Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland
| Decision Date | 27 February 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 29806–0–III.,29806–0–III. |
| Citation | 166 Wash.App. 161,269 P.3d 388 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | APPLEWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, a Nonprofit Corporation, Brantingham Greens Homeowners Association, a Washington Nonprofit Corporation; Ross Neely and Mary Joanne Neely, husband and wife; and Michael Laudisio and, Sheila Laudisio, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. CITY OF RICHLAND, a political subdivision of the State of Washington; Wolff Enterprises II, LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company, dba The Wolff Company, Badger Mountain Apartments I, LLC; Badger Mountain Apartments II, LLC; a Washington Limited Liability Company, and Badger Mountain Apartment III, LLC; a Washington Limited Liability Company, Respondents. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bryce James Wilcox, Attorney at Law, Spokane, WA, for Petitioners.
Joel R. Comfort, Miller Mertens Comfort Wagar & Kreutz PL, Kennewick, WA, for Respondents.
Kristopher Ian Tefft, Association of Washington Business, Olympia, WA, amicus counsel for Association of Washington Business.BROWN, J.
[166 Wash.App. 163] ¶ 1 Today, we review a land use dispute. A court has jurisdiction under Washington's Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, to review land use decisions if review is requested within 21 days of the decision. RCW 36.70C.040(3). Applewood Estates Homeowners Association, Brantingham Greens Homeowners Association, Ross Neely, Mary Joanne Neely, Michael Laudisio, and Sheila Laudisio (collectively the Neighbors) challenge the city of Richland's (City) June 16, 2010 administrative decision entered on the public record to approve an amendment to the Badger Mountain Planned Unit Development (PUD). Under the Richland Municipal Code (RMC), the City's administrative decision was subject to review by the Board of Adjustment, a five-member board appointed by the Richland City Council. RMC 23.70.040. The Neighbors failed to appeal to the Board of Adjustment, instead suing in the superior court almost 4 months later. The court found the amendment was a major amendment violating LUPA. On appeal, Badger Mountain Apartments I, LLC; Badger Mountain Apartments II, LLC; Badger Mountain Apartments III, LLC; and Wolff Enterprises II, LLC 1 (collectively the Developer) (and amicus curiae Association of Washington Business) partly contend the trial court lacked jurisdiction for the Neighbors' failure to initiate review within 21 days under RCW 36.70C.040(3). We agree, and reverse.
FACTS
¶ 2 This LUPA action concerns the Badger Mountain PUD, located in Richland. In June 2005, the City was presented with a proposal to create the PUD. The PUD proposal included a request for the phased construction of 365 housing units for those who were 55 and older, including for-sale single family residences, rental duplexes, attached town homes, apartments and an assisted living care facility. Access to the PUD was planned from both Gala Way and Westcliffe Boulevard. The PUD plan contemplated construction in 6 phases: 120 single family residences would be completed in Phases 1 and 2 on roughly one-half of the 60 acres. Phases 3–6 were to be constructed on the remaining one-half. Phase 3 was to be a “multi-family type apartment building of 90 independent living and 45 Assisted living units.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 303–04. Phases 4 and 5 were to include for-rent duplexes, and Phase 6 was to be for-sale attached row house type zero-lot line structures.
[166 Wash.App. 165] ¶ 3 Under the PUD plan, Phase 3 was to be constructed on 11 acres on Parcels 2C and 2E, with the apartment complex to be located in the center of the site and buffered by open areas landscaped by trees and berms. The main lodge consisted of two distinct buildings with a central 2–story main entry connector. The plan contemplated a 3–story independent living wing with 90 apartments, while the 45 assisted living units were going to be in a 2–story structure. The applicant described use of this property as, “[s]imilar in use to a R3 zone.” CP at 335. R3 zoning is for multiple-family residential. RMC 23.08.010.
¶ 4 Phases 4–6 were to be constructed on Parcels 2D, 2E, and 2F on a total of 22 acres. Eighty-two duplexes and 34 townhomes were planned in these phases. Accordingly, for the 30 plus acres of land on which Phases 3–6 were to be constructed under the original PUD, 251 living units were permitted, including the 45–unit assisted living center. On or about October 4, 2005, the City approved the Badger Mountain PUD through Ordinance No. 32–05.
¶ 5 In May 2007, the city staff recommended to the city council that it approve the first phase of the Badger Mountain PUD development, Phase 2A. Although the original Badger Mountain PUD contemplated 60 acres of senior residences, the May 2007 subdivision plat did not mention an age restriction. The Badger Mountain Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC & Rs) impose age restrictions.
¶ 6 In 2007, the prior property owner petitioned the City for a PUD amendment that reconfigured the housing units in Phases 3–6. Considering the factors set forth in RMC 23.50.070, Rick Simon, the City's Development Services Manager, approved the amendment; no appeal followed. In 2008, the prior property owner successfully asked the City to amend PUD Phases 3–6, proposing an assisted living care facility. In March 2010, the prior property owner again requested to modify Phases 3–6 of the PUD to allow 180 apartments and 72 lots in exchange for donating park land to the City.
