Preview:

/   Fl LE
IN CLERKS OFFICE
lllJI'R9&E COURT, STATEOF WASHINQ10N
DATE JUN  2 7  2013

"Ykt.t.

PREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON





KING COUNTY, DEPARTMENT )
OF DEVELOPMENT AND  )  No. 87514-6
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, )
an executive agency,  )  EnBanc
)
Petitioner, )
)
v.  )
) KING COUNTY, a Washington           ) municipal corporation, JEFFREY L.    ) SPENCER, a single man, and               ) RONALD A. SHEAR, a single man,    )
)
Respondents. )

  )  Filed
























JUN  272013



C. JOHNSON, J.-This land use case requires us to determine how the King County Code provisions allow uses to vest as nonconforming uses. This case began as a challenge to an agency order declaring the use of the property was not compliant with King County zoning ordinances. The applicants' challenge was based on the assertion that the use was established before revisions to the zoning ordinances characterized the use as nonconforming and, thus, requiring a permit.
This case also presents the issue of what effect a nonpermitted activity has on a later claim to a preexisting use when a permit was required for the activity



asserted as support for a preexisting use. The hearing examiner found for the landowner on all relevant issues, but the decision was reversed by the superior court. The Court of Appeals reversed the superior court, and we now reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the landowner's  use was not established within the meaning of the King County Code.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY


The 10-acre parcel of land at issue in this appeal lies in the Green River Valley and is zoned agricultural. The landowner, Jeffrey Spencer, allowed Ronald Shear, who operates a business (BRC), which processes organic materials into animal bedding and fuel, to rent the property.1
In 2003, Shear was operating a similar processing facility on a one-acre


parcel near Spencer's parcel. In October, the two entered into an oral "lease" agreement whereby Shear began bringing equipment and materials onto Spencer's parcel for later processing. This operation fit under the definition of an "interim recycling facility" under the then-existing King County Code and required no use

Download 87514-6.pdf

Washington Law