Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

I ! November 1995 -- Page 3 I I I '1 In the general use zone, contractors' offices and yards were permitted as of . right. In 1969, Tucci got an unclassified use permit from the county. The per- mit allowed Tucci to add a business office headquarters, shop, storage yard, gravel crush'.mg plant, and asphalt plant. Under the permit, Tucci had to restore mined areas ~fter it finished gravel mining. Tucci go~ building permits, and in 1970, moved its office headquarters, maintenance~shop, and storage yard to the property. In 1976 ~nd 1977, the county rezoned the area for suburban agriculture uses. The new classification did not permit contractors' headquarters and yards. In October 1989 and December 1990, the County Council adopted ordinances that allowedilegally existing contractors' yards and offices to continue or be expanded, a~ long as the county approved a binding site plan. Tucci then began developing ~ binding site plan that included further expansion of its offices. In May ~992, the Summit-Waller Citizens Association sued Tucci and the county, asking the court to void the ordinances as unlawful spot zoning. It also wanted the ~ourt to make Tucci restore the mined property, as required by Tucci's 1969. permit. Tucci asked the court to declare it had a vested right to use the property for its contractor's headquarters, shop, and yard. The cou~ rejected both parties' claims. It found the association waited too long to challenge the ordinances as spot zoning--31 months after enactment of the first o~dinance and 17 months after the second. According to the court, although T~ci's use of the property was a vested and legal nonconforming use, the headquarters and yard lost this status when Tucci agreed to be bound by the unclassified use permit. Both parties appealed. DECISION:~ Reversed in part and returned to the trial court. The trial court properly rejected the association's spot zoning challenge because it was filed too late. However, the court wrongly concluded that the headquarters, shop, and yard were not legal nonconforming uses independent of the unclassified use permit. The trial court was instructed to enter a judg- ment that Tdcci's nonconforming use of the property was vested and legal. Tucci e~;tablished a vested nonconforming use of its property for a contractor's~headquarters, shop, and yard. Its inclusion of the headquarters, shop, and y~trd in its application for an unclassified use permit was unneces- sary -- those uses were allowed as of right in the general use zone when they were built. They became legal nonconforming uses when the county down- zoned the a~ea, and the permit did not take away that status. Tucci never aban- doned those:uses. Nor did the 1969 permit's property restoration requirements mandate rer~oval of the offic, es, shop, and yard when Tucci finished gravel mining there. State ex!tel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. County of Pierce, 841 P. 2d 47 (1992). Penrose Host~ital v. Colorado Springs, 802 P. 2d 1167 (1990). Editor's NOte: The court noted that this appeared to be the first case in Wash- ington state!to~ consider whether the holder of a legal nonconforming use for- feited the u~e by including it in an application for an unclassified use permit.