[166 Wash.App. 166] ¶ 7 After analyzing the issues, Mr. Simon rejected the proposed amendment, concluding that it increased the density of the PUD and was therefore a “major change” under RMC 23.50.070 that required a new application for preliminary PUD approval. CP at 572. In June 2010, the Developer applied for a modification to the PUD to allow for a 166 unit, non-age restricted, apartment complex on 15 acres of Parcel 2C. Under the proposal, the remaining 15 acres were going to remain vacant. The proposed location of the complex was approximately the same as that contemplated under the original PUD. On June 4, 2010, Mr. Simon forwarded the proposal to members of several city departments for comment and evaluation. Mr. Simon explained to the Developer how many apartments could be constructed under a minor amendment in a letter dated June 9. Mr. Simon reminded the Developer that density to the PUD could not be increased without obtaining approval through a major amendment, which would involve the submittal of a new application. The Developer then submitted plans for a 176–unit apartment complex on the 15 acres.
¶ 8 Critical here, on June 16, Mr. Simon provided a written decision, a public record, administratively approving the minor amendment requested by the Developer under RMC 23.50.070, allowing 177 non-age restricted apartment units. Apparently, the City did not approach the change as material to density. On August 4, the City confirmed that the Developer's application constituted a “minor amendment ... and is hereby approved as, a revised final PUD plan as provided under RMC Sections 23.50.050 and 23.50.040(D).” CP at 579. On September 20, the City issued building permits to the Developer to construct the apartment buildings. Not until October 4 did the Neighbors file a LUPA petition, challenging the City's June 16 decision that the modifications to the PUD were minor.
¶ 9 The Neighbors alleged they learned of the June 16 decision on or about September 17. They contended the City erroneously determined that the PUD changes were minor; arguing instead they were major changes requiring public notice, and asked the court to set aside the June 16 decision. The Neighbors asserted the building permits issued by the City on September 20 were invalid because the final PUD plans for the property were not approved by the city council. On December 10 the court considered the Developer and the City's motions to dismiss. Among other things, the Developer and the City partly, and unsuccessfully, argued the Neighbors failed to file their LUPA Petition within 21 days of the City's June 16 decision. The Neighbors prevailed at trial on various grounds not relevant to the outcome of this appeal. The Developer appealed.
ANALYSIS
¶ 10 The dispositive issue is whether the Neighbors' LUPA petition was timely under RCW 36.70C.040(3). Because we agree with both the Developer and amicus curiae that the petition was filed long after the 21–day period had expired, we do not address the Developer's contentions related to exhaustion of administrative remedies, standing, and lack of substantial evidence to support a major PUD amendment finding.
¶ 11 LUPA requires a party to petition for review with the superior court within 21 days of the date a land use decision is issued. RCW 36.70C.040(3). This 21–day statute of limitations is strict; the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply. RCW 36.70C.040(2); Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784, 795–96, 133 P.3d 475 (2006).
¶ 12 We sit in the same position as the superior court when conducting judicial review under LUPA and give no deference to its findings. Griffin v. Thurston County Bd. of Health, 165 Wash.2d 50, 54–55, 196 P.3d 141 (2008). We review the action based upon the administrative record before the court. Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 146 Wash.2d 740, 751, 49 P.3d 867 (2002). Whether the Neighbors' petition was timely turns on our decision of when, under the case facts, the land use decision was issued, “Statutory construction is a question of law reviewed de novo under the error of law standard.” Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 175, 4 P.3d 123 (2000).
¶ 13 Our legislature has stated that the purpose of LUPA is “ ‘timely judicial review.’ ” Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397, 406, 120 P.3d 56 (2005) (quoting RCW 36.70C.010). Our Supreme Court, “strongly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston Cnty.
...169,172-73, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) (dismissing a challenge to invalidate a rezone decision); Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wash. App. 161, 170-71, 269 P.3d 388 (2012) (dismissing a challenge to invalidate a land use permit amendment).8 Maytown speculates that the le......
-
Berschauer v. State
...A plaintiff need not be aware of a land use decision for the 21-day period to run. Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wn. App. 161, 168-69, 269 P.3d 388 (2012) (citing Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wn.2d at 462). The trial court properly dismissed Mr. Berschauer's claim f......
-
Berschauer v. State, Department of Enterprise Services
... ... of Trust Dated As Of August 1, 2009 and THE CITY OF OLYMPIA, Respondents. No. 34970-5-IIICourt of ... Applewood ... Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of ... ...
-
§ 21.5 Filing and Service Requirements for Initiating Judicial Review Proceedings and Cross Appeals
...the land use petition was timely filed. As observed in Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wn. App. 161, 167-70, 269 P.3d 388 (2012), the legislature has amended LUPA since Samuel's Furniture and Habitat Watch but has not changed any provision relating to actual noti......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Section 11, Inc., 28 Wn. App. 814, 626 P.2d 1027 (1981): 6.8 Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wn. App. 161, 269 P.3d 388 (2012): 4.3(3), 16.3(1) Asarco Inc. v. Air Qual. Coal., 92 Wn.2d 685, 601 P.2d 501 (1979): 1.4(1) Asarco Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 145 Wn.2d......
-
Table of Cases
...Against, 149 Wn.2d 484, 69 P.3d 844 (2003): 25.5(3)(b) Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wn. App. 161, 269 P.3d 388 (2012): 21.5(2)(c) Arborwood Idaho, L.L.C. v. City of Kennewick, 151 Wn.2d 359, 89 P.3d 217 (2004): 18.5 Aripa v. Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 91......
-
§ 16.3 - Litigation Under the Land Use Petition Act
...period for lack of notice of the permit decision); Applewood Estates Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Richland, 166 Wn. App. 161, 168, 269 P.3d 388 (2012) (approval of an administrative permit, rendered without public notice, was "issued" for purposes of LUPA when a written memorialization was e......