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

Wash. Rev. Code § 58.17.140 (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) Preliminary plats of any proposed subdivision and dedication shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant for modification or correction within ninety days from date of filing thereof unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period or the ninety day limitation is extended to include up to twenty-one days as specified under RCW 58.17.095(3): PROVIDED, That if an environmental impact statement is required as provided in RCW 43.21C.030, the ninety day period shall not include the time spent preparing and circulating the environmental impact statement by the local government agency.
(2) Final plats and short plats shall be approved, disapproved, or returned to the applicant within thirty days from the date of filing thereof, unless the applicant consents to an extension of such time period.
(3)(a) Except as provided by (b) of this subsection, a final plat meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the legislative body of the city, town, or county for approval within seven years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2014, and within five years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the date of preliminary plat approval is on or after January 1, 2015.
(b) A final plat meeting all requirements of this chapter shall be submitted to the legislative body of the city, town, or county for approval within ten years of the date of preliminary plat approval if the project is not subject to requirements adopted under chapter 90.58 RCW and the date of preliminary plat approval is on or before December 31, 2007.
(4) Nothing contained in this section shall act to prevent any city, town, or county from adopting by ordinance procedures which would allow extensions of time that may or may not contain additional or altered conditions and requirements.
[ 2013 c 16 s 1; 2012 c 92 s 1; 2010 c 79 s 1; 1995 c 68 s 1; 1986 c 233 s 2; 1983 c 121 s 3; 1981 c 293 s 7; 1974 ex.s. c 134 s 8; 1969 ex.s. c 271 s 14.]

Notes:

Applicability—1986 c 233: See note following RCW 58.17.095.
Severability—1981 c 293: See note following RCW 58.17.010.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1981–2003 · leading case: HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 8× “17 RCW—establishing procedures for approving subdivision plats—preempt local ordinances which permit a hearing examiner to revoke a preliminary plat approval; (3) whether revocation powers under the Pierce County Code conflict with RCW 58.17.140, which provides that a final plat…”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 649 P.2d 103 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 7× “2d 988 (1981) affirmed the action of the trial court, holding the County had no right to defer decision on the preliminary plat application beyond the time limit of 90 days from the day the application was filed pursuant to RCW 58.17.140. It further held that upon expiration of…”
Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cnty., 627 P.2d 988 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 9× “Under state statute, RCW 58.17.140, the County Council was required to timely act on the preliminary plat and no other provision of state or local law authorized the kind of informal indefinite deferral action on the preliminary plat that occurred here.”
Hillis Homes, Inc. v. Snohomish Cnty., 647 P.2d 43 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “As we recently held in Norco Constr., Inc. v. King Cy.”
Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373 (Wash. 1997). “” Where the Legislature has intended action be performed on an application in a set amount of time, the Legislature has provided a time limitation in the statute.”
Hillis v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 932 P.2d 139 (Wash. 1997). “130 provides: No agency shall expend or contract to expend any money or incur any liability in excess of the amounts appropriated for that purpose.”
Somers v. Snohomish Cnty., 105 Wash. App. 937 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The County has informed Aronson that, under RCW 58.17.140, his preliminary plat approval will automatically expire on January 6, 2002, unless he “makes a written request for a one year extension at least 30 days prior” to that date, and the director of Planning and *950…”
Somers v. Snohomish Cnty., 21 P.3d 1165 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “The County has informed Aronson that, under RCW 58.17.140, his preliminary plat approval will automatically expire on January 6, 2002, unless he "makes a written request for a one year extension at least 30 days prior" to that date, and the director of the PDS concludes that…”
Friends of the Law v. King Cy., 869 P.2d 1056 (Wash. 1994). “RCW 58.17.140. The applicant bears the burden of complying fully with applicable land use requirements.”
Pleas v. City of Seattle, 746 P.2d 823 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “However, the court also held the developer was not entitled to consequential damages.”
Buchsieb/Danard, Inc. v. Skagit Cnty., 663 P.2d 487 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 3× “See RCW 58.17.140. Accordingly, we affirmed a superior court decision granting the writ of mandamus requested by Norco Construction.”
HJS Dev., Inc. v. Pierce Cnty., 61 P.3d 1141 (Wash. 2003). · cites it 9× “17 RCW— establishing procedures for approving subdivision plats—preempt local ordinances which permit a hearing examiner to revoke a preliminary plat approval; (3) whether revocation powers under the Pierce County Code conflict with RCW 58.17.140, which provides that a final…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.