Legal Opinion

Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 13, 2004No. 29188-6-IIPublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtArmstrong, J.

Lakeside Industries applied for a special use permit to construct an asphalt manufacturing and *891recycling plant in the Nisqually Valley. Although Thurston County (County) opposed the project, it issued Lakeside a mitigated determination of nonsignificance under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW. Finding that the project met the specific conditions of the county code, a hearing examiner approved the permit. But the county commissioners reversed the decision, concluding that the project was not consistent with the general purposes of the Nisqually Sub-Area Plan, a…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Whatcom County v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  2. Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  3. Conom v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Conom v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Nickum v. City of Bainbridge IslandCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API