The Washington Supreme Court held that judicial deference to site-specific rezoning decisions is appropriate, despite the fact that such decisions are now considered “quasi-judicial” decisions under the 1995 Land Use Petition Act.
The City denied of two requests by Phoenix Development, Inc. to rezone certain undeveloped property from R-1 (one dwelling unit per acre) to R-4 (four dwelling units per acre) because: there was no “demonstrated need” for the rezones (as required under City code); the rezones were inappropriate because adequate services could not be provided; and the rezones were inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. The Developers appealed and the lower court reversed the City and held that the City had engaged in an unlawful legislative procedure during a quasi-judicial decision-making process.
The Washington Supreme Court reversed, noting that the law requires substantial deference to local government decisions, especially where those decisions involve considerations under the state Growth Management Act. The Court was not willing to substitute its judgment for that of the local government, noting that rezones involve highly discretionary judgments, and said that here, it deferred to the City’s judgments regarding whether there was a “need” for the rezones and whether the rezones were consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan.
Phoenix Development, Inc. v City of Woodinville, 256 P.3d 1150 (WA 6/16/2011)
For a more detailed review of this case and its context in Washington State Land Use Law, see: http://www.northwestlandmatters.com/development/rezoning-decisions-are-made-by-local-governments-not-the-courts
