Source: http://www.millernash.com/leanne-m-bremer/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 21:42:39+00:00

Document:
LeAnne M. Bremer likes to solve problems. Whether it is obtaining development approvals for clients in the face of opposition from planning staffs or neighbors, drafting complex documentation for mixed-use developments, or finding and presenting the winning argument in a land use appeal before a court, LeAnne appreciates a good challenge. In all cases, she strives to be responsive, positive, and solution-oriented.
LeAnne focuses her practice on land use law, real estate, and government affairs. She is well versed in all land use planning and development issues, including plan review, environmental review, and permitting issues. LeAnne also provides land use regulatory and permitting guidance to clients in the cannabis industry. LeAnne has substantial experience in preparing land use applications and presenting them to decision-makers for approval. A significant part of the permitting process requires LeAnne to negotiate conditions of approval with staff and, at times, challenge conditions attached to development before local decision-makers and in court.
Additionally, LeAnne has extensive experience in growth management legislation and the implications of development and environmental issues for property owners. LeAnne has drafted legislation at both the local and state levels. She has represented private property owners and local and regional businesses in planning and transactional matters regarding sales and acquisitions of real estate and other real estate matters, including drafting covenants, easements, boundary-line adjustments, and condominium documentation. She has extensive experience in condemnation matters and cases involving the unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. LeAnne is a frequent contributor to Miller Nash Graham & Dunn's blog, From the Ground Up focusing on new cases and legislation. Before joining Miller Nash Graham & Dunn in 1999, LeAnne was a partner of Horenstein Bremer in Vancouver, Washington.
LeAnne is partner-in-charge of Miller Nash Graham & Dunn's Vancouver, Washington office.
Successfully challenged County’s assessment of back taxes, penalties and interest for alleged removal of property from the open space program in GG One, Inc. v. Clark County. The Board of Equalization found that the property conveyed to the County for wetland and storm water purposes was still open space and that the property owner was entitled to a tax refund.
Challenged the U.S. Forest Service's refusal to allow for a minor boundary line adjustment of two parcels in the Columbia River Gorge in GLW Ventures, LLC v. Department of Agriculture in federal court and before the Gorge Commission.
Successfully challenged the designation of Mill Pond as a regulated water body under the Shoreline Management Act before the Shoreline Hearings Board in Camaslakeland, LLC v. the Department of Ecology.
Prepared condominium documentation for a four tower mixed use development with an underground public parking garage, commercial and office space, apartments, and nested residential condominium units.
Prepared condominium documentation for several office, commercial and industrial buildings in Washington and Oregon.
Converted several apartment buildings and duplexes into condominiums.
Benchmark v. City of Battle Ground, 94 Wn. App. 537, 972 P.2d 944 (1999), prior opinion adhered to, 103 Wn. App. 721 (2000), aff’d, 146 Wn.2d 685 (2002). The supreme court ruled that the City’s requirement for a developer to improve street frontage was unlawful. The key in that case was the fact that the developer would put few trips on the street that the City was requiring the developer to improve. There lacked the required connection between an impact of the development and the need for the public improvement.
Habitat Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397, 120 P.3d 56 (2005). The supreme court ruled that an environmental group’s challenge to golf course project was untimely under the Land Use Petition Act. The court found that not only did the environmental group not file an appeal in time after learning the project was going forward, but that filing a motion for reconsideration with the County, instead of court, was the wrong venue in which to challenge the permit.
Isla Verde v. City of Camas, 99 Wn. App. 127, 990 P.2d 429 (1999), aff’d, 146 Wn.2d 740 (2002). The supreme court ruled that the City’s requirement for a developer to set aside 30 percent of its land as open space as a condition of subdivision approval was unlawful. The court resolved an important issue that had yet to be firmly resolved in prior cases: that a Washington statute, RCW 82.020.020, prohibits governments from requiring developers to pay fee, dedicate land or make an improvement as a condition of a permit unless the condition directly mitigates an impact of the development. The court stated this statute applied even though the City would not take title to the open space.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.