Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 22 <br />claim had long ago passed <br />Citation: Community Treasures v. San Juan County, 427 P.3d 647 (Wash. <br />2018) <br />WASHINGTON (11/11/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />Washington's Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") (RCW chapter 36.70C) ap- <br />plies when parties are challenging, as excessive, permit application fees as- <br />sessed when a building or a land use permit application is submitted for <br />processing. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2012 and 2013, Community Treasures d/b/a <br />Consignment Treasures, and John Evans and Bonita Blaisdell (collectively, <br />the "Petitioners") submitted permit applications to the San Juan County <br />Department of Community Development. Among other items required, the <br />County Code required permit applicants pay "[t]he applicable fee." Petition- <br />ers paid the applicable fees, and the permits were issued. Nearly three years <br />later, Petitioners sued the County, seeking a partial refund of their paid fees. <br />Petitioners contended that the fees they had paid were "illegally excessive" <br />in violation of Washington statutory law (see RCW 82.02.020). They also <br />sought certification as a class action lawsuit for everyone who paid the <br />County fees for land use and building permits, modifications, or renewals <br />during the preceding three years. Petitioners asked the court to order any fee <br />overcharges be paid back to the class. <br />The County argued that the Petitioners' lawsuit must fail. They pointed to <br />Washington's Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") (RCW chapter 36.70C) and <br />maintained that LUPA was the "exclusive means of judicial review for the <br />fees paid because each fee was inextricably tied to and paid as a condition of <br />approval of a land use decision." The County argued that the Petitioners <br />complaint should thus be dismissed because the Petitioners failed to exhaust <br />the administrative remedies required under LUPA and/or timely bring their <br />complaint within LUPA's 21-day (from issuance of the permits) limitations <br />period. <br />In Washington, LUPA is "the exclusive means for obtaining judicial <br />review of a county's land use decisions," including building permits. (RCW <br />36.70C.030(1).) Under LUPA, a petition for review of land use decision <br />must be filed within 21 days of the issuance of the decision. (RCW <br />36.70C.040(3).) In order to bring a land use petition, a party must have <br />exhausted administrative remedies "to the extent required by law," with <br />statutory exceptions. (RCW 36.70C.060(2)(d).) <br />The trial court agreed with the County. <br />The Petitioners appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal <br />of the Petitioners' action. <br />The Petitioners again appealed. The Petitioners argued on appeal that the <br />lower courts had erred in determining that LUPA applied to their claim for <br />partial reimbursement of alleged overcharges for permit application process- <br />ing fees. Alternatively, they argued that even if their challenges to the permit <br />application fee were subject to LUPA, the statutory exemption for "[c]laims <br />provided by any law for monetary damages or compensation" applied. (See <br />RCW 36.70C.030(1)(c).) <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 3 <br />