East v. King County
| Decision Date | 26 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 5944-I,5944-I |
| Citation | 589 P.2d 805,22 Wn.App. 247 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Robert E. EAST and Donald E. Olson, Jr., Appellants, v. KING COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, and Community Chapel & Bible Training Center, Inc., Respondent. |
Skeel, McKelvy, Henke, Evenson & Betts, Eric Richter, Seattle, for appellants.
Christopher T. Bayley, King County Pros. Atty., Robert D. Johns, Deputy Pros. Atty., Francis, Lopez & Lepley, Peter D. Francis, Seattle, for respondents.
The Community Chapel & Bible Training Center, Inc. successfully applied to the zoning adjustor for a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of Bible College classrooms and related dormitories to be located on two parcels of property owned by the Community Chapel. A location map of the subject property is illustrated herein. The zoning adjustor's decision was appealed to the King County Board of Appeals which affirmed his decision. Thereafter the plaintiffs, who are neighbors surrounding the college site, brought a writ of certiorari in Superior Court challenging the legality of the conditional use permit. The Superior Court sustained the Board of Appeals decision and this appeal now follows.
Location map
1. Are college dormitories separated from college classrooms 130 feet along a two-lane road "on campus" for purposes of the King County Zoning Code? (KCC 21.44.030(11)).
2. Is a minimum acreage requirement for colleges imposed by implication in the King County Zoning Code? (KCC 21.08.020(15)).
The Community Chapel & Bible Training Center, which we will for brevity call "Community Chapel," applied for a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a Bible College, classrooms and related dormitories to be located on two parcels of property owned by the Community Chapel between First Avenue South and Eighth Avenue South near South 192nd Street in King County. Under the proposal the college classrooms were planned to be located on an 8-acre site between Fourth Avenue South and Eighth Avenue South, while the dormitories would be located on a 36-acre site between First Avenue South and Fourth Avenue South. The two sites are separated by a distance of about 130 feet along Fourth Avenue South.
At the same time the Community Chapel applied for King County building permits to allow construction of the chapel, grade school, junior high and high school on the 36-acre site. These permits were not involved in this lawsuit, nor concern us on appeal.
The conditional use permit was approved subject to specific and comprehensive conditions which we will not detail as they are not relevant to our issues.
The Community Chapel's property is zoned RS-7200. RS-7200 zoning in King County authorizes churches, grade schools, junior high and high schools as a matter of right. (KCC 21.08.020(6), (15)). Colleges and related dormitories on the other hand require a conditional use permit. (KCC 21.44.030(11)).
DECISION
The granting of the conditional use permit to the Community Chapel permits them to construct college dormitories on the 36-acre site and college classrooms and offices on the nearby 8-acre site even though they are separated by 130 feet at Fourth Avenue South. Petitioning neighbors contend that the King County Zoning Code requires dormitories and classrooms to be on one contiguous building site. Their contention is based on KCC 21.44.030(11), which requires additional use permits for universities and colleges, including dormitories and fraternity and sorority houses when on campus. They are arguing that "on campus" means one contiguous building site. The trial judge, in reviewing the decision of the zoning adjustor and the King County Board of Appeals, made various findings of fact and conclusions of law. We will set forth those that are pertinent to this review.
Finding of fact No. 3.
The Bible College will be located on two separate building sites as defined in King County Code Section 21.04.135.
Finding of fact No. 4.
The Bible College classrooms will be located on a building site of approximately 8 acres. The college dormitories and accessory facilities, I. e., playground and athletic field, will be located on a 36 acre building site which will also be the location of the Community Chapel's church, elementary and secondary schools.
Finding of fact No. 5.
The two building sites in question are not contiguous but are in close proximity to each other as they are separated by approximately 130 feet along Fourth Avenue South.
Finding of fact No. 6.
The conditional use permit as granted by the King County Zoning Adjustor and upheld by the King County Board of Appeals requires the Community Chapel to build a sidewalk along the west side of Fourth Avenue South to a point across from the 8 acre site.
Finding of fact No. 7.
Both the King County Zoning Adjustor and the King County Board of Appeals held hearings, pursuant to notice, as required by law.
Finding of fact No. 8.
Plaintiffs raised no issue regarding the jurisdiction of either the Zoning Adjustor or the Board of Appeals over the Community Chapel's application for a conditional use permit.
Finding of fact No. 9.
Plaintiffs raised no issues regarding the question of whether the Zoning Adjustor and the Board of Appeals followed proper administrative procedures.
Finding of fact No. 10.
Plaintiffs do not contest the adequacy of the proof of facts necessary to authorize the issuance of the conditional use permit. If such questions had been raised, there is sufficient competent proof in the record, when tested against the standard required by RCW 7.16.120(4) and (5) to justify issuance of the conditional use permit and to justify the protective conditions imposed by the King County Zoning Adjustor and affirmed by the Board of Appeals.
Finding of fact No. 11.
