Laserfiche WebLink
February 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 4 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Chadwell v. Knox County, 980 S.W.2d 378 (Tenn. Ct. App. <br />1998). <br />See also: Clouse v. Cook, 1988 WL 34834 (Tenn. 1988). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court indicated that while Hiwas- <br />see's Park was clearly "commercial," it is possible that other mobile <br />home parks could be found .to be residential (and thus not protected <br />by the Grandfather Clause) given their construction and the "per- <br />manency of subdivision -like developments" of mobile homes. <br />Proceedings=Trial court revokes developer's <br />permit <br />Developer appeals but fails to seek a stay of permit's time limit <br />Citation: Kelly v. County of Chelan, 2010 WL 27859 (Wash. 2010) <br />WASHINGTON (01/07/10)—This case addressed the following issue: <br />"After a trial court revokes a permit previously granted to developers by <br />a hearing examiner, do the stay provisions of [the state's Land Use Peti- <br />tion Act] LUPA require the developers to seek a stay to preserve their <br />rights on appeal?" <br />The Background/Facts: Anton Roeckl owned property (the "Prop- <br />erty") in the county. Roeckl, doing business as WICO, sought to de- <br />velop the Property. Beginning in 1989, an engineering firm, on behalf <br />of WICO, applied for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to develop the <br />Property. Plans were revised over several years, with the most recent plan <br />filed in June 2005. <br />In August 2005, a county hearing examiner issued a CUP for WICO's <br />proposed development. In doing so, the hearing examiner found that the <br />proposed development was not subject to new zoning regulations ad- <br />opted in 2000 but rather was subject to the less stringent land use regu- <br />lations in effect in 1994. When issuing the CUP, the hearing examiner <br />required WICO "to obtain all necessary approvals." It was specified that. <br />"[f]ailure to obtain ALL necessary approvals to proceed within 2 years <br />of the Decision date [would] result in nullification of [the CUP]." <br />Neighbors of the Property opposed WICO's proposed development <br />project. The Neighbors appealed the examiner's decision to the county's <br />Superior Court under the state's LUPA (chapter 36.70 RCW). <br />Disagreeing with the examiner, the Superior Court found that WICO's <br />application "did not vest in 1994 but was subject to new zoning regula- <br />tions adopted in 2000." In May 2006, the Superior Court reversed the <br />examiner's decision and revoked the permit. <br />WICO appealed. <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />66 <br />