## Facts

- Deer Creek Developers, LLC planned a residential project in Spokane County, Washington, consisting of 280 units in 23 buildings to be constructed in two phases.
- Deer Creek obtained a county building permit for Phase I of the project.
- For Phase II, Deer Creek submitted a site-plan application and related land-use requests (including a conditional-use permit request), but it did not apply for a building permit for Phase II.
- After Deer Creek submitted its Phase II applications, Spokane County amended its zoning code to prohibit single-family, duplex, and multifamily residential uses on the land where Phase II would be built.
- Following the zoning amendment, Spokane County held a public hearing on Deer Creek’s Phase II conditional-use request. Applying the amended regulations, the county hearing examiner denied the Phase II permit request.
- Deer Creek sought review in superior court under Washington’s Land Use Petition Act (LUPA). The superior court affirmed the hearing examiner.
- Deer Creek appealed, arguing that Washington’s vested-rights doctrine required the county to evaluate Phase II under the zoning in effect when Deer Creek filed its site-plan application.

## Issues

1. Whether Deer Creek’s Phase II development rights vested when it filed a site-plan application and conditional-use permit request (without a Phase II building-permit application), requiring Spokane County to apply the pre-amendment zoning to Phase II.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Three, affirmed.
- Deer Creek’s Phase II rights did not vest based on the filