Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.540 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever a county legislative authority has approved by motion and certified all or part of a comprehensive plan, no road, square, park or other public ground or open space shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized to be constructed in the area to which the comprehensive plan applies until its location, purpose and extent has been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency. The report by the planning agency shall set forth the manner and the degree to which the proposed project does or does not conform to the objectives of the comprehensive plan. If final authority is vested by law in some governmental officer or body other than the county legislative authority, such officer or governmental body shall report the project to the planning agency and the planning agency shall render its report to such officer or governmental body. In both cases the report of the planning agency shall be advisory only. Failure of the planning agency to report on such matter so referred to it within forty days or such longer time as the county legislative authority or other governmental officer or body may indicate, shall be deemed to be approval.

[ 1991 c 363 s 80; 1963 c 4 s 36.70.540. Prior: 1959 c 201 s 54.]

Notes:

Purpose—Captions not law—1991 c 363: See notes following RCW 2.32.180.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1969–1994 · leading case: Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 2× “And see RCW 36.70.540. RCW 36.70.550 provides that the commission may prepare official controls which further the plan's objectives and goals and may also draft regulations to preserve the plan's integrity.”

Smith v. Skagit Cnty., 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70.540. Zoning may be achieved by adoption of official zoning maps (RCW 36.”

South Hill Sewer Dist. v. Pierce Cnty., 591 P.2d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “That the comprehensive plan was intended to be advisory only insofar as public projects are concerned, is strongly suggested by RCW 36.70.540 which provides in part: Whenever a board has approved by motion and certified all or part of a comprehensive plan, no street, square,…”

Save Our State Park v. Bd. of Clallam Cnty. Commissioners, 875 P.2d 673 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “750, which provides that "[a]ny board, by ordinance, may establish [zoning] classifications”. (Italics ours.) RCW 36.”

West Hill Citizens for Controlled Dev. Density v. King Cnty. Council, 627 P.2d 1002 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “650 and RCW 36.70.540), it is evident the legislature intended that nonconformance with the plan should not necessarily block a project.”

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.