Chelan County v. Nykreim
| Decision Date | 25 July 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 71067-8.,71067-8. |
| Citation | 146 Wash.2d 904,52 P.3d 1 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CHELAN COUNTY, a municipal corporation; Eric Gebelein and Rebecca Waud, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; Joseph J. Straus and Mary Shima, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; Gary Kincaid and Julienne Kincaid, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; and David Bale and Melissa Bale, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents, Cline Sweet and Kirsten Sweet, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; Mel Simpson and Kim Simpson, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; and John Peterson, a single man, Plaintiffs, v. Michael NYKREIM and Laurie Nykreim, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; B. Rick Whitney and Vickie Whitney, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof; and William Kelly and Jane Kelly, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Petitioners. |
John Groen, Bellevue, for Petitioner/Appellant.
Gary Riesen, Chelan County Prosecutor, Susan Himkle, Deputy, Wenatchee, for Appellee/Respondent.
James Hanken, Seattle, Respondent Intervenor.
Kristopher Tefft, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Building Industry Association of Wa.
Benjamin Waggoner, Robin Rivett, Bellevue, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Oacific Legal Foundation.
Petitioners (Michael K. Nykreim and Laurie A.Nykreim, husband and wife; B. Rick Whitney and Vickie L. Whitney, husband and wife; and William J. Kelly and Jane E. Kelly, husband and wife) seek discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, Division Three, which affirmed summary judgment by the Chelan County Superior Court in favor of Respondents (Chelan County; Eric Gebelein and Rebecca Waud, husband and wife; Joseph J. Straus and Mary Shima, husband and wife; Gary Kincaid and Julienne Kincaid, husband and wife; and David Bale and Melissa Bale, husband and wife) declaring void a boundary line adjustment previously granted Petitioners by Chelan County and dismissing Petitioners' counterclaims for damages. The Court of Appeals held that the Respondents' challenge of the boundary line adjustment decision was a ministerial act which was not time-barred under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA), chapter 36.70C RCW, because LUPA applies only to quasi-judicial land use decisions. We granted review. We reverse the Court of Appeals.
The questions presented in this case are (1) whether LUPA applies only to quasi-judicial land use decisions and not to ministerial decisions, and if not, whether Respondents' challenge to the boundary line adjustment decision by the Chelan County Planning Director is time-barred because it was made more than one year after the 21 day deadline for filing petitions for judicial review of land use decisions under LUPA; and (2) whether Petitioners are entitled to damages under RCW 64.40.020 because Respondent Chelan County either knew or should have known the boundary line adjustment was in violation of Chelan County ordinances.
On July 1, 1997, Petitioners acquired, as tenants in common, a large parcel of land in Chelan County from James S. Kempton1 under a statutory warranty deed describing the property as the "Northwest Quarter2 of the Southeast Quarter of Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 17 E.W.M., Chelan County, Washington." One tax parcel number, 24 17 27 000 050, was assigned to the property.3 The property, consisting of approximately 40 acres, is traversed in the upper northwest portion by Icicle Cascade Orchards County Road and Icicle Creek.4
On August 11, 1997, Petitioners filed an application for a boundary line adjustment (BLA) with the Chelan County Planning Department and signed an acknowledgment with a statement of consent and waiver of claims agreeing to hold Chelan County harmless in any cause of action arising out of the BLA or recordation and consenting to the BLA proposed in the application.5 In their BLA application, Petitioners attached legal descriptions indicating the property consisted of three existing parcels, referring to them as "Old Parcels A, B, and C."6
Old Parcel "A" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, lying Southerly and Southeasterly of the centerline of Icicle Creek."
Old Parcel "B" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, lying Southerly of the centerline of Icicle Creek County Road, also known as Cascade Orchard [sic] County Road and lying Northerly of the centerline of Icicle Creek." Old Parcel "C" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, lying Northerly of the centerline of Icicle Creek County Road, also shown as Cascade Orchards County Road."
In their pleading Petitioners answer that they "own property in the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Sec. 27 T24N, R17 E.W.M., not the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter." This is consistent with the legal descriptions they provided with their application and with the legal description in the conveyance from James S. Kempton to Petitioners by statutory warranty deed dated July 1, 1997. This case is concerned only with this parcel.
Aside from the reference in Petitioners' BLA application, there was no indication of record that the property had been previously divided as they asserted,7 although the application included rough drawings depicting the "Old Parcels" and the proposed "New Parcels A, B, and C" with legal descriptions.8 Petitioners sought to revise the boundary lines to form three rectangular lots with parallel boundaries.9
New Parcel "A" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of the said subdivision, thence along the North line of the said subdivision North 88°53'38" East 609.84 feet, thence leaving the said North Line South 00°13'27" West 1330.66 feet to the South line of the said subdivision, thence South 89°25'05" West 605.93 feet to the SW corner of the said subdivision, thence North 00°03'35" East 1325.03 feet to the NW corner of the said subdivision and the end of this description." New Parcel "B" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of the said subdivision, thence along the North line North 88°53'38" East 609.84 feet to the point of the beginning of this description, thence South 00°13'17" West 1330.66 feet to the South line of the said subdivision, thence along the said South line North 89°25'05" West 350.02 feet, thence North 00°13'29" East 1333.86 feet to the North line of the said subdivision, thence South 88°53'38" West 350.09 feet to the point of beginning and the end of this description."
