Facts: Respondent Frog Mountain Pet Care applied for a conditional use permit to expand its pet boarding facility. Petitioner Martin Mellish, the owner of an adjoining property, opposed the application. After a hearing examiner approved the application, Mellish filed an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration. Mellish subsequently filed a land use petition pursuant to the Land Use Petition Act (Washington Revised Code §36.70C) in the Superior Court for Clallam County. The trial court reversed the hearing examiner’s decision. Frog Mountain Pet Care appealed, asserting that Mellish’s land use petition had been untimely insofar as it had been filed more than 21 days after the hearing examiner’s initial decision to approve the application. The Washington Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the hearing examiner’s initial decision to approve the application was a final determination for purposes of the Land Use Petition Act that triggered its 21 day time limit for filing a petition. Mellish appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.
Question(s): Was the hearing examiner’s initial decision to approve Frog Mountain Pet Care’s application for a conditional use permit a final determination that triggered the Land Use Petition Act’s 21 day time limit for filing a petition?
Conclusion: Justice Alexander’s opinion for a unanimous Court reversed the Washington Court of Appeals, concluding that the hearing examiner’s initial decision to approve the application was not a final determination that triggered the 21 day time limit for filing a land use petition insofar as Mellish’s timely motion for reconsideration tolled the time limit pending the hearing examiner’s ruling on the motion. Thus, as Mellish had filed his land use petition within 21 days of the hearing examiner’s subsequent denial of the motion for reconsideration, the petition was timely.
Docket No. 84246-9 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 37583-4)
Petitioner: Martin Mellish
(Counsel: Gerald Barclay Steel)
Respondent: Frog Mountain Pet Care
(Counsel: David P. Horton and David W. Alvarez)
Briefs:
- Amicus of Hartinger
- Answer
- Answer to Hartinger Amicus
- Appellants Brief
- Frog Mountain Petitioner Care's Answer to Supplemental Amicus
- Mellish's Answer to Hartinger's Amicus
- Petition for Review
- Petitioner's Supplemental Brief
- Reply
- Respondent Jefferson County Brief
- Respondent Mellish Brief
- Respondents Supplemental Brief
- Statement of Additional Auth
- Sup Answer of Respondent
- Supplemental Brief of Petitioner
- Supplemental Brief of Pro Se Amicus Hartinger
- Supplemental Brief of Respondent
Argument: Thursday, March 17, 2011 9:00am
[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]
Audio: Washington Supreme Court
Decided: Thursday, July 28th, 2011
Prevailing Party: Martin Mellish (Petitioner)
Vote: 9-0
Citation: Pending
Court: Madsen2 Court (2011-)
Madsen
Johnson
Alexander
(Majority)
Chambers
Owens
Fairhurst
Johnson
Stephens
Wiggins
Note: We post only slip opinion(s) as published at the time of the decision. Please consult Washington Reports printed volumes for the opinion(s) in their final form. Each opinion should appear next to the Justice who authored it.