Laserfiche WebLink
February 25, 2013 1 Volume 7 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin. <br />GMA goals. In essence, they contended that the County's development <br />regulations were void and the legislature left a "loophole" to be filled in <br />by common law: There were a certain class of cases, of which they <br />claimed this was one, where a procedural violation of SEPA would not <br />result in a violation of the GMA goals, and in those instances, the pro- <br />spective invalidity provisions of RCA 36.70A.302 would not apply. <br />Instead, they argued, the pre - Regulatory Refoini rule that vested rights <br />cannot be obtained in an invalid ordinance applied and prevailed. <br />The appellate court rejected this argument. It concluded that RCW <br />36.70A.302(2)'s invalidity provision controlled the present dispute. The <br />court found the invalidity provision "unambiguously describes what <br />happens to development peiniit applications that are filed with counties <br />and municipalities relying on recently adopted GMA enactments — <br />comprehensive plan provisions and development regulations —that are <br />challenged in a Growth Board administrative appeal ": "those complete <br />and filed applications vest to those challenged plan provisions and <br />regulations, regardless of the Growth Board's subsequent ruling in the <br />administrative appeal." <br />Thus, here, even if the urban center development regulations had <br />violated the GMA's requirements (which they had not) and were later <br />declared invalid, all development permit applications submitted prior to <br />the County's receipt of the invalidity deteiuiination would remain vested <br />to the invalidated development regulations, said the court. <br />See also: Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. <br />2d 242, 218 P.3d 180 (2009). <br />See also: Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 95 Wash. App. 883, 976 <br />P. 2d 1279 (Div. 2 1999). <br />Case Note: <br />Washington's rule on vested rights is the minority rule. The majority rule on <br />vested rights, which is applied in many other jurisdictions, provides that: <br />"development is not immune from subsequently adopted regulations until a <br />building permit has been obtained and substantial development has occurred in <br />reliance on the permit." <br />8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />