Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

(~~) Zoning Bulletin November 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No. 22 (l The Superior Court agreed with Abbey Road's argument. It held that Abbey Road's development rights vested on September 13,2005, when it filed a complete site plan application. The city appeale~, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court. It held that since Abbey Road had not filed a building permit application, its development rights had not vested prior to the rezone. Once again, Abbey Road appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Washington also concluded that Abbey Road's development rights had not vested prior to the rezone. The court held that, pursuant to the governing statute, development rights vested only upon the filing of a b~ilding permit application. Th,eCourt explained: Washington's vested rights doctrine gives de- velopers the right to.have a land development proposal processed un- der the regulations in effect at the time a cotiJ.plete building permit is filed. After such a filing, a developers' rights vest and are unaffected by subsequent changes in zoning or other land use regulations. The Court declined to extend the vested rights doctrine to site plan applications, as Abbey Road had advocated. It rejected A.bbey Road's cost-based argument for three reasons. First, it noted that the cost of obtaining site plan applications varies greatly depending on the pro- posed project. Second, it said that it preferred a "date certain vesting standard" over a "case-by-case analysis of costs and reliance inter- ests." And, third, it found that, unlike building permit applications, site plan applications could be submitted at "the infancy of a project before the developer has made a substantial commitment to it." The court also rejected Abbey Road's argument that the city's building permit application process denied applicants of their con- stitutional due process rights. The court found it did not. The city's zoning regulations allowed applicants to simultaneously file a site plan application and a building permit application. Abbey Road found the court, simply "chose not'to use this process, but to obtain site development plan approval before undertaking the additional step of filing a building permit application." See also: Erickson & Associates, Inc. v.McLerran, 123 Wash. 2d :L) 864,,872 P.2d 1090 (1994). See also: Victoria Tower Partnership v. City of Seattle, 49 Wash. App, 755, 745 P.2d 1328 (Div. 11987). @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 11 51