Facts:  Petitioner Jack Feil petitioned the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to reverse a Douglas County hearing examiner’s decision permitting the construction of a pedestrian and bicycle trail on land abutting an orchard owned by Feil, asserting that the construction of the trail would undermine the conservation of agricultural land in violation of the Growth Management Act (Washington Revised Code §36.70A).  The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction under the Growth Management Act to review the hearing examiner’s decision insofar as the proposed trail is a site-specific project rather than a comprehensive plan or development regulation.  The Superior Court for Douglas County and the Washington Court of Appeals both affirmed the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board’s decision.  Feil petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review.

Question(s):  Did the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board err in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to review the hearing examiner’s decision to permit the construction of the proposed pedestrial and bicycle trail?

Did the approval of the proposed trail conflict with the Growth Management Act and thereby contravene Article XI §11 of the Washington State Constitution’s prohibition against local regulations that conflict with general laws?

Conclusion:  Justice Alexander’s opinion for a unanimous Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the hearing examiner’s decision to permit the construction of the proposed trail insofar as it was a site-specific land use decision.  The Court also held that approval of the proposed trail was not necessarily inconsistent with the requirements of the Growth Management Act and therefore did not violate Article XI §11.

Docket No. 84369-4 (from Court of Appeals Division III Case No. 28248-1)

Petitioner: Jack Feil

(Counsel: Robert Clayton Rowley and James J. Klauser)

Respondent: Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

(Counsel: Steven Michael Clem, James R. Schwartz, Matthew Kernutt, Marc Worthy, Carol A. Wardell, and Stephen Raymond Klasinski)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, March 8, 2011 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, August 18th, 2011

Prevailing Party: Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (Respondent)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander
(Majority)

Chambers

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Wiggins