Opinion ID: 2451189
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HCC 21.68.020(b)(3)

Text: Griswold argues that HCC 21.68.020(b)(3)'s requirement that a person have participated in the proceedings before the [Planning] Commission in order to have standing to appeal an action or determination violates due process. The participation requirement, Griswold argues, encourages arbitrary decision-making and cronyism because if no member of the public `actively' participates in a proceeding the Planning Commissioners know there is little likelihood their decisions will be subjected to judicial review. Griswold attended the February 20, 2008 meeting at which the Planning Commission approved Permit 07-14 and spoke in opposition to the Permit. Because he actively participated in the proceedings, it appears Griswold is attempting to assert the due process rights of others who did not participate in the proceedings. Regardless, the participation requirement did not preclude Griswold from having standing; HCC 21.68.020(b)(3)'s requirement that a person also be aggrieved by an action or determination did. Because HCC 21.68.020(b)(3)'s participation requirement did not preclude him from having standing, Griswold is not the proper party to request an adjudication of this issue, [41] and he lacks standing to assert the due process claims. [42]