[Previous entry: "More Permits Than Applicants For ADUs"] [Next entry: "MRC Hiring A Coordinator To Monitor Environmental Programs"]

02/23/2010: "Woodmans' Prevail In Court ... Again"

(Woodman beach prior to new protection -file photo of officials inspecting site -See "after" photo below)

San Juan Island residents John and Barbara Woodmans’ battle to stop land erosion and save a large shoreline tree on their property has once again been successful.

The Friends Of The San Juans (Friends) continuing attempt to appeal the case resulted in some strong statements from the Court as it denied their appeal attempts.

The Woodmans’ submitted an application in 2008 to extend an existing bulkhead on their property.

After a public hearing, the permit application was denied by the County. The Woodmans’ believed their application had merit, not the least of which was it would save a shoreline tree that, under normal circumstances, could not otherwise be removed because such trees are considered important in providing shade to habitat waters under it, and are part of what makes the shoreline attractive to the public as it hides shoreline development from public view.



Under current law the Woodmans’ could no longer appeal the denial of their permit locally, but had to make their case in front of the State Shorelines Hearings Board (Board), a group not known for smiling on development near or on the shorelines of the state of Washington, and historically are strong protectors of the functions and values of the natural features of the shoreline.

In 2009 the SHB reviewed the case, took testimony from both sides, including expert witnesses for the Friends, and issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (SHB Case No. 08-032) in favor of the Woodmans.

The Board stated: "The County's denial of the Woodmans' SSDP is reversed, and the Woodmans' application is remanded to San Juan County for issuance of an SSDP consistent with the foregoing ruling of the board, and including the following conditions: ... "

Given the reversal, the SJC Hearing Examiner approved the Woodman application as per the conditions imposed by the SHB.

What happen next was the start of what Superior Court Judge Alan R. Hancock labeled as “an unusual case.”

The Friends appealed the case to Superior Court in a “Petition for Review” of the permit.
Since the permit had already been appealed and supported by the State, and the County had issued a permit, the Woodmans’ were no longer alone in their fight, now they had the San Juan County prosecutor on the same side with Woodmans’ attorney, Stephanie Johnson O'Day.

The Friends lost the battle. That should have been the end of it, unless the Friends decided to climb the legal ladder and take the matter to the Court of Appeals, but to do so is expensive, and in any case the Court could refuse to review the case, since it had already been settled by the State against the Friends in their first appeal.

But what the Friends did do, appealed to Superior Court, arguing the Shoreline Hearings Board did not have “jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a shoreline permit.”

Superior Court Judge Hancock heard the case, and in his decision against the Friends summed up the case, stating “A petition for review of a decision of the SHB that essentially presents the identical issues previously litigated in the SHB is unprecedented in this court's experience… there is a basic unfairness in the concept that even though a case or an issue has previously been decided, it should be decided again because someone is unhappy with the previous result.”

Judge Hancock then went on to say “Nevertheless, this is a court of law, and the court must apply the law in an objective manner regardless of whether the result might seem unfair in a general sense. “

The rest of the decision is no less direct in it’s statements that the Friends appeal was without legal merit, and in a long final summation leading to the denial of the Friends motions, one can perhaps sense that one of the most respected Superior Court judges in the state was perhaps somewhat offended by the Friends legal arguments when he wrote the following:

“It would be singularly incongruous to allow the Friends to have another review of the Merits of the permit issuance when the issues in that regard have been fully litigated. To sanction that would be to allow the Friends to effectively sit back, decline to intervene in the case before the SHB, allow for the SHB to review the proposal on the merits and enter a final decision, and then if the Friends did not like the result, to appeal again, forcing the Woodmans to go through the whole process all over again. This is contrary to law and cannot be countenanced. It would, in effect, set up the possibility of a seemingly endless series of appeals in shoreline permit matters.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the Friends were permitted to pursue their appeal in this case. Let's further assume that they prevailed on their appeal and the SHB ordered the denial of the permit. The Woodmans would no doubt appeal from that decision to superior court. Let's assume the superior court upheld their appeal, and directed the issuance of the permit. In that situation, what would prevent some other person or group from appealing the issuance of the permit to the SHB? Though, in oral argument the Friends's attorney attempted to distinguish this situation, the answer would appear to be none, under the Friends's reasoning in the present case. Theoretically, this process could go on forever, yet that would obviously be absurd. Statutes and regulations should be construed in such a manner as to avoid absurd results, and this lends further support to the position of the Woodmans and the county. )

One thing the Woodmans did not get, were their attorney fees. So even though the appeal would seem to have never had a chance, the Woodmans still were forced to defend their approved permit, and hire an attorney.