Opinion ID: 2629938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does LUPA apply?

Text: ¶ 43 Because the majority errs in its claim that Grundy's public nuisance claim is not before this court, we must determine if Grundy is foreclosed from claiming the permit is illegal because Grundy didn't challenge the permit through a LUPA action. ¶ 44 I would follow the learned Court of Appeals opinion to hold because Grundy did not challenge the permit in a LUPA action, she is foreclosed from claiming the illegality of the permit as the basis of her public nuisance claim. Such would simply be a collateral attack on the permit and would allow any party to avoid the procedural requirements of LUPA by claiming development authorized by an unchallenged permit is a public nuisance and later suing to abate the alleged public nuisance. By explicitly stating that LUPA is the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, RCW 36.70C.030(1), the legislature clearly did not intend for public nuisance actions premised on permit invalidity to end run around chapter 36.70C RCW. [7]