Court Opinion

ID: 9559789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:42.548991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:44.135576
License: Public Domain

Hamley, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the conclusion (but not in all of the views expressed) that appellant is entitled to receive a permit to construct a combination residence and business building as applied for, and is entitled to have either the adjacent leased tract or the designated portion of his own B-l property zoned or otherwise certified for busiriéss parking.
This calls for reversal of the judgment in the first of the three suits here under review (King county cause No. 462113) and for issuance of the writ there prayed for. The majority opinion, however, also has the effect of reversing the judgments for respondents entered in the other two *497causes (Kang county causes Nos. 462153 and 462760), in which appellant seeks to restrain the placing in effect of ordinances rezoning to A-l his own B-l property and the ádjacent leased B-l property.
This, too, may be warranted, in view of the fact that these rezoning proceedings were instituted in an attempt to deprive appellant of the business building permit. But I think it ought to be noted, and I take this means of doing so, that the reversal of the judgments in these last two cases should not be taken as res judicata as to the city’s right, at some future time, to rezone these B-l tracts to some more limited classification, provided the city recognizes appellant’s right to continue, as a nonconforming use, whatever business is then being carried on in the structure then existing.
Finley, J., concurs with Hamley, J.