Laserfiche WebLink
Count 501 P.2d 594 (Wash. 1972); see Pederson v. <br />County_ of Ormsby, 478 P.2d 152 (Mev 1970); Union <br />Quarries, inc. v. Board of Count Commissioners, 478 <br />P~ 2a 181 (Ran. 970). <br />4. Mere intention or contemplation of an eventual use of <br />land is insufficient to establish an existing use for <br />protection as a nonconforming use following passage of a <br />zoning ordinance. Anderson v. Island Count supra; see <br />Clark Count Boar of Commissioners v. Ta art <br />Const[uction Co., Inc., supra; Va entlne v. Boar o <br />Aid ust~ment, supra. 'A use which is p anne rat er t an <br />actually commenced prior to the enactment of a <br />restrictive ordinance is not an existing use which is <br />entitled to continue in determining whether a <br />landowner had an existing use prior to enactment of a <br />restrictive ordinance, preparation for use is not equal <br />to actual use." Tri-State Generation and Transmission <br />Association, Inc. v. Boar of Count Commissioners, <br />spa (quoting rom R. An erson, T e American Law of <br />Zoning, Section 6.22 (1976)). And the mere procurement <br />of a building permit has been held insufficient to <br />invoke vested rights. Witkin Homes, Inc. v. City and <br />County of Denver, supra. <br />5. An owner must take some steps in reliance upon a permit <br />before any property rights vest thereunder, and thus, a <br />municipality may rescind a permit if zoning is enacted <br />or changed to prohibit a use and if the permittee has <br />not materially changed his position in reliance on the <br />permit. Denver Police Protective Association v. City <br />and Count o~Denver, supra; see a so P-W Investments, <br />Inc. v. City o Westminster, 65~P.2~I36 Co o. 982). <br />6. In the specific context of nonconforming extraction <br />activities, jurisdictions other than Colorado have <br />developed the following general principles: <br />a. Mere cessation of use does not of itself amount to <br />abandonment although the duration of nonuse may be <br />a factor in determining whether the nonconforming <br />use has been abandoned. Polk County v. Martin, 636 <br />P.2d 952 (Or. 1981); Union Quarries, Inc. Board of <br />Count} Commissioners, _s_uPra; An cew v. Rrn Count , <br />586 P.2~~09 (WasF.App. 1978). Quarry operat ons <br />are by their nature sporadic, and a discontinuance <br />or abandonment cannot be inferred from the mere <br />fact blasting and crushing cease, or from <br />fluctuations in the volume of extractions or sales. <br />Polk County v. Martin, supra. <br />- 5 - <br />