Picnic Point Preservation Committee v. Snohomish County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
PICNIC POINT PRESERVATION ) Zr-
COMMITTEE, a Washington non-profit ) No. 76645-7-1
corporation, )
) DIVISION ONE rx.)
T*
Appellant, )
)
and )
) 4-- --it,
_
la
REGATTA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit)
corporation, ) FILED: May 29,2018
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
SNOHOMISH COUNTY,a municipal )
corporation; and FROGNAL )
HOLDINGS, LLC, a Washington limited )
liability company, )
)
Respondents. )
)
BECKER, J. — Respondent Snohomish County approved a request by
respondent Frognal Holdings LLC to remove a restriction the county had
previously imposed against subdividing a large lot that is part of an earlier
subdivision. Appellant Picnic Point Preservation Committee filed a land use
petition, arguing that the restriction is a covenant that cannot be altered without
No. 76645-7-1/2
the signatures of other owners. Because the restriction is not a covenant, the
superior court correctly refused to reinstate the restriction.
FACTS
In 1992, Shergar Land Corporation submitted the Regatta Estates Plat to
Snohomish County for approval. Most of the 78 lots in the Regatta Estates were
between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet. Lot 1 was significantly larger at 6.4
acres.
The plat, recorded in February 1996, contained restrictions required by the
county. Restriction 9 provided that lot 1 was to be left undeveloped except for a
single homesite:
Lot 1 shall be treated essentially as a native growth protection area
[NGPA]provided that a single homesite with access thereto may be
developed on said lot. Site development plans for the access
driveway and homesite including clearing and revegetation plans
and detailed geotechnical analysis will be required to have received
approval from the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any site
development permits or any disturbance of said Lot.
In May 1996, before conveying any lots, Shergar recorded a Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements(CCRs)for Regatta
Estates. The declaration, at section 7.1, stated Shergar's intent to subdivide lot 1
at some point in the future. It also contained a no-protest clause prohibiting lot
owners from objecting to subdividing lot 1 in the future if the subdivision complied
with "applicable" development regulations:
With the exception of Lot 1, all lots within the Plat of Regatta
Estates are in their final developed size and configuration. Lot 1,
however, is an over-sized lot which the Declarant intends, at some
time in the future, to subdivide. The owners of Lots in the Plat of
Regatta Estates shall take ownership subject to the right of the
Declarant and/or its successors to further subdivide Lot 1 pursuant
2
No. 76645-7-1/3
to applicable rules, ordinances or regulations, of the governmental
entity regulating development of the same. Accordingly, no lot
owner shall have the right to protest and/or object to the Declarant
or its Successors efforts to subdivide said real property so long as
such subdivision is being requested and/or completed consistent
with the rules and regulations of the municipality regulating
development at the time of such subdivision.
In 2005, an entity known as Horseman's Trail LLC initiated an application
procedure to subdivide lot 1. At some point thereafter, Frognal Holdings
acquired lot 1 as well as two adjacent parcels. The three parcels were combined
to create a 22.3 acre plot of land designated as Frognal Estates. Frognal
planned to subdivide this property into a total of 112 lots, including more than 30
lots on lot 1. To this end, Frognal proceeded with the subdivision application for
lot 1 begun by Horseman's Trail. Because this objective would require alteration
of the Regatta Estates subdivision of which lot 1 was a part, county approval was
necessary. Frognal asked the county to strike restriction 9 from the Regatta
Estates plat In connection with its broader request for approval of a new 112 lot
subdivision.
The Snohomish County Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on the
matter beginning in February 2016. Appellant Picnic Point and the Regatta
Estates Homeowners Association opposed the request to strike restriction 9.
