Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010

Home

September 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 18 Zoning Bulletin of the Developers' applications (from 1989 to 2005) allot[ed] more than 23 acres to [the] proposed development." Thus, the court found that the Developers' proposed development exceeded the comprehen- sive plan's prescribed density in 1994. Since it was incompatible with the county's comprehensive plan, it was therefore not allowed under the 1994 zoning regulations. For that reason, concluded the court, the Developers' rights could have vested in 1994. Moreover, the court concluded that the Developers' rights "did not vest any time between 1994 and 2000 either." Each version of the De- velopers' plan had been incompatible with the county's zoning code be- cause "the plan was never limited to one unit per acre or less." See also: Hull v. Hunt, 53 Wash. 2d 125, 331 P.2d 856 (1958). See also: Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 95 Wash. App. 883, 976 P.2d 1279 (Div. 2 1999). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that the State of Wash- ington's rule —that an applicant obtains a vested right to develop land when he or she makes a timely and complete building permit application —was the "minority rule." Case Note: In its decision, the court also emphasized that while "generally, specific zoning regulations govern over the comprehen- sive plans," here the zoning regulations specifically required com- pliance with the comprehensive plan. Validity of Zoning Regulations —After Receiving Application For License to Operate a Pawnshop, City Adopts Interim Ordinance Prohibiting Pawnshops Applicant says adoption of ordinance was invalid because it was for an improper purpose Citation: Pawn America Minnesota, LLC v. City of St. Louis Park, 2010 WL 3339157 (Minn. 2010) MINNESOTA (08/26/10)—This case addressed whether an interim zoning ordinance was adopted for improper purposes (i.e., to prevent a proposed pawnshop) and was therefore invalid. 8 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 1) 96