Washington Construction Law Blog

Beginning October 15, developers and public agencies with new construction projects in King County will be required to provide an estimate of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the project.  Details with worksheet and SEPA compliance checklist here.

Based on a deed restriction allowing only a "one story" home, the Court of Appeals held that the owner in this case would be required to "abate" -- tear out and modify -- the roof of a home that blocked westerly views from an upland parcel in West Seattle.

Our previous coverage of this case can be viewed here.

Copy of Court of Appeals decision also available here Download file

The ongoing land use battle over cell tower siting rages on, with this round awarded to the opponents of a Cingular tower proposed for construction in a rural area of Thurston County. Division 2 upheld a hearing examiner's permit denial, summarizing a portion of the key evidence as follows:

The testimony of area residents amply demonstrates that the WCF would
adversely impact views of Mt. Rainier and open vistas of rural farmland.
Currently, no other structures pierce the natural skyline in that area,
which remains undeveloped except for residences, some home businesses, and
a handful of non-residential structures, including a fire station, gas
station and church. We hold that the record contains sufficient evidence
of incompatibility with neighborhood character and adverse aesthetic
impacts to support the hearing examiner's decision

This decision today by Oregon's Supreme Court to uphold the validity of property rights Measure 37 will certainly add some fuel to the Farm Bureau's push for a similar initiative in Washington.

The Farm Bureau has officially launched its expected campaign to take a proposed initiative to voters in November 2006 for adoption of a property rights law which -- depending on who you ask --is either similar to or different from Oregon's Measure 37. An Oregon trial court struck down Measure 37 on constitutional grounds and the Oregon Supreme Court heard oral argument on January 10 in the resulting appeal.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court today upheld the validity of Olympia's method of calculating the sum to be paid for traffic impact fees for new developments. In a nutshell, the city has broad authority under the GMA and need not make "individualized assessments" as urged by the developer. The dissent -- Johnson, Sanders and Chambers -- would have required such a showing.