They argued that restriction 9 was a de facto restrictive covenant prohibiting
development of lot 1 unless the application included signatures of other owners
who were subject to the 1996 covenants, which it did not. The hearing examiner
rejected the argument, ruling that it was unreasonable to expect that lot 1 was
3
No. 76645-7-1/4
restricted from further development in view of the explicit statement in the CCRs
that the declarant intended to subdivide lot 1 in the future:
To the extent Preservation Committee argues that restriction 9
requires Lot Ito be held in perpetuity as a constructive NGPA
[Native Growth Protection Area], the restriction cannot be so
interpreted. First, no law supports the argument. Second, Lot 1 is
clearly not a "legal" NGPA; it did not comply with the NGPA
requirements extant at the time of Regatta Estates' establishment,
Lot us not marked with signs as an NGPA as required by county
code, and by its express terms may be developed with a house and
driveway, both of which are incompatible with, and disqualify the lot
as an NGPA. The Hearing Examinees decision approving the
preliminary subdivision of Regatta Estates noted "The plat road in
Parcel A has been designed to allow its northwesterly extension
through proposed Lot 1...." Dedication of a 60 foot wide right of
way for a public road through lot 1 was required. Use of the adverb
"essentially" signals Lot 1 is not a legal NGPA; the use of the word
would have been unnecessary otherwise. Article VII of the Regatta
Estates' CCRs contradicts any claimed expectation that Lot 1 would
be a constructive NGPA in perpetuity by explicitly stating the
declarant's intention to subdivide Lot 1 in the future. Restriction 9
cannot be reasonably read to impress Lot 1 with a constructive
NGPA status in perpetuity.
(Footnotes omitted.)
Picnic Point and the Homeowners Association jointly appealed the
decision to the Snohomish County Council. The council affirmed the hearing
examiner's ruling. Picnic Point and the Homeowners Association then appealed
the decision to the Snohomish County Superior Court by filing a petition against
the county and Frognal under the Land Use Petition Act, chapter 36.70C RCW.
The court affirmed the council's decision. Picnic Point now appeals the superior
court's ruling. The Homeowners Association does not join in the appeal.
4
No. 76645-7-1/5
Picnic Point asks this court to invalidate the alteration of the Regatta
Estates plat and to reverse the county's approvals of the applications by Frognal
that depend on the plat alteration.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we deny Frognal's motion to dismiss Picnic Point's appeal for lack
of standing.
Standing to bring a land use petition is limited by statute to certain types of
entities. RCW 36.70C.060. In the trial court, Frognal moved to dismiss both
Picnic Point and the Homeowners Association for lack of standing. The trial
court denied this motion and ruled that both entities had standing. The
respondents did not appeal this ruling.
This court "will grant a respondent affirmative relief by modifying the
decision which is the subject matter of the review only(1) if the respondent also
seeks review of the decision by the timely filing of a notice of appeal or a notice
of discretionary review, or(2) if demanded by the necessities of the case." RAP
2.4(a). Frognal does not argue that the requirements of RAP 2.4(a) have been
satisfied.
Picnic Point claims associational standing. Frognal asserts that the
Homeowners Association never had standing to begin with and therefore by
extension, Picnic Point never had associational standing.
An association has standing to sue as long as one of its members would
have standing. Save a Valuable Environment v. City of Bothell, 89 Wash. 2d 862,
866-68, 576 P.2d 401 (1978). Because the Homeowners Association is a
5
No. 76645-7-1/6
member of Picnic Point, at a minimum, Picnic Point has standing to represent the
interests of the association. The trial court's ruling denying Frognal's motion to
dismiss for lack of standing was soundly based on this principle. Frognal does
not provide a basis to disturb that ruling.
Citing RAP 3.1, the county argues that Picnic Point is precluded from
seeking appellate review. According to the county, Picnic Point Is not an
aggrieved party because its own rights and interests are not affected by the
alteration of the Regatta Estates plat. The county argues that Picnic Point does
not have associational standing on appeal because the association did not join in
the appeal. But the county does not explain why the Homeowners Association, a
member of Picnic Point, would need to join in the appeal to have its interests
represented on appeal by Picnic Point. Because Picnic Point has a member that
Is affected by the land use decision, Picnic Point has the status of an aggrieved
party under RAP 3.1.
