Trimen Development Co. v. King County
| Decision Date | 21 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 59452-0,59452-0 |
| Citation | 877 P.2d 187,124 Wn.2d 261 |
| Parties | TRIMEN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Petitioner, v. KING COUNTY, a Washington municipal corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Cairncross & Hempelmann, P.S., John W. Hempelmann, Janet E. Garrow, Janice Sue Wang, Seattle, for petitioner.
Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Charles Maduell, Sr. Deputy, Seattle, for respondent.
Petitioner Trimen Development Company seeks review of a Court of Appeals decision affirming a summary judgment in favor of King County. Trimen seeks a refund of the park development fees it paid pursuant to King County Code (KCC) 19.38. Trimen claims that KCC 19.38, which conditions subdivision plat approval upon the dedication or reservation of land for open space or upon the payment of a fee in lieu of such dedication or reservation, is an invalid "tax" in violation of former RCW 82.02.020. We affirm the Court of Appeals.
In 1981, pursuant to former RCW 58.17.110 1, the King County Council enacted ordinance 5596, 2 finding that King County had a "general and increasing need for parks, open spaces and recreational facilities to serve the expanding population of the County." Clerk's Papers, at 46. The Council found that the need for such open space was acute at the neighborhood level due to population increases from subdivisions. Two of the stated purposes of the ordinance are: (1) to distribute equitably the cost of providing such parks, open spaces and recreational facilities, and (2) to mitigate any adverse impacts on neighborhoods without adequate parks, open spaces and recreational facilities when approving new residential development.
The King County ordinance provides in part:
Every Subdivision final approval ... shall be contingent upon reservation or dedication of land for the open space and recreational needs of its residents or payment of a fee-in-lieu thereof. The developer may either reserve or dedicate land, or make payment of a fee-in-lieu thereof pursuant to this chapter.
(Italics ours.) Clerk's Papers, at 71 (KCC 19.38.020). If the developer chooses to dedicate or reserve land, the dedication must be within the subdivision's "park service area". KCC 19.38 defines the "park service area" as an area roughly approximate to elementary school boundaries, within which reservation or dedication of land and fees are received and used for the benefit of residents within that area. The amount of land to be reserved or dedicated is determined by a formula which considers the gross land area of the proposed subdivision and the zone of the area. The County's review of the documents for Trimen's subdivisions indicated that there was sufficient flat, dry, and obstacle-free space available for onsite dedication.
The developer may instead pay a fee in lieu of dedication or reservation:
Unless land within a proposed subdivision is dedicated or reserved ... final approval of the subdivision shall be contingent upon payment of a park development fee from the developer to King County.
Clerk's Papers, at 73 (KCC 19.38.070). The fee is calculated based on the assessed value of the equivalent amount of land that would have been reserved or dedicated. KCC 19.38.080. The collected fee must be appropriated only for the acquisition and development of open space, park sites, and recreational facilities within the park service area where the proposed subdivision is located. KCC 19.38.070. The collected fee must be allocated to a particular project within 3 years of fee acceptance. KCC 19.38.070.
Trimen owns two parcels of land in northeast King County. In February 1987 and March 1988, Trimen submitted applications for subdivision approval for two developments known as Winchester Hills I and II, respectively. In Winchester Hills I, Trimen proposed to subdivide 21 acres into 77 lots for detached family homes. In Winchester Hills II, Trimen proposed to divide 22 acres into 41 lots.
Trimen submitted applications to the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD) for preliminary approval of the Winchester Hills I and II subdivisions. BALD is the agency responsible for reviewing and processing preliminary plat applications. BALD reviews each application and subsequently makes a report and recommendation to the King County Zoning and Subdivision Examiner, who in turn holds a public hearing on the plat application and makes a recommendation to the King County Council. The King County Council makes the final decision on whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a preliminary plat application.
Once an applicant obtains preliminary approval, the applicant can proceed to final approval of the plat. During this stage, BALD reviews the plat for compliance with the conditions for preliminary approval, including whether the applicant has decided to provide open space by dedication or reservation, or to pay a fee in lieu of such dedication or reservation pursuant to ordinance 5596 (KCC 19.38). Once the conditions are satisfied and final approvals are obtained, the final plat can be recorded. The Council takes final action by ordinance.
King County approved Trimen's preliminary plat of Winchester Hills I on the condition that Trimen
comply with KCC 19.38 regarding the provision of common open space with the subdivision or payment of a fee-in-lieu of open space dedication. If open space is provided an open space plan must be submitted for review and approval by BALD.
Clerk's Papers, at 166. Trimen did not object to or appeal this condition. Based on the ordinance, Winchester Hills I required a dedication or reservation of approximately 1.08 acres of land, or 3 to 6 lots within the subdivision. Trimen subsequently proposed an open space plan that provided a hiking trail and park area within the Winchester Hills I subdivision. King County rejected this proposal because it did not meet the ordinance's criteria for dedication/reservation of land. Trimen did not pursue its option to dedicate or reserve open space and instead opted to pay the fee in lieu of providing open space. Trimen proposed a recalculation of the fee in lieu of dedication that reduced the fee from the level suggested by the County. The County accepted Trimen's recalculated fee. Trimen subsequently paid the $52,349.37 fee without protest and obtained final approval of the Winchester Hills I plat, which was recorded on September 27, 1988.
