Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2012 ' Volume 6 1 No. 5 <br />pairs of structures in floodways of up to less than 50% of the structure's <br />value so long as the ground floor area is not increased. So, although the <br />regulations could eventually require Cradduck to give up the Park one day, <br />she was now allowed to continue to operate the Park, only losing some in- <br />come due to the floodway construction prohibition. In other words, noted <br />the court, Cradduck was not being required to directly pay for a public <br />problem in the monetary sense. Rather, she was only being required to limit <br />an activity that would likely contribute directly to a public problem. <br />Having found the regulations' construction prohibitions passed all <br />three prongs of the substantive due process test, the court found they did <br />not violate Cradduck's substantive due process rights. <br />See also: Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 114 Wash. 2d 320, 787 <br />P.2d 907, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 21010 (1990). <br />See also: Maple Leaf Investors, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 88 Wash. <br />2d 726, 565 P.2d 1162 (1977). <br />See also: Duckworth v. City of Bonney Lake, 91 Wash. 2d 19, 586 P.2d <br />860 (1978). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that the County had valid <br />police power to discontinue nonconforming uses: it is reasonable to <br />prohibit the continuance of nonconforming uses after abandonment <br />or amortization. Accordingly, the court found it similarly reasonable <br />to prevent nonconforming uses from being newly constructed. <br />Conditional Use Permit —City Ordinance <br />Provides Height Restrictions can be Waived by <br />Obtaining Conditional Use Permit <br />County argues waiver of zoning ordinance requires a <br />variance, not a conditional use permit <br />Citation: Burns Holdings, LLC v. Teton County Bd. of Com'rs, 2012 <br />WL 206010 (Idaho 2012) <br />IDAHO (01/25/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />conditional use permit ("CUP") could be used to waive a zoning ordi- <br />nance requirement. <br />The Background/Facts: Burns Holdings, LLC ("Burns") owned a 6.5- <br />acre parcel of property (the "Property") in Teton County (the "County") <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />