Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington Supreme Court says King County failed to do required environmental review for rural tasting rooms
Summary
In a 5–4 decision the Washington State Supreme Court ruled King County violated the State Environmental Policy Act and the Growth Management Act by allowing tasting rooms and event-style winery uses on agricultural land without a full environmental review; the county later revised its ordinance.
Robert Mack, host of TVW's The Decision, reported that the Washington State Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that King County had not complied with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) when it allowed tasting rooms and similar event uses on land designated agricultural.
Reading the court's majority opinion, Mack quoted Justice Charles Johnson: "the ordinance allows much of the agricultural and rural land in Sammamish Valley and elsewhere in King County to serve as semi retail event space, potentially impacting the environment." The majority said that increased structures, paving, water use and sewage were likely and that the county must complete a full environmental review where significant impacts are likely.
The ruling reversed the Growth Management Hearings Board's contested decision and sent a clear signal that local ordinances permitting these uses cannot sidestep SEPA when likely environmental impacts exist. Mack noted the decision was close: four justices dissented. The dissent, written by Justice Deborah Stevens, argued the hearings board must give deference to county decisions and that environmental review can be deferred to the project stage.
The immediate legal effect was to require King County to re-engage the SEPA process and to rethink land-use permissions for tasting rooms operating on agricultural land. Robert Mack said the case reached the state Supreme Court after the Growth Management Hearings Board invalidated the county ordinance and King County appealed.
The broadcast closed by noting that the legal outcome changed the regulatory baseline but did not instantly close tasting rooms; enforcement and permitting remained active issues for county staff and affected businesses.
