Lauer v. Pierce County

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court reviewed a LUPA challenge to Pierce County’s approval of a fish and wildlife variance permitting construction within a stream buffer. The court held that neighboring property owners had standing, filed a timely petition, and were not barred by equitable estoppel or the Futurewise decision. It further held that the property owners’ building permit application did not vest their rights because it violated applicable regulations and contained knowing misrepresentations of material fact.

Holdings

1. Lauer and de Tienne had standing because they were adjacent landowners who alleged prejudice, their interests were required to be considered by the County, the requested relief could redress the prejudice, and they exhausted the administrative remedies available to them.
2. The petition was timely because it was filed 20 days after denial of the motion for reconsideration, within LUPA's 21-day filing period.
3. Lauer and de Tienne were not equitably estopped from challenging the variance.
4. The challenge was not moot, and the County's critical-area regulations applied to the Garrisons' shoreline property even before Department of Ecology approval of the local shoreline regulations.
5. The Garrisons' rights did not vest when they submitted their 2004 building permit application. A permit application that is not allowed under the regulations in effect when submitted and is issued under a knowing misrepresentation or omission of material fact confers no rights upon the applicant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Lauer and de Tienne had standing under LUPA and could supplement the administrative record with facts concerning standing.
2. Whether the LUPA petition was timely and whether the petitioners exhausted available administrative remedies.
3. Whether Lauer and de Tienne were equitably estopped from challenging the variance.
4. Whether later authority and legislative amendments rendered the challenge moot or made the County's critical-area regulations inapplicable to the shoreline property.
5. Whether the Garrisons' rights vested under the regulations in effect when they submitted their 2004 building permit application.

Disposition

reversed