Frog Mt. Wins at the Washington State Court of Appeals
MARTIN MELLISH, No. 37583-4-II
Respondent,
v.
FROG MOUNTAIN PET CARE, HAROLD
and JANE ELYEA,
Appellants,
JEFFERSON COUNTY, Respondent.
Harold Elyea owner of Frog Mt. Pet Care agrees to give an exclusive video interview to Jeffco101 regarding this matter and his dealings with DCD.
Published FACTS from the decision;
Frog Mountain applied for a conditional use permit and minor variance in order to
remodel and expand its Jefferson County (County) dog and cat boarding facility. Mellish owns
property adjacent to the facility. He opposed the application because he thought the proposed
expansion was too large and would increase the facility’s noise, interfering with his enjoyment of
his property.
On June 20, 2007, the deputy hearing examiner filed his decision granting Frog
Mountain’s request. The next day, the County mailed a notice of the decision to all the interested
parties and adjacent property owners. Mellish moved for reconsideration on June 28, but did not
notify Frog Mountain of the motion.2 The County denied the motion on July 20 and mailed a
notice of decision on July 21. It issued Frog Mountain’s requested permit on July 21 when it
denied the motion.
On August 10, 2007, Mellish filed a land use petition at the Clallam County Superior
Court challenging the County’s decision. This was 20 days after the County mailed the order
denying reconsideration and issued the permit, but 50 days after the County mailed the deputy
hearings examiner’s June 20 decision granting Frog Mountain’s permit.
2 The Jefferson County Code apparently does not require a party who moves for reconsideration
or the County to notify the adverse party of the motion until the hearing examiner enters the
decision. See JCC 18.40.310, .330. But due process requires notice reasonably calculated to
apprise parties of the nature and character of proceedings which will affect them. Nisqually Delta
Ass’n v. City of DuPont, 103 Wn.2d 720, 727, 696 P.2d 1222 (1985); Duffy v. Dep’t of Soc. &
Health Servs., 90 Wn.2d 673, 678-79, 585 P.2d 470 (1978). We are concerned that the Code
may invite due process violations, but Frog Mountain did not appeal on this ground.
* more to follow with Jeffco101 exclusive video interview with Harold Elyea
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Very interesting case law. I see why it was published. Goes to show that sometimes attorney's (Alvarez in the case at hand) are wrong when it comes to issues of the law. Perhaps had Alvarez not opposed the motion to dismiss, the appellant court may have granted the county attorney's fees. Oh well....that's the way the cookie crumbles!
ReplyDelete