Opinion ID: 1304167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Condemned Street Easements versus Dedicated Street Easements and Street Easements versus Private Easements under the Code

Text: Finally, Mall argues that the DCLU and hearing examiner erred in according different treatment to street easements and private easements under the zoning code. Historically, Seattle has allowed property owners to include private easements for access and utilities in computing floor area. The DCLU director reasoned that street easements are to be treated differently from private easements because the former are more severe encumbrances on property. Mall argues that this distinction between street and private easements is unjustified. Instead, Mall would have us distinguish between easements created by dedication and by condemnation. We decline to adopt Mall's approach. There is no question that Westlake Avenue is a public street: the code defines street as a public way at least 30 feet wide permanently open to the public. SMC 24.08.200(S)(12). Mall, however, would have us hold that Westlake Avenue is different from other streets because it is an easement and Seattle has traditionally allowed private easements, such as for access and utilities, to be included in lot area. In so arguing, Mall overlooks the fact that most Seattle streets, including dedicated streets, are easements. The mere fact that property is an easement, therefore, will not support Mall's proposed distinction between streets created by condemnation and by dedication. Some jurisdictions have observed that a property line is drawn where the property abuts a dedicated street. See, e.g., Linneman Constr., Inc. v. Montana-Dakota Utils. Co., 504 F.2d 1365, 1369 (8th Cir.1974). Yet nowhere do such cases say that the result should be any different where property abuts a street created by condemnation. Indeed, the relevant cases invariably refer to street in its general and broadest sense. For example, the Supreme Court of Iowa states: `Lot' and `street' are two separate and distinct terms, and have separate and distinct meanings. The term `lots', in its common and ordinary meaning, includes that portion of the platted territory measured and set apart for individual and private use and occupancy; while the term `streets' means that portion set apart and designated for the use of the public, and such is the sense in which such terms will be presumed to have been used, unless it be made to appear that a contrary meaning was intended.' Stockdale v. Lester, 158 N.W.2d 20, 22 (Iowa 1968) (quoting Montgomery v. Hines, 134 Ind. 221, 225, 33 N.E. 1100 (1892)); Loveladies Property Owners Ass'n v. Barnegat City Serv. Co., 60 N.J. Super. 491, 500, 159 A.2d 417 (1960); In re Dixon, 120 Cal. App. 635, 638, 8 P.2d 881 (1932); Peake v. Azusa Vly. Sav. Bank, 37 Cal. App.2d 296, 301, 99 P.2d 382 (1940); accord, California v. United States, 169 F.2d 914, 919 (9th Cir.1948); Schenectady v. Trustees of Union College, 144 N.Y. 241, 39 N.E. 67 (1894); 25A Words and Phrases, Lot, at 430 (1961). Courts have long ago rejected the argument that the mere fact that a landowner holds title to an abutting public street easement entitles him to gain legal advantage by including a portion of the street within his lot. For example, in holding that a 30-foot strip covered by a street could not be attached in determining the center line of a lot, the court in Earl v. Dutour, 181 Cal. 58, 60, 183 P. 438, 6 A.L.R. 1163 (1919) explained: However clearly it may appear that the owner of a lot holds title to the center of an adjoining street, subject to the public easement, and that the boundary of the lot is technically, therefore, the center of the street, in view of the fact that the owner of such lot or land has no right to the possession or occupancy of any portion of such public street, we are of the opinion that the word lot, as generally and customarily used, does not include such portion of the street. Wegge v. Madler, 129 Wis. 412, [116 Am. St. Rep. 953, 109 N.W. 223]. Accord, Hunter v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 128 Cal. App. 90, 93, 16 P.2d 1048 (1932). These cases advance no theory to support Mall's argument that the law should be any different in the case of a street created by condemnation. In fact, the limited times this court has addressed the question in the context of street vacations, it has held that the means by which a city acquired its streets was of no legal consequence. See Seattle v. Hinckley, 67 Wash. 273, 278-79, 121 P. 444 (1912); see also Burmeister v. Howard, 1 Wash. Terr. 207, 211-12 (1867). There is good reason for not distinguishing between condemned and dedicated street easements. In either case, the abutting landowner's interest is merely reversionary, Gillis