A state growth review board has shot down a Snohomish County Council decision to remove controversial development restrictions on land near Lake Stevens.
But the decision was a mixed bag for both sides — the residents who fought the rule changes and the council that adopted them.
The state board kept in place the council’s lifting of development restrictions on 832 acres near Lake Stevens, an area covered by rules that prevent development until infrastructure improvements are under way.
The County Council first adopted the development restrictions in November 2001, but changed the rules in April of this year.
One of the changes was rejected by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board this week.
The board ruled that the council should not have adopted an ordinance exempting smaller development projects from rules that require infrastructure improvements in the Lake Stevens development phasing overlay area before development can begin.
The restrictions originally covered about 4,050 acres in the Lake Stevens urban growth area, mostly along the western and southern shores of the lake.
The council created an exemption for new developments that would not put 50 or more cars on the road during the peak commute time, and said those projects could proceed even if roads and other infrastructure weren’t built.
Because about 91 percent of development applications are for small- and medium-sized projects, the state board ruled that the exemption would "gut" the development phasing overlay area.
The board declared the rule invalid and sent it back to the county for changes.
"This is yet another case of the Snohomish County Council trying to pave over the county without considering how the growth fits into a sensible plan," said Jody McVittie, president of Citizens for Responsible Growth, one of the parties that challenged the council’s changes to the development restrictions.
The ruling was not a complete victory for residents who filed the challenge, however. The board let stand an ordinance that removed the 832 acres from the 4,050-acre area. Most of the land is west of Highway 9 at Frontier Village.
Opponents of the change said the county hadn’t set aside enough money for projects that would fix infrastructure problems in the area.
County officials, however, said projects that would fix surface water problems will be completed within six years, and the state board agreed.
"I would call it a partial victory for the county," said County Councilman John Koster, chairman of the council’s planning committee. "They upheld the areawide rezone."
Koster couldn’t say if the county will ask the board to rethink its decision, saying he hadn’t had a chance to review the 59-page decision.
The development phasing overlay has been controversial from the start. Some property owners said the restrictions were unfair and would hurt property values, while others said the rules were needed so infrastructure could be fixed before the area was burdened with more development.
The challenge was filed with the state board in June by McVittie of Citizens for Responsible Growth and Ruth Brandal, owner of Bisondalen Farm.
The state board, a three-member group appointed by the governor, is one of three review boards in the state that handle growth-management disputes.
The board gave the County Council a deadline of May 18 to fix the problems in two of the three ordinances that made changes to the development restrictions.
Either side can ask the board to reconsider its decision or appeal to Superior Court.
McVittie said her group hasn’t decided whether to ask the board to reconsider its ruling on the rezone.
Reporter Brian Kelly: 425-339-3422 or kelly@heraldnet.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
