Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />Washington case law suggested that "simply characterizing a land use <br />control ordinance as an environmental ordinance limit[ed] the applica- <br />tion of the vested rights doctrine." In other words, the court found that <br />regulations could be categorized as both environmental regulations and <br />land use regulations, and that the vested rights statutes did not carve <br />out exceptions for environmental regulations. <br />The courtconcluded that under a plain reading of RCW 19.27.095(1) <br />and RCW 58.17.033(1), in combination with case law interpreting <br />those provisions, regulations enacting the 2013-2018 Permit require- <br />ments constituted local land use ordinances because the regulations <br />would restrain and direct the use of land. "Because development rights <br />vest upon filing a completed building or land division application," the <br />court found that condition S5.C.5.a.iii conflicted with the vested rights <br />doctrine as stated in RCW 19.27.095(1) and RCW 58.17.033(1), <br />because it could require a perinittee to enforce regulations adopted af- <br />ter development rights had been vested. Accordingly, the court held <br />that condition S5.C.5.a.iii of the 2013-2018 Permit was invalid. The <br />court reversed the Board's order and remanded to the Board to direct <br />the DOE to revise condition S5.C.5.a.iii to specify that the 2013-2018 <br />Permit applies only to those completed applications submitted after <br />July 1, 2015. <br />See also: Westside Business Park, LLC v. Pierce County, 100 Wash. <br />App. 599, 5 P.3d 713 (Div. 2 2000). <br />See also: New Castle Investments v. City of LaCenter, 98 Wash. App. <br />224, 989 P.2d 569 (Div. 2 1999). <br />Case Note: <br />The DOE had also argued that even if Washington's vested rights doctrine ap- <br />plied to the 2013-2018 Permit's required regulations, the federal Clean Water <br />Act ("CWA') (under the authority of which the 2013-2018 Permit was <br />promulgated) preempted Washington's vested rights statutes. The court <br />rejected this argument, finding no direct conflict between Washington's vested <br />rights statutes and the CWA. <br />8 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />