Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.095 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
*** CHANGE IN 2026 *** (SEE 6309-S.SL) ***
(1) A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in effect at the time of application, and the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of application.
(2) The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance but for any construction project costing more than five thousand dollars the application shall include, at a minimum:
(a) The legal description, or the tax parcel number assigned pursuant to RCW 84.40.160, and the street address if available, and may include any other identification of the construction site by the prime contractor;
(b) The property owner's name, address, and phone number;
(c) The prime contractor's business name, address, phone number, current state contractor registration number; and
(d) Either:
(i) The name, address, and phone number of the office of the lender administering the interim construction financing, if any; or
(ii) The name and address of the firm that has issued a payment bond, if any, on behalf of the prime contractor for the protection of the owner, if the bond is for an amount not less than fifty percent of the total amount of the construction project.
(3) The information required on the building permit application by subsection (2)(a) through (d) of this section shall be set forth on the building permit document which is issued to the owner, and on the inspection record card which shall be posted at the construction site.
(4) The information required by subsection (2) of this section and information supplied by the applicant after the permit is issued under subsection (5) of this section shall be kept on record in the office where building permits are issued and made available to any person on request. If a copy is requested, a reasonable charge may be made.
(5) If any of the information required by subsection (2)(d) of this section is not available at the time the application is submitted, the applicant shall so state and the application shall be processed forthwith and the permit issued as if the information had been supplied, and the lack of the information shall not cause the application to be deemed incomplete for the purposes of vesting under subsection (1) of this section. However, the applicant shall provide the remaining information as soon as the applicant can reasonably obtain such information.
(6) The limitations imposed by this section shall not restrict conditions imposed under chapter 43.21C RCW.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: ABBEY ROAD Grp. v. City of Bonney Lake, 218 P.3d 180 (Wash. 2009).
ABBEY ROAD Grp. v. City of Bonney Lake, 218 P.3d 180 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is "fully complete[].”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 19.27.095 (building permits); RCW 58.”
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is “fully complete[ ].”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “On the other hand, the two principal vesting statutes, RCW 19.27.095 (building permits) and RCW 58.”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 267 P.3d 988 (Wash. 2011). “095 provides in relevant part: (1) A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in…”
Potala Vill. Kirkland, LLC v. City of Kirkland, 334 P.3d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The two parts of that statute were codified at RCW 19.27.095 *211 (in the state building code statute) and RCW 58.”
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 943 P.2d 1378 (Wash. 1997). “095 [3] stated: (1) A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in effect at the…”
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 133 Wash. 2d 269 (Wash. 1997). “095 3 45stated: (1) A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in effect at the…”
Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerran, 872 P.2d 1090 (Wash. 1994). “095(1) provides: A valid, and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in effect at the…”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014). “The GMA aims to curtail “uncoordinated and unplanned growth” that “pose[s] a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state.”
All. Inv. Grp. of Ellensburg, LLC v. City of Ellensburg, 358 P.3d 1227 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 19.27.095(1). The land division vesting statute states: A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.”
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “They rely on RCW 19.27.095(2), which provides that “[t]he requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.095(1) — 30 cases
ABBEY ROAD Grp. v. City of Bonney Lake, 218 P.3d 180 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is "fully complete[].”
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is “fully complete[ ].”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “On the other hand, the two principal vesting statutes, RCW 19.27.095 (building permits) and RCW 58.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 19.27.095 (building permits); RCW 58.”
Potala Vill. Kirkland, LLC v. City of Kirkland, 334 P.3d 1143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “The two parts of that statute were codified at RCW 19.27.095 *211 (in the state building code statute) and RCW 58.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.095(2) — 9 cases
ABBEY ROAD Grp. v. City of Bonney Lake, 218 P.3d 180 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is "fully complete[].”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 19.27.095 (building permits); RCW 58.”
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is “fully complete[ ].”
Lauer v. Pierce Cnty., 267 P.3d 988 (Wash. 2011). “095 provides in relevant part: (1) A valid and fully complete building permit application for a structure, that is permitted under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the building permit ordinance in…”
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “They rely on RCW 19.27.095(2), which provides that “[t]he requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.095(5) — 2 cases
Abbey Road Grp., LLC v. City of Bonney Lake, 167 Wash. 2d 242 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is “fully complete[ ].”
ABBEY ROAD Grp. v. City of Bonney Lake, 218 P.3d 180 (Wash. 2009). “But the dissent misunderstands the vesting scheme under RCW 19.27.095. The statute leaves to the local authority the determination of when a building permit application is "fully complete[].”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 19.27.095(6) — 4 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “On the other hand, the two principal vesting statutes, RCW 19.27.095 (building permits) and RCW 58.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “RCW 19.27.095 (building permits); RCW 58.”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016).
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.