Opinion ID: 2622996
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A LUPA Appeal was the Appropriate Procedure to Challenge the Twin Bridge Permits

Text: ¶ 37 The requirement that Ecology file a LUPA challenge concerning the disputed building permits is also consistent with prior holdings of this court that favor finality in land use decisions. This policy is also strongly expressed in Washington law. For example, developers are protected from changes in the laws that occur after the filing date of a building permit application. Washington's doctrine of vested rights entitles developers to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit application is filed, regardless of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use regulations. Erickson & Assocs. v. McLerran, 123 Wash.2d 864, 867-68, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). ¶ 38 Under LUPA, no person is exempt from its provisions when challenging a final land use decision by a local authority having jurisdiction. Ch. 36.70C RCW. A person includes Ecology. RCW 36.70C.020(3). A final land use decision is a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer regarding the improvement or development of real property. RCW 36.70C.020(1). [15] The crux of LUPA is that persons and agencies who oppose a final land use decision made by the local permitting authority must appeal that decision within 21 days. RCW 36.70C.040(3). ¶ 39 This court has previously analyzed LUPA and its stated purpose of establishing uniform and expedited judicial review of local decisions. See, e.g., Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wash.2d 169, 4 P.3d 123 (2000) (a challenge to a Chelan County decision concerning residential development permits under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW, must be brought under LUPA); Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 144 Wash.2d 30, 26 P.3d 241 (2001) (construing a federal act, 16 U.S.C. § 544m(a), no collateral attack on a local final land use decision can be made when no timely appeal is filed); Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 52 P.3d 1 (2002) (declaratory action by county overturning a prior boundary line adjustment must be filed through LUPA). ¶ 40 In the current case, LUPA plainly applies because the County was the local permitting authority within the statute. Ecology had notice of the County's reinstating the building permits and chose not to challenge it. We have held in other context that approval of the rezone became valid once the opportunity to challenge it passed., Wenatchee Sportsmen, 141 Wash.2d at 181, 4 P.3d 123. ¶ 41 Here, Ecology had reasonable notice, did not appeal, and the building permits became valid and the right to construct vested due to Ecology's inaction. In another decision in this court, the Columbia River Gorge Commission echoed Ecology's claim of independent enforcement authority. Skamania County, 144 Wash.2d at 44, 26 P.3d 241 (asserting plenary powers under the Act to take whatever actions that it determines are necessary, . to ensure the Act . . . [is] not violated.). This court roundly rejected the claim to exempt the commission from LUPA appeal time frames. Id. at 57, 26 P.3d 241. Finally, Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d at 933, 52 P.3d 1, applied the LUPA time frame to Chelan County's attempted nullification of its own determination of a boundary line adjustment and subsequent permits. Thus, an agency cannot even revoke its own final land use decision unless it has appealed in the LUPA allotted time frame. Id. This holding emphasizes the value of finalizing land use decisions. ¶ 42 In light of these LUPA decisions, we reaffirm that Samuel's Furniture offers protection to private property owners and finality to the decisions of local government. Samuel's Furniture was not a decision solely regarding one city's shoreline boundary, but rather squarely present[ed] the intersection of the SMA and LUPA. 147 Wash.2d at 448, 54 P.3d 1194. LUPA's underlying rationale is that prolonged uncertainty is manifestly unfair to land owners who seek a final determination of their property's status. See Resp'ts' Answer at 9. The Court of Appeals stated this public policy: Requiring Ecology to file a LUPA petition to contest a local government's decision to allow a land use action would also serve the State's `strong public policy favoring administrative finality in land use decisions.' Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 458, 54 P.3d 1194 (quoting Skamania County v. Columbia River Gorge Comm'n, 144 Wash.2d 30, 48, 26 P.3d 241 (2001)). Blanket enforcement authority by Ecology would conflict with the public policy favoring administrative finality, as a developer could be subject to enforcement by Ecology while relying in good faith on a local government's determination. Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 458, 54 P.3d 1194. Twin Bridge, 130 Wash.App. at 741, 125 P.3d 155. Here, the County's reinstatement of building permits after an addendum to the EIS was a final land use decision. Ecology's position in the instant case is similar to the position it unsuccessfully argued in Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 459, 54 P.3d 1194 (Ecology's interpretation of the SMA would leave land owners and developers unable to rely on local government decisionsprecisely the evil for which LUPA was enacted to prevent.). Requiring Ecology to file a LUPA challenge, pursuant to reasonable notice of the building permits, allows Ecology to challenge an improper permit decision. Ecology merely is required to comply with LUPA procedures. ¶ 43 Alternatively, Ecology argues that the LUPA argument from Samuel's Furniture is misapplied to the instant case because Ecology was challenging the adequacy of the underlying SMA permits. See RCW 90.58.140(10). [16] This is incorrect because the County-issued building permits are a final land use decision authorized by the preexisting substantial development permits. The County-issued building permits did not modify the shoreline permits; they are development decisions incorporating the prior permits (and accompanying environmental analyses). See RCW 36.70C.020(1) (defining a final land use decision). These development permit decisions are left to the County's exclusive discretion, unless Ecology brings a LUPA challenge. See Samuel's Furniture, 147 Wash.2d at 458, 54 P.3d 1194 (The blanket enforcement authority sought by Ecology is in sharp contrast to the policy favoring finality in land use decisions.). ¶ 44 In sum, Skagit County made the determination that Twin Bridge's development was consistent with the County's SMP and Twin Bridge's existing shoreline permits when it issued the building permits. The disputed permits were substantial development permits and Ecology had no authority to issue fines based on compliance with a valid county permit. Moreover, once the building permits were reinstated, this was a final land use decision by the local permitting authority, and Ecology was required to file a LUPA challenge.