Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 11 2009. It made a determination of nonsignificance for the latter two ordinances (i.e., the development regulations) based on the 2009 EIS. Woodway and Richmond Beach petitioned the growth management hear- ings board (growth board) to review the four ordinances. A hearing took place before the growth board on March 2, 2011. Before the growth board issued its final order, BSRE filed two complete peiuiit applications to redevelop Point Wells. On April 25, 2011, the growth board issued its final order. It found that all four ordinances were noncompliant with SEPA. The growth board also invali- dated the comprehensive plan amendments —but not the development regula- tions —finding that their continued validity would substantially interfere with the goals of the state's Growth Management Act ("GMA") (chapter 36.70A RCW). Following the growth board's order, the Opponents filed a complaint in superior court seeking a declaration that BSRE's permits had not vested because the ordinances were "void" under SEPA and the GMA. The parties moved for summary judgment. They asked the court to find that there were no material issues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in their favor on the law alone. The court ruled that BSRE's rights did not vest to the ordinances later found to be noncompliant with SEPA. The court enjoined Snohomish County from processing BSRE's permits until the county complied with the growth board's order of remand. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed. It concluded that, pursuant to an "invalidity provision" in the GWA, "complete and filed applications vest to those challenged plan provisions and regulations, regardless of the [g]rowth [b]oard's subsequent ruling in the administrative appeal." Woodway and Richmond Beach appealed. The Supreme Court of Washing- ton granted review. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Washington held that Washington's vested rights doctrine applies to permit applications filed under plans and regulations later found to be noncompliant with SEPA. In so holding, the court explained that under Washington's vested rights doctrine, developers are entitled "to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building peiiuit application is filed, regardless of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use regulations." The court further noted the following: Plans and regulations to which development rights vest are a product of the GMA. Under the GMA, comprehensive plans and development regulations, including their amend- ments, are presumed valid upon adoption. (RCW 36.70A.320(1).) The GMA contains a review process that allows parties to challenge comprehensive plans and building regulations to a growth board. (RCW 36.70A.280(1).) If the growth board finds that the plan or regulation is flawed, it has two options: (1) it may enter a finding of noncompliance or (2) it may enter a finding of © 2014 Thomson Reuters 5