Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 4 App. 471, 855 P.2d 284 (Div. 2 1993) (disapproved of by, Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 2016 WL 7495874 (Wash. 2016)) and Victoria Tower Partnership v. City of Seattle, 49 Wash. App. 755, 745 P.2d 1328 (Div. 1 1987) (disapproved of by, Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, 2016 WL 7495874 (Wash. 2016)). Case Note: In discussing related case law as supporting the court's statutory interpreta- tion here, the court noted that where a county develops the storm water requirements on its own rather than as a requirement unposed by the State through a municipal storm water permit —such a scenario is distinguishable from the present case. (See Westside Business Park, LLC v. Pierce County, 100 Wash. App. 599, 5 P.3d 713 (Div. 2 2000) (finding that storm water drain- age ordinances developed by the county on its own were "land use control ordinances")). Case Note: The Counties had also presented a `finality" argument, which the court of ap- peals rejected. Under that argument, the Counties contended that building and development permits were "irrefutably valid" if not challenged under the Land Use Petition Act within 21 days of being issued." The court said the argument was "misplaced" because the deadline was fora judicial appeal of a land use decision and no party was challenging any land use decision here. Standing —Neighboring municipality challenges zoning reclassification in adjacent municipality Parties dispute whether neighboring municipality has "standing" to bring such a legal challenge Citation: Village of Willow Springs v. Village of Lemont, 2016ILApp (1st) 152670, 2016 WL 7380514 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2016) ILLINOIS (12/29/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a neighboring municipality had standing to contest the zoning reclas- sification of property in another municipality. © 2017 Thomson Reuters 5