Laserfiche WebLink
<br />./"..,.~~ <br />, \ <br />.! } <br /> <br />, <br />! . <br /> <br />August 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 15 <br /> <br />Duration of Rights-Neighbors assert developer <br />failed to meet conditions of permit before it <br />expired <br /> <br />Developer claims it had an automatic stay pending its appeal <br />Citation: Kelly v. County of Chelan, 185 P.3d 1224 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. <br />3 2008) <br /> <br />In 1989, Anton Roeck1; doing business as WICO, submitted an appli- <br />cation for a conditional use permit as part of its plan to develop property <br />on the shoreline of a lake in the county. After making revisions to its pro- <br />posal, WICO submitted another application in April 1994. After various <br />other revisions to the project, eventually, on August 19, 2005, a county <br />hearing examiner approved the conditional use. In issuing the condition- <br />al use permit, the hearing examiner deterrn,ined that WICO'sapplication <br />was complete and that it vested to regulations in effect in April 1994. . <br />Property owners neighboring the site of proposed development op- <br />posed the project. They @ed an action under Washington's Land Use Pe- <br />tition Act (LUPA) (RCWA S36.70C.l00(1)). They appealed the land use <br />decision by the hearing examiner. <br />The superior court determined that the hearing examiner erred be-. <br />cause WICO's application did not vest prior to zoning changes on Octo- <br />ber 17,2005. <br />WICO appealed. <br />The neighbors moved to dismiss WICO's appeal. They argued that be- <br />cause WICa chose not to act on the permit and obtain necessary gOV" <br />ernment approvals within two years of issuance of the 'Conditional use <br />permit, as the permit required, the permit expired. <br />WICO countered that it had an automatic stay pending appeal of <br />the permit. . <br /> <br />( 0\ <br />\. ,j <br /> <br />I,:>ECISION: Appeal dismissed. <br /> <br />The coUrt: agreed with the neighbors. 0 <br />The court noted that, in relevant part, WIeO's conditional use permit <br />provided that: failure to obtain all necessary government approvals to <br />proceed within two years of the date of the decision to issue the permit <br />would result in "nullification" of the permit. <br />WICO did not dispute its noncompliance with the permit. Rather, <br />WICOhad argued that it had an automatic stay pending the neighbors' <br />appeal of the permit. The court rejected that argument. It found that <br />the any stay of the LUPA action was governed by a provision of LUPA <br />(S 36.70C.100(1)), which provided: "A petitioner or other party may <br />request the court to stay or suspend an action by the local jurisdiction <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />89 <br />