ELR Citation: ELR 21010
No(s). 56111-7 (Wash. Mar 15, 1990)

The court holds that the owner of property containing wetlands must exhaust its administrative remedies before bringing an action for an inverse taking of property without just compensation against the county where the property is located. The county enacted an ordinance prohibiting new construction within a buffer zone around wetlands. The court first holds that the landowner must exhaust its administrative remedies because it is challenging the ordinance as applied, not on its face. The record demonstrates that the landowner has not carried the burden of showing that the ordinance denies it all economically viable use of any parcel of regulated property. The court next holds that on the limited record before it, it is impossible to determine whether the ordinance was unduly oppressive to the landowner. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is, therefore, necessary in order for a court to have before it the facts necessary to make such a determination. The court holds that exhaustion of remedies would not be futile in this case, because the ordinance allows development of wetlands if application of the ordinance would deny all reasonable uses of a property. The landowner's financing documents indicate that the property was purchased for the construction of a church, and under the existing regulations, the landowner may be permitted to build a church. There is no way to know what beneficial use may be made of the property without engaging in the application process, nor any way to know what deprivation of beneficial use was proximately caused by the ordinance.

Counsel for Petitioner
John D. Blankinship, Gale D. Barbee
Montgomery, Purdue, Blankinship & Austin
701 Fifth Ave., 58th Fl., Seattle WA 98104
(206) 682-7090

Counsel for Respondent
Norm Maleng, Ann Schindler
King County Prosecutor's Office
516 Third Ave., Rm. W554, Seattle WA 98104
(206) 296-9029