Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 8- February 15, 1995 Z.B. Zoning Change -- Nonprofit Corporation Says Zoning Change Should Defeat Developer's Subdivision Application Friends of the Law v. King County, 869 P. 2d 1056 (WashingtotO 1994 Zaria Anstalt, a development company, owned 82.3 acres of land in an unincorporated area of King County, Wash. The area was known as the Bear Creek planning area. Zaria wanted to subdivide its land into 65 lots, so it applied for preliminarY appro.val with the county Building and Land Development Division (BALD). When Zaria filed its application, its property was zoned residential with a 35,000- square-feet minimUm lot size. However, minimum lot sizes in multi-lot subdi- visions could vary. Also in effect was the Bear Creek Middle Plan, which desig- nated Zaria's land as "urban reserve," allowing one house for every five acres of land. On Dec. 16, 1988, a few days after filing the application, Zaria'requested confirmation from BALD that its application vested when it was filed. On Dec. 19, the county council adopted an ordinance that forbade any subdivisions in Bear Creek until the area's community plan was updated. On Jan. 17, 1989, BALD sent Zaria a letter saying its rights vested when it filed the application. On Jan. 30, the county council passed an ordinance adopt- ing the Bear Creek community plan and area zoning. Zaria's property was then zoned as a rural area with a 5-acre minimum lot size. ...Several hearings were held on Zaria's application, and Zaria changed its plans several times. The last revision asked for 69 lots on 94 acres. BALD and the zoning examiner approved the subdivision subject to several conditions. The examiner also found the plat vested as of its filing date. Friends of the Law, a nonprofit corporation, appealed this decision to the .county council, which affirmed the decision but added a few more condi'tions. Friends appealed, dlaiming Zaria did not gain any vested development rights because its preliminary application did not conform with all the ordinance's requirements. The court deniei:i Friends' request for relief, and Friends appealed again. .. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of Zaria. Zaria's development rights beCame vested when it filed its applic.ation, which meant the application had to be considered under the land use laws in effect at that time. Vesting gives developers certainty. and protects.their expectations against Chang!ng. laws. In 1987, tt/e state Legisl~.t'ure pass'ed a iaTM that Subdivision applications were to be considered under the land use law in' effect when a preliminary plat application was completed. The time of completion was to be determined by local ordinances. However, when Zaria filed its application, the county had not defined the requirements for a fully completed app!ication. Vague and disci:e- tionary vesting procedures could not be used to deny an application, so Zaria's application vested upon submission.