Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />or another party to implement the decision under review."(See RCWA <br />S 36.70C.100(1).) The court found that because tUPA afforded any par- <br />ty an opportunity to obtain a stay, wrco's argument that a stay was <br />automatically afforded it was illogical. The court concluded that since <br />WICO could have obtained a stay pursuant to LUPA, WIcb was not <br />entitled to an "automatic stay" under the common law. <br />Finding that WICO failed to meet certain deadlines and failed to stay <br />the effective date of the deadlines, and that the permit called for nullifi- <br />cation for such failure, the court concluded that the permit expired. Ac- <br />cordingly, it dismissed WICO's appeal. <br /> <br />See also: Gold v. Kamin, 170 Ill. App. 3d 312, 120 Ill. Dec. 595, 524 <br />N.E.2d 62-? (2d Dist. 1988). <br /> <br />i; <br />I <br /> <br />Case Note: In reaching its conclusion, the court further noted that <br />WICO did not: appeal the permit deadlines; and made no effort to <br />obtain the required approvals or otherwise act on the perinit. The <br />court also found that the neighbors did not attempt to prevent WICO <br />from actingon the permit. And, the court emphasized that "nullifica- <br />tion" of a permit-as was called for in WIeO's permit-differed from <br />mere expiration, which would imply an opportunity for renewal. <br /> <br /> i ! <br /> : I <br /> I <br /> ; i <br /> ! <br /> i : <br /> i <br /> ; , <br /> , i <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> i i <br /> I <br /> J <br /> ii <br /> :: <br />') q <br /> [ ~ <br /> U <br /> 1i <br /> ., <br /> !i <br /> ;i <br /> li <br /> ;! <br /> ii <br /> 'I <br /> " <br /> :i <br /> " <br /> p <br /> <br />Vesting of Right-After landowner dies, his <br />estate pursues the development application <br />he filed <br /> <br />County denies the application, finding waivers landowner <br />was granted did not transfer to his estate <br /> <br />Citation: Department of Land Conservation and Development v. Burk, <br />2008 WL 2439710 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) <br /> <br />Since 1947, William Burk (Burk) owned a 160 a~re parcel in the coun- <br />ty. In the years following his purchase of the land, variou.s restrictions on <br />its use were adopted by the state. <br />In 20Q4, "Measure 37" (see Or. Rev. Stat. S 197.352(1), (8) (2005)) <br />was enacted. Measure 37 permitted an owner of property that was sub- <br />ject to land use restrictions that went into effect after the time the owner <br />purchased the property to bring a claim either for diminution in value re- <br />sulting from those land use restrictions or for a waiver of the restrictions <br />in lieu of compensation. <br />Burk filed Measure 37 claims with the county and the state. He assert- <br />ed that the land use regulations that were enacted since 1947 prevented .~. <br />him from subdividing the property. The county and state approved his <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />____ J <br /> <br />90 <br />