Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom County
| Decision Date | 23 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 27669-7-I,27669-7-I |
| Citation | 829 P.2d 1109,65 Wn.App. 739 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BIRCH BAY TRAILER SALES, INC., a Washington corporation, and Birch Bay Trailer Park, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellants, v. WHATCOM COUNTY, a municipal corporation, and Osberg Construction Company, a Washington corporation, Respondents. |
Peter J. Eglick, Seattle, for appellants.
David S. McEachran, Pros. Atty., and Randall J. Watts, Deputy Pros. Atty., Bellingham; Amy L. Kosterlitz, Keith E. Moxon, Madeleine Brenner, Buck & Gordon, Seattle, for respondents.
Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc., and Birch Bay Trailer Park, Inc., appeal the superior court's dismissal of its appeal of a land use decision of the Whatcom County Council. We affirm.
Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc., and Birch Bay Trailer Park, Inc. (collectively "Birch Bay") own two pieces of property in Whatcom County, one to the east, the other to the west of respondent Osberg Construction Company's property. Osberg applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) and zoning variance from Whatcom County to site a recreational vehicle and mobile park resort community on its parcel. Birch Bay unsuccessfully opposed the CUP and variance before the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner. The hearing examiner, in a written decision, granted Osberg's CUP and variance permits. Birch Bay then appealed the hearing examiner's decision to the Whatcom County Council.
The Whatcom County Council affirmed the hearing examiner's decision approving the CUP and variances. On August 20, 1990, the chair of the Whatcom County Council submitted written findings of fact and conclusions of law to the county clerk, stating the decision was affirmed. On the same day, the chair also submitted a written decision to the county clerk explaining the reasoning for the decision. On August 20, 1990, the county clerk placed both documents in the files and made copies of both documents available for public inspection.
Although both documents are dated August 20, 1990, the Whatcom County Clerk stated in a sworn declaration that the written decision was not actually signed until August 24 or 27, 1990 and was then backdated August 20, 1990. The parties do not dispute that the decision was antedated.
On August 31, 1990, counsel for Birch Bay filed an application for a writ of review and declaratory relief in Whatcom County Superior Court requesting review of the council's findings and decision. 1 Counsel believed the decision was not appealable until dated. 2 Birch Bay's writ application was neither verified nor supported by an affidavit from Birch Bay or its attorney, as prescribed by the applicable statute, RCW 7.16.050. After service of the writ application, Osberg moved to dismiss the writ action on four grounds, only two of which are relevant here: the writ application was (1) untimely, and (2) not supported by an affidavit as required by RCW 7.16.050.
The trial court granted Osberg's motion to dismiss on these grounds and denied Birch Bay's request for a constitutional writ of review, stating that the matter at issue concerned no more than a typical dispute between landowners, and that an alternative remedy, the statutory writ under RCW Ch. 7.16, was available. We agree.
The Whatcom County Code (WCC), governing appeals in this case, establishes a 10-day appeal period to appeal the county council's action. WCC 20.92.820 incorporates by reference the appeal provisions of RCW 36.70.890 which provides:
The action by the board of adjustment on an application for a conditional use permit or a variance, or on an appeal from the decision of the zoning adjustor or an administrative officer shall be final and conclusive unless within ten days from the date of said action the original applicant or an adverse party makes application to a court of competent jurisdiction for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition or a writ of mandamus.
(Emphasis added.)
Because the statute is not on its face ambiguous, its plain meaning controls. DiGiovanni v. Tukwila, 54 Wash.App. 627, 774 P.2d 1244 (1989), review denied, 114 Wash.2d 1001, 788 P.2d 1077 (1990). DiGiovanni involved a statute whose language is almost identical to the one at issue here. In DiGiovanni, a property owner sought judicial review of the zoning of his property by the city which had recently annexed the property. The statute governing appeals from such actions reads:
The action of the City Council on all matters shall be final and conclusive unless, within ten days from the date of the council's action, an applicant or an aggrieved party makes an application to the Superior Court of King County for a writ of certiorari, a writ of prohibition, or a writ of mandamus.
(Emphasis added.) DiGiovanni, 54 Wash.App. at 629, 774 P.2d 1244 (quoting Tukwila Municipal Code 18.90.040).
The methodology employed by this court in deciding DiGiovanni controls. DiGiovanni argued that "action" should be interpreted to mean the date the ordinance took effect not the date it was passed by the city council. In rejecting his argument the court noted that the statute's language was plain, and that in construing the statute the court should respect legislative intent, to be ascertained from the language of the statute itself. 3 DiGiovanni, 54 Wash.App. at 630, 774 P.2d 1244, citing State v. Neslund, 103 Wash.2d 79, 82, 690 P.2d 1153 (1984). The court therefore looked to the ordinary meaning of "action" as defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary 21 (1981):
"the process of doing: exertion of energy: PERFORMANCE: manner of doing" or "a voluntary act of will that manifests itself externally ... a thing done: DEED".
DiGiovanni, 54 Wash.App. at 630, 744 P.2d 1244. 4
Birch Bay argues that WCC 20.92.650 should inform the court's interpretation of "action" under RCW 36.70.890. WCC 20.92.650 provides that "[w]ithin thirty-five (35) days after the filing of the respondent's written argument, the County Council shall issue a written decision together with findings of fact and conclusions of law." Even this reading, however, renders Birch Bay's writ untimely; the written (signed) findings and conclusions and the written (unsigned) decision were in possession of the county clerk on August 20, 1990. Using this date, the appeal period expired on August 30, 1 day before Birch Bay's appeal was filed on August 31.