New Parcel "C" was described as "That portion of the NW¼ of the SE¼ of Section 27, T24N, R17E W.M. Chelan County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the NW corner of the said subdivision, thence along the North line of the said Subdivision North 88°53'38" East 959.93 feet to the point of beginning of this description, thence South 00°13'29" West 1333.86 feet to the South line of the sad subdivision, thence North 89°25'05" East 350.04 feet to the NE corner of said subdivision, thence South 88°53'38" West 350.09 feet to the point of beginning and the end of this description."
On October 9, 1997, John W. Harrington, Jr., Administrator of the Chelan County Planning Department, approved the BLA application by signing a certificate of exemption and attaching a copy of the legal descriptions of new Parcels "A," "B" and "C" indicated by Petitioners in their application.10 There was no public notice or hearing.11 Mr. Harrington relied on Section 200 of the Chelan County Subdivision Resolution in approving Petitioners' BLA application, concluding that the original parcel was divided into three existing legal lots because the location of the creek and road created separate legal lots.12 Approval of a BLA is based upon a requirement that the lot line adjustment not create new lots.13 In his declaration Mr. Harrington stated that the BLA application requesting three "new" parcels did not create additional lots or building sites.14
As a condition for approval of the BLA application, Mr. Harrington required Petitioners to execute and record notices to title for each lot15 to clarify that three lots resulted from the BLA and that any future attempt to apply section 200 would require approval through the subdivision process.16 The notices to title resulting from the BLA, prepared by Chelan County, were signed by Petitioners and filed on October 9, 1997.17
In May 1998 Petitioners applied for conditional use permits (CUPs) to construct "three (3) single-family dwellings on a 33.5-acre lot outside an existing subdivision and within the Icicle Valley Design Review Overlay District."18 The CUPs were set for hearing before the Zoning Adjuster on October 2, 1998.19 At an Icicle Valley Design Review Committee hearing on July 20, 1998 several neighbors of Petitioners, now Respondents who intervened in this case,20 raised concerns about the validity of the BLA and their belief that Petitioners intended to use the proposed structures for transient overnight rentals.21
Previously on August 4, 1998 Joseph J. Straus, a neighbor and an attorney who is now an Intervenor in this case, addressed a letter to "Mr. James [sic] Harrington, Senior Staff Planner" asserting that the BLA was illegal and violated applicable Chelan County Code, Subdivision Code Section 302(8), RCW 58.17.040(2), boundary lot line adjustment criteria22...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston Cnty.
...conditions in issued permits. Case law suggests that the County is bound by the permit as issued absent further process. Chelan County v. Nykreim, [146] Wn.2d 904 (2002).While it may arguably have been in accordance with County Code for the Applicant's technical non-compliance with water mo......
-
Cedar River Water & Sewer Dist. & Soos Creek Water & Sewer Dist. v. King Cnty.
...147 Wash.2d 440, 462, 54 P.3d 1194 (2002) (no requirement of individualized notice for time limit to apply); Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 935, 52 P.3d 1 (2002) (neighbor lacked standing and had not shown he was aggrieved). ¶ 27 This court has not had much opportunity to consid......
-
Durland v. San Juan Cnty.
...the Legislature's intent to provide expedited appeal procedures in a consistent, predictable and timely manner.” Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). This court has faced numerous challenges to statutory time limits for appealing land use decisions and has repea......
-
HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County
...2, 2001). 61. Order Granting Review (July 1, 2002). 62. See RCW 36.70C.030 which provides specific exceptions; Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 916-17, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). 63. See Citizens to Preserve Pioneer Park v. City of Mercer Island, 106 Wash.App. 461, 470, 24 P.3d 1079 (2001)......
-
§ 21.4 Administrative Actions Eligible for Judicial Review
...use decisions" are subject to LUPA unless specifically excluded under RCW 36.70C.030. Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 930-31, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). The scope of LUPA is sufficiently broad that it provides the exclusive means of challenging both land use decisions that are illegal under......
-
§ 21.3 Prerequisites to Obtaining Judicial Review
...Act, Ch. 36.70C RCW. Knight v. City of Yelm, 173 Wn.2d 325, 336, 267 P.3d 973 (2011); Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 926, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). LUPA's standing requirements are set out in statute and are similar to the requirements of the APA in RCW 34.05.530. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d at 93......
-
§ 21.5 Filing and Service Requirements for Initiating Judicial Review Proceedings and Cross Appeals
...v. King County, 178 Wn.2d 763, 781, 315 P.3d 1065 (2013); Habitat Watch, 155 Wn.2d at 407; Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 925-26, 52 P.3d 1 (2002); Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wn.2d at 18082. This result is premised on the "strong public policy supporting administrative finality in l......
-
Table of Cases
...(2000): 16.2(1) Chaussee v. Snohomish Cnty. Council, 38 Wn. App. 630, 689 P.2d 1084 (1984): 16.6(1) Chelan Cnty. v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 52 P.3d 1 (2002): 16.2(1), 16.3(4), 16.7 Chem. Bank v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys., 102 Wn.2d 874, 691 P.2d 524 (1984): 5.4(2)(b) Cheney v. City of Mo......