Court Overturns Kitsap's Shoreline Buffers

By Christopher Dunagan, Kitsap Sun
September 9, 2009

Shoreline buffers spelled out in a 2005 update to Kitsap County’s Critical Areas Ordinance have been overturned by the Washington State Court of Appeals.

The lawsuit was brought against Kitsap County by the Kitsap Alliance of Property Owners along with two Kitsap residents, William Palmer and Ron Ross.

In its ruling, handed down today, the court acknowledged the tortured interplay between the Growth Management Act and the Shorelines Management Act. Even the state Supreme Court has failed to determine with a clear majority which law prevails when it comes to shoreline properties, the court noted. Still, the high court ruled in a conflicted decision last year that shorelines plans — not comprehensive plans — take jurisdiction in shoreline areas.

The Supreme Court case was called Futurewise v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The appeals court said the ruling has put cities and counties in the “difficult position” of trying to comply with two laws at the same time. Nevertheless, the decision requires local governments to address shorelines only through shorelines plans until the Legislature clears up the confusion.

“The problem may be alleviated somewhat if our Supreme Court can muster a clear majority on the topic,” the appeals court said. “Ultimately, however, the Legislature must clarify how, if at all, the GMA (Growth Management Act) provisions ... apply to critical areas that also happen to fall within SMA (shorelines management act) shoreland jurisdiction.”

Shorelands, which are governed by the Shoreline Management Act, are areas within 200 feet of the high tide line when it comes to marine waters. The Growth Management Act also governs shorelines as “critical areas,” which must be protected by taking into account “best available science.”

The Kitsap case was returned to the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which had ruled in favor of the county’s shoreline buffers. Approved buffers are 50 feet in urban areas and 100 feet in rural areas. The previous buffers were 35 feet for most areas.

Kitsap County officials are reviewing the court’s ruling to determine its immediate effects.

Shoreline buffers are being reviewed during an update of the county’s Shoreline Management Master Program. The three-year planning effort is just getting under way.

COMMENTS

Posted by jlharless on September 9, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course if the Legislature clarified the overlap between the GMA and SMA, the courts would not be in this position and the cities, counties, hearings boards and landowners would not have to guess.

Posted by rgdimages on September 9, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is a problem that needs solved THIS legislative session.
These lawsuit are costing taxpayers large sums of money ... and governments literally don't know what to do ... they get taken to court with whatever decision is made.
This is eventually going to result in a legislative action that isn't going to please everyone. That happens from time to time.
GET IT RESOLVED AND LIVE WITH THE DECISION!!!

Posted by cmutchler on September 9, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So Tom, what does this mean? Can I build my boat house, or what?

Posted by nothotair on September 9, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks KAPO, for protecting my property rights. The State Shorelines Management act does a fine job of protecting the environment.

http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2009/sep/09/court-overturns-kitsaps-shoreline-buffers/

FAIR USE NOTICE
Information provided here contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such information/material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.