BLD-2008-0474 Roof Revision comment #3.pdfMEMORANDUIV
Date: August 19, 2009
To: Ann Bullis, Building Official
Cc:
Rob Chave, Planning Manager.
From:
Kernen Lien, Associate Planne---�`�`
Subject:
523 Alder Street, BLD20080474
As part of its review of the referenced building permit, the Planning Division recently
approved a roof revision that included crickets for drainage that had slopes of '/4 inches in
12 inches. Upon further review of the applicable codes and in consultation with the City
Attorney, Planning has concluded that this design is not consistent with the plain
language of ECDC 16.30,030; therefore, cannot be approved.
ECDC 16.30.030 clearly states that a roof may extend above 25 feet if all portions of the
roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four in 12 inches or greater. Thus in
order to be consistent with this code section, all portions of the roof, including crickets,
must have at least a four in 12 inch slope.
The original approved plans also contained crickets. The roof pitch is identified as "4112
pitch" on the Roof Framing Plan (Sheet AS), and the planner reviewing the original
permit redlined Sheet P1 reiterating ECDC 16,30.030 adding "for all portions above 25',
the roof must slope 4:12 or greater" to condition 40. It was clearly the understanding of
the reviewing planner that all portions of the roof were sloped at four in 12 or greater.
Any proposed crickets, including those on the approved plan, must also conform to this
requirement
A roof revision must be resubmitted to the City of Edmonds in which all portions of the
roof above 25 feet contain a slope of four in 12 or greater.
When the code is not ambiguous, as is the case with ECDC 16.30.030, it is inappropriate
to look beyond the plain meaning of the code's terms. Washington Cedar and Supply
Co., Inc. v. State Dept. of Labor and Industries, 137 Wn. App. 592, 599, 154 P.3d 287
(2007). Rules of construction are inapplicable where the text of the code is clear and
{BFP738855.D0C;1100006.4000401 )City of Edmonds
explicit. H.IS Development, Inc., v. Pierce County, 148 Wn.2d 451, 471-72, 61 P.3d 1141
(2003). Planning cannot, through administrative policy-making, effectively "amend" the
code in a manner that clearly exceeds its intended scope. Mall, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 108
Wn.2d 369, 378, 739 P.2d 668 (1987). Again, when the code is not ambiguous,
administrative interpretation cannot be employed to waive substantive zoning standards
that would otherwise apply to a particular party or property.
Past history of inaccurately interpreting a zoning ordinance does not prevent the City
from discontinuing its former practice and enforcing the ordinance correctly. Northlake
Marine Works, Inc. v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 134 Wn. App. 272, 293-94, 138 P.3d
626 (2006); Dykstra v. Skagit County, 97 Wn. App. 670, 677, 985 P.2d 424 (1999).
Misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a code by those charged with its enforcement
does not alter its meaning or create a substitute enactment. Faben Point Neighbors v.
City of Mercer Island, 102 Wn. App. 775, 11 P.3d 322 (2000). Instead, both the City and
affected landowners "are bound by the ordinance as written"—not by how the ordinance
has been applied to other parties in the past.. Id.
(BFP738855.DOC;1\00006.90Q040\ )