Island Crossing development all tied up again

Published 11:26 pm Wednesday, December 10, 2008

ARLINGTON — A Superior Court commissioner on Wednesday barred the city from issuing land-use permits for the newly annexed Island Crossing area until the court decides whether the annexation is legal.

The decision came after attorneys for Snohomish County filed a lawsuit demanding the city repeal last month’s annexation of the 110-acre area east of I-5.

A hearing has been scheduled for Dec. 18 in Snohomish County Superior Court.

Arlington officials are ready to fight.

“The city will argue that the annexation is legal and valid,” said Kristin Banfield, city spokeswoman. “Obviously we are disappointed that the county took this step. This ties up property owners who have been unable to use their land as they see fit for the last 17 years.”

In addition, the city has better things to spend its limited revenue on than litigation, she said.

“We have disappointed taxpayers, who can’t believe we have to do this all over again,” Banfield said. “This economy is so tight, and the city would rather be providing services and keeping city employees working than going to court.”

Arlington has not issued land-use permits for the Island Crossing area, she said.

The City Council voted unanimously Nov. 17 to add 210 acres into the city limits, roughly half of which is the controversial swath known as Island Crossing.

City officials believe that when the state Supreme Court decided in October that Dwayne Lane could build a car dealership along I-5 south of Island Crossing, the ruling paved the way for the city to annex the area.

County officials two weeks ago asked city officials to repeal the annexation, arguing that Island Crossing is not in Arlington’s sphere of influence or urban growth area, even though the city provides services to the area.

With lone Republican John Koster dissenting, the County Council voted to instruct the county prosecutor to pursue legal action.

What the controversy seems to come down to is a procedural issue and the interpretation of the state Supreme Court ruling, Arlington city attorney Steve Peiffle said.

The state’s Growth Management Act requires land be within a city’s urban growth area before it can be annexed.

Once the state Supreme Court had made its October ruling, an earlier county ordinance that had placed the Island Crossing area in the city’s urban growth area was valid, Peiffle said. So, from the city’s perspective, there was nothing more that the County Council had to do before the city annexed the land, he said.

County Council Chairman Dave Somers maintains, however, that the county must go back and again change its comprehensive plan in order for the annexation to be legal.

“From our perspective the state Supreme Court decision did not change the land-use designation, it only affirmed that the County Council has the right to make that decision,” Somers said.

Dwayne Lane’s lawyer, Todd Nichols, also believes the court’s recent decision made it clear that the ordinance placing Island Crossing in the city’s urban growth area would be revived.

“We think Arlington is completely correct legally and factually. Arlington had every right to annex that area,” Nichols said.

John Moffat, assistant chief of the civil division in the county prosecuting attorney’s office, disagreed.

“The city’s action assumes the state Supreme Court can legislate. The ruling didn’t automatically say that (Island Crossing) is in the urban growth area. The county’s position is that the designation is still agriculture and rural freeway service. The county would have to adopt a new ordinance to change that,” Moffat said. “The city jumped the gun.”

The annexation includes Island Crossing restaurants and gas stations on Highway 530 to the north and mostly fallow farmland along Smokey Point Boulevard.

The lawsuit does not include 100 acres on the south end, primarily homes and businesses along the bluff north of 188th Street NE.

In 2003, Snohomish County rezoned the Island Crossing from agricultural to commercial uses and placed it within the urban growth area of Arlington. But that decision, and subsequent actions, were frozen when they became the subject of the lawsuit heard in October by the state Supreme Court.

Opponents of the rezoning wanted the county action tossed out, arguing about the loss of farmland in an area prone to flooding.

Proponents said traffic makes the area unsuitable for farming and that Arlington needs the tax revenue.