Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020
Definitions
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "Energy overlay zone" means a formal plan enacted by the county legislative authority that establishes suitable areas for siting renewable resource projects based on currently available resources and existing infrastructure with sensitivity to adverse environmental impact.
(2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on:
(a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses;
(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and
(c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under this chapter.
Where a local jurisdiction allows or requires a motion for reconsideration to the highest level of authority making the determination, and a timely motion for reconsideration has been filed, the land use decision occurs on the date a decision is entered on the motion for reconsideration, and not the date of the original decision for which the motion for reconsideration was filed.
(3) "Local jurisdiction" means a county, city, or incorporated town.
(4) "Person" means an individual, partnership, corporation, association, public or private organization, or governmental entity or agency.
(5) "Renewable resources" has the same meaning provided in RCW 19.280.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 178
cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Cave Properties v. City Of Bainbridge Island
Cave Properties v. City Of Bainbridge Island (2017)
“LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008)
“180(1), (2), which would include an implicit decision by a local government that a substantial development permit is not required. Thus, such a land use decision is not exempt from the requirements of LUPA.”
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County (2018)
“Although the term "determination" is not statutorily defined, the legislature has provided an illustrative list of actions that could trigger such a "determination." That list includes (a) "[a]n application for project permits or other governmental approval required by law…”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008)
“060(2) with what constitutes a land use decision under RCW 36.70C.020. Dissent at 857. A decision may be final for purposes of RCW 36.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“It limits standing to the applicant, the owner of the property on which the subdivision is proposed, any owner entitled to special notice under RCW 58.”
Durland v. San Juan County (2013)
“Former RCW 36.70C.020 (1997). The statute was amended in 2009, setting forth the definition of “land use decision” — the content of which remained the same — in subsection (2) of RCW 36.”
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“130(B)(1) requires parties to administratively appeal a land use decision within 14 days.”
Durland v. San Juan County (2014)
“RCW 36.70C.020(2). ¶13 The issuance of a permit may qualify as a final land use decision if there is not a way to administratively appeal the permit under the applicable code.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances *791 or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1) — 63 cases
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008)
“180(1), (2), which would include an implicit decision by a local government that a substantial development permit is not required. Thus, such a land use decision is not exempt from the requirements of LUPA.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“It limits standing to the applicant, the owner of the property on which the subdivision is proposed, any owner entitled to special notice under RCW 58.”
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(a) — 12 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
Durland v. San Juan County (2013)
“Former RCW 36.70C.020 (1997). The statute was amended in 2009, setting forth the definition of “land use decision” — the content of which remained the same — in subsection (2) of RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(b) — 4 cases
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
Vogel v. City of Richland (2011)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(1)(c) — 8 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”
Richards v. City of Pullman (2006)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2) — 73 cases
Cave Properties v. City Of Bainbridge Island (2017)
“LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”
Durland v. San Juan County (2014)
“RCW 36.70C.020(2). ¶13 The issuance of a permit may qualify as a final land use decision if there is not a way to administratively appeal the permit under the applicable code.”
Knight v. City of Yelm (2011)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(a) — 33 cases
Cave Properties v. City Of Bainbridge Island (2017)
“LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County (2018)
“Although the term "determination" is not statutorily defined, the legislature has provided an illustrative list of actions that could trigger such a "determination." That list includes (a) "[a]n application for project permits or other governmental approval required by law…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(b) — 9 cases
Cave Properties v. City Of Bainbridge Island (2017)
“LUPA provides appellate jurisdiction only over a “land use decision” as defined in RCW 36.70C.020(2). Durland, 182 Wn.2d at 64 .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(c) — 9 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“" Former RCW 36.70C.020(1) (1995). [1] Final land use decisions include decisions that relate to the enforcement of ordinances "regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(2)(e) — 1 case
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(3) — 10 cases
Chelan County v. Nykreim (2002)
“It limits standing to the applicant, the owner of the property on which the subdivision is proposed, any owner entitled to special notice under RCW 58.”
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008)
“180(1), (2), which would include an implicit decision by a local government that a substantial development permit is not required. Thus, such a land use decision is not exempt from the requirements of LUPA.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008)
“060(2) with what constitutes a land use decision under RCW 36.70C.020. Dissent at 857. A decision may be final for purposes of RCW 36.”
Klineburger v. King County (2015)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(b) — 1 case
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(a) — 9 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(b) — 6 cases
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002)
“at 285 (quoting RCW 36.70C.020(1)). Samuel’s Furniture, Inc.”
Asche v. Bloomquist (2006)
“(b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances *791 or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction…”
Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island (2009)
“130(B)(1) requires parties to administratively appeal a land use decision within 14 days.”
Vogel v. City of Richland (2011)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70C.020(l)(c) — 4 cases
Post v. City of Tacoma (2009)
“; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of…”
Post v. City of Tacoma (2007)
Richards v. City of Pullman (2006)
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.