Property owners win court battle over land-clearing law

Rural property owners fighting a King County law that forbids them from clearing or grading large parts of their land won a big victory in the state Court of Appeals on Monday.

A three-judge panel ruled that the ordinance — part of a package of laws aimed at protecting streams and other "critical areas" — is an indirect but illegal "tax, fee, or charge" on development. The Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights and five landowners sued to overturn the law.

The law, passed in 2004 by the Metropolitan King County Council, prohibits landowners from removing vegetation from more than half of a property larger than 1-¼ acres or more than 35 percent of a property of five acres or more.

Staffers for County Executive Ron Sims, who proposed the rural restriction, said at the time it was needed to protect streams and threatened chinook salmon from excessive clearing of forests in the county's rural areas.

But the Appeals Court ruling written by Judge Ronald Cox said the state Supreme Court held in a previous case that restrictions like those in the King County clearing ordinance must be tied to the impact of a specific, proposed development. "The plain language of the statute does not permit conditions that are reasonably necessary for all development, or any potential development," Cox wrote.

Judges Susan Agid and Anne Ellington concurred with the opinion.

In a statement, Sims expressed disappointment at the ruling.

"We are still researching what today's decision means for King County residents and government," Sims said in the statement. "We will work with our attorneys to carefully review the decision and determine our next steps. One possible unintended consequence to this decision is that some property owners may face higher restrictions than those currently in place."

Keith Ervin: 206-464-2105 or kervin@seattletimes.com