Biggis Measure 37 claim could end up in legal tussle
- Beaverton Valley Times - News
Biggi Investment Partnership's Measure 37 claim against the city, Washington County and Clean Water Services could be on its way to circuit court.
Stark Ackerman, an attorney representing the partnership, said Tuesday that it's likely that his clients will ask a judge to rule on which entity ultimately is responsible for land-use restrictions preventing development within 25 feet of Beaverton Creek.
'We've submitted Measure 37 claims to the city, county and Clean Water Services and received decisions on all three,' Ackerman said. 'Nobody is accepting responsibility.
'We feel forced to file one suit against all three parties in order to have our claim legitimately heard and resolve the Clean Water Services' issues.'
The Beaverton City Council Monday night agreed to waive some restrictions enacted after March 1988 that fall under the city's development code.
At the same time, the council denied the property owner's request for nearly $1.77 million in compensation and refused to lift other regulations required by an agreement with Clean Water Services.
In the partnership's claim, Steve Biggi said in August that the city owed him nearly $1.77 million for the imposition of land-use restrictions on his Hall Street Bar and Grill property at 3661-3775 S.W. Hall Blvd., and Best Bet property, 3720 S.W. Cedar Hills Blvd.
The claim cited Clean Water Services' regulations on the property that reduce its value by $772,125. It also targeted city zoning regulations concerning building orientation, flood plain restrictions, use limitations and sidewalk requirements that reduce the value of the land by $995,000.
The Biggi Investment Partnership claim was originally stayed during the Supreme Court's review of the constitutionality of Ballot Measure 37.
It was put back on the table in February after the Supreme Court ruled that Measure 37 was constitutional.
In the interim, representatives from the city, Clean Water Services and the Biggi Investment Partnership met to discuss a potential resolution of the claim.
However, those negotiations fell apart after both sides failed to reach accord on a 25-foot creek buffer, stormwater standards and other issues required by Clean Water Services.