked authority under the GMA to determine the effect of the contract on the County’s ability to redesignate the property under the GMA.
"We want to honor our promises," said Gaylord, "so we will appeal the Growth Board decision." As to the other properties, no decision to appeal was made. The people affected by these decisions may have the ability to continue the appeal if they wish.