Opinion ID: 2514603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Meaning of TCSC Article IV, Section 21.4.5.3

Text: ¶ 13 TCSC article IV, section 21.4.5 provides that the health officer may: Permit the installation of an OSS, where the minimum land area requirements or lot sizes cannot be met, only when all of the following criteria are met: 21.4.5.1 The lot is registered as a legal lot of record created prior to January 1, 1995; and 21.4.5.2 The lot is outside an area of special concern where minimum land area has been listed as a design parameter necessary for public health protection; and 21.4.5.3 The proposed system meets all requirements of these regulations other than minimum land area. The County concedes that Griffin satisfied the first two subsections, thus we must only determine the meaning of TCSC article IV, section 21.4.5.3. ¶ 14 The TCSC's structure has led to Griffin's disagreement with the County about what the OSS regulations require. As an example, section 10.1 outlines minimum horizontal separations, commonly known as setbacks. Table I in section 10.1 lists items requiring setback (i.e., building foundation) and certain OSS components (i.e., septic tank) and outlines the number of feet of setback (5-foot setback of septic tank from building foundation). Some of the setback measurements contain qualifying language. For instance, the 5-foot setback for septic tank to building foundation corresponds to footnote 6, which reads: [t]he health officer may allow a reduced horizontal separation to not less than two feet where the ... building foundation is up-gradient. TCSC art. IV, § 10.1, tbl. I n. 6. The Board and the Court of Appeals held that provisions such as footnote 6 essentially waive the requirements, and therefore OSS petitioners who use them cannot meet all requirements of the TCSC. Griffin argues, and the superior court agreed, that provisions like footnote 6 are not waivers but alternative setbacks and standards specifically articulated in the Code and that OSS petitioners who utilize them meet all requirements of the Code. ¶ 15 The plain language of TCSC article IV, section 21.4.5.3 directs that a small-lot OSS petitioner satisfy each and every [1] requirement of the TCSC (other than minimum lot size) to qualify for an OSS permit. The meaning of the word requirement is the central issue. The verb require means to demand as necessary or essential (as on general principles or in order to comply with or satisfy some regulation). WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1929 (2002). A requirement is, of course, something required. Id. ¶ 16 Under this definition, requirements unambiguously include specifically articulated alternatives. Where the Code explicitly provides more than one method of satisfying a particular provision, we cannot say that only the first method that happens to be listed is essential to satisfy the regulation on its own. The scope of the requirement is defined by all of the articulated methods taken together, not solely by the first or most restrictive on the list. For example, the building foundation/septic tank setback requirement, in its entirety, provides a choice of either a 5-foot setback or approval by a health officer of a smaller setback based on the up-gradient location of the foundation. ¶ 17 The County argues that allowing small-lot owners to use the Code's articulated alternative requirements renders the all requirements language in TCSC article IV, section 21.4.5.3 superfluous. Section 21.4.5.3 specifies that small-lot owners must comply with all requirements in order to receive OSS permits, but the County points out that presumably all owners of lots of any size must also comply with all requirements of the Code. To have meaning, the section 21.4.5.3 all requirements language must differentiate small-lot owners from standard-sized-lot owners in some way. As Griffin points out, the general waiver provisions in TCSC article I, section 13 and article IV, section 24.1 give meaning to the language. Article I, section 13 provides that [w]henever a strict interpretation of this Code would result in significant hardship, a person may request a waiver of the provision causing hardship. Article IV, section 24.1 is substantively the same. [2] These waivers do not articulate specific methods of complying with any given provision; rather, they represent an overarching mechanism for exemption from any specific requirement. Waiver recipients do not comply with or satisfy provisions; instead, they are excused altogether from those provisions. Standard-sized-lot owners may receive waivers, while small-lot owners may not. ¶ 18 The Board erroneously interpreted the law when it concluded that `[a]ll (other) requirements' means that an application for an OSS on a too-small lot should satisfy all requirements ... without having to result [sic] to waivers, setback adjustments, or other modifications of the rules.  AR at 3 (emphasis added); see RCW 36.70C.130(1)(b). [3] Adjustments and alternatives specifically articulated in any given Code provision are part of the requirement of that provision. Small-lot OSS petitioners who use these adjustments or alternatives meet the requirements, while those petitioners who must use hardship waivers or other generalized waivers do not meet the individual requirements to which those waivers apply.