Plaintiffs raised only two issues in this action, both of which are legal questions. These issues are:
A. Whether King County Code § 21.44.030(11), which provides that dormitories must be located "on campus", requires that the college classrooms and dormitories be located on the same building site.
B. Whether King County Code § 21.08.030(15) imposes an acreage requirement on a college which is not met by the Community Chapel property.
Finding of fact No. 13.
Both the King County Zoning Adjustor and the King County Board of Appeals interpreted the term "on campus" in King County Code § 21.11.030(11) to permit the location of college classrooms and dormitories on these two building sites which are not contiguous but are in close proximity to each other.
Finding of fact No. 14.
Both the King County Zoning Adjustor and the King County Board of Appeals refused to accept plaintiffs' argument that the King County Zoning Code implicitly requires a minimum acreage for colleges.
The petitioners do not challenge any of the trial court's findings, so they become verities in this case. They do, however, challenge most of its conclusions of law.
As this case is unique and involves statutory construction to resolve legislative intent as to meaning of words, we feel it would be helpful to set forth judicial guidelines in determining legislative intent.
In Dominick v. Christensen, 87 Wash.2d 25, 548 P.2d 541 (1976), it was stated at 26, 548 P.2d at 542:
This contention is best resolved by considering it in light of the rules which guide this court in its interpretation of statutory language. The primary objective of statutory construction is to try to carry out the intent of the legislature. Anderson v. O'Brien, 84 Wash.2d 64, 67, 524 P.2d 390 (1974). An expression of one thing in a statute excludes others not expressed. State v. Sponburgh, 84 Wash.2d 203, 212, 525 P.2d 238 (1974). Words of a statute, Unless otherwise defined, must be given their usual and ordinary meaning. Department of Revenue v. Hoppe, 82 Wash.2d 549, 552, 512 P.2d 1094 (1973). The court will not read into a statute matters which are not there nor modify a statute by construction. King County v. Seattle, 70 Wash.2d 988, 991, 425 P.2d 887 (1967). (Italics supplied)
In Garrison v. State Nursing Board, 87 Wash.2d 195, 550 P.2d 7 (1976), at 196-97, 550 P.2d at 8-9:
To resolve this appeal, we must determine whether appellant's findings established an unlawful distribution of drugs within the meaning of the statute. Words in a statute should be given their ordinary meaning absent ambiguity and/or a statutory definition. See Publishers Forest Prods. Co. v. State, 81 Wash.2d 814, 816, 505 P.2d 453 (1973). Courts may consider extrinsic aids to interpret statutory language even without a showing that the language is ambiguous. See 2A C. Sands, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 48.01 (4th ed. 1973). In so doing, we frequently resort to dictionaries to ascertain the common meaning of statutory language. See, e. g., Intermediate School Dist. 105 v. Yakima County, 81 Wash.2d 443, 445, 503 P.2d 104 (1972); Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. State, 53 Wash.2d 813, 815, 328 P.2d 884 (1958). Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1968), in part, defines "distribute" as follows: "to divide among several or many: to deal out: apportion . . ."
Respondent did not apportion or deal out the drugs to anyone. She merely removed the drugs from work to her home. In this respect her actions do not constitute a distribution.
Further, in State ex rel. American Piano Co. v. Superior Court, 105 Wash. 676, 679, 178 P. 827 (1919), we quoted from 36 Cyc.Law & Proc. 1150 (1910):
"Whenever a legislature had used a word in a statute in one sense and with one meaning, and subsequently uses the same word in legislating on the same subject matter, it will be understood as using it in the same sense, unless there be something in the context or the nature of things to indicate that it intended a different meaning thereby."
Accord, Champion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Medcalf v. State, Dept. of Licensing
...& Proc. 1150 (1910))) see also Champion v. Shoreline Sch. Dist. 412, 81 Wash.2d 672, 676, 504 P.2d 304 (1972); East v. King County, 22 Wash.App. 247, 254, 589 P.2d 805 (1978). The same reasoning holds true where the same word is used in different subsections of a Here, the structure of the ......
-
Mall, Inc. v. City of Seattle
...calculating lot areas under the code, we uphold its interpretation. The approach taken by the Court of Appeals in East v. King Cy., 22 Wash.App. 247, 255, 589 P.2d 805 (1978), is applicable here. In resolving a dispute over the meaning of a zoning code's undefined use of the term "campus", ......
-
Wiggers v. Skagit County
...P.2d 955 (1969). The primary objective in interpreting a zoning ordinance is to ascertain the legislative intent. East v. King County, 22 Wash.App. 247, 589 P.2d 805 (1978). Undefined words in an ordinance will be given their plain and ordinary meaning, East v. King County, supra; State v. ......
-
Lakemoor Community Club, Inc. v. Swanson
...The trial court's findings in these matters are unchallenged on appeal and are, therefore, accepted as verities. East v. King County, 22 Wash.App. 247, 589 P.2d 805 (1978). Finding 4 provides:"From the time of recording the plat of Division I of Lakemoor in 1966 through the first half of 19......