The developer of the proposed mixed-use community at Point Wells will immediately appeal today's ruling by King County Superior Court halting further processing of its redevelopment application as an urban center.
"We will immediately appeal this decision. Our appellate courts have already addressed these issues and we are confident that the Court of Appeals will follow its prior rulings," said Gary Huff, an attorney representing developer BSRE Point Wells, LP. "We believe this decision is inconsistent with very clear anguage in our Growth Management Act and Washington's longstanding vesting rules."
The ruling by Judge Dean Lum suspends processing of the developer's application as an urban center until Snohomish County's comprehensive plan amendments and development regulations comply with the State Environmental Policy Act as directed by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.
Judge Lum heard arguments by the Town of Woodway and neighborhood group Save Richmond Beach. The two parties have opposed the proposed transformation of the 61-acre site into a master-planned community based on concerns that traffic from the massive site would destroy adjoining Richmond Beach and place an unfair economic burden on surrounding cities.
The developer points out that the project would be "developed in phases over 20 years. Following clean-up, Point Wells would provide new public access opportunities to 2/3 mile of sandy beach, parks, a public pier, restored and enhanced habitat and other amenities."
"We anticipate previous concerns raised by the Growth Management Hearings Board will be addressed in the near future. Meanwhile, we will continue to work with Snohomish County on that effort during the pendency of this appeal," said Huff. "Compliance measures may be in place before a ruling from the Court of Appeals is received."
The Urban Center application was submitted by BSRE Point Wells in March 2011 and was accepted by Snohomish County. The developer and Snohomish County were named respondents in the complaint for declaratory judgment filed September 12.
If the developer is so dead set on building his urban center, why doesn't he build a bridge from the dog park to his sight and forego all these attorney bills? Probably work out to be the same amount of money in the end.
ReplyDeleteI think that the anonymous commenter means building a bridge to the site, not the sight.
ReplyDelete