Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.360 (2026)
Master planned resorts
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 may permit master planned resorts which may constitute urban growth outside of urban growth areas as limited by this section. A master planned resort means a self-contained and fully integrated planned unit development, in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreational facilities.
(2) Capital facilities, utilities, and services, including those related to sewer, water, stormwater, security, fire suppression, and emergency medical, provided on-site shall be limited to meeting the needs of the master planned resort. Such facilities, utilities, and services may be provided to a master planned resort by outside service providers, including municipalities and special purpose districts, provided that all costs associated with service extensions and capacity increases directly attributable to the master planned resort are fully borne by the resort. A master planned resort and service providers may enter into agreements for shared capital facilities and utilities, provided that such facilities and utilities serve only the master planned resort or urban growth areas.
Nothing in this subsection may be construed as: Establishing an order of priority for processing applications for water right permits, for granting such permits, or for issuing certificates of water right; altering or authorizing in any manner the alteration of the place of use for a water right; or affecting or impairing in any manner whatsoever an existing water right.
All waters or the use of waters shall be regulated and controlled as provided in chapters 90.03 and 90.44 RCW and not otherwise.
(3) A master planned resort may include other residential uses within its boundaries, but only if the residential uses are integrated into and support the on-site recreational nature of the resort.
(4) A master planned resort may be authorized by a county only if:
(a) The comprehensive plan specifically identifies policies to guide the development of master planned resorts;
(b) The comprehensive plan and development regulations include restrictions that preclude new urban or suburban land uses in the vicinity of the master planned resort, except in areas otherwise designated for urban growth under RCW 36.70A.110;
(c) The county includes a finding as a part of the approval process that the land is better suited, and has more long-term importance, for the master planned resort than for the commercial harvesting of timber or agricultural production, if located on land that otherwise would be designated as forestland or agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170;
(d) The county ensures that the resort plan is consistent with the development regulations established for critical areas; and
(e) On-site and off-site infrastructure and service impacts are fully considered and mitigated.
Notes:
Intent—1998 c 112: "The primary intent of this act is to give effect to recommendations by the 1994 department of community, trade, and economic development's master planned resort task force by clarifying that master planned resorts may make use of capital facilities, utilities, and services provided by outside service providers, and may enter into agreements for shared facilities with such providers, when all costs directly attributable to the resort, including capacity increases, are fully borne by the resort." [ 1998 c 112 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2011–2011 · leading case: Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a “conceptual” MPR location.”
Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. City of Kirkland, 159 Wash. App. 616 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “RCW 36.70A.360. Where an individual project does not meet the requirements of the planned action ordinance or where the earlier-completed EIS did not adequately address all probable significant adverse environmental impacts of a particular proposed project, that project does not…”
DAVIDSON SERLES v. City of Kirkland, 246 P.3d 822 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “[12] RCW 36.70A.360. [13] Where an individual project does not meet the requirements of the planned action ordinance or where the earlier-completed EIS did not adequately address all probable significant adverse environmental impacts of a particular proposed project, that…”
BRINNON Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.360(1) — 3 cases
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a “conceptual” MPR location.”
BRINNON Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.360(4)(a) — 3 cases
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “” RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a “conceptual” MPR location.”
BRINNON Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). “" RCW 36.70A.360(1). ¶ 3 In 2002, Jefferson County adopted the Brinnon Subarea Plan, which identified over 300 acres south of Brinnon as a "conceptual" MPR location.”
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.