Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by Manke Lumber Company, Inc. and Warren Posten, Sr. against the superior court's affirmation of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board's ruling, which validated Kitsap County's 1998 Comprehensive Plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA). This was Kitsap County's third attempt to comply with the GMA after prior plans were invalidated. Manke Lumber, with significant land holdings designated as Interim Rural Forest (IRF), contested the classification of its shoreline properties, arguing it was arbitrary and inconsistent with the GMA. Posten, owning a commercial property, challenged the redesignation of his land to Rural Residential and the removal of Keyport from the Urban Growth Area (UGA) designation. The court applied the Administrative Procedure Act's standard for review, requiring the appellants to prove the County's noncompliance. The court found the County's planning process met GMA goals, as the plan allows for local discretion and was developed with public input. Manke's claims regarding the IRF designation were dismissed, and the presumption of validity of the County's plan was upheld. Posten's due process claim was rejected due to his engagement in the planning process and lack of evidence for a regulatory taking. The court affirmed the Board's decision, maintaining the County's designations and zoning under the 1998 Plan.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitrary and Capricious Standardsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious as it considered relevant factors and public participation.
Reasoning: A Board order is not deemed arbitrary and capricious if it allows for differing opinions, even if a court finds alternative support for a different order.
Due Process in Zoning Changessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Posten's due process claim was dismissed due to his active participation in the hearings and available procedural avenues for property use.
Reasoning: The current zoning did not inhibit his property use, and he had options for expanding his operations through a conditional use permit (CUP).
Error in Procedural Raising of Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: No appellate consideration was given to claims not raised before the Board or in the superior court appeal.
Reasoning: However, Posten did not raise this issue before the Board or in his appeal to the superior court, which precludes consideration on appeal according to RCW 34.05.554(1) and RAP 2.5(a).
Growth Management Act Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the Board's finding that Kitsap County's 1998 Comprehensive Plan complied with the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Reasoning: The superior court affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the appellants' claims of error.
Local Government Discretion in Land Use Planningsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The County exercised appropriate discretion in the 1998 Plan without violating the GMA despite appellants' contentions.
Reasoning: The GMA’s provisions allow for flexibility, indicating that local governments can prioritize different goals as necessary.
Presumption of Validity under GMAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The County's plan is presumed valid unless proven clearly erroneous, and the appellants failed to rebut this presumption.
Reasoning: Despite Manke's claims, they do not successfully rebut the presumption of validity afforded to the County's 1998 Plan, noting that the GMA does not mandate specific methods for developing rural elements of comprehensive plans.