## Facts

- Island Sand and Gravel, Inc. bought a 17-acre tract in the Holmes Harbor area of South Whidbey Island in 1966 and relocated its gravel operation there.
- Later in 1966, Island County adopted an interim zoning ordinance classifying the Holmes Harbor area, including the tract, as residential after public hearings.
- Around the time of the residential zoning, Island Sand and Gravel began constructing a cement batching plant on the tract.
- In 1969, the company sought a conditional use permit for the batching plant in the residential zone but withdrew after being advised the permit would not be granted.
- The company applied to rezone the tract from residential to commercial; the Island County Planning Commission denied the request.
- The company appealed to the Island County Board of Commissioners, which held a public hearing and rezoned a portion of the tract to commercial in 1970, leaving a strip as a green belt buffer between the operation and nearby residences.
- Neighboring homeowners sued for judicial review, alleging the rezoning was arbitrary and capricious and constituted unlawful spot zoning.
- The superior court sustained the rezoning based on findings including the tract’s poor suitability for residential development, the local need for the company’s services, local employment benefits, and buffering by the green belt.

## Issues

1. Whether the county commissioners’ partial rezoning from residential to commercial was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the partial rezoning constituted unlawful spot zoning.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the judgment upholding the rezoning.
- The rezoning was treated as a legislative act entitled to a strong presumption of validity.
- The challengers failed to show the action was clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious.
- The court held the rezoning did not constitute unlawful spot zoning because the record supported legitimate public purposes and compatibility with the area.

## Legal Principles

- A local government’s adoption of a rezoning ordinance is a legislative act presumed valid.
- A rezoning decision will be overturned only if it is clearly arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious; where the matter is fairly debatable, courts will not substitute their judgment for the local legislative body’s.
- A rezoning affecting a limited area is not unlawful spot zoning when supported by findings tied to public welfare and the planning scheme, rather than solely private benefit.
- Compatibility factors such as historical mixed use, physical characteristics limiting residential suitability, local public need, employment considerations, and buffering measures may support a conclusion that a targeted rezoning is lawful.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Island County’s partial rezoning of a tract to commercial to accommodate an existing gravel and cement-batching operation, concluding the action was supported by evidence related to public welfare and area character and therefore was neither arbitrary and capricious nor impermissible spot zoning.


Anderson v. Island County, 501 P.2d 594 (Wash. 1972)