The legal gymnastics surrounding the appeals of the YarrowBay master planned developments in Black Diamond took another turn March 4.
A hearing was scheduled before Superior Court Judge Cheryl Carey March 4, but the proceedings were put on hold once the parties reached an agreement calling for a direct review by the court of appeals concerning a ruling from the Growth Management Hearings Board.
The growth board sent the ordinances approving the developments, The Villages and Lawson Hills, back to the city in a Feb. 15 ruling for compliance with the Growth Management Act.
The two developments proposed by YarrowBay, a Kirkland-based development company, could bring 6,050 residential dwellings with retail, office and light industrial.
YarrowBay filed an appeal of the growth board ruling asking the superior court to “set aside the Board’s decision.”
Before the YarrowBay appeal could move up the chain in superior court an agreement was reached for a direct review of the board ruling by the state court of appeals.
The agreement or stipulation was signed by the Black Diamond group Toward Responsible Development, YarrowBay, the city of Black Diamond and the city of Maple Valley.
Toward Responsible Development filed a Land Use Petition Act, or LUPA, appeal in superior court and had filed a petition for review of the developments with the Growth Management Board that resulted in the Feb. 15 ruling sending the ordinances back to the city.
Maple Valley was named a party to the LUPA appeal by Toward Responsible Development, which is why the city was part of the stipulation agreement.
The March 4 stipulation document stated Toward Responsible Development “will seek direct review on or before March 17, 2011.”
The Ruling
The Feb. 15 growth board ruling stated the city did not comply with public participation procedures when considering the ordinances. The board stated in the ruling document the city should have used a legislative process rather than quasi-judicial, to allow more interaction between the City Council and the public.
The growth board decided not to invalidate the ordinances, which prompted Toward Responsible Development to request the board reconsider the validity decision. David Bricklin, the attorney representing Toward Responsible Development filed the motion for reconsideration Feb. 25.
The March 4 stipulation agreement stated if the “motion for reconsideration pending before the GMHB (Growth Management Hearings Board) results in a decision that any party wishes to appeal, that party agrees to seek direct review of that issue, consolidated with the request for review….”
Direct Review
Bricklin noted a direct review means the decision from the appeals court could take longer, because a decision at the superior court may come more quickly, but it speeds up the process overall because the parties jump over the superior court.
If the decision from the appeals court is challenged by any of the parties, it would go directly to the state Supreme Court.
“We are glad to be able to work with the city to put this together,” Bricklin said. “We’ve been battling with the city and its good to come to an agreement.”
Bricklin described the decision as “everyone taking a deep breath rather than trying to jam everything through in six months.”
If the court of appeals grants a review or declines to review the ruling, the stipulation document stated the LUPA appeal, if still pending, will come before the superior court “the third Friday after the decision of the Court of Appeals.”
Council Meeting
At the March 3 City Council meeting, Val Brazier and Polly Rohrbach presented a petition asking the council to repeal the ordinances and the petition requested the city “put an end to needless litigation, and re-engage with us in a legal process.”
According to Bob Edelman, a member of Toward Responsible Development, Brazier and Rohrbach collected more than 150 signatures and a total of 664 signed the petition.
The March 3 council meeting drew a packed house with many residents asking the city to begin the legislative process ordered by the growth board.
The City Council approved a resolution Feb. 17 stating the city would not appeal the growth board decision because YarrowBay was filing an appeal.
The resolution also directed the city attorney to request an extension from the growth board for compliance. A motion asking for an extension was filed March 3.
