Olympia group will appeal ruling that they have no standing in missing middle housing case
Some Olympia residents have been up in arms with city officials since zoning codes were updated in 2020 to eliminate nearly all single-family zoning within city limits.
Some of these residents have formed Olympians for Smart Development & Livable Neighborhoods, a community group opposed to how the city has handled the fight for more so-called “missing middle” housing. And they’re back in the fight, this time to challenge Superior Court’s decision that the group has no standing in arguing against the ordinance.
The city of Olympia’s zoning code overhaul of 2020 allowed for more missing middle housing, which is housing in between single-family homes and multi-family apartment buildings, such as duplexes.
In 2019 the group filed a petition for the state Growth Management Hearings Board to review the city’s zoning changes and how they could affect the environment down the line. At the time the board sided with the group, saying the city had not thoroughly considered potential environmental impacts of changing zoning laws, which was required under state law.
The board also found that the city failed to comply with the Growth Management Act by not anticipating environmental impacts as well as effects to public facilities and services. It also agreed with the group that the changes failed to implement Olympia’s comprehensive plan, sparking a long debate on the use of the term “neighborhood character.”
In a press release from OSD&LN on June 30, the group said part of the problem was the city was allowing too much density. In previous reporting from The Olympian, the group has argued that the changes would lead to a rapid development of multi-family housing in neighborhoods previously reserved for single-family homes.
The group announced on June 30 it is appealing the missing middle ordinance to the state Court of Appeals after a Superior Court judge told them they didn’t have standing, or the right to bring a case, because they had not shown how the missing middle ordinance would affect them.
The judge also referenced two bills passed by the state legislature that exempt some zoning changes from being appealed under state environmental protection laws, and removed the GMA board’s authority over the case, according to the release.
Group members contend that they’ve established “standing participation” in the conversation, made possible by public comment periods for the zoning proposal. In the release, they said the Growth Management Hearings Board acknowledges this type of standing, and they haven’t found any proof that the state bills relate to their case at all.
Judy Bardin, a member of the group, said in the release she wishes the city would have fixed the issues in the missing middle ordinance in the first place, rather than spend time and money on legal maneuvers to get around the problem.
“How is it that community members like us don’t have the right to challenge bad land use decisions, and that we can be denied standing after winning rulings and paying our way forward with effort and money for so long?” she said. “It just seems wrong.”
.jpg)