Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Z.B. January 10, 1998- Page 7 was limited to a population density of one dwelling per forty acres because the land was zoned general agricultural. While the law created a specific exception for modifications of district regulations, PUDs were still subject to general zoning provisions, including l~opulation density requirements. PUDs had to meet overall population densities to keep them compatible with existing developments. see also: Nelson v. South Dakota State Bd. Of Dentistry, 464 N. W.2d 621 (1991). see also: Olsen v. City of Spearfish, 288 N. W. 2d 497 (1980). Jurisdiction -- Landowner sues, but fails to file affi~lavit or serve adjacent landowner Crosby v. County of Spokane, 941 P. 2d 687 (Washington) 1997 In 1993, Crosby applied for a preliminary plat for a 31-residence development in Spokane County, Wash. The county committee approved the plat. Osborne, an adjacent landowner, appealed. The board of county commis- sioners reversed and denied the plat application until a public sewer was extended to the property. Crosby, naming only the county and the board as 'defendants, asked the c'~urt to review the board's denial. The court decided the board's decision was arbitrary and reversed its decision. However, before the court's judgment was final, Osborne asked to join the lawsuit. The county code provided that a party had to appeal a board's decision to court within 30 days. The party then had 90 days to properly serve notice of the ~.ppeal on all parties. The appeal had to be made by an affidavit of a "beneficially interested" party. Crosby's attorney signed the appeal, but Crosby didn't file the required affidavit. Nor did Crosby serve notice of the appeal on Osborne within 90 days. When Osborne asked the court to join the lawsuit, more than 90 days had passed since the appeal was filed. Osborne asked the court to dismiss Crosby's appeal, claiming the court had no authority to hear it because Crosby didn't comply with the affidavit requirement. Osborne also asked the court to declare that the board's decision was final as applied to him because Crosby had not served him. The court found it had no authority to consider the appeal because Crosby failed to timely file a supporting affidavit. The court also found Crosby failed to name Osborne as a defendant. Osborne appealed. He argued he didn't have to comply with the code because the court had the inherent constitutional power to review the board's decision. Crosby also said that timely filing of the affidavit was not a jurisdictional requirement. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed the appeal based on lack of jurisdiction. The court lost the authority to hear the appeal when Crosby failed to file his supporting affidavit within 90 days. The court didn't use its inherent constitutional power to review the board's decision. The appeals court didn't decide the issue of whether Osborne was an