Opinion ID: 2519689
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Review of Land Use Decisions

Text: A plain reading of the language of LUPA leads to a conclusion that it applies to both ministerial and quasi-judicial land use decisions. Under LUPA a land use decision is defined as: (1) ... a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used.... [ [102] ] Prior to amendment of Chelan County's current Subdivision Resolution, [103] there were no clearly defined procedures for consideration and review of BLA decisions, although BLA applications were available. Charged with the duty to consider and approve or deny BLA applications, John W. Harrington, Jr., Planning Director, was the Chelan County officer with the highest authority to make a final determination on Petitioners' BLA application. During Mr. Harrington's tenure as Planning Director, he interpreted Section 200 of the Chelan County Subdivision Resolution to allow creation of separate parcels within a single parcel when the parcels are separated by a public road or a stream in excess of 20 cubic feet per second mean annual flow. [104] He also concluded that because no new lots were created, the proposed BLA fit within the exemption from subdivision requirements under Section 302 of the Chelan County Subdivision Resolution. [105] Respondents sought review, arguing that the Chelan County Planning Director, Mr. Harrington, misinterpreted Section 200 in approving Petitioners' BLA application. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating the language concerning parcels separated by a road or stream relates to the definition of land `as a unit for determining subdivision,' and does not create `lots' based on the location of a road or stream. [106] The court also observed that Old Parcel B and C did not meet minimum zoning area and dimension requirements. The Court concluded that any mechanism dividing property into separate parcels must comply with chapter 58.17 RCW relating to plats, subdivisions and dedications and that the interpretation of Section 200 by Mr. Harrington under which he created three new parcels did not meet the requirements of RCW 58.17.040(6). [107] The Respondents' declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of the BLA and Mr. Harrington's interpretation of county ordinances is the kind of action contemplated for review under LUPA. RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b) grants relief if the land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of the law or is a clearly erroneous application of the law to the facts. [108] This court has previously indicated that ministerial land use decisions are reviewed under LUPA. To determine whether a project permit included site-specific rezones, this court in Wenatchee Sportsmen relied on RCW 36.70B.020(4), which reads: [109] (4) Project permit or project permit application means any land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to building permits, subdivisions ... permits or approvals required by critical area ordinances, site-specific rezones.... Building permits are subject to judicial review under LUPA. Historically, actions on building permits have been characterized by this court as ministerial determinations, [110] which answers the question whether LUPA applies to ministerial land use decisions. In addition, LUPA's scope of review includes both quasi-judicial and ministerial decisions. RCW 36.70C.120 reads in part: (1) When the land use decision being reviewed was made by a quasi-judicial body or officer ... judicial review of factual issues ... shall be confined to the record created by the quasi-judicial body or officer, except as provided in subsection (2) through (4) of this section. . . . . (3) For land use decisions other than those described in subsection (1) of this section, the record for judicial review may be supplemented by evidence of material facts that were not made part of the local jurisdiction's record. (Emphasis added.) Subsection (1) considers that some land use decisions will be determined by a quasi-judicial body or officer. However, subsection (3) indicates that LUPA contemplates that some land use decisions may be made by other bodies or officers.