Wash. Rev. Code » Title 35 · Chapter 35.63
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.63.200 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A council or board that adopts a moratorium or interim zoning control, without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium or interim zoning control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium or interim zoning control within at least sixty days of its adoption, whether or not the council or board received a recommendation on the matter from the commission. If the council or board does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing, then the council or board shall do so immediately after this public hearing. A moratorium or interim zoning control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months, but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium or interim zoning control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal.
[ 1992 c 207 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1995–2019 · leading case: Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Plan. Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). · cites it 2× “Stat. Ann. § 674:23 (West 2001) (one year); Ore.”
Matson v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 904 P.2d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 11× “Moratoriums on Development Under RCW 35.63.200 Matson first argues that the Board lacked the authority to adopt emergency ordinances and moratoriums without public notice and hearings.”
In re the Recall of Ackerson, 143 Wash. 2d 366 (Wash. 2001). “137; RCW 35.63.200. Quasi-judicial actions require both notice and hearing, and involve the consideration of a contested case to determine the rights or duties of specific parties.”
In Re Ackerson, 20 P.3d 930 (Wash. 2001). “137; RCW 35.63.200. Quasi-judicial actions require both notice and hearing, and involve the consideration of a contested case to determine the rights or duties of specific parties.”
Kenmore MHP LLC v. City of Kenmore (W.D. Wash. 2019). “, that the City’s adoption of the ordinance constituted an unlawful moratorium 23 under RCW 35.63.200, (3) violation of their substantive due process rights under the Washington 24 1 State Constitution against the City, (4) violation of their rights against uncompensated takings…”
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.