Lakeside Industries v. Thurston County
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Whatcom County v. City of BellinghamWashington Supreme Court · 1996
- Hama Hama Co. v. Shorelines Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1975
- Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Citizens for Mount Vernon v. City of Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Citizens for Mount Vernon v. Mount VernonWashington Supreme Court · 1997
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Cingular Wireless, LLC v. Thurston CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006
- Conom v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Conom v. Snohomish CountyWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- Nickum v. City of Bainbridge IslandCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.