Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 i Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />Mobile Homes /Special Use <br />Permit — County Board imposes <br />180 -day limitation -of -stay condition <br />on RV park use <br />RV park owners contend there is no authority <br />for the imposition of such a condition <br />Citation: Schlotfeldt v. Benton County, 292 P.3d 807 (Wash. Ct. App. <br />Div. 3 2013) <br />WASHINGTON (01/22/13) —This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a zoning board had the authority to impose a limitation -of -stay condition <br />on a special use permitted recreational vehicle ( "RV ") park. <br />The Background/Facts: David and Charlotte Schlotfeldt applied for a <br />special use permit to construct and operate a RV park in Benton County, <br />Washington (the "County "). The site of the proposed RV park was zoned <br />light industrial with surrounding properties zoned agriculture. The Benton <br />County Board of Adjustment (the "Board ") conditionally approved their <br />application. One of the conditions of the approval was that RVs could not <br />remain in the RV park for more than 180 days in any calendar year period. <br />The Schlotfeldts appealed. The superior court affirmed the Board's <br />condition on the approval. <br />The Schlotfeldts again appealed. They argued that the Board improperly <br />imposed the limitation -of -stay condition because there was no authority to <br />impose such a limitation and the Board lacked authority to impose such a <br />limitation. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, held that the limitation - <br />of -stay condition was justified and supported by substantial evidence. The <br />court concluded that the Board had inherent authority to impose the <br />condition. <br />In so holding, the court noted that under the state's Land Use Petition <br />Act ( "LUPA "), the Schlotfeldts could obtain relief from the Board's land <br />use decision if they could establish one of six standards, including showing <br />that the imposed condition was: an erroneous interpretation of the law; not <br />supported by evidence; and a clearly erroneous application of the law to the <br />facts. <br />Here the court found the limitation -of -stay condition was justified by the <br />law. The County Code allowed the Board to impose conditions on proposed <br />uses to, among other things, insure the use: was compatible with other uses <br />in the surrounding area; and would not hinder or discourage the develop- <br />ment of peuiiitted uses on neighboring properties in the applicable zoning <br />10 © 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />