Petition
to Hearings Board
BEFORE
THE CENTRAL PUGET SOUND
GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS
BOARD
STATE OF WASHINGTON
|
Stephen
Pruitt, Steven Van
Cleve
Petitioners,
v.
THE
TOWN OF Eatonville,
Respondent.
|
CPSGMHB
Case No.
PETITION
FOR REVIEW
|
I.
PETITIONERS
The petitioners are Stephen Pruitt an
Eatonville business man, Eatonville Planning Commission member and
chairman of the Eatonville Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Pruitt’s mailing
address is 41525 Mountain Highway E. Eatonville, WA 98328.
Steven Van Cleve is a lifelong resident of Eatonville, former
chairman of the Eatonville Planning Commission and former town council
member. The mailing address
for Mr. Van Cleve is PO Box 376 Eatonville, WA 98328.
II. ACTIONS FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT
On
February 27, 2006 the Town of Eatonville, at its regular town council
meeting, adopted Ordinance 2006-6, the development regulations for the
Eatonville airport, Swanson Field (2W3).
RCW 36.70A.130 (1) requires that the development regulations to be
consistent with the comprehensive plan. Ordinance 2006-6 is not consistent
with the comprehensive plan. Ordinance 2006-6 also fails to meet the
requirements to discourage incompatible land use adjacent to the
Eatonville airport, Swanson Field as per RCW 36.70A.510 and RCW 36.70.547.
The ordinance fails to discourage incompatible land use, especially in the
areas nearest the runway.
The
north end of Swanson Field is located at the border of the Town of
Eatonville and Pierce County. The
land north of the runway is not within the town limits. The town is not in
compliance with RCW 36.70A.100 because it has failed to coordinate the
adopted development regulations with Pierce County regarding this border
and the related airport lands.
These
development regulations were never transmitted to the state by the Town of
Eatonville and were not subjected to the review by state agencies as
required under RCW 36.70A.106.
III. ISSUES
Do
the adopted regulations fail to comply with the requirements of RCW
36.70A.130 (1) to develop regulations that are consistent with the
comprehensive plan?
Do the adopted development regulations
fail to comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70.547
to discourage the
siting of incompatible land use near general aviation airports?
Did the Town of Eatonville fail to
comply with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.100 to coordinate their
development regulations with Pierce County on this regional issue?
Did the town fail to comply with the
review requirements as defined in RCW 36.70A.106?
Do these failures substantially
interfere with the goals of the GMA warranting a determination of
invalidity under RCW 36.70A.302?
V. GMA STANDING
Mr. Pruitt is a business owner within
the town of Eatonville. He is a current member of the Eatonville Planning
Commission. He is an occasional passenger and does use Swanson Field. Mr.
Pruitt spoke in opposition to the airport development regulations as a
planning commission member and against Ordinance 2006-6 as a private
citizen at the town council meeting.
Mr. Van Cleve is a former Chairman of
the Eatonville Planning Commission. He is a lifelong resident and property
owner within the Town of Eatonville. Mr. Van Cleve participated and spoke
about development regulations at numerous Eatonville Planning Commission
meetings and spoke in opposition to the regulations at the February 27,
2006 Eatonville Town Council meeting. Mr. Van Cleve is an Airline
Transport Pilot, Commercial Pilot, Certified Flight Instructor, aircraft
owner and operates an aircraft at Swanson Field in Eatonville (2W3)
V. ESTIMATED LENGTH OF HEARING
Estimated length of
the hearing is one half day.
VI.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Issue findings and conclusions that the
Town of Eatonville has failed to act in compliance with the Growth
Management Act with regard to the issues raised in this petition, and that
this failure substantially interferes with the goals of the act and remand
Ordinance 2006-6 back to the city for action in compliance with the GMA.
Enter findings of non-compliance.
Enter findings of invalidity.
Recommend the Governor apply appropriate sanctions and/or enter a finding
of non-compliance and/or invalidity with respect to those provisions found
not to comply with the GMA.
Schedule a compliance hearing to determine a compliance date for the Town
of Eatonville
VII. VERIFICATION
The undersigned petitioner states that
I have read this Petition for Review and believe its contents to be true.
Respectfully submitted this 20th
day of March, 2006
DECLARATION
OF SERVICE
I, Steven Van Cleve, declare under penalty of perjury and the laws
of the State of Washington that, on March 20, 2006, I caused the following
documents to be served on the persons listed below in the manner shown:
PETITION
FOR REVIEW
Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Board
900 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2470
Seattle, Washington 98164
Original
+ 4 copies
By prepaid U.S. mail
Town of Eatonville
PO Box 309
Eatonville, WA 98328
By
prepaid U.S. Mail
Steven Van Cleve