Laserfiche WebLink
September 25, 2010 'Volume 41 No. 18 Zoning Bulletin <br />that Klag and his direct superior were "entitled to qualified immunity." <br />Under the United States Constitution, they were permitted to: inform <br />the Husseins of their view as officials that the Hussein were violating <br />the law; and threaten litigation or prosecution if the Husseins did not <br />conform their actions to the law. <br />See also: Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 <br />S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548, 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 23 (1972). <br />Case Note: The court also concluded that the Husseins' interest <br />in their asphalt driveway was not protected by substantive due <br />process. The court explained that interests protected by substan- <br />tive due process include: "freedom from government actions that <br />shock the conscience;" and "certain interests that the [U.S.] Su- <br />preme Court has found so rooted in the traditions and conscience <br />of our people as to be fundamental." Substantive due process in- <br />terests, said the court, are "much narrower" than those protect- <br />ed by procedural due process. The court found that "denial of a <br />driveway does not shock the conscience, and an asphalt driveway <br />is not an interest so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our <br />people as to be fundamental." Thus, the court concluded that the <br />City did not violate the Husseins' substantive due process rights. <br />Vested Rights —Hearing Examiner Finds <br />Developers' Rights Vested in 1994 <br />Neighbors argue rights could not have vested because <br />application did not comply with 1994 regulations <br />Citation: Kelly v. County of Chelan, 2010 WL 3210009 (Wash. Ct. <br />App. Div. 3 2010) <br />This case addressed whether a developer's application for a condi- <br />tional use permit was sufficient to invoke the vested rights doctrine and <br />vest the developer's rights in earlier, less -restrictive zoning regulations. <br />The Background/Facts: Beginning in 1989, WICO (the "Develop- <br />ers") applied to the county for a conditional use permit to build town- <br />house condominiums and boat slips on property in the county. The <br />proposed development was changed numerous times between 1989 <br />and the present. <br />In July 2005, a county hearing examiner (the "Examiner") held a pub- <br />lic hearing on the Developers' revised conditional use permit application. <br />6 ® 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />94 <br />