Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.630 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If after considering the matter at a public meeting as provided in RCW 36.70.620 the board deems a change in the recommendations of the planning agency to be necessary, the change shall not be incorporated in the recommended control until the board shall conduct its own public hearing, giving notice thereof as provided in RCW 36.70.590, and it shall adopt its own findings of fact and statement setting forth the factors considered at the hearing and its own analysis of findings considered by it to be controlling.
[ 1963 c 4 s 36.70.630. Prior: 1961 c 232 s 5; 1959 c 201 s 63.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1972–1997 · leading case: Tugwell v. Kittitas Cnty., 951 P.2d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tugwell v. Kittitas Cnty., 951 P.2d 272 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “RCW 36.70.630 provides: Official controls — Board to conduct hearing, adopt findings prior to incorporating changes in recommended control.”
Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 521 P.2d 1173 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 5× “590 and RCW 36.70.630. Plaintiff also asserts that the inadequate notice denied it procedural due process.”
Leavitt v. Jefferson Cnty., 875 P.2d 681 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “After receiving the report, the board must proceed under RCW 36.70.630, 5 which *682 requires the board to hold public hearings before incorporating changes into the proposed control.”
Citizens for Responsible Gov't v. Kitsap Cnty., 758 P.2d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “620 and RCW 36.70.630 were not observed by the County before final adoption of the ordinance.”
Byers v. Bd. of Clallam Cy. Comm'rs, 529 P.2d 823 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “600 [1] and RCW 36.70.630 [2] respectively. *800 Appellants argue in the alternative, however, that the statutes do not apply to "interim zoning" measures, or, if they do, there was substantial compliance.”
Anderson v. Island Cnty., 501 P.2d 594 (Wash. 1972). “832 (1969): Petitioners contend that the Board of Commissioners for Island County lacked jurisdiction to grant the immediate application for rezoning, arguing that RCW 36.70.630 restricts the action of the board of commissioners to a modification of the recommendation of the…”
Glaspey & Sons, Inc. v. Conrad, 509 P.2d 762 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 4× “Two issues are presented: (1) Was proper notice of hearing upon the proposed zoning ordinance given pursuant to RCW 36.70.630 and procedural due process? (2) Was RCW 36.”
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.