Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

z.go October 15, 1995 -- Page 5 According to Sumrall, she was not sure what use was permitted when Sundberg ¥isited her -- the ordinance divided Sunland Estates into three com- mercial ca~gories (general-commercial, recreation-commercial, and neighbor- hood-corn ,mercial), a 1971 county zoning map showed Sunland Estates as recre- ational, and the comprehensive plat showed the lots Sundberg wanted to buy as commercial. She said she told Sundberg how to change the zoning, and that the zoning was not "really the problem" because he first had to get the Board of Adjustmeni to approve a site plan for the park. SumraI1 said she helped Sundberg fill out the hecessary application for site plan approval. According to Sundberg, Sumrall assured him the lots he wanted were zoned commerciaJl. He said, "[I]t was on their plat maps and everything -- that this was zoned Commercial, no restrictions." Believihg the lots were zoned commercial, Sundberg bought the land. The Board of A~justment denied Sundberg's application based on neighbors' com- plaints aboflt potential noise and traffic. Sundbe.j:g sued Sumrall and the county. He claimed Sumrall incorrectly assured him the lots were zoned commercial. Had she told Sundberg she was not sure about the zoning, he would not have bought the land. The court granted Sumrall an~t the county judgment without a trial. Sundbetg appealed. The county argued it and its employees were immune based on sovereign immunity; they owed no duty to Sundberg. DECISIOn: Reversed and returned to the trial court. If the f~/cts were viewed in the light most favorable to Sundberg, the trial court should not have granted the county and Sumrall judgment without a trial. The matter Was sent back to the lower court for a trial. The cou!~ty and its employees had a duty to provide accurate information if they chose tp answer zoning inquiries. Answering zoning questions was a mini- sterial function, not discretionary -- all Sumrall did was provide information. Therefore, l~er statements were not the type for which immunity was granted. However, the county and Sumrall could be held liable only if Sumrall's comments qreated a special relationship between Sundberg and the county. There wouldibe a special relationship if Sumrall gave express assurances on which Sundberg relied. Because the parties disagreed about what statements Sumrall made, this i0sue had to go to trial. (If Sundberg's version of the conversation were true, then Sumrall gave him' express assurances the lots were commercial.) Once it ~resolved the conflicting stories, the trial court had to decide if Sundberg reasonably relied on Sumrall's statements without seeking legal help. SumraI1 was a secretary, not a zoning administrator. Rogers g Toppenish, 596 P. 2d 1096 (1979). Editor's Not~e: The court in this case noted that the Washington Legislature abolished sovereign immunity in 1961. However, a case decided by the Washington Supreme Court, Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State, 407 P. 2d 440 (19~65), created an exception granting governmental immunity for d~scretmnary acts.