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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.970 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or duties of the planning commission to hear and issue recommendations on applications for plat approval and applications for amendments to the zoning ordinance, the county legislative authority may adopt a hearing examiner system under which a hearing examiner or hearing examiners may hear and issue decisions on proposals for plat approval and for amendments to the zoning ordinance when the amendment which is applied for is not of general applicability. In addition, the legislative authority may vest in a hearing examiner the power to hear and decide those issues it believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner, including but not limited to:
(a) Applications for conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, or any other class of applications for or pertaining to development of land or land use;
(b) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations; and
(c) Appeals of administrative decisions or determinations pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW.
The legislative authority shall prescribe procedures to be followed by a hearing examiner.
Any county which vests in a hearing examiner the authority to hear and decide conditional uses and variances shall not be required to have a zoning adjuster or board of adjustment.
(2) Each county legislative authority electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the examiner. Such legal effect may vary for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include one of the following:
(a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the legislative authority;
(b) The decision may be given the effect of an administrative decision appealable within a specified time limit to the legislative authority; or
(c) Except in the case of a rezone, the decision may be given the effect of a final decision of the legislative authority.
(3) Each final decision of a hearing examiner shall be in writing and shall include findings and conclusions, based on the record, to support the decision. Such findings and conclusions shall also set forth the manner in which the decision would carry out and conform to the county's comprehensive plan and the county's development regulations. Each final decision of a hearing examiner, unless a longer period is mutually agreed to in writing by the applicant and the hearing examiner, shall be rendered within ten working days following conclusion of all testimony and hearings.
[ 1995 c 347 s 425; 1994 c 257 s 9; 1977 ex.s. c 213 s 3.]

Notes:

Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Severability—1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.
Severability—1977 ex.s. c 213: See note following RCW 35.63.130.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Cnty. of Pierce, 829 P.2d 217 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “RCW 36.70.970 provides in part: Each county legislative authority electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the examiner.”
Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 801 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 8× “The County uses a hearing examiner system, which is authorized by RCW 36.70.970. That statute provides in part: Each county legislative authority electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the…”
Lakey v. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 296 P.3d 860 (Wash. 2013). “170; RCW 36.70.970 (authorizing municipalities and counties to give hearing examiners jurisdiction over permitting activities); Kirkland Municipal Code § 3.”
Chaussee v. Snohomish Cnty. Council, 689 P.2d 1084 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “970 states: As an alternative to those provisions of this chapter relating to powers or duties of the planning commission to hear and issue recommendations on applications for plat approval and applications for amendments to the zoning ordinance, the county legislative authority…”
Lutheran Day Care v. Snohomish Cnty., 829 P.2d 746 (Wash. 1992). “220 (board); RCW 36.70.970 (hearing examiner). Also, precedent is not as important in the land use regulatory setting as in the judicial setting.”
Saldin Sec., Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 910 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “10 The Snohomish County Code provision allowing the Council to hear additional evidence, therefore, is not limited by the Act, nor do Lige and the limitations in RCW 36.70.970 apply. The Council did not exceed its jurisdiction when it received the additional evidence upon which…”
Bjarnson v. Kitsap Cnty., 899 P.2d 1290 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “A Bjarnson claims the Board, in making its decision, violated RCW 36.70.970 and Kitsap County Ordinance 128 by entering finding of facts and conclusions of law.”
East Fork Hills Rural Ass'n v. Clark Cnty., 965 P.2d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, such legal effect may vary for the different classes of applications decided by the examiner but shall include one of the following: (a) The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the legislative authority;…”
Stanzel v. City of Puyallup, 209 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 36.70.970(1), the City argues, provides hearing examiners only with the power to "hear and decide [only] those issues [the legislative authority] believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner.”
Stanzel v. Pierce Cnty., 150 Wash. App. 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “RCW 36.70.970(1), the City argues, provides hearing examiners only with the power to “hear and decide [only] those issues [the legislative authority] believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner.”
Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 9× “RCW 36.70.970. The parties do not dispute that the County has done so.”
Kiewit Constr. Grp., Inc. v. Clark Cnty., 920 P.2d 1207 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “, former RCW 36.70.970. Because of this statutory scheme, Clark County’s code apparently gave the hearing examiner authority over substantive SEPA issues, and provided that the hearing examiner’s decision was appealable to the Board.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.970(1) — 3 cases
Saldin Sec., Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 910 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “10 The Snohomish County Code provision allowing the Council to hear additional evidence, therefore, is not limited by the Act, nor do Lige and the limitations in RCW 36.70.970 apply. The Council did not exceed its jurisdiction when it received the additional evidence upon which…”
Stanzel v. City of Puyallup, 209 P.3d 534 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 36.70.970(1), the City argues, provides hearing examiners only with the power to "hear and decide [only] those issues [the legislative authority] believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner.”
Stanzel v. Pierce Cnty., 150 Wash. App. 835 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 36.70.970(1), the City argues, provides hearing examiners only with the power to “hear and decide [only] those issues [the legislative authority] believes should be reviewed and decided by a hearing examiner.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.970(1)(a) — 1 case
Saldin Sec., Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 910 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “10 The Snohomish County Code provision allowing the Council to hear additional evidence, therefore, is not limited by the Act, nor do Lige and the limitations in RCW 36.70.970 apply. The Council did not exceed its jurisdiction when it received the additional evidence upon which…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.970(2) — 2 cases
Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 801 P.2d 985 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990). “The County uses a hearing examiner system, which is authorized by RCW 36.70.970. That statute provides in part: Each county legislative authority electing to use a hearing examiner pursuant to this section shall by ordinance specify the legal effect of the decisions made by the…”
Saldin Sec., Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 910 P.2d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “10 The Snohomish County Code provision allowing the Council to hear additional evidence, therefore, is not limited by the Act, nor do Lige and the limitations in RCW 36.70.970 apply. The Council did not exceed its jurisdiction when it received the additional evidence upon which…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70.970(3) — 1 case
Fall City Sustainable Growth, V. King Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025). “RCW 36.70.970. The parties do not dispute that the County has done so.”
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.