Laserfiche WebLink
June 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 11 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />invalidity. (RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b), .302.) If the growth board finds noncom- <br />pliance, county plans and regulations remain valid while the county brings <br />things them into compliance. (RCW 36.70A.300(4).) Similarly, as with a find- <br />ing of noncompliance, a finding of invalidity does not apply retroactively to <br />rights that have already vested, as the GMA plainly states: <br />"A determination of invalidity is prospective in effect and does not extinguish <br />rights that vested under state or local law before receipt of the [growth] board's <br />order by the city or county. The determination of invalidity does not apply to a <br />completed development permit application for a project that vested under state or <br />local law before receipt of the [growth] board's order by the county or city or to <br />related construction permits for that project." <br />Accordingly, summarized the court, should a valid plan or regulation later <br />be found to violate SEPA, the exclusive remedies provided by the GMA affect <br />only future applications for development —not development rights that have <br />already vested. <br />Here, the court concluded that the violations of SEPA found by the growth <br />board in reviewing Snohomish County's ordinances did not affect BSRE's <br />rights, which had already vested when BSRE submitted its complete peiiiut <br />applications. <br />See also: Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d <br />242, 218 P.3d 180 (2009). <br />See also: Skagit Surveyors and Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, <br />135 Wash. 2d 542, 958 P.2d 962 (1998). <br />Case Note: <br />Washington's vested rights doctrine is the minority rule, offering greater protection of <br />developers' rights than the rule generally applied in other jurisdictions. <br />Case Note: <br />The Opponents had also maintained that "[gjovernnnent actions taken in violation of <br />SEPA 's procedural requirements are void ab initio and ultra vires. " They argued that <br />prior to the GMA, it was well established that a void ordinance did not create vested <br />rights. They fin•ther argued precedent had not been overruled•by the GMA and that <br />therefore no development rights could vest if they relied on ordinances that did not <br />comply with SEPA 's procedural requirements. The court disagreed. It concluded that <br />those common law principles were superseded by the GMA. <br />6 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />