Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 18 During that hearing, the Examiner concluded that the Developers' rights vested in laws and regulations in effect in 1994. The Examiner said this was because the Developers' application was complete for processing in 1994. This conclusion was significant because in 2000, the county revised its zoning regulations and comprehensive plan and "rezoned and desig- nated the Developers' property." Under the 2000 rezone, only one dwell- ing unit per 10 acres was permitted on the Developers' property. In 1994, the zoning regulations allowed a density of one unit per acre on the De- velopers' property. The Examiner ultimately approved the Developers' application under the pre-2000 regulations and granted them a conditional use permit. Jeff Kelly and David and Nancy Dorsey (collectively, the "Neigh- bors") owned property near the Developers' proposed development. The Neighbors appealed the Examiner's decision to court. The Neigh- bors argued that the Developers' rights could not have vested in 1994 because, among other things, the application was inconsistent with the development regulations in force in 1994. The superior court concluded that the Developers' application did not vest before the 2000 zoning changes. The court reversed the Exam- iner's decision and revoked the Developers' conditional use permit. The Developers appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, held that the De- velopers' proposed project did not vest in the 1994 zoning regulations be- cause it did not comply with the zoning regulations in effect at that time. In so holding, the court explained that the "vested rights doctrine" provides that "a developer who files a completed land use application that complies with zoning laws and regulations in force at the time of ap- plication has a vested right to develop land under those laws and regu- lations." The purpose of the doctrine, further explained the court, is to "ensure `certainty and predictability in land use regulations.' It provides a "date certain" so as to "avoid tactical maneuvering between parties." The court emphasized that the vested rights doctrine "assumes that the project complies with the applicable zoning and building ordinanc- es in effect on the date of application." The court found that the 1994 zoning regulations allowed the Developers' application for a condition- al use permit unless, among other things, it would be "incompatible with the county's adopted comprehensive plan." The county's compre- hensive plan in 1994 designated the Developers' property as "rural." This designation limited density to one unit per acre. Under that re- quirement, the Developers "would have had to allocate 80 acres for the proposed 80 units to comply with the comprehensive plan. None ©2010 Thomson Reuters 7 95