v. King Cy., 42 Wn.2d 373, 377-78, 255 P.2d 546 (1953), and extends no further than the center of the street, Burmeister, at 211-12. Until the street is vacated, its value to the landowner in both cases is nominal. See California v. United States , at 926; In re New York, 278 N.Y. 163, 173, 15 N.E.2d 563 (1938). The fee owner cannot use the property for private purposes without a special permit and may otherwise only make such use of the property as is permitted by city ordinances to the general public. Baxter-Wyckoff Co. v. Seattle, 67 Wn.2d 555, 560-61, 408 P.2d 1012 (1965); see 1 B. Elliott & W. Elliott, Roads and Streets § 482 (4th rev. ed. 1926). These restrictions hold true regardless of how the street was created. Since the fee owner's interests in condemned and dedicated street easements are identical, there is no rational basis for giving preferential treatment to the former. In contrast, distinguishing between public and private easements is both justified under the code and precedented by common law. See, e.g., Siegemund v. Building Comm'r, 259 Mass. 329, 156 N.E. 852 (1927) (private way held not a street within meaning of local zoning ordinance relating to setback requirements). While the code manifestly demonstrates an intent to exclude streets from lots, no similar intent to exclude private easements can be derived. Based on its interpretations of the code, DCLU has routinely included private easements in its estimations of lot coverage. Because the owner of land subject to a private easement normally retains considerable rights to enjoyment of the subjected property, exclusion of private easements from lot area calculations would be unfair to property owners in considerably lowering the value of servient estates. Exclusion of public easements, on the other hand, is fair because the owner of the burdened property has already been compensated for the property's full value as if he had sold it in fee outright. A distinction based on public versus private easements is therefore consistent with those rules of statutory construction on which Mall relies  that zoning ordinances are to be construed in favor of property owners and are not to be extended by implication to matters not clearly within their scope. Morin v. Johnson, 49 Wn.2d 275, 279, 300 P.2d 569 (1956). It is true that some private easements may restrict the fee owner's rights as much as a street. Indeed, under certain circumstances some courts have recognized that a private road easement is for all practical purposes the functional equivalent of a public street. See McConiga v. Riches, 40 Wn. App. 532, 700 P.2d 331 (1985); Loveladies, at 501, 503 (construing Weissmantel v. Sands Point, 129 N.Y.S.2d 640 (Sup. Ct. 1954)). Yet, if the distinction between private and common use is occasionally a matter of degree (on which legislative clarification would be helpful), no such hairsplitting is required in the present case. Mall's interest in Westlake Avenue is unquestionably burdened by a public easement and, hence, is no different from Mall's center line interests in Fourth Avenue and Pine Street. These interests must all be excluded from Mall's lot area calculations. Mall seems to want it both ways. On the one hand, it would have us hold that a condemned street easement must be included within lot area, because `property lines' encompass [fee] ownership. Brief of Appellant, at 14. On the other, Mall would have us conclude that lot area excludes a dedicated street, despite recognition that the fee ownership of the land beneath the street remains in the owner of the abutting property. Brief of Appellant, at 18. Unless this court is to depart from the long-standing rule that a landowner holds a fee title up to the center line of an adjacent street, Roeder Co. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 105 Wn.2d 567, 575, 716 P.2d 855 (1986), Burmeister, at 211-12, these two positions cannot be reconciled. The language and intent of the zoning code is clear: streets are not to be considered part of a landowner's lot area. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court and administrative determinations in denying Mall's application to build a 35-story building on a 4,170-square-foot lot. [5] Subsequent to the writing of this opinion, the parties have advised us that this case has settled. Because we have determined that this case involves matters of continuing and substantial public interest, particularly in the guidance it provides City officers in interpreting the Seattle Municipal Code, this opinion will be filed. See In re Myers, 105 Wn.2d 257, 261, 714 P.2d 303 (1986); Sorenson v. Bellingham, 80 Wn.2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). PEARSON, C.J., and UTTER, BRACHTENBACH, DOLLIVER, DORE, ANDERSEN, CALLOW, and DURHAM, JJ., concur.