Washington's Zoning Vested Rights Doctrine
Huebner, Fredrick D.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by9
- 2010Kelly v. Chelan County Wash. Ct. App.
- 1999Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County Wash. Ct. App.
- 1990Atherton Condominium Apartment-Owners Ass'n v. Blume Development Co. Wash.
- 1988Taylor v. Stevens County Wash.
- 1987Victoria Tower Partnership v. City of Seattle Wash. Ct. App.
- 1986West Main Associates v. City of Bellevue Wash.
- 1985Carlson v. Town of Beaux Arts Village Wash. Ct. App.
- 1984Teed v. King County Wash. Ct. App.
- 1982Norco Construction, Inc. v. King County Wash.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Part I of this comment reviews the judicial analysis underlying the Washington doctrine, and outlines the elements and scope of the vesting rule. Part II analyzes the Mercer decision and questions whether that decision promotes the purposes of the Washington doctrine in the PUD zoning context. This comment contends that the Mercer court's rule for vesting rights to develop land on the basis of incomplete building permit applications fails to consider important public policy interests. In conclusion, Part III proposes a modified vesting rule that addresses the problems inherent in the Mercer decision.