Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Z.B. <br /> <br />August 25, 2004 - Page 3 <br /> <br />CALIFORNIA (07/02/04) - MKM Partners LLC applied for a grading per- <br />mil to construct an earthen water reservoir. It wanted to use the reservoir as an <br />aquafarm for r:J.ising catfish and as a lake for recreational water skiing. Both <br />uses were allowed in the property's zone. <br />The permit was issued by the Public Works Agency. However, the Publi.c <br />Works Agency failed to follow the dictates of the California Environmental <br />Quality Act in graming the permit. <br />Neighbors challenged the permit. During the challenge, a new permit ordi- <br />nance applicable to all outdoor recreational activities was issued. <br />Ultimately, the COLlnty revoked the permit and ruled MKivI would be re- <br />quired to submit a new permit application subject to the new permit ordinance. <br />MKM sued, and the court ruled in the county's favor. The court found <br />MKvr could not obtain a vested right in the permit because the permit failed to <br />comply with the California Environmental Quality Act from the beginning. <br />MKJ,Vr appealed, arguing it had a vested right to complete the project and <br />opente the aquafarm and ski lake by having completed 95 percent of the work <br />on the project in reasonable reliance on the grading permit issued by the county. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br />The sitmuion did not preclude a finding of vested rights. <br />Resolution of this matter turned on whether, notwithstanding the California <br />Environmental Quality Act violation, the injustice to MKivI that would result <br />from failure to rectify matters was sufficient to justify the effect on the public <br />that would result. This required a factual analysis by the coun. <br />Since no factual analysis was undertaken regarding the fairness to NIKM <br />versus the effect on the public, the case had to be retried to determine whether <br />MK.\;[ did in fact have a vested right based on having completed 9S percent of <br />the work on the project in reasonable reliance on the grading permit. <br />see also: Smidl v. County of Sanra Barhara, 7 Cal.App.4th 770 (1992). <br />see also. Kreeft Y. City of OakLand, 68 Cal.App.4th 46 (1998). <br /> <br />Appeal - New ordinance supersedes most of old one <br /> <br />Courr dismisses lawsuit, finding landowner}s arguments moot <br /> <br />Ciullwn. Nannie Lee's Slrawherry lvlansion v. City of AIelboume, Court of <br />.\ppeal o/Florida. 5rh Disr., No. 5D03-.:f.155 (2004) <br /> <br />FLORIDA i 07/0'.2/(4) - ~annie Lee's Strawberry :Y!ansion sued the city, ar- <br /> <br />'~Uln~ It.,huuld not have passed a 2002 utdinao.ce approving Hynes Properties <br />LtC., me plan for ;_1 ,:hree building, multi-use complex called the "Causeway <br />C,:nrcr" ~lDd ~rJn[)l1g it .1 ,:onditional Llse for a height v:J.ri:J.nce. <br /> <br />\Vhile [be .,Ul[ was pending, Hynes soug.ht' and obtained a 2003 ordinance <br />I .' '. ,,: r.... h \C d' <br />!;l~l["as.:;e')l~::1e~: :,;'j"'cJ'c;)me : ~anDle Lee:) ')Ojecuoos to t e 20)2 or. mance. <br /> <br />'~: ,~r.:C,-~ :ulnlan :.r',:cllsillnq ::fGUO. -\n~1 :.:;oroaucnon :s Jfonibiteo. F1r ..lIore :niormarion ciease ':3H (617) 342---(;048- <br /> <br />99 <br />