▪ Washington (State) Supreme Court Strikes Down Shoreline Development Moratoria

In a case that may hold lessons for Hawaii land use law, the State of Washington Supreme Court recently invalidated under state law a series of moratoria on shoreline development permits because the city had no power under delegated state law to enact a moratorium.  Hat tip to Professor Patty Salkin's Law of the Land blog for pointing out Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 77150-2 (Oct. 11, 2007).  The court summarized its holding as follows:

Today, we review the Bainbridge Island City (City) Council’s adoption of rolling moratoria, which imposed a multi-year freeze on private property development in shoreline areas. The City denied the processing of permit applications for more than three years. There is no state statutory authority for the City’s moratoria or for these multiple extensions. Clearly, this usurpation of state power by the local government disregards article XVII, section 1 of the Washington Constitution, which expressly provides that shorelines are owned by the state, subject only to state regulation. The City is not authorized to adopt moratoria on shoreline development arising out of its police powers under article XI, section 11 of the Washington Constitution, which limits local government to regulation “not in conflict with general laws.” Thus, we affirm both the trial court and the unanimous Court of Appeals decision invalidating the ordinances.

Professor Salkin details the facts of the case here, and the court's opinion can be accessed here.

Hawaii shoreline and zoning laws are also state-centric, and although counties may have latitude in their regulation in these areas, that authority is not plenary and is subject to the scope of the powers delegated from the state.  For example, several state statutes delegate zoning and other regulatory powers to the counties.  See, e.g., the Hawaii State Planning Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 226; the statute governing county zoning, Haw. Rev. Stat. §  46-4, and the Coastal Zone Management Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A.  These statutes require the counties to exercise the delegated authority only within the scope of the power delegated from the state.  See Kaiser Hawaii Kai Dev. Co. v. City & County of Honolulu, 70 Haw. 480, 777 P.2d 244 (1989) (county charter provision was not superior to conflicting state planning and zoning statutes).