WWGMHB Order On Motion to Dismiss
WWGMHB found the following in Clallam County summary judgment or, in the alternative to dismiss in Case No. 08-2-0033:
Motion to Dismiss Issues 1 and 7 DENIED provided that DCC’s challenge in Issue 1 is limited to County’s treatment of allowed uses.
Issue 2 centered upon “The County’s Use of the Term ‘Prior to or as of July 1, 1990’ instead of July 1, 1990. The WWGMHB dismissed Issue 2 believing that Case No. 07-2-0018c had rendered the County’s “prior to” language clearly non-compliant.
Issue 3 was withdrawn by DCC as it covered LAMIRD’s other than Laird’s East and West.
Issue 4 was dismissed in that the “oversized” area of Laird’s LAMIRD West was found compliant in the previous Case No. 07-2-0018c
Issue 5 request for dismissal was DENIED and centers upon DCC challenge to comprehensive plan and zoning in RLC, RNC and Rural Centers. The County has not demonstrated that this issue has been resolved in Case No. 07-2-0018c.
Issue 6 dismissal is DENIED regarding County language in Comprehensive Plans uses the word “should” rather than “shall”, thereby allowing latitude in assessing a new development being similar to the “use,scale,size or intensity of uses existing as of July 1, 1990. This will be addressed as a new issue in Case No. 08-2-0033.
Issue 7 dismissal is DENIED provided that DCC’s challenge in Issue 1 is limited to the County’s treatment of allowed uses.
Issue 8 dismissal is DENIED because not all of the issues in the appeal warrant dismissal.
This is the Case No. 08-2-0033 Order On Motions to Dismiss,etc YOU HAVE TO READ IT CAREFULLY CtyMotionDenied.pdf
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks •