Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.93
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.93.157 (2026)

Decisions to be consistent with growth management act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The decisions of a boundary review board located in a county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 must be consistent with RCW 36.70A.020, 36.70A.110, and 36.70A.210.
[ 1992 c 162 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1993–2018 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “[17] RCW 36.93.157 was later added as part of the 1992 amendments.”
Vashon Island Comm. for Self-Gov't v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 903 P.2d 953 (Wash. 1995). “RCW 36.93.157. Therein lies the problem. The Committee’s interpretation of the current version of RCW 36.”
Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “8 Boundary review boards are also required by RCW 36.93.157 to make decisions consistent with specified sections of the GMA.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Nonetheless, the general proposition of consistency with the GMA must also recognize specific limitations in the annexation statute and the BRB Act. Nothing in RCW 36.”
Neighbors Against Annexation v. Snohomish Cnty. Boundary Review Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “70A RCW, described in RCW 36.93.157, we affirm. FACTS Rusty Drivstuen, Tim Albers, Matt Anderson, and Sky Ridge Estates II (together, the Interested Parties) presented the City with a petition to annex approximately 80 acres of property into the City.”
Stewart v. BRB, 996 P.2d 1087 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “[8] Boundary review boards are also required by RCW 36.93.157 to make decisions consistent with specified sections of the GMA.”
Interlake Sporting Ass'n v. BRB, 146 P.3d 904 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 2× “Nonetheless, the general proposition of consistency with the GMA must also recognize specific limitations in the annexation statute and the BRB Act.”
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.