Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin Scope of Requirements-County denies permit on grounds that -applicant could not meet llall requirements" of county code Applicant argues "all requirements" included aiternatives articulated in the code Citation: Griffinv. Thurston County, 2008 WL 4938899 (Wash. 2008) WASHINGTON (11/20/08)-jeff Griffin owned a small waterhont lot in the county. He wanted to build a house on the lot. R~lated to that goal, he submitted an on-site sewage system ("OSS") permit application to the county's Health and Social Service~ Department (the "Depart- ment"). Griffin's lot was less than one-quarter the size normally tequired for an OSS. His OSS application included six OSS components that re- quired either modified setback distances or "waivers" of the county's san- itary code (the "Code"). A health officer approved all six of the compo- nents. However, after neighbors appealed, the county's Board of Health (the "Board") denied Griffin's ass permit. Section 21.4.5.3 of the Code required a proposed OSS on an undersized lot meet "all requirements of [the Code] other than minimum land area:" The Board concluded that because Griffin's OSS design required "a substantial number of waiver requests, and horizontal setback reductions," Griffin could not meet "all requirements" of the Code. ' Griffin appealed the Board's denial. He argued that: other provisions of the Code offered alternative setbacks and standards; his proposed OSS met those alternatives; and therefore he met "all requirements." The superior court agreed with Griffin. It reversed the Board and or- dered the county to issue Griffin the OSS permit. The county appealed. The court of appeals reversed the superior court and upheld the Board's deniai of the permit. It reasoned that "[i]f 'all requirements' included waivers and setbacks, the ['all requirements'] Jan- guage would be meaningless and superfluous." Griffin appealed. DECISION: Affirmed on other grounds. The Supreme Court of Washington agreed with Griffin that the "all requirements" language of ~ 21.4.5.3 included the alternatives provided in other provisions in the Code. However, the court concluded that Grif- fin was not entitled to an OSS permit because one of his six OSS compo- nents" failed to meet a Code requirement or Code-articulated alternative. rId reaching its conclusion as to how ~ 21.4.5.3's "all requirements" language should be interpreted, the court said that it interpreted local ordinances in the same way that it interpreted statutes: it looked first to 4 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 60 I I I i i I I i I I \ '