1 / 8

PLANNERS’ FORUM October 2012

PLANNERS’ FORUM October 2012. Growth Management Hearings Board Update. What’s Happening?. New Board members – Cheryl Pflug – Central Puget Sound Region Chuck Mosher – Eastern Washington Region 2012 GMHB Stakeholder Survey - on the Board’s website, click on of special interest.

kamil
Download Presentation

PLANNERS’ FORUM October 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PLANNERS’ FORUMOctober 2012 Growth Management Hearings Board Update

  2. What’s Happening? • New Board members – Cheryl Pflug – Central Puget Sound Region Chuck Mosher – Eastern Washington Region • 2012 GMHB Stakeholder Survey - on the Board’s website, click on of special interest GMHB Report October 2012

  3. Highlighting Recent Decisions • Reliance on staff reports • Application of Commerce guidelines • Application of VISION 2040 Multi-county Planning Policies (MPPs) GMHB Report October 2012

  4. Highlight - Staff Reports • Skagit DO6, LLC v. City of Mount Vernon, WWGMHB Case No. 10-2-0011 Affirmed by Court of Appeals in unpublished opinion (Sept. 17, 2012) which supports the Board’s reliance on the City’s staff report as “substantial evidence” • Friends of Pierce County, et al., v. Pierce County, GMHB Case No. 12-3-0002c, FDO (July 9, 2012) County delegated briefing and argument in support of its comp plan amendments to the respective proponents. The Board looked to County staff reports, as well as Findings in the Ordinance, to determine the facts in the case GMHB Report October 2012

  5. Highlight – Commerce Guidelines • Olympic Stewardship Council v Jefferson County, 163 Wn.App. 12 (Aug. 6, 2011) – Commerce guidelines are “the proper starting point for determining compliance with the BAS requirement.” • Weyerhaeuser, et al v Thurston County, GMHB Case No. 10-2-002c, Compliance Order (July 17, 2012) – Applying Commerce guidelines for designating forest lands and mineral lands of long term commercial significance • Friends of Pierce County, et al., v. Pierce County, GMHB Case No. 12-3-0002c, FDO (July 9, 2012) – Applying Commerce guidelines for designating agricultural resource lands GMHB Report April 2012

  6. Highlight – VISION 2040 • William Palmer, KAPO and Jack Hamilton v Kitsap County and Kitsap Regional Coordinating Council, GMHB Case No. 12-3-0003, Order of Dismissal (Feb. 27, 2012) – Under RCW 35.70A.210(6), citizens lack standing to challenge Countywide Planning Policies or incorporation of VISION 2040 • Friends of Pierce County, et al., v. Pierce County, GMHB Case No. 12-3-0002c, FDO (July 9, 2012) – VISION 2040 policies provide additional support for Board rulings on de-designation of agricultural lands, expansion of UGA, and rural land use VISION 2040 Multi-County Planning Policies apply to Kitsap, King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties only GMHB Report October 2012

  7. Briefly Noted • Your Snoqualmie Valley v City of Snoqualmie, GMHB Case No. 11-3-12, FDO (May 8, 2012) – annexation of old Weyerhaeuser Mill site for outdoor driving school GMHB Report October 2012

  8. Aloha from ELUHO Environmental and Land Use Hearings Office GMHB Report October 2012

More Related