Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014

Home

October 10, 2014 I Volume 8 ( Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin dard, developers are entitled 'to have a land development proposal processed under the regulations in effect at the time a complete building permit application is filed, regardless of subsequent changes in zoning or other land use regulations.' " Potala Village had pointed to Washington case law that applied the vested rights doctrine to permit applications other than building permit applications. Based on that case law, Potala Village had argued that its rights should have vested as to zoning and land use control ordinances in effect in February 2011 when it filed its completed shoreline development permit application. The court rejected Potala Village's argument. The court noted that while the vested rights doctrine originated at common law, in 1987, subsequent to the case law decisions cited by Potala Village, the state legislature had enacted legislation regarding the vested rights doctrine. Under RCW 19.27 and RCW 58.17, the vested rights doctrine applies upon the filing of a fully complete building permit application or subdivision application. Potala Village had argued that the statute simply supplemented the common law vested rights document and that there was no rational reason for refusing to expand the doctrine to other types of development applications. The court again rejected Potala Village's argument. It found that the plain words of the statue included "building permits" but did not include shoreline substantial development permits. It also found that case law subsequent to the 1987 adoption of the statutory vested rights rule expressly recognized that the vested rights doctrine in Washington is not based on both common law and statutes, but is now statutory only. Since Washington statutory law recognized vested rights only upon the filing of a building permit or a subdivision permit, the court concluded that Potala Village's rights did not vest to then -existing zoning or other land use control ordinances when it filed its shoreline development permit in February 2011. See also: State ex rel. Ogden v. City of Bellevue, 45 Wash. 2d 492, 275 P.2d 899 (1954). See also: Erickson & Associates, Inc. v. McLerran, 123 Wash. 2d 864, 872 P.2d 1090 (1994). See also: Abbey Road Group, LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242, 218 P.3d 180 (2009). See also: Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County, 180 Wash. 2d 165, 322 P.3d 1219 (2014). Case Note: The court expressly noted that it "express fed] no opinion on whether or to what extent the vested rights doctrine applies to permits other than shoreline substantial development permits, " as those questions were not before it. 4 ©2014 Thomson Reuters