Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.1 0 . First, a claim of regulatory taking was not ripe until "the government entity' charged with implementing the regulations had reached a final decision regarding the application oIthe regulations to the property at issue." Second, "if a State provide[d] an adequate procedure for seek- ing just compensation, the property owner [could] not claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause u.ntil it [had] used the procedure and been denied just compensation." Lost Trail did not have a final decision with regard to the subdivision issue because it had never applied to the zoning commission for any- thing other than a permit to construct a baseball field. Although Lost Trail argued that the denial of the permit demonstrated futility in deal- ing with the commission, the court noted that Lost Trail had not even appealed the denial of the permit. Further, it never applied for a vari- ance or any other permits, so it could not show that any bias existed that would prevent the commission from acting on a subdivision appli- cation fairly. Because the court found Lost Trail's futility argument had no merit, it had to apply the standard in Williamson. Using that standard, and because there was no final decision with regard to subdivision, the claim of regulatory was not ripe for review. In addition, the court noted that Lost Trail failed to show how the tovm's requirement for a determina- tion on whether the four lots existed legally as separate parcels would prohibit all economically beneficial uses of the property. Similarly, Lost Trail's other claims could not be considered without a final administrative decision from the commission. All claims against the town were dismissed. See also: Williamson County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hamilton Bank ofJohnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108,87 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1985). Restrictive Covenant-Uphill neighbor seeks to enforce covenant designed to preserve view Lower lot owner claims restrictive covenant is not related to view preservation expressly Citation: Bauman v. Turpen, 2007 WL 1180410 (Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007) WASHINGTON (04/23/07)-Bauman and Turpen owned adjoining lots in a neighborhood built on a hill in West Seattle. The neighbor- hood had views of Puget Sound and the Olympic mountain range. It was created in the 1940s when the property owner of a large parcel of land subdivided it into 12 lots. Each' of the lots on the dowwill side of the neighborhood had a restrictive covenant that limited any 9 197