Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Anderson v. City of Issaquah | 851 P.2d 744 (1993)

Lawmakers sometimes write broad laws, intending to give administrators and enforcement agencies a lot of discretion. But if laws become so broad, or so vague that nobody can understand what they mean, they may become void for vagueness. The Court of Appeals of Washington considered just such a law in the 1993 case of Anderson versus City if Issaquah.

Bruce Anderson and others owned land in Issaquah zoned for general commercial use. Anderson wanted to build a commercial building on the lot. This required the approval of the Issaquah Development Commission. The commission’s role was to administer and enforce the city’s land-use regulations.

The Issaquah Municipal Code required that new construction be made compatible with adjacent buildings, encourage harmony in texture, line and mass; maintain a design relationship with the natural setting of the Issaquah valley and mountains, possess components in proportion to overall design, bear harmonious colors, hide mechanical equipment, possess harmonious lighting, avoid monotony of design, and be interesting.

Properties near the Anderson development included a Victorian era residence, three gas stations, an auto repair shop, and a veterinary clinic with a cyclone-fenced dog run.

Anderson first proposed a modern-style warehouse-like building with stucco frontage and a blue metal roof. The commission criticized the design because it allegedly didn’t fit with the concept of the surrounding area. One commissioner objected to the proposed color. A month later, the commission rejected Anderson’s proposed redesign. Anderson asked for more specific guidelines, but the commissioners stated that they’d been giving clear directions. One commissioner suggested adding benches or fountains; another suggested that Anderson drive up and down the street to look at good and bad examples of other buildings.

At a third meeting a month later, the commission rejected Anderson’s third design, with one commissioner observing that it didn’t give the same feeling as other buildings on the street. Anderson, who by now had invested $250,000 in architectural and design fees, appealed the commission’s decision to the Issaquah City Council. After a hearing, the council affirmed the commission’s decision.

Anderson then sued the city in King County Superior Court. After a trial, the court dismissed Anderson’s complaint. Anderson appealed to the Court of Appeals of Washington.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть