| |
Land Use and Real Estate Litigation
In addition to our general Litigation Services practice, many of the
attorneys in Land Use & Real Estate Services use their special expertise
in related litigation matters. Such litigation takes place in all levels
of state and federal courts, and before local hearing examiners and
state administrative bodies such as the Shorelines Hearings Board, Pollution
Control Hearings Board, and Growth Management Hearings Board.
We have earned a reputation for advancing our clients' interests within
the framework of successful, cost-effective, carefully documented real
estate matters. In instances where we become involved after a dispute
has arisen or where litigation cannot be avoided, however, we offer
broad experience in real estate litigation, including condemnation and
takings cases, specific performance and damages actions under purchase
and sale agreements, lease disputes, defending and prosecuting appeals
of permit decisions, and environmental damages and contribution actions.
HCMP has litigated many of the significant Washington court cases
involving the State Environmental Policy Act, the Shoreline Management
Act, vested rights, subdivision regulation, regulatory takings, zoning,
annexation, and standing to sue. Here is a representative sample of
subject areas and cases:
- Comprehensive Planning and GMA. We have extensive
experience in disputes involving comprehensive plans and Growth Management
Act issues. We represented Pierce County, Snohomish County, Clallam
County, and the City of Blaine in appeals of their comprehensive plans
to the Growth Management Hearings Boards and to Superior Court.
- Land Use Petition Act. One of our lawyers served
on the committee that drafted the State's Land Use Petition Act (the
statute that sets the standards for appeals of local permit decisions),
and we have extensive experience litigating land use petitions at
all state court levels.
- SEPA Litigation. We have successfully litigated
a number of the leading cases construing the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA), including Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King County,
111 Wn.2d 742 (1988); Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. Dupont, 103
Wn.2d 720 (1985); Save Our Rural Env't v. Snohomish County,
99 Wn.2d 363 (1983); Barrie v. King County Boundary Review Bd.,
97 Wn.2d 232 (1982); Barrie v. Kitsap County, 93 Wn.2d 843
(1980); and Polygon Corp. v. Seattle, 90 Wn.2d 59 (1978).
- Surface Water Disputes. We have extensive experience
in surface and ground water disputes. We represented the landowner
in Phillips v. King County and Lozier Homes, 136 Wn.2d 936
(1998).
- "Takings" Litigation. This firm represented the
landowner in Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology,
88 Wn.2d 726 (1977), and Orion Corp. v. State, 103 Wn.2d 441
(1985), 109 Wn.2d 621 (1987). As a result of this and other work we
are frequently consulted by other attorneys representing property
owners with potential "takings" claims, and our lawyers are regular
speakers at seminars on this issue.
- Hewlett Packard Co. We obtained and successfully
litigated land use approvals for Hewlett Packard's Snohomish County
manufacturing facility, in an area previously designated low-density
residential. SORE v. Snohomish County, 99 Wn.2d 363 (1983).
- Glacier Northwest (formerly Lone Star Northwest).
We represented Lone Star in a case involving the attempted condemnation
of 230 acres of property on Puget Sound. As a result of our efforts,
the condemnation action was dismissed. Following dismissal of the
lawsuit, we successfully negotiated with Pierce County for the sale
of the entire 600-acre parcel on terms favorable to our client.
- Nextel. We represent Nextel in appeals of the
siting of cell towers, utilizing our experience in proceedings both
before elected officials acting as appellate bodies and before courts
and hearing examiners.
- Quadrant Corporation. We represent Quadrant Corporation
in a variety of matters, including the large planned development called
Redmond Ridge. King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management
Hearings Bd., 90 Wn. App. 1 (1998), reversed in part, 138 Wn.2d
161 (1999).
- Washington State Convention and Trade Center.
We obtained and successfully litigated land use approvals for the
downtown Seattle Convention Center and adjacent properties. Convention
Center Coalition v. Seattle, 107 Wn.2d 370 (1986).
- Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company. We represent
Weyerhaeuser Real Estate Company in connection with land use matters
on the Snoqualmie Ridge development, a planned development on over
2,000 acres. Friends of Snoqualmie Valley v. King County Boundary
Review Bd., 118 Wn.2d 488 (1992).
- Local Government Authority. HCMP attorneys George
Kresovich and Joe Genster,
had a big win in the Washington Supreme Court on January 23, 2003.
The Supreme Court reversed a superior court decision that had gone
against our client, Pierce County.
The case (HJS Development v. Pierce County) involved a developer
who had obtained preliminary plat approval of a subdivision on Fox
Island. The site in question had very steep slopes and was covered
by Oregon White Oak trees which were protected under the County's
critical areas ordinance. The conditions of plat approval established
a no-cut zone to preserve the White Oaks and keep development away
from the steep slopes to prevent erosion and slides. After obtaining
plat approval, the developer cut down over 200 of the protected trees
in the no-cut zone. In response, Pierce County revoked the developer's
preliminary plat approval because of the developer's disregard of
the approval conditions, imposed to protect the environment.
The developer sued and the superior court agreed that County did
not have the authority to revoke the preliminary plat approval. At
that point, HCMP was brought into the case and convinced the Supreme
Court that a local government does indeed have the authority to revoke
a plat approval, even though the platting statute doesn't explicitly
give them that authority. This is a landmark case for local government.
|
|
