Kitsap judge rules in favor of Brinnon resort

Posted

Supporters of the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort proposed for Brinnon were handed a legal decision in their favor Aug. 20.

Kitsap County Superior Court Judge Sally Olsen ruled the Brinnon Group's appeals of two ordinances passed by the Jefferson County Commissioners June 4 should be heard separately.

The Brinnon Group, a nonprofit organization opposed to the resort, had filed appeals with both the the Kitsap County Superior Court and the state of Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, but had also moved to have both ordinances reviewed by the Growth Management Hearings Board.

Philip Hunsucker, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney for Jefferson County, explained the first of the two ordinances passed by the Jefferson County Commissioners June 4 approved development regulations that the county contends are appealable only to the Growth Management Hearings Board.

Hunsucker elaborated the second ordinance approved a development agreement between Jefferson County and the developer of the proposed Brinnon resort that the county believes is appealable only to a Superior Court.

“There are two appeals, one to the Kitsap County Superior Court under the Land Use Petition Act, and one to the Growth Management Hearings Board under the Growth Management Act,” Hunsucker said.

The Brinnon Group appealed both ordinances to the Kitsap County Superior Court and the Growth Management Hearings Board, but also filed a motion for a stay of the Kitsap County Superior Court case, in favor of having both ordinances reviewed by the Growth Management Hearings Board.

“Judge Olsen held that proper forum for the development regulations is the Growth Management Hearings Board and the proper forum for the development agreement is Superior Court,” Hunsucker told The Leader Aug. 24. He then repeated his statement to the public Aug. 20: “The Prosecutor's Office is pleased with the decision by Judge Olsen. The decision means that the appeals of each ordinance will be decided where each appeal is supposed to be decided.”

Attorney Rick Aramburu appeared for the Brinnon Group in Olsen's courtroom Aug. 20. 

“It doesn't make sense that two different bodies should render decisions on a single project,” Aramburu said. “It should be one decision, from one hearing body.”

Aramburu asserted the “underlying issues” regarding the Pleasant Harbor Master Planned Resort pertain to transparency and consistency.

“A Master Planned Resort, according to statute, is a planned unit development, so that you know after approval what it will look like, and so that you know any permits issued thereafter will be consistent with whatever master plan has been approved,” Aramburu said. “Not only did Jefferson County approve two master plans that conflict with each other, but neither plan has sufficient detail to understand what would be built. They might as well be lines drawn on the back of a napkin. After more than a decade, the public should have a better idea of what they have planned.”

Hunsucker described Olsen's scheduling of Kitsap County Superior Court dates to follow as “a very fast track.”

The petitioner, in this case the Brinnon Group, is due to submit its opening brief by Nov. 9.

The respondents, in this case Jefferson County and the Pleasant Harbor Marina and Golf Resort LLP, are due to submit their responsive briefs by Nov. 21.

From there, the petitioner is due to submit its reply brief by Dec. 4, and Olsen set a date for a hearing on the merits Dec. 19.

The Growth Management Hearings Board has a similar schedule of dates posted, with Sept. 17 set as the deadline for motions, Sept. 27 as the deadline for responses to those motions, and Oct. 18 as the anticipated date for an order on those motions.

From there, the petitioner, again in this case the Brinnon Group, has a deadline of Nov. 1 for its pre-hearing brief, while the respondent, in this case only Jefferson County, has a deadline of Nov. 26 for its own pre-hearing brief, after which the petitioner has the option of submitting a reply brief by Dec. 6.

The Growth Management Hearings Board's hearing on the merits of the petition is currently scheduled for Dec. 13 at 9 a.m., with a final decision and order due to be handed down Jan. 30.