Turning to the merits of Picnic Point's appeal, we review the superior
court's decision under RCW 36.70C.030. Picnic Point seeks relief on grounds
that
(b)The land use decision is an erroneous interpretation of
the law, after allowing for such deference as is due the construction
of a law by a local jurisdiction with expertise;
.• •9
(d) The land use decision is a clearly erroneous application
of the law to the facts.
RCW 36.70C.130(1).
The'law" that the hearing examiner interpreted and applied is a statute
regulating subdivisions. It requires the signatures of "all parties subject to the
6
No. 76645-7-1/7
covenants" before a subdivision may be altered in a way that would violate a
covenant filed when the subdivision was approved. "When any person is
interested in the alteration of any subdivision or the altering of any portion
thereof... that person shall submit an application to request the alteration to
the legislative authority of the city, town, or county where the subdivision is
located.... If the subdivision is subject to restrictive covenants which were filed
at the time of the approval of the subdivision, and the application for alteration
would result in the violation of a covenant, the application shall contain an
agreement signed by all parties subject to the covenants? RCW 58.17.215.
The Snohomish County Code sets forth nearly identical requirements in
SCC 30.41A.710(2).
Picnic Point contends that Frognal's proposed alterations to lot 1 would
violate restriction 9 of the Regatta Estates Plat. A dispositive question, then, is
whether restriction 9 is a restrictive "covenant" as that term is used in
RCW 58.17.215. If so, alteration of lot 1 violates a covenant and cannot be
approved if it does not contain an agreement signed by all parties subject to the
covenants.
The restrictions on the Regatta Estates Plat, including restriction 9, are
not, strictly speaking, covenants. Rather, they are restrictions on the face of the
plat imposed by the county. Picnic Point asks us to interpret the declaration as
incorporating restriction 9 as a de facto covenant.
Covenants are interpreted in the same manner as contracts. Hollis v.
Garwall Inc 137 Wn.2d 683,696,974 P.2d 836(1999). "The interpretation of
7
No. 76645-7-1/8
language contained in a restrictive covenant is a question of law for the court."
Green v. Normandy Park 137 Wn. App. 665,681, 151 P.3d 1038(2007), review
denied 163 Wn.2d 1003(2008). Our primary objective in this analysis is to
determine the intent or purpose of the covenant. Hollis, 137 Wash. 2d at 696.
Picnic Point's claim that restriction 9 is a de facto covenant relies on the
recital in Shergar's declaration for the CCRs for the plat of Regatta Estates. The
recital declares that all of the lots within the plat are subject to restrictions
recorded on the face of the plat:
NOW,THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares that all of
the lots within the Plat of Regatta Estates shall be held, sold and
conveyed subject to and together with the following easements,
restrictions, covenants and conditions together with the restrictions
(etc.) recorded on the face of the Plat, all of which are for the
purpose of enhancing and protecting the value, desirability and
attractiveness of the real property.
The hearing examiner's analysis, on the other hand,focused on the operative
language in section 7 of Shergar's declaration, stating that lot 1 was intended for
subdivision at sometime in the future.
As a general rule, recitals or preambles in contracts may be resorted to in
aid of construction only when there is an ambiguity in the operative portion of the
agreement. Sethre v. Wash. Educ. Ass'n, 22 Wn.App. 666,670, 591 P.2d 838,
review denied, 92 Wn.2d 1020(1979). But when the language of the recital or
preamble states a promise, it is interpreted as if it were an operative term of the
contract. "'The essential feature of a contract is the promise, and whenever the
court can collect from the instrument an agreement to do or not to do a certain
thing, it amounts to a covenant, whether it be contained in the recital or in any
8
No. 76645-7-1/9
other part of the instrument.'" Sethre 22 Wash. App. at 670, quoting First Nat'l
Bank & Trust Co. v. United States Trust Co., 184 Wash. 212, 219, 50 P.2d 904
(1935). In Sethre the court found that past iterations of a pension plan for staff
employees in the public schools had long contained a preamble promising that
benefits for staff would be substantially the same as for teachers. Because
teachers were entitled to pensions with a 2 percent benefit formula, the court
held that retired staff employees were also entitled to a 2 percent formula, rather
than the 1 percent formula stated in a recent change in the plan. Sethre, 22 Wn.
