Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

July 25, 2004 -- Page 5 Odyssey had no vested rights in the truck laundry. .. Ultimately, Odyssey never secured a conditional use permit for the opera- tion of the truck laundry. It was also in violation of the conditional extensions to operate the truck laundry because a trailer remained on the parcel and the premises were still unpaved in violation of the agreements. The conditional extensions had expired, and by entering into them, Odyssey waived its right to operate the truck laundry after March 13, 1999. Conse- quently, the continued operation of the laundry was a nuisance per se. Finally, Odyssey received full procedural due process protections and the 20-year amortization of the municipal code plus the two extensions insured a constitutionally proper rate of return on Odyssey's investment in the truck laundry. see al.fo: John.ton v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal. 4th 61 (2000). see also: Sharon P. v. A~na~2 Ltd., 21 Cal. 4th 1181 (1999). Plan Approval -- Developer claims number of changes entitles him to reconsideration of plan Changes will actually increage density problems Citation: DeTray v. Cio; of Olympia, Court of Appeals of Washington, Div. 2, No. 30033-8-H (2004) WASHINGTON (05/25/04) -- DeTray. filed a land use application for the Colonial Estates Mobile Home Park Phase HI, a development he wanted to build on his property. DeTray's application proposed a 55-unit mobile home park for senior citi- zens to be built on a lake and accessed by a private road. DeTray also applied for a conditional use permit for his plan. A conditional use permit was issued that sought to mitigate some of the problems caused by DeTray's planned development, especially concermng the density of the project, park trail problems, and road conditions. Four months later, 'DeTray filed a modification of his previous app. lication. This application increased the number of dwelling units to 98. He then claimed his modification amounted to a new plan that entitled him to renewed review o~' his entire application. The city found his new application was still governed by the previous con- ditional use permit. DeTray sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. DeTray appealed, arguing he made substantial changes to his original plan that entitled him to a completely new review. DECISI©~-: Affirmed. DeTray was not entitled to reconsideration of his proposal. ,5', _*(304 '2mnlan P,]btis,hinq C~roup..An,/reproOuction is prombfle~. For mom iniormmion piease .:all (61T) 542-0048. 75