Birch Bay analogizes to judicial proceedings to contend that the period for appeal does not begin to run until the decision is signed. For example, CR 58 states that all judgments shall be entered after they are signed by the judge, and shall be deemed entered for all procedural purposes from the time of delivery to the clerk for filing. Birch Bay also urges the court to read "action" under RCW 36.70.890 to mean "final action" as defined in CR 54(a). CR 54(a) provides in pertinent part: "A judgment shall be in writing and signed by the judge and filed forthwith ..."
These considerations cannot modify the operation of a statute whose language is clear and unambiguous. See DiGiovanni. The 10-day statute of limitation was tolled on the date the board "acted", i.e., on August 20, 1990, when it submitted findings and conclusions, along with an (unsigned) decision, to the Whatcom County Clerk. Birch Bay's appeal, filed on August 31, 1990, was therefore untimely, thus depriving the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the case.
Birch Bay maintains that the trial court should have granted the writ application under RCW 7.16.050, although it was neither verified nor accompanied by an affidavit as that statute requires, because the signature of its attorney is sufficient to meet the affidavit requirement. RCW 7.16.050 sets forth the requirements for writs:
The application must be made on affidavit by the party beneficially interested, and the court may require a notice of the application to be given to the adverse party, or may grant an order to show cause why it should not be allowed, or may grant the writ without notice.
While Washington courts have been willing to interpret this language flexibly with respect to the affidavit requirement, 5 no case supports as broad a reading as Birch Bay urges upon this court. Birch Bay argues that an unsworn statement is sufficient to satisfy the affidavit requirement if RCW 7.16.050 is read in conjunction with GR 13, which permits execution of affidavits in accordance with RCW 9A.72.085. The argument is without merit. RCW 9A.72.085 only permits the substitution of an unsworn written statement for an affidavit if, among other requirements, that statement "[r]ecites that it is certified or declared by the person to be true under penalty of perjury ". (Emphasis added.) Because the attorney's signature pursuant to CR 11 is not made under penalty of perjury, RCW 9A.72.085 does not salvage the writ.
Birch Bay further asserts that any infirmity under the statute was cured by the submission of an affidavit filed on December 21, 1990. While Birch Bay indeed could have cured, the affidavit should have been filed within 90 days from the filing of the writ application. Sterling v. Spokane Cy., 31 Wash.App. 467, 472-73, 642 P.2d 1255, review denied, 31 Wash.2d 1041 (1982) (). The affidavit (filed December 21, 1990) was untimely because it was filed more than 90 days after the writ of application (filed August 31, 1990).
For the foregoing reasons, Birch Bay's writ is inadequate and the superior court did not err in refusing to entertain the appeal.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saldin Securities, Inc. v. Snohomish County, 63940-0
... ... Bridle Trails, 45 Wash.App. at 253, 724 P.2d 1110; Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom County, 65 Wash.App. 739, 746, 829 P.2d ... ...
-
Washington Public Employees Ass'n v. Washington Personnel Resources Bd.
... ... The WPEA then petitioned the Thurston County Superior Court for statutory or constitutional ... 2d 29 (1995); Castle Homes and Development, Inc. v. City of Brier, 76 Wash.App. 95, 103, 882 P.2d ... 222, 230, 928 P.2d 1111 (1996); Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc., v. Whatcom County, 65 ... ...
-
Crosby v. County of Spokane
... ... 971 P.2d 32 ... Wes CROSBY and C.H.D., Inc., a Washington corporation, Petitioner, ... COUNTY OF ... 'l Bank, 49 Wash.2d 728, 731, 306 P.2d 739 (1957); Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom County, 65 Wash.App ... ...
-
Eugster v. City of Spokane, 21853-8-III.
... ... Income Mun. Fund, Inc, et al. v. Prudential Securities Inc., et al., ... 2d at 407, 879 P.2d 920 (citing Clark County Sheriff v. Dep't of Social & Health Servs., 95 ... Wash.2d 296, 301-02, 971 P.2d 32 (1999) ; Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom County, 65 ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wn.2d 683, 169 P.3d 14 (2007): 10.4, 13.3(5)(b) Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom Cnty., 65 Wn. App. 739, 829 P.2d 1109, review denied, 119 Wn.2d 1023 (1992): 15.11(1), 16.2(2)(a) Birchler v. Castello Land Co., 133 Wn.2d 106, 942 P.2d 968 (1997): 19.......
-
§ 16.2 - Appeal Remedies Available
...is otherwise available by statutory writ, direct appeal, or administrative review. Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom Cnty., 65 Wn. App. 739, 745, 829 P.2d 1109 Even after the enactment of LUPA, constitutional certiorari retains a limited role in the review of land use decisions. In S......
-
§ 15.11 - Writ Practice
...v. City of Bellevue, 45 Wn. App. 248, 252-53, 724 P.2d 1110 (1986); Birch Bay Trailer Sales, Inc. v. Whatcom Cnty., 65 Wn. App. 739, 746, 829 P.2d 1109, review denied, 119 1023 (1992). (3) A decision to grant or deny constitutional certiorari is reviewed by an appellate court under the abus......