Meaney v. Dodd

• Decision Date: 08 April 1987
• Docket Number: No. 17458-4-I,17458-4-I
• Citation: 47 Wn.App. 386,735 P.2d 100
• Parties: Paul MEANEY and Janet Meaney, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Charles H. DODD and Connie Dodd, husband and wife, Appellants, and Skagit County, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

Page 386

47 Wn.App. 386

735 P.2d 100

Paul MEANEY and Janet Meaney, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, v. Charles H. DODD and Connie Dodd, husband and wife, Appellants, and Skagit County, a municipal corporation of the State of

Washington, Respondent.

No. 17458-4-I.

Court of Appeals of Washington,

Division 1.

April 8, 1987.

Review Granted July 1, 1987.

William H. Nielsen, McIntosh, Lewis, Evans & Nielsen, Mt. Vernon, for Charles H. Dodd and Connie Dodd.

William C. Smart, Keller, Rohrback, Waldo, Hiscock, Butterworth & Fardal, Seattle, John R. Moffat, Deputy Pros. Atty., Mt. Vernon, for Skagit County.

WILLIAMS, Judge.

Charles and Connie Dodd appeal from an order granting summary judgment of dismissal of their cross-claim against Skagit County for negligence. The facts are that in February, 1982, Charles Dodd filed an application with the Skagit County Permit Center and Planning Department for a special use permit to operate a semi-portable sawmill on his property in Sedro Woolley. Although he requested assistance from Department employees in completing the application forms and in determining that his proposal complied with county code requirements, he did not specifically request information regarding noise limits. Dodd submitted an Environmental Checklist in which he stated that his proposal would increase existing noise levels. He explained, "Due to normal operation of the mill proper and small machinery associated with the operation, some minimum amount of increase will be noticed." Because it had not been built, no one knew how much noise there would be.

The Assistant Director of the Planning Department, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist, issued a declaration that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Stephen Wood, a Zoning Administrator, visited the property. He made staff findings for the hearing examiner and recommended that conditions be placed on issuance of the permit. Finding 7 stated, "With operation of the sawmill there will be increased noise in the area." Again, because the mill had not been built, Wood did not know how much noise would be produced.

On March 3, 1982, a hearing examiner granted the special use permit, with certain conditions not relevant to this case. Later that month, the County issued Dodd a building permit, and, in September, construction of the mill began. Thereafter, Paul and Janet Meaney, who lived next door to Dodd's property, complained to the Planning Department, alleging that Dodd failed to plant trees around the property for screening, operated the sawmill on Sundays and made deliveries with greater frequency than permitted. During the next year and a half, Wood and other associates in the Department visited Dodd's property five times and two hearings were held to review the permit, resulting in the permit remaining in effect.

In the fall of 1983, the Meaneys brought this action against the Dodds and Skagit County. In December, 1983, another Department official visited the property. For the first time, the noise level was measured with a meter, the reading being that the sawmill operated in excess of the 55 dBA limit of Skagit County Code 14.04.180. Dodd apparently conducted his own tests and determined that compliance with this noise limit was impossible or economically unfeasible considering the location of the sawmill and the Meaneys' home. In January, 1984, another public hearing was held, resulting in the revocation of the permit because of lack of compliance with the noise limit of SCC 14.04.180. The Board of Commissioners affirmed the decision. Dodd did not appeal this decision nor did he seek a variance from the noise limit.

Because operations at the sawmill were discontinued, the Meaneys lost interest in the lawsuit, but the Dodds filed a cross-claim against Skagit County, alleging:

VI.

That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in failing to provide accurate information in response to requests by defendants Dodd concerning requirements for the installation of the saw mill.

* * *

VIII.

That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in issuing a permit that was not valid and one that could not have been valid under any conditions. That Skagit County, its agents and employees had a duty to disclose to defendants Dodd facts that made it impossible for the project to comply with Skagit County codes.

IX.

That Skagit County, its agents and employees were negligent in issuing the building permit to defendants Dodd.

The trial court granted Skagit County's motion for summary judgment dismissing the cross-claim, determining that the County did not breach any duty owed to Dodd and that Dodd had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

Guiding principles are found in the following two paragraphs from J & B Dev. Co., Inc. v. King Cy., 100 Wash.2d 299, 304, 669 P.2d 468, 41 A.L.R.4th 86 (1983):

The Legislature, by adopting RCW 4.96.010, declared that municipal corporations "shall be liable for damages arising out of...