Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 I Issue 16 Case Note: The Opponents had also maintained that the Board had failed to properly notify the County Planning Department of the public hearing or provide it with a "fill( statement of the proposed action" and all materials on which the Board relied in reaching its negative declaration decision under SEQRA. The Opponents had contended that the Board had violated the Town's Land Use and Building Maintenance Ordinance by failing to provide any explanation or elaboration as to eight enumerated conditions that had to be met for a special permit grant. The appellate court agreed that the Board so failed and violated the Town Law and the Town Ordinance. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Board's resolution granting the special use permit was properly annulled by the Supreme Court. Nonconforming Use — County says business use is in violation of zoning code Business operator argues use is a legal, preexisting, nonconforming use, although it was not fully operational at the time of the zoning change Citation: King County, Dept. of Development and Environmental Services v. King County, 2013 WL 3377420 (Wash. 2013) WASHINGTON (06/27/13) —This case addressed the issue of whether a use was "established" as required by the county zoning ordinance so as to con- stitute a nonconforming use. The Background /Facts: Beginning in October 2003, Ronald Shear ( "Shear ") leased a 10 -acre parcel of property (the "Property ") in King County, Washington (the "County "), from Jeffrey Spencer. The Property was zoned "agricultural." Shear intended to operate on the Property a business that processed organic materials into animal bedding and fuel. To that end, begin- ning in October 2003, Shear began bringing equipment and materials onto the Property for later processing. Shear's activities on the Property increased throughout 2004, although no actual "grinding or processing" had begun. Then, in September 2004, the County amended its zoning code to require permitting for operations such as Shear's, classifying them as "materials processing facilities." Shortly after the zoning change, Shear began actual grinding of organic materials. In response to complaints from a nearby land- owner, the County Department of Development and Environmental Services ( "DDES ") began to investigate Shear's operations. In October 2006, DDES issued an administrative order. Among other things, the order found Shear was operating a materials processing facility in a critical area without a permit. © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9