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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.790 (2025)

Interim zoning

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If the planning agency in good faith, is conducting or intends to conduct studies within a reasonable time for the purpose of, or is holding a hearing for the purpose of, or has held a hearing and has recommended to the board the adoption of any zoning map or amendment or addition thereto, or in the event that new territory for which no zoning may have been adopted as set forth in RCW 36.70.800 may be annexed to a county, the board, in order to protect the public safety, health and general welfare may, after report from the commission, adopt as an emergency measure a temporary interim zoning map the purpose of which shall be to so classify or regulate uses and related matters as constitute the emergency.
[ 1963 c 4 s 36.70.790. Prior: 1959 c 201 s 79.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2021 · leading case: Smith v. Skagit Cnty., 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Skagit Cnty., 453 P.2d 832 (Wash. 1969). · cites it 8× “Then, on April 12, 1966, the Skagit County Commissioners conducted a public hearing to consider a county interim zoning ordinance contemplated by RCW 36.70.790 to effectuate the comprehensive plan.”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 649 P.2d 103 (Wash. 1982). “The County had the ability to avoid entirely prospective planning circumvention by adopting interim zoning pursuant to RCW 36.70.790. That statute provides, "the board, in order to protect the public safety, health and general welfare may, after report from the commission, adopt…”
Matson v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 904 P.2d 317 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The Jablinske court found that, although RCW 36.70.790 authorized counties to enact emergency zoning measures, the statute did not specifically require notice and public hearing prior to the enactment of the measures.”
Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 647 P.2d 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “RCW 36.70.790; Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cy.”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 627 P.2d 988 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). “Nevertheless the County had legal means available to preserve the status quo while the Soos Creek Plan was being formulated and adopted, but it did not use them.”
Jablinske v. Snohomish Cnty., 626 P.2d 543 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “RCW 36.70.790. We believe the better-reasoned view recognizes that if notice and hearing requirements were applied to interim zoning decisions, developers could frustrate effective long-term planning by obtaining vested rights to develop their property.”
State ex rel. Randall v. Snohomish Cnty., 488 P.2d 511 (Wash. 1971). “Plaintiffs contend that the action of the county in creating this rural use zone is to be treated as attempted interim zoning under RCW 36.70.790 rather than “classifying unmapped areas” (“holding zone”) under RCW 36.”
Byers v. Bd. of Clallam Cy. Comm'rs, 529 P.2d 823 (Wash. 1974). “" "Interim zoning," under RCW 36.70.790, is meant to be only a temporary protective measure.”
Peyote Canyon, LLC v. Cnty. of Benton, No. 34600-5 (Wash. Ct. App. July 27, 2017). · cites it 13× “The county argues that within the Act, "RCW 36.70.790 applies to 'the adoption of any zoning map or amendment or addition thereto,' whereas RCW 36.”
Seven Hills, LLC v. Chelan Cnty., 495 P.3d 778 (Wash. 2021). “XI, § 11; RCW 36.70.790; Jablinske v. Snohomish County, 28 Wn.”
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.