App. at 670. The variance between the preamble and the operative portions of
the plan created an ambiguity that allowed the court to consider other evidence.
Sethre 22 Wash. App. at 670.
Applying Sethre to the present case, we can agree that the declaration as
a whole is ambiguous. The preliminary recital declaring that all of the lots in the
Regatta Estates plat(including lot 1) are subject to the restrictions on the face of
the plat arguably is a term incorporating restriction 9 into the declaration as a
restrictive "covenant"for purposes of RCW 58.17.215, a statute that was in effect
In 1996 in the same form as today. See LAWS OF 1987, ch. 354 § 4. But that is
not the only possible interpretation of the declaration taken as a whole. The
recital conflicts with the more explicit statements In section 7.1. That section not
only states that Shergar intended to subdivide lot 1 sometime in the future, it also
states that"no lot owner shall have the right to protest and/or object to the
Declarant or its successors efforts to subdivide said real property." That no-
protest clause would be of no effect if a lot owner had the ability to prevent the
9
No. 76645-7-1/10
subdivision of lot 1 simply by withholding the signature required by
RCW 58.17.215.
Picnic Point responds that section 7.1 is not a blanket no-protest clause
and it does not conflict with restriction 9 because it bars objection only if
resubdivision of lot 1 is "consistent with the rules and regulations of the
municipality regulating development at the time of such subdivision." According
to Picnic Point, the relevant rules and regulations are those found in
RCW 58.17.215 and the similar county ordinance, requiring signatures of other
owners as a precondition to altering the plat in a way that would violate a
covenant. This argument is circular. Again, if the declarant intended to make the
signatures of other owners a prerequisite for subdividing lot 1, the declarant
would not have inserted the explicit no-protest clause with respect to lot 1.
When there Is an inconsistency between a general and a specific
provision, such as the declaration's general recital and the specific language of
section 7.1, specific language ordinarily prevails over more general terms. Mayer
v. Pierce County Med. Bureau. Inc., 80 Wash. App. 416, 423,909 P.2d 1323
(1995); McGarv v. Westlake Invirs, 99 Wash. 2d 280, 286,661 P.2d 971 (1983).
The clarity of the declarant's specific intent stated in section 7.1, as compared to
the vaguer and more general language of the recital, persuades us that the
hearing examiners interpretation accurately reflects the intent and purpose of the
declaration. As the hearing examiner noted in his conclusions of law, "Lot 1 was
always intended to be subdivided and Regatta Estates homeowners had notice
of that intention." We conclude that restriction 9 was not intended to be a
10
No. 76645-7-1/11
restrictive covenant that could not be altered without the signed agreement of
other parties subject to the covenant. The decision allowing restriction 9 to be
stricken from the Regatta Estates plat was not clearly erroneous.
Respondents request attorney fees on appeal under RCW 4.84.370.
Picnic Point requests the opportunity to brief the issue of entitlement to attorney
fees on appeal once the appeal has been decided, but there is no authority
permitting that sort of piecemeal briefing. Because the respondents properly
requested an award of attorney fees in their respective briefs as required by RAP
18.1(a) and (b), and Picnic Point shows no reason why RCW 4.84.370 does not
apply in these circumstances, the request of the respondents is granted.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied. The superior court's decision
Is affirmed.
gecce-e e,
WE CONCUR:
11