269 P.3d 388
Wash. Ct. App.2012Background
- The Neighbors challenged Richland's June 16, 2010 administrative decision approving a minor amendment to the Badger Mountain PUD.
- The City issued a written, memorialized decision on June 16, 2010 and later confirmed it as a minor amendment on August 4, 2010.
- Building permits were issued September 20, 2010, while the Neighbors filed a LUPA petition almost four months later (December 10 filing).
- LUPA requires petition within 21 days of the land use decision under RCW 36.70C.040(3).
- Petitioning timeframe treated as strict; no substantial compliance doctrine applies.
- The Neighbors argued the decision was minor and not subject to public notice, while the Developer argued the petition was untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the LUPA petition timely under RCW 36.70C.040(3)? | Neighbors: decision was memorialized in public record, thus within 21 days. | Developer: June 16 decision was written memoralization; petition filed four months late. | Petition untimely; time-barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 147 Wash.2d 440 (2002) (LUPA does not require individualized notice for the 21-day clock)
- Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wash.2d 397 (2005) (notice and timing interpretations under LUPA)
- Vogel v. City of Richland, 161 Wash.App. 770 (2011) (decision issued when entered into public record)
- Asche v. Bloomquist, 132 Wash.App. 784 (2006) (strict 21-day clock; no substantial compliance)
- Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904 (2002) (administrative finality policy in land use decisions)
- Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 172 Wash.2d 208 (2011) (Legislature aware of judicial interpretation; public policy context)