In March 1988, Trimen submitted its application for preliminary approval of the Winchester Hills II plat. At the time when the Winchester Hills II plat was being processed by BALD, applicants were required to show the open space to be dedicated or reserved pursuant to KCC 19.38 on the face of the plans. Based on the ordinance, Winchester Hills II required a dedication or reservation of approximately 1.016 acres, or 3 to 6 lots within that subdivision. Because Trimen did not show any open space on the submitted plans, BALD assumed that Trimen had elected to pay a fee in lieu of dedication. Consequently, when the County approved Trimen's preliminary plan for Winchester Hills II, it did so on the condition that Trimen "comply with K.C.C. 19.38 by paying a fee to the Parks Division in-lieu-of providing onsite open space." Clerk's Papers, at 101. Although BALD had assumed that Trimen had elected to pay the fee in lieu of open space and had recommended payment as a condition of plat approval, the record indicates that Trimen could have changed its mind and elected to dedicate open space at any time prior to final plat approval. Instead, Trimen elected to pay the fee in lieu of dedicating open space. Again, at Trimen's request, the fee was reduced. Trimen paid the $34,979.38 fee without protest and was granted final approval of the plat. The plat was recorded in March 1990.
In August 1990, Trimen filed this action challenging King County's "park fee ordinance" and seeking restitution of the fees it paid. Trimen moved, and King County cross moved, for summary judgment. The trial court granted King County's motion, upheld the legality of ordinance 5596 (KCC 19.38), and entered final judgment in favor of the County. Trimen appealed directly to this court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Trimen's claims are barred by the expiration of the 30-day statute of limitation under RCW 58.17.180, and by estoppel. 3 Trimen Dev. Co. v. King Cy., 65 Wash.App. 692, 703, 829 P.2d 226 (1992). We granted Trimen's petition for review and now affirm the Court of Appeals.
The central issue before us is whether King County lawfully imposed park development fees under former RCW 82.02.020. 4 We conclude that King County, through KCC 19.38, did assess lawful park development fees as a condition of plat approval. Furthermore, we hold that King County complied fully with the requirements for a voluntary agreement for payments "in lieu of a dedication of land or to mitigate a direct impact that has been identified as a consequence of a proposed developent, subdivision, or plat." RCW 82.02.020. Finally, we conclude a 3-year statute of limitations governs Trimen's claims.
Trimen challenges the legality of KCC 19.38, arguing that the ordinance conditions the approval of a plat on the payment of a fee. Trimen urges this court to declare KCC 19.38 an unauthorized tax, invalid on its face under RCW 82.02.020. We decline to do so.
KCC 19.38 permits no more than RCW 82.02.020 authorizes. A local ordinance conflicts with the general law when the ordinance permits that which the statute forbids, or forbids that which the statute allows. Southwick, Inc. v. Lacey, 58 Wash.App. 886, 891, 795 P.2d 712 (1990) (citing Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wash.2d 106, 111, 356 P.2d 292, 92 A.L.R.2d 192 (1960)). KCC 19.38 was enacted pursuant to RCW 58.17. KCC...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ISLA VERDE INTERN. v. City of Camas
...application imposes requirements reasonably related to the projected impact of the proposed development. Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wash.2d 261, 274, 877 P.2d 187 (1994). In Trimen, a King County ordinance required a developer to dedicate recreational land or pay fees in lieu of su......
-
Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 62304-0
...an allegation of excessive regulation of land. We have adopted the Dolan approach in two recent cases. In Trimen Dev. v. King County, 124 Wash.2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994), we upheld the county's imposition of a park impact fee on a developer as being "reasonably necessary" to offset the dir......
-
Kitsap Alliance of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.
...nexus and rough proportionality between the required dedication and the impact of the proposed development. Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wash.2d 261, 274, 877 P.2d 187 (1994) (citing Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994)); Citizens' Alliance fo......
-
The Honorable Richard B. SANDERS v. State of Wash.
... ... King County Executive, 152 Wash.2d 421, 429, 98 P.3d 463 (2004) ( Yousoufian ... ...
-
Land Development Conditions
...2268, 132 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1995). 107. Id. at 1117, 115 S. Ct. at 2273, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 274 (Thomas, J., dissenting) 108. 124 Wash. 2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (Wash. 1994). 109. Parking Ass’n of Georgia , 515 U.S. at 1117-18, 115 S. Ct. at 2274-75, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 274. 110. 12 Cal. 4th 854, 911 P......
-
Reciprocity of advantage: the antidote to the antidemocratic trend in regulatory takings.
...review to takings challenge to agency's refusal to upzone property from residential to commercial); and Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 877 P.2d 187, 194 (Wash. 1994) (applying heightened scrutiny to legislative development impact (110.) See note 109, supra. (111.) 224 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2......
-
Case List
...Towne Properties v. City of Fairfield , 50 Ohio St. 2d 356, 364 N.E.2d 289 (1977) Trimen Dev. County v. King County , 124 Wash. 2d 261, 877 P.2d 187 (1994) 216 Sutter Bay Assocs. v. County of Sutter , 58 Cal. App. 4th 860 (1997) U Union County v. Hoffman , 512 N.W.2d 168 (S.D. 1994) Union N......
-
Urbanites Versus Rural Rights: Contest of Local Government Land-use Regulations Under Washington Preemption Statute 82.02.020
...Co. v. City of Bothell, 83 Wash. App. 605, 607-08, 922 P.2d 828, 829 (1996); Trimen Dev. Co. v. King County, 124 Wash. 2d 261, 264, 877 P.2d 187, 188-89 (1994). See generally Lester, supra note 84. 93. E.g., Isla Verde, 146 Wash. 2d at 759-61, 49 P.3d at 878-79; Trimen, 124 Wash. 2d at 2747......