Res-2017-048 CUP Denial - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CDS and findings and approval documentation outlining the means and filing fee for an appeal were distributed to parties of record and published in the official newspaper of record through a notice of decision as outlined in KCC Chapter 15A.06.0 lOon October 10, 2016; and, WHEREAS, a timely appeal of the conditional use permit decision (CU-16-00001) and appropriate fee was paid to the Board of County Commissioners on October 25, 2016 by Ritch Brownlee; and, WHEREAS, RCW 43.21C.075(3)(d) provides that "procedural determinations made by the responsible official shall be entitled to substantial weight."; and, WHEREAS, A decision to issue an MDNS may be reviewed under the clearly enoneous standard. See Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wash.App. 290,302,936 P.2d 432 (1997); and, WHEREAS, a finding is clearly enoneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. rd. (citing Norway Hill Preservation & Protection Ass'n v. King County Council, 87 Wash.2d 267,274,552 P.2d 674 (1976)).; and, WHEREAS, for the MDNS to survive judicial scrutiny, the record must demonstrate that environmental factors were considered in a manner sufficient to amount to prima facie compliance with the procedural requirements of SEP A and that the decision to issue an MDNS was based on information sufficient to evaluate the proposal's environmental impact. rd. at 302, 936 P.2d 432 (citing Pease Hill Community Group v. County of Spokane, 62 Wash.App. 800, 810,816 P.2d 37 (1991)).; and, WHEREAS, a motion was made by the applicant to dismiss the SEP A Appeal on the grounds that: 1. The appellant failed to demonstrate that his endangered interest fell within the zone of interest protected by SEP A; and, 2. The appellant failed to demonstrate that he has standing; that he must allege a specific and perceptible injury or harm and that they are immediate concrete, and specific; and, WHEREAS, a motion was made by the applicant to dismiss the conditional use permit appeal on the grounds that: 1. The appellant, in filing his appeal, failed to comply with section 15A.07.0 1 0(2) of the Kittitas County Code; and, 2. The appellant failed to demonstrate that he has standing; that he must allege a specific and perceptible injury or hann; ana, WHEREAS, Kittitas County Code 15A.07.01O(2) states: Appeals shall contain a written, concise statement identifying: a. The decision being appealed; b. The name and address of the appellant and his interest(s) in the matter; c. The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be