EVERETT – For the second time in eight years, the protracted political debate over whether to allow farmland to turn urban at Island Crossing has reached Snohomish County Superior Court.

Lawyers for car dealer Dwayne Lane, Snohomish County and Arlington argued Friday before Judge Linda Krese that the 110-acre triangle at Arlington’s I-5 exit is not commercially viable for farming. Lane, other landowners and the city would like the area to be annexed to Arlington to allow urban development, which could include car dealerships and large retailers.

Lawyers for the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Seattle environmental group Futurewise countered that nothing has changed from eight years ago.

In 1997, Superior Court Judge James Allendoerfer ruled that the location’s value for agriculture required it to be protected from urban encroachment under the state Growth Management Act.

Since then, the issue resurfaced in 2003, thanks in part to a political shift favoring Lane on the County Council. After several legal maneuverings, a state growth hearings board struck down the annexation in 2004.

At the end of the hearing Friday, Krese said she would probably need at least three weeks for her decision.

John Moffat, a senior deputy prosecuting attorney for Snohomish County, told Krese that while the soil at Island Crossing might be good for farming, farmers can no longer make money there because the parcels are too small, he said.

Todd Nichols, an attorney representing Lane, added that increasing traffic to and from Smokey Point makes driving tractors there dangerous.

Moffat argued that the state hearings board erred in its interpretation of how to gauge the area’s long-term commercial significance for agriculture. The board, he said, looked beyond the parcels in that 110 acres and made an “areawide inquiry.”

That was wrong, Moffat said.

“The test for long-term commercial significance is a parcel-specific test,” Moffat said.

John Zilavy, legal director of Futurewise, challenged that idea. He cited a case in Redmond that said farmland can rarely compete economically with development pressures.

“If the Growth Management Act allows local jurisdictions to look at this on only a parcel-by-parcel basis, then nothing is safe,” Zilavy said.

The 110-acre triangle’s shape does not comply with state rules that new urban areas should be next to old ones, he said. Instead, the area is surrounded on three sides by rural areas and only connected by a thin corridor.

“It’s like a kite on a string,” Zilavy said.

At one point, Nichols, responding to Krese, said one new reason to revive the issue is a buildable lands study done last year that showed Arlington could use more open land for large commercial development.

The hearings board, he said, did not take issue with the study.

Alan Copsey, representing the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development, said the opposite, that the board did have a problem with the land capacity study.

“We showed to the board’s satisfaction that it did not meet criteria” in state law, Copsey said.

Arlington City Attorney Steve Peiffle said the Growth Management Act emphasizes favoring local decision makers over state officials. He noted that both the city and county support the annexation.

Supporters on both sides attended the hearing.

John Henken, a car dealer who owns 40 acres in the triangle, supports Lane and Arlington.

“I think (annexation opponents) used us as an example,” Henken said. “I think anybody that goes out and looks at the property agrees it’s not farmland.”

The Stillaguamish Flood Control District opposes the annexation, fearing that the development would displace more floodwater onto farms downstream. Chuck Hazleton of the district said the arguments on both sides are all too familiar after so many years.

“I’ve heard all the words,” he said. “I just wonder how many times we’re going to hear it.”