Futurewise Defends GMA in Kitsap And Whatcom Counties
Document Actions
Recently Futurewise received two decisions that uphold our state law to protect our waterways and preserves our rural landscape.
In Kitsap County, the state Court of Appeals agreed with us and Kitsap County that until the county updates its shoreline management plans, protection of our rivers, lakes, and Sound should fall under the Growth Management Act. In the case of Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners v. Futurewise (and other Respondents including Kitsap County), a case before the Washington Court of Appeals, the court found in favor of Futurewise and the County. The question before the court was whether new legislation - enacted in March 2010 directing that Counties must plan for critical areas ordinances (CAO) under the Growth Management Act until such time as Shoreline Management Act plans were updated, and included a provision that the law was retroactive to July 2003 - should be upheld. The Court held that honoring the legislative decision to give the 2010 statute retroactive effect is proper because the amendment is not in conflict with an existing judicial interpretation of the statute. By its terms, the new law does not infringe on vested development rights, and it is not a prohibited ex post facto law. It also does not invalidate existing CAOs. The Court held that the 2010 legislative amendments are retroactive and provide authority for Kitsap County to enact its CAO as part of its comprehensive plan required by the GMA.
In Whatcom County, the growth management hearings board agreed that the County’s plan for increased sprawl in the rural landscape, even when in existing areas of more intense development, was invalid. The Growth Management Hearings Board for Western Washington found that the continued validity of designation criteria in the descriptors for small towns and crossroad communities, crossroads commercial, resort and recreational subdivisions, suburban enclaves, and transportation corridors promote the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling low density development and substantially interfere with the goals of the Growth Management Act, therefore the LAMIRD designation criteria were found invalid.
Our victories will result in cleaner water for fish and more rural acres for future local food production.