Kitsap County, V Kitsap Rifle And Revolver Club
48781-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club has operated a shooting range since 1926; in 1993 the County recognized its use as a lawfully established nonconforming use (rifle/pistol, occasional short-duration firing).
- After 1993 the Club permitted frequent practical-shooting practices/competitions, for-profit firearms training (including for military personnel), use of exploding targets and cannons, increased automatic/rapid‑fire activity, and unpermitted site development (grading, berms, culverts).
- Kitsap County sued (injunction, declaratory relief, nuisance abatement); the trial court found impermissible expansions (commercial/military use, exploding targets/cannons, higher‑caliber/automatic fire, practical shooting) and ordered broad injunctive relief and permitting requirements.
- On appeal this court in Kitsap Rifle (184 Wn. App. 252) affirmed that commercial/military use and dramatically increased noise were unlawful expansions, vacated the complete shutdown remedy, and remanded to fashion a tailored remedy addressing expansions and unpermitted development while allowing lawful range use.
- On remand the trial court denied the Club’s motion to reopen the record and quashed discovery, then entered a supplemental judgment: declaratory findings that certain uses were unlawful expansions and a permanent injunction broadly barring commercial for‑profit uses, military training, explosive devices, weapons > .30 caliber, and practical shooting until conditional use/site permits issued.
- This appeal challenges the remand orders; the Court of Appeals affirms in part, vacates and remands in part to require narrower, clearer remedies consistent with the prior opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Club) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May trial court refuse to reopen record or allow discovery on remand? | No new evidence needed; remand limited to remedy so discovery unnecessary. | Evidence (noise study during stay) is newly available and relevant to remedy; court must reopen record and allow discovery. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: remand confined to fashioning remedy, no need to reopen record or permit discovery. |
| Is injunction enjoining "commercial, for‑profit uses" valid? | Broad prohibition needed to stop commercial firing that changed use. | Overbroad; not all commercial uses were shown to be expansions. | Vacated as overbroad; remand to limit prohibition to for‑profit firearms training (esp. serving military) shown to be impermissible expansion. |
| Is prohibition on "military training uses" valid? | Military training (including by for‑profit entities serving military) was a fundamental change and may be enjoined. | Overbroad/vague. | Affirmed: injunction against military training tailored to prior findings is permissible. |
| Is injunction against "explosive devices (including exploding targets)" valid? | Exploding targets/cannons caused booming noise and were found to expand use. | Term "explosive devices" overbroad (would encompass bullets). | Vacated as overbroad; remand to implement original ban on exploding targets and cannons and clarify specific devices prohibited. |
| Is injunction barring "high caliber weaponry greater than .30 caliber" valid? | Higher‑caliber/rapid fire contributed to noise expansion. | Overbroad; caliber alone not shown to constitute expansion; may sweep in common weapons. | Vacated; remand to identify which weapons (eg. fully/rapid‑fire semiautomatic use) are prohibited because they produced the increased noise. |
| Is injunction against "practical shooting (competitions/practice)" valid? | Regular practical shooting events produced prolonged rapid‑fire noise and were found to expand use. | Phrase is vague and may encompass lawful activities beyond events shown to expand use. | Vacated as vague; remand to clarify whether prohibition covers only practical‑shooting competitions/practices or other conduct and allow tailoring (frequency/duration limits possible). |
| Must court enter declaratory judgment consistent with prior appellate holdings? | Declaratory relief should mirror findings that commercial/military uses and increased noise were expansions. | Trial court’s declarations exceed scope and are inconsistent/vague. | Declaratory judgment reversed in part and remanded for conformity with this court’s instructions and narrowed remedies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kitsap County v. Kitsap Rifle & Revolver Club, 184 Wn. App. 252 (2014) (appellate decision affirming that commercial/military use and increased noise were unlawful expansions and remanding to fashion tailored remedy)
- Keller v. City of Bellingham, 92 Wn.2d 726 (1979) (distinguishing permissible intensification of nonconforming use from impermissible fundamental change)
- King v. Riveland, 125 Wn.2d 500 (1994) (injunction scope must be tailored to remedy specific harms)
- Fortyune v. Am. Multi‑Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (Rule 65(d) requires injunctions be specific so ordinary person can know prohibited conduct)
- T.S. v. Boy Scouts of Am., 157 Wn.2d 416 (2006) (trial court has broad discretion in discovery rulings)