Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Page 2 -- November 25, 1997 Z.B. Vested Rights -- City annexes property while county considers subdivision application Schneider Homes Inc. v. City of Kent, 942 P. 2d 1096 (Washington) 1997 Schneider Homes Inc. (developer) owned undeveloped property in the Chestnut Ridge area of King County, Wash. Chestnut Ridge, which was in an unincorporated part of the county, was zoned suburban residential. In January 1991, the developer submitted a subdivision application and a planned unit development (PUD) application for 24 two-unit townhouses on its land. The type of PUD the developer sought was "cluster zoning," which dispensed with minimum Iot size and setback limitations.'The developer needed a PUD permit because the county code allowed townhouses in the zone only when located in a PUD and because the proposed development didn't meet the zone's minimum lot size requirements. In November 1991, a citizen's group proposed that the city of Kent annex Chestnut Ridge. The city council accepted the proposal, and the annexation became effective in May 1993. The city rezoned Chestnut Ridge for single family development. The zoning restrictions were similar to the county's, except that neither townhouses nor PUDs were allowed. Meanwhile, the county processed the developer's PUD application and scheduled a public meeting for July 1993. After the county learned the city's annexation of Chestnut Ridge had become effective in May 1993, however, the county transferred the developer's application to the city. The developer pursued its development pIans with the city, claiming it had a vested right to have its application considered under the county's, not the city's, zoning ordinance. The city agreed the developer had a vested right to have its subdivision application considered under the regulations in effect when it was filed, but said this right didn't extend to the PUD application. The city concluded the details of the PUD were not vested because they couldn't be determined until the PUD got final approval, so it refused to grant the PUD application. The developer sued the city, asking the court to order the city to process its PUD application under the county's regulations. The city argued it had no choice but to reject the developer's proposal because at the time the developer submitted its subdivision application, the PUD wasn't yet in effect. It said it couldn't approve the developer's subdivision application under the county regulations unless the PUD was approved because townhouses were allowed only in a PUD. The city claimed the developer couldn't have a vested right in the PUD because a PUD required a zoning amendment, and the vested rights doctrine didn't apply to applications requiting zoning amendments. The court awarded the city judgment without a trial, and the developer appealed. DECISION: Reversed; judgment for the developer. When the developer submitted its subdivision application, it became entitled to have not only that application, but also its companion PUD application,