Can development bypass zoning laws in Washington? (Washington No. 68027-2)

Have you ever felt frustrated when a local development project seemed to bypass zoning laws that should have protected your community's character? You're not alone; many people face similar challenges when local land use regulations seem to be disregarded or inconsistently applied. Fortunately, the case of Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County provides a notable example of how legal precedents can clarify which zoning laws apply and ensure developments align with existing community standards.

Case No. 68027-2 Situation

Case Summary

Specific Circumstances

In Washington State, a legal dispute arose involving a proposed development project by a group referred to as Apple Tree Point Partners, located in Kitsap County. This case revolves around the application of land use regulations to a planned unit development (PUD) on 123 acres of undeveloped land. The key issue was whether the development should be governed by the existing zoning ordinances or newer growth management guidelines, which were not fully in effect at the time the application was submitted. The plaintiffs, a group of rural residents, opposed the development, claiming it violated growth management principles by promoting urban sprawl outside designated urban growth areas.

Plaintiff’s Claims

The plaintiffs, known as the Association of Rural Residents, argued that the proposed development violated the Growth Management Act (GMA), which aims to prevent urban sprawl and promote orderly development. They claimed that the project was urban growth located outside the designated interim urban growth area (IUGA), thus contravening the GMA. They also contended that the development should not have vested rights under the outdated zoning laws at the time of application, as these laws were superseded by the need for compliance with GMA principles.

Defendant’s Claims

The defendants, including Kitsap County and Apple Tree Point Partners, asserted that the development application should be evaluated based on the zoning regulations in effect when they submitted their application. They argued that the application vested under the former zoning ordinances, which permitted the planned density and configuration. The defendants maintained that since the IUGA had not been amended on time, the development should be governed by the preexisting zoning laws rather than the GMA, which was not formally adopted when the application was filed.

Judgment

The court ruled in favor of the defendants, determining that the development application was indeed vested under the zoning laws in effect at the time of filing. Consequently, the project could proceed under those regulations rather than the later-established GMA guidelines. The ruling specified that the development must comply with the previous Kitsap County zoning ordinances, as the IUGA was not amended within the specified period. The case was remanded to the trial court to further address environmental concerns under the correct standard of review, specifically whether an environmental impact statement was necessary.

Case No. 68027-2 Relevant Statutes

RCW 36.70A

The Growth Management Act (GMA) under RCW 36.70A establishes a framework for comprehensive land use planning by local governments in Washington. The act mandates that counties with a population over 50,000 develop comprehensive plans that include designated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). These UGAs are intended to concentrate urban development and prevent urban sprawl, which is the unchecked spread of urban development into rural areas. In this case, the failure of Kitsap County to amend its interim urban growth area (IUGA) in compliance with the GMA led to the application of preexisting zoning ordinances. The statute underscores the balance between state oversight and local autonomy in land use planning, highlighting the legislative intentions to control urban development patterns.

RCW 58.17.033

This statute, commonly referred to as the “Vested Rights Doctrine,” provides that a land use application will be evaluated under the land use laws in effect at the time of its submission, rather than at the time of decision. This principle is crucial in providing certainty to developers that their projects will be assessed based on the rules in place when they apply. In this case, the court held that the application for the proposed development vested under the pre-existing rural 2.5 zoning laws because the application was submitted before the IUGA was effectively modified in accordance with the GMA.

SEPA RCW 43.21C

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires government agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposals before making decisions. In this case, the court evaluated whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was necessary under SEPA for the proposed development. The county had issued a Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS), suggesting that, with mitigation, the project would not have significant environmental impacts. However, this decision was challenged, and the case was remanded to the trial court to apply the “clearly erroneous” standard in reviewing the county commissioners’ decision regarding the MDNS. This statute highlights the importance of assessing environmental impacts in land use decisions.

Case No. 68027-2 Judgment Criteria

Principled Interpretation

RCW 36.70A

The Growth Management Act (GMA) aims to regulate and control urban development, ensuring that growth occurs within designated areas called urban growth areas (UGAs). Under a principled interpretation, local governments must adhere strictly to these boundaries to prevent sprawl and protect undeveloped land.

RCW 58.17.033

This statute, concerning the vested rights doctrine, asserts that land use applications should be evaluated based on the regulations in effect at the time of submission. This means that if a complete application is submitted, it should be processed under the laws existing at that point, offering stability to developers.

SEPA RCW 43.21C

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires consideration of environmental impacts before project approval. Under a principled interpretation, any significant environmental consequences necessitate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ensuring that environmental preservation is a priority in decision-making.

