Tom Butler & Linda Lewis v. Skagit County & Hazel Ford
74435-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 5, 2016Background
- Hazel Ford owned two contiguous substandard lots (lots 12 and 13) on Guemes Island in a Rural Intermediate zone where minimum lot size is 2.5 acres; combined they still fell short of the minimum.
- Ford sought and the Skagit County planning department certified the lots as one unit, granted a reasonable use exception to allow development despite substandard size, and granted setback variances to place a small residence on lot 12 and septic/garage on lot 13.
- Neighbors Tom Butler and Linda Lewis appealed to the county hearing examiner, then to the Board of Commissioners, then filed a LUPA petition in superior court after remand; the hearing examiner and commissioners ultimately upheld the permits and the superior court affirmed.
- Butler and Lewis challenged (1) the County’s interpretation of the Skagit County Code permitting both a reasonable use exception and variances, and (2) the sufficiency of findings supporting the setback variances (including claims about topography, alternatives, special privilege, and critical areas).
- The court of appeals reviewed de novo statutory interpretation and substantial-evidence/clearly-erroneous challenges to administrative findings, viewing the record in favor of the agency finder of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Butler) | Defendant's Argument (County/Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a landowner granted a reasonable use exception may also obtain variances from setback requirements | The code’s phrase “Variances from the requirements of this Section shall not be considered” bars obtaining variances along with a reasonable use exception | The phrase refers to the zoning section (.850) generally and does not bar using the separate variance procedures in chapter 14.10 | The court upheld County’s interpretation; variances may be pursued via chapter 14.10 alongside a reasonable use exception |
| Whether substantial evidence supports findings that variances were necessary given lot topography and alternatives | Butler: Ford could have put the house on lot 13, so variances for lot 12 were unnecessary | County/Ford: Topography, limited buildable area on lot 13, septic placement, and steep knoll on lot 12 made the proposed siting (with minimal variances) the practical way to allow reasonable use | The court found record support for the examiner’s conclusion that variances were necessary and minimal to permit reasonable use |
| Whether granting variances conferred a forbidden “special privilege” (e.g., for views) | Butler: Allowing variances to capture a view grants Ford a special privilege denied others | County/Ford: Many lots in the subdivision similarly capture views; thus no unique privilege | The court affirmed the examiner’s finding that views are common in the plat and no special privilege was conferred |
| Whether findings supporting the variances were conclusory and thus inadequate | Butler: Examiner’s findings were too conclusory to satisfy required variance findings | County/Ford: Examiner provided adequate, supported findings addressing criteria and contested issues | The court held the examiner’s findings were adequate and not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169 (2000) (standards for judicial review of administrative land use decisions under LUPA)
- Schofield v. Spokane County, 96 Wn. App. 581 (1999) (viewing evidence and inferences in light most favorable to prevailing party before highest factfinder)
- McTavish v. City of Bellevue, 89 Wn. App. 561 (1998) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Anderson v. Pierce County, 86 Wn. App. 290 (1997) (definition of clearly erroneous for factual findings)
- St. Clair v. Skagit County, 43 Wn. App. 122 (1986) (findings supporting variances must be sufficiently specific)