Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.545 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Beginning July 1, 1992, the development regulations of each county that does not plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall not be inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan. For the purposes of this section, "development regulations" has the same meaning as set forth in RCW 36.70A.030.

[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 24.]

Notes:

Severability—Part, section headings not law—1990 1st ex.s. c 17: See RCW 36.70A.900 and 36.70A.901.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2014–2015 · leading case: Save Our Scenic Area v. Skamania Cnty., 352 P.3d 177 (Wash. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Save Our Scenic Area v. Skamania Cnty., 352 P.3d 177 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 4× “The judge’s order provided: 2. GMA Natural Resources.”

Save Our Scenic Area v. Skamania Cnty. (Wash. 2015). · cites it 5× “l30(l)(b), by failing to complete periodic review of its natural resource I ' •' ' ' lands ordinance and (2) violated the PEA, RCW 36.70.545, by failing to ensure consistency between its 1986 zoning ordinance and its 2007 Plan.”

Save Our Scenic Area, V Skamania Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “" RCW 36.70.545. Friends claims the unmapped zoning classification in the County's 1986 zoning ordinance conflicted with the conservancy designation in its 2007 comprehensive plan.”

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.