Exceptional Interpretation

RCW 36.70A

In exceptional cases, deviations from strict UGA boundaries might be considered if local governments fail to update their plans in time, potentially allowing developments outside these areas under specific circumstances, such as a lack of comprehensive planning.

RCW 58.17.033

The doctrine might allow exceptions if the application includes elements like a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that could be considered more as a request for re-zoning rather than a straightforward application of existing zoning laws.

SEPA RCW 43.21C

SEPA may allow for a mitigated determination of non-significance (MDNS) if proposed mitigation measures sufficiently address potential environmental impacts, potentially bypassing the need for a full EIS in certain situations.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the court applied a principled interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, affirming that the application was vested under the zoning laws effective at the time of submission. However, the interpretation of RCW 36.70A was more exceptional; the court recognized that the IUGA was not in effect due to the county’s failure to comply with the GMA within the designated period. Thus, pre-existing ordinances were applied. For SEPA, the court determined that the trial court’s standard of review was incorrect and remanded the case for a proper evaluation under the clearly erroneous standard, suggesting that environmental concerns needed further judicial scrutiny.

Vesting Rights Resolution

Case No. 68027-2 Resolution

In the case of Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, the court ruled in favor of the appellants, finding that the development application vested under the zoning laws in effect at the time of its submission. This decision underscores the importance of understanding vesting rights within land use law. The appellants successfully argued that their application should be reviewed under the regulations in place when they filed, not under subsequently adopted policies. The outcome shows that pursuing litigation can be an effective strategy when there’s a strong legal foundation, as was the case here. Given the complexity and scope of this case, hiring legal counsel was prudent, ensuring that all technical and procedural aspects were expertly handled.

Similar Case Resolutions

Different Zoning Designations

In instances where the zoning designation of a property changes after an application is submitted, applicants should consider litigation if the new designation adversely affects their plans. Legal counsel can provide an advantage in navigating the intricacies of zoning laws and arguing for the application of regulations in effect at the time of filing. However, if the change is minimal, negotiation with the local government may be a faster and more cost-effective resolution.

Incomplete Applications

When an application is deemed incomplete due to missing documents or fees, applicants should first seek to rectify the deficiencies through communication with the relevant authority. If the application is still not accepted, legal advice should be sought to determine if an appeal or litigation is necessary. In straightforward cases, self-representation might suffice, but complex disputes often require professional legal assistance.

Environmental Impact Disputes

For projects facing opposition due to environmental concerns, engaging in mediation or negotiation with opposition groups may be beneficial to reach a mutually acceptable solution. However, if these efforts fail and the project is significant, litigation may be necessary to challenge any adverse decisions. Legal representation is recommended to effectively present technical environmental data and arguments.

Compliance with New Regulations

When new regulations are imposed after an application is submitted, affecting its viability, applicants should review the regulations’ applicability and consider filing a legal challenge if they believe the regulations should not apply. Consulting with a land use attorney can help determine the strength of such a challenge. If the new regulations are unlikely to be successfully contested, adapting the project to comply may be the most practical solution.

FAQ

What is vesting?

Vestings refers to the principle that a land use application is considered under the laws in effect at the time of its submission, providing predictability and security for developers.

What is a PUD?

A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a zoning method that allows for flexible land use and design, typically to encourage mixed-use, conservation, or other innovative development.

What is IUGA?

Interim Urban Growth Area (IUGA) refers to temporary boundaries set by a county where urban development is encouraged, pending the adoption of a final urban growth area under the Growth Management Act.

What is SEPA?

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of potential impacts for certain governmental decisions, ensuring consideration of environmental factors in decision-making.

How does GMA work?

The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates comprehensive land use planning by local governments to manage growth, focusing on reducing sprawl and protecting the environment.

What is RCW 36.70A?

RCW 36.70A is the chapter of the Revised Code of Washington that outlines the Growth Management Act, establishing requirements for local land use planning.

What is RCW 58.17.033?

RCW 58.17.033 establishes the vested rights doctrine in Washington, stating that land division applications are considered under the regulations in effect at the time of application.

Why was EIS required?

An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required because the project was deemed to have significant environmental impacts, necessitating detailed analysis under SEPA.

What if zoning changes?

If zoning changes after an application is submitted, the project is typically evaluated under the rules in effect at the time of submission due to the vested rights doctrine.

Who enforces GMA?

GMA enforcement is primarily the responsibility of local governments, with oversight by Growth Management Hearings Boards, although enforcement mechanisms are limited.

Housing project approved outside growth area in Washington What happened next