Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

z.g. September 1995 -- Page 3' good faith~reliance on the acquiescence. The board upheld the citation and ordered th~ company to comply with the ordinance. Bernie ~Enterprises sued to overturn the board's decision. The court did not take any new evidence, but disagreed with the board's conclusion regarding the compa.ay's good faith. It reversed the decision, holding the company was entitled to a variance by estoppel. The zoning board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Because the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the trial court i~properly reversed it. When the supervisors approved the transfer, their authority was limited to approval of the legal nonconforming use. Bernie Enterprises did not act in good faith or rely innocently on the supervisors' approval. The company's owner contradicted himself several times about the company's plans for the property. Despite its claims that the township's approval induced it to buy the property, the company knew Rio started out using only 4.5 acres and did not ask if the expansion to 8.5 acres was legal. Also, the company conditioned its purchase on getting a use certificate for only 4.5 acres, no more. Highland Park Community Club v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 506 A.2d 1364 (198~). Caporali v. Ward, 493 A.2d 791 (1985). Jurisdiction - Objecting Neighbors Fail to Sign Their Petition Griffith v. City of Bellevue, 893 P. 2d 689 (Washington) 1995 Greacen Construction Inc. owned a parcel of land next to the Griffiths' property in the city of Bellevue, Wash. Greacen submitted a preliminary plan to subdivide and rezone the parcel. A hearing examiner recommended approval. On Oct. 18, 1993, the city council rejected a challenge by the Griffiths, approved the preliminary plat application, and'passed an ordinance that rezoned the parcel. The council sent the Griffiths a notice stating they had a right to appeal under the city's land use code if they did so by Nov. 8, 1993. Or/Nov; 8, the Griffiths asked a court to review the council's actions. The Griffiths' a~:torney signed the petition filed with the court, but neither of the Griffiths signed the vei-ification block at the bottom of the petition. State law required a "beneficially interested" party to sign a sworn verification that the assertions in the petition were true. The state statute did not specify how long a party had tOfile the verification, but a court had held in an unrelated case that a party had 90 days to file one. Apparently, one copy had been verified, but it was accidentally sent to the city rather than the court. The oversight was not discovered at first and the court agreed to review the case. More than 90 days later, however, Greacen noticed the omission. It asked the court to dismiss the case because, due to the lack of verification, the court did not haveijurisdiction over the matter. The court dismissed the case, and the Griffiths appealed.