Published: Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Island Crossing decision not final
The decision would let Dwayne Lane build a car dealership on the land near I-5.
ARLINGTON - A controversial land-use decision that would allow commercial uses on agricultural land at Island Crossing is not final.
Lawyers for the state and two other parties on Monday filed motions with the state Court of Appeals asking a panel of judges to reconsider a ruling that would almost certainly allow car dealer Dwayne Lane to build a dealership on land that had once been farmland.
The March 26 decision improperly took authority away from a state agency, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, assistant attorney general Alan Copsey said.
Copsey filed one of the motions on behalf of the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
The Stillaguamish Flood Control District and the environmental group Futurewise also filed reconsideration motions.
Those three are bucking Lane, the city of Arlington and Snohomish County. Lane has been in the courts, council chambers and in planning department offices for more than a decade seeking annexation to Arlington and a change in zoning on 110 acres of land bordering I-5.
Lane's lawyer, Todd Nichols of Everett, said it is common for losing parties to file reconsideration motions.
The Court of Appeals decision, which overturned a 2005 Snohomish County Superior Court ruling, "is complete, comprehensive and thorough," Nichols said. "It reflects the law as set out by the Growth Management Act itself and the (state) Supreme Court."
Keith Scully, legal director for the group Futurewise, said he thinks the Court of Appeals ruling actually changed the law.
Copsey said the state believes Snohomish County's decisions to allow a zoning change were based on evidence that is not credible. It was the obligation of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to decide whether the evidence was credible.
It did and now the court has reversed that.
"We think the court has taken away that from the board," Copsey said.
Courts don't often change rulings once they are made, Copsey conceded.
"The odds are against us, but we think we have a good legal argument," he said.
If the appeals court maintains its position, a decision then will be made whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court, Copsey said.
Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.
Lawyers for the state and two other parties on Monday filed motions with the state Court of Appeals asking a panel of judges to reconsider a ruling that would almost certainly allow car dealer Dwayne Lane to build a dealership on land that had once been farmland.
The March 26 decision improperly took authority away from a state agency, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, assistant attorney general Alan Copsey said.
Copsey filed one of the motions on behalf of the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development.
The Stillaguamish Flood Control District and the environmental group Futurewise also filed reconsideration motions.
Those three are bucking Lane, the city of Arlington and Snohomish County. Lane has been in the courts, council chambers and in planning department offices for more than a decade seeking annexation to Arlington and a change in zoning on 110 acres of land bordering I-5.
Lane's lawyer, Todd Nichols of Everett, said it is common for losing parties to file reconsideration motions.
The Court of Appeals decision, which overturned a 2005 Snohomish County Superior Court ruling, "is complete, comprehensive and thorough," Nichols said. "It reflects the law as set out by the Growth Management Act itself and the (state) Supreme Court."
Keith Scully, legal director for the group Futurewise, said he thinks the Court of Appeals ruling actually changed the law.
Copsey said the state believes Snohomish County's decisions to allow a zoning change were based on evidence that is not credible. It was the obligation of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board to decide whether the evidence was credible.
It did and now the court has reversed that.
"We think the court has taken away that from the board," Copsey said.
Courts don't often change rulings once they are made, Copsey conceded.
"The odds are against us, but we think we have a good legal argument," he said.
If the appeals court maintains its position, a decision then will be made whether to appeal to the state Supreme Court, Copsey said.
Reporter Jim Haley: 425-339-3447 or haley@heraldnet.com.
Comments
(
