Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330

Noncompliance

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) After the time set for complying with the requirements of this chapter under RCW 36.70A.300(3)(b) has expired, or at an earlier time upon the motion of a county or city subject to a determination of invalidity under RCW 36.70A.300, the board shall set a hearing for the purpose of determining whether the state agency, county, or city is in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
(2)(a) The board shall conduct a hearing and issue a finding of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of this chapter and with any compliance schedule established by the board in its final order.
(b) The board may not issue a finding of compliance unless the county or city has amended the portion of the plan or regulations that were found noncompliant, and the amendments addressing the noncompliance order are compliant with the requirements of this chapter.
(c) A person with standing to challenge the legislation enacted in response to the board's final order may participate in the hearing along with the petitioner and the state agency, county, or city.
(d) A hearing under this subsection shall be given the highest priority of business to be conducted by the board, and a finding shall be issued within 45 days of the filing of the motion under subsection (1) of this section with the board. The board shall issue any order necessary to make adjustments to the compliance schedule and set additional hearings as provided in subsection (5) of this section.
(3) If the board after a compliance hearing finds that the state agency, county, or city is not in compliance, the board shall transmit its finding to the governor.
(a) The board may refer a finding of noncompliance to the department. The purpose of the referral is for the department to provide technical assistance to facilitate speedy resolution of the finding of noncompliance and to provide training pursuant to RCW 36.70A.332 as necessary.
(b) Alternatively, the board may recommend to the governor that the sanctions authorized by this chapter be imposed. The board shall take into consideration the county's or city's efforts to meet its compliance schedule in making the decision to recommend sanctions to the governor.
(4) In a compliance hearing upon petition of a party, the board shall also reconsider its final order and decide, if no determination of invalidity has been made, whether one now should be made under RCW 36.70A.302.
(5) The board shall schedule additional hearings as appropriate pursuant to subsections (1) and (2) of this section.
[ 2025 c 17 s 1; 2021 c 312 s 2; 1997 c 429 s 21; 1995 c 347 s 112; 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 14.]

Notes:

Prospective application—1997 c 429 ss 1-21: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1998–2019 · leading case: Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.330. It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County's 1979 code were invalid.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.330. *563 It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County’s 1979 code were invalid.”
Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County (1999) washctapp · cites it 2× “Ultimately, the Governor was authorized to impose sanctions for GMA noncompliance, see former RCW 36.70A.330, .340, .345, but until 1995, the enforcement authority of a hearings board included only the power to remand.”
Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.330 arguably requires the Growth Board to review a county’s progress toward achieving compliance and to enter an order removing its original findings of noncompliance despite any pending review by this court.”
Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. (2011) washctapp · cites it 2× “" [17] RCW 36.70A.330 arguably requires the Growth Board to review a county's progress toward achieving compliance and to enter an order removing its original findings of noncompliance despite any pending review by this court.”
Torrance v. King County (1998) wash “l: “(a) Be prospective in effect and shall not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before the date of the board’s order; and “(b) Subject any development application that would otherwise vest after the date of the board’s order to the local ordinance or…”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County (2013) washctapp “(3) A determination of invalidity shall: (a) Be prospective in effect and shall not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before the date of the board’s order-, and (b) Subject any development application that would otherwise vest after the date of the board’s…”
Citizens v. Columbia County (1998) washctapp · cites it 3× “9 RCW 36.70A.330(2). 10 RCW 36.70A.330(4). 11 RCW 36.”
Miotke v. Spokane County (2014) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.330(2). ¶14 We presume that comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County (2019) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 36.70A.330(1)-(3). Parties may challenge the legislation enacted in response to the Board’s final order.”
Torrance v. King County (1998) wash “l: "(a) Be prospective in effect and shall not extinguish rights that vested under state or local law before the date of the board's order; and "(b) Subject any development application that would otherwise vest after the date of the board's order to the local ordinance or…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(1) — 2 cases
Clark County v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MGT. (2011) washctapp “" [17] RCW 36.70A.330 arguably requires the Growth Board to review a county's progress toward achieving compliance and to enter an order removing its original findings of noncompliance despite any pending review by this court.”
Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County (2019) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.330(1)-(3). Parties may challenge the legislation enacted in response to the Board’s final order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(2) — 3 cases
Citizens v. Columbia County (1998) washctapp “9 RCW 36.70A.330(2). 10 RCW 36.70A.330(4). 11 RCW 36.”
Miotke v. Spokane County (2014) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.330(2). ¶14 We presume that comprehensive plans and development regulations are valid upon adoption.”
Friends Of Clark County And Futurewise, V Clark County (2019) washctapp “RCW 36.70A.330(1)-(3). Parties may challenge the legislation enacted in response to the Board’s final order.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(3) — 2 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.330. It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County's 1979 code were invalid.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.330. *563 It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County’s 1979 code were invalid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(4) — 1 case
Citizens v. Columbia County (1998) washctapp “9 RCW 36.70A.330(2). 10 RCW 36.70A.330(4). 11 RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(4)(b) — 2 cases
Skagit Surveyors v. FRIENDS OF SKAGIT (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.330. It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County's 1979 code were invalid.”
Skagit Surveyors & Engineers, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County (1998) wash “RCW 36.70A.330. *563 It was under this section of the Act that Friends moved for a finding of noncompliance and a declaration that sections of Skagit County’s 1979 code were invalid.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.330(l) — 1 case
Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2011) washctapp “” RCW 36.70A.330 arguably requires the Growth Board to review a county’s progress toward achieving compliance and to enter an order removing its original findings of noncompliance despite any pending review by this court.”
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.