Summary
The Washington Supreme Court held that Whatcom County Code 20.80.212 required a fire-protection provider to issue a concurrency letter before certain land use applications could be approved. Because Whatcom County Fire District No. 21 declined to issue the letters, the County clearly erred by independently finding adequate fire-protection capacity and approving the developments.
Holdings
- Whatcom County Code 20.80.212 is a development regulation requiring a letter from the fire-protection provider stating that adequate capacity exists or that arrangements have been made to provide adequate capacity. Because the Fire District did not issue the required letters, the County could not approve the development applications.
- The County's comprehensive plan did not independently establish the availability and adequacy of fire-protection services because it did not provide funding for all necessary fire-protection improvements.
Questions Presented
- Whether Whatcom County could approve the development applications without the fire-protection concurrency letters required by Whatcom County Code 20.80.212.
- Whether the County's comprehensive plan independently established the availability and adequacy of fire-protection services so that the County could approve the developments despite the Fire District's refusal to issue concurrency letters.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (12)
- Griffin v. Thurston County Bd. of Health, 165 Wn.2d 50, 54-55, 196 P.3d 141 (2008)(followed)
- Isla Verde Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wn.2d 740, 751, 49 P.3d 867 (2002)(followed)
- Abbey Rd. Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wn.2d 242, 250, 218 P.3d 180 (2009)(followed)
- Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass’n v. King County Council, 87 Wn.2d 267, 274, 552 P.2d 674 (1976)(followed)
- Ancheta v. Daly, 77 Wn.2d 255, 259-60, 461 P.2d 531 (1969)(followed)
- In re Pers. Restraint of Cruze, 169 Wn.2d 422, 426, 237 P.3d 274 (2010)(followed)
- Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount Vernon, 133 Wn.2d 861, 873, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997)(followed)
- Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843, 849, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980)(followed)
- City of Seattle v. Yes for Seattle, 122 Wn. App. 382, 390-91, 93 P.3d 176 (2004)(followed)
- Woods v. Kittitas County, 162 Wn.2d 597, 613, 174 P.3d 25 (2007)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…