Wash. Rev. Code » Title 58 · Chapter 58.17
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.033 (2026)

✓ 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 proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate county, city, or town official.
(2) The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance.
(3) The limitations imposed by this section shall not restrict conditions imposed under chapter 43.21C RCW.
[ 1987 c 104 s 2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 73 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 943 P.2d 1378 (Wash. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 943 P.2d 1378 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 28× “The County moved for summary judgment, arguing that under RCW 58.17.033 (the short plat vesting statute) the Developer was vested for the right to divide its property but not vested for use or development under the zoning laws existing on the date of the application for the…”
Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce Cnty., 133 Wash. 2d 269 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 28× “The County moved for sümmary judgment, arguing that under RCW 58.17.033 (the short plat vesting statute) the Developer was vested for the right to divide its property but not vested for use or development under the zoning laws existing on the date of the application for the…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 28× “In New Castle, we addressed whether an ordinance imposing a transportation impact fee (TIF) on a proposed subdivision was a land use control ordinance subject to the vesting rights provision of RCW 58.17.033. 98 Wn. App. at 226-27 . We stated that TIFs do not exercise a…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 12× “095 (building permits); RCW 58.17.033 (subdivision applications); RCW 36.”
Friends of the Law v. King Cy., 869 P.2d 1056 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 11× “This appeal involves the interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which extended the common law vested rights doctrine to preliminary plat applications.”
Friends of the Law v. King Cnty., 821 P.2d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 21× “Appellants contend that the plat application was incomplete at the time the property was downzoned and, thus, was not vested under RCW 58.17.033. We affirm. I On November 22, 1988, GWC filed an application with the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD) for…”
Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “However, if the County later determines that an environmental impact statement is necessary, the submission is functionally canceled and devel *479 opment rights do not vest until such time as the County fulfills its responsibility to complete an EIS.”
Phillips v. King Cnty., 968 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 4× “Although a new surface water drainage code was adopted by King County in 1990, it did not apply to the Autumn Wind project because the project was vested to the prior code pursuant to RCW 58.17.033. Lozier’s first engineering plans called for a storm drainage conveyance outlet…”
Phillips v. King Cnty., 968 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 4× “Although a new surface water drainage code was adopted by King County in 1990, it did not apply to the Autumn Wind project because the project was vested to the prior code pursuant to RCW 58.17.033. Lozier's first engineering plans called for a storm drainage conveyance outlet…”
New Castle Investments v. City of LaCenter, 989 P.2d 569 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “The City of LaCenter appeals the decision of the Clark County Superior Court, which affirmed the hearings examiner’s determination that LaCenter’s transportation impact fee ordinance is subject to the vesting statute for land use ordinances, RCW 58.17.033. We hold that the…”
Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 942 P.2d 1096 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “The doctrine reflected in RCW 58.17.033 vests rights to develop, not merely divide the land.”
Assoc. of Rural Residents v. Kitsap Cnty., 4 P.3d 115 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “020, shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval of the short…”
Show all 73 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.033(1) — 35 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In New Castle, we addressed whether an ordinance imposing a transportation impact fee (TIF) on a proposed subdivision was a land use control ordinance subject to the vesting rights provision of RCW 58.17.033. 98 Wn. App. at 226-27 . We stated that TIFs do not exercise a…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “095 (building permits); RCW 58.17.033 (subdivision applications); RCW 36.”
Isla Verde Int'l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas, 49 P.3d 867 (Wash. 2002).
Friends of the Law v. King Cnty., 821 P.2d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Appellants contend that the plat application was incomplete at the time the property was downzoned and, thus, was not vested under RCW 58.17.033. We affirm. I On November 22, 1988, GWC filed an application with the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD) for…”
Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “However, if the County later determines that an environmental impact statement is necessary, the submission is functionally canceled and devel *479 opment rights do not vest until such time as the County fulfills its responsibility to complete an EIS.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.033(2) — 11 cases
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003).
Friends of the Law v. King Cnty., 821 P.2d 539 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “Appellants contend that the plat application was incomplete at the time the property was downzoned and, thus, was not vested under RCW 58.17.033. We affirm. I On November 22, 1988, GWC filed an application with the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD) for…”
Friends of the Law v. King Cy., 869 P.2d 1056 (Wash. 1994). “This appeal involves the interpretation of RCW 58.17.033, which extended the common law vested rights doctrine to preliminary plat applications.”
Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “However, if the County later determines that an environmental impact statement is necessary, the submission is functionally canceled and devel *479 opment rights do not vest until such time as the County fulfills its responsibility to complete an EIS.”
Westside Bus. Park, L.L.C. v. Pierce Cnty., 5 P.3d 713 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.033(3) — 6 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “In New Castle, we addressed whether an ordinance imposing a transportation impact fee (TIF) on a proposed subdivision was a land use control ordinance subject to the vesting rights provision of RCW 58.17.033. 98 Wn. App. at 226-27 . We stated that TIFs do not exercise a…”
Phillips v. King Cnty., 968 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1998). “Although a new surface water drainage code was adopted by King County in 1990, it did not apply to the Autumn Wind project because the project was vested to the prior code pursuant to RCW 58.17.033. Lozier’s first engineering plans called for a storm drainage conveyance outlet…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 386 P.3d 1064 (Wash. 2016). “095 (building permits); RCW 58.17.033 (subdivision applications); RCW 36.”
Phillips v. King Cnty., 968 P.2d 871 (Wash. 1998). “Although a new surface water drainage code was adopted by King County in 1990, it did not apply to the Autumn Wind project because the project was vested to the prior code pursuant to RCW 58.17.033. Lozier's first engineering plans called for a storm drainage conveyance outlet…”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.033(l) — 1 case
Graham Neighborhood Ass'n v. F.G. Assocs., 252 P.3d 898 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
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.