Home/Court of Appeals of Washington/Talbot v. Gray

Talbot v. Gray

525 P.2d 801, 11 Wash. App. 807, 1974 Wash. App. LEXIS 1301
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedAugust 19, 1974
Docket2140-1
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 525 P.2d 801 (Talbot v. Gray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Talbot v. Gray, 525 P.2d 801, 11 Wash. App. 807, 1974 Wash. App. LEXIS 1301 (Wash. Ct. App. 1974).

Opinion

Williams, J.

— This action was brought by James G. Talbot and Joyce M. Talbot, his wife, and Charles R. Hartman and Helen Hartman, his wife, to permanently enjoin the City of Seattle from authorizing, and Gordon M. Gray and Heli J. Gray, his wife, from constructing a dock on 5 feet of shoreland of Lake Washington in Seattle. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied permanent injunctive relief and awarded the Grays damages for a temporary injunction which had been preliminarily issued at the instance of the Talbots and Hartmans. This appeal followed.

The facts are briefly these: The Talbots and the Hart-mans own the residential lakeshore property as depicted in the diagram. The Grays applied for and were granted a permit by the City of Seattle to construct a dock at the end of the 5-foot corridor shown on the diagram. The basic question is whether the City correctly applied the provisions of its zoning ordinance in granting the permit. We hold that the City did.

The general purpose and scope of the City’s zoning ordinance is “to protect and promote public health, safety, morals, and general welfare through a well-considered comprehensive plan for the use of land.” Seattle code 26.02.020. The ordinance “limits the use of land and limits the height, size, use and location of buildings and structures . . .” *810 26.02.020. Any use of land within a zone not permitted by the ordinance is prohibited. 26.12.110.

*809

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jonathan Liffgens, Et Ux, V Luke Dorny
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2022
Potala Village Kirkland, Llc v. City Of Kirkland
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2014
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County
291 P.3d 278 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2013)
Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake
167 Wash. 2d 242 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)
ABBEY ROAD GROUP v. City of Bonney Lake
218 P.3d 180 (Washington Supreme Court, 2009)
Westside Business Park, LLC v. Pierce County
5 P.3d 713 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2000)
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County
976 P.2d 1279 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)
Larsen v. Town of Colton
973 P.2d 1066 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1999)
Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue
132 Wash. 2d 103 (Washington Supreme Court, 1997)
Buechel v. Department of Ecology
884 P.2d 910 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran
872 P.2d 1090 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
Bressani v. Plan. Zoning Comm'n, Groton, No. 51 27 28 (Dec. 3, 1990)
1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 4809 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1990)
Carlson v. Town of Beaux Arts Village
704 P.2d 663 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1985)
White v. Wilhelm
665 P.2d 407 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1983)
Norco Construction, Inc. v. King County
649 P.2d 103 (Washington Supreme Court, 1982)
Norco Construction, Inc. v. King County
627 P.2d 988 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
Ritchie v. Markley
597 P.2d 449 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1979)
Parsons Supply, Inc. v. Smith
591 P.2d 821 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
525 P.2d 801, 11 Wash. App. 807, 1974 Wash. App. LEXIS 1301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/talbot-v-gray-washctapp-1974.