Business Community Environment

Settlement opens door for Rush to pursue smaller development in Purdy

Rush Companies reached a settlement with the city of Gig Harbor and Pierce County that could allow the developer to proceed with a much smaller housing project in Purdy.

The settlement clears a path for Rush to build one housing unit per acre on 18.64 acres just west of Purdy Elementary. Septic would serve the smaller development.

Rush previously proposed 90 units on that property, served by the city’s sewer system. But after Pierce County removed Purdy from Gig Harbor’s urban growth area — a land-use tool that clusters growth in areas that already have urban characteristics — the city declined to provide sewer service. Purdy is outside Gig Harbor city limits.

Rush sued the city over its refusal to provide sewer service. The company dropped the lawsuit after agreeing in early August to the settlement with the city and county.

The settlement does not state that the county will automatically approve Rush’s revised proposal for a smaller development.

Earlier appeal and lawsuit

After Rush appealed, the Growth Management Board ruled in September 2025 that the county made a mistake in removing Purdy from the growth area.

The Growth Management Board stipulated that the county had to either abandon its attempt to reclassify the area as rural, or find some way to justify the removal from the urban growth area.

After the board declined the county’s request for reconsideration, the county appealed the ruling in Pierce County Superior Court in October 2025. Records show that the county also re-analyzed the area, but it is unclear when or why this happened. The new analysis is merely noted in the settlement agreement.

The analysis cleared the way for the county to expand the boundary of what it considers a “rural activity center” in Purdy, which allows “a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per acre.”

Boundary includes area around schools

In May, the Pierce County Council passed an ordinance that expanded the boundary to include “Peninsula High School to the north, existing commercial development to the northeast, existing small lot single-family homes to the northwest, existing commercial development to the west, and Purdy Elementary School to the southeast.”

The ordinance — which the county noted as “in support of” the settlement agreement — took effect in mid-June.

It states that the parties agreed that “the Purdy area qualifies as a Limited Area of More Intensive Rural Development.” The ordinance and settlement “created a maximum residential density of one dwelling unit per acre” in the Purdy rural activity area.

“Rush actually initiated the proposal that the County and City accepted,” Rush attorney Bill Lynn said in an email. “Many factors affect the feasibility of a project, including the costs of utilities and the market for the units, and the agreed project made sense for all concerned.”

County mum on re-analysis

Citing “matters covered by attorney-client privilege or ongoing legal considerations,” Pierce County Planning and Public Works spokesperson Connor Davis said he was “not able” explain how the re-analysis unfolded. 

“What we can say: This area is unique,” Davis wrote. “The settlement benefited both parties and kept the area rural while avoiding prolonged litigation.”

Davis confirmed that neither the board nor any outside Growth Management Act consultant reviewed or commented on the new analysis. He also confirmed that the settlement “sets a precedent in the same way that other similar decisions have.”

Nicole Jones-Vogel, assistant to Councilmember Robyn Denson, told Gig Harbor Now to file a public disclosure request for the analysis.

“I really can’t get into the ‘why,’ the thought processes and the analyses by any party,” Lynn said, when asked how such a shift occurred in Rush’s proposed development. “They are not easily summarized in a few words. All I will say is that we found a solution that worked for all concerned and that was a good outcome.”