Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70B.140 (2026)

Project permits that may be excluded from review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A local government by ordinance or resolution may exclude the following project permits from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.080 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Landmark designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the use of public areas or facilities, or other project permits, whether administrative or quasi-judicial, that the local government by ordinance or resolution has determined present special circumstances that warrant a review process or time periods for approval which are different from that provided in RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.080 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130.
(2) A local government by ordinance or resolution also may exclude the following project permits from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Lot line or boundary adjustments and other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits.
(3) A local government must exclude project permits for interior alterations from site plan review, provided that the interior alterations do not result in the following:
(a) Additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms;
(b) Nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or
(c) Increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems.
(4) Nothing in this section exempts interior alterations from otherwise applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical codes.
(5) For purposes of this section, "interior alterations" include construction activities that do not modify the existing site layout or its current use and involve no exterior work adding to the building footprint.
[ 2025 c 102 s 2; 2023 c 338 s 1; 1995 c 347 s 418.]

Notes:

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Deer Creek Developers, LLC v. Spokane Cnty., 236 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Deer Creek Developers, LLC v. Spokane Cnty., 236 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “ubdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by the Critical Area Ordinance, site-specific zone reclassifications, manufactured home parks, and change of condition…”
Deer Creek Developers v. Spokane Cnty., 236 P.3d 906 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “ubdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, variances, shoreline permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by the Critical Area Ordinance, site-specific zone reclassifications, manufactured home parks, and change of condition…”
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.