Facts: Petitioner Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning filed suit against respondent Whatcom County in the Superior Court for Skagit County, asserting that buffer zone and buildable lot size provisions in the shoreline master program Whatcom County promulgated pursuant to the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act (Washington Revised Code §90.58) violate Washington Revised Code §82.02.020’s prohibition against the levying of taxes, fees, or charges on development by local governments. The trial court granted summary judgment for Whatcom County, ruling that shoreline master programs are state rather than local government regulations and that §82.02.020 is therefore inapplicable. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed. Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Are shoreline master programs local government regulations subject to §82.02.020’s prohibition against the levying of taxes, fees, or charges on development?
Conclusion: Justice Charles W. Johnson’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that although local jurisdictions are responsible for the adoption and amendment of shoreline master programs, the Shoreline Management Act governs every aspect of this process and the Department of Ecology retains ultimate control over the contents of shoreline master programs. Thus, as shoreline master programs are effectively state rather than local government regulations, the Court held that §82.02.020 is inapplicable.
Docket No. 84675-8 (from Court of Appeals Division I Case No. 63646-4)
Petitioner: Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning
(Counsel: Dannon C. Traxler)
Respondent: Whatcom County
(Counsel: Karen Frakes, Royce Scott Buckingham, Kelly Thomas Wood, and Katharine G. Shirey)
Briefs:
- Answer
- Appellant Brief
- Doe Answer to Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus
- Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus
- Pacific Legal Foundation Brief in Support of Petition for Review
- Petition for Review
- Reply
- Respondent Brief
- Respondent's Answer to Pacific Legal Foundation Amicus
- Statement of Additional Auth
- Supplemental Brief of BIAW
- Supplemental Brief of Petitioners
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent Doe
Argument: Thursday, May 26, 2011 10:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Court of Appeals Division I
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, August 18th, 2011
Prevailing Party: Whatcom County (Respondent)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)
Madsen
Johnson
(Majority)
Alexander
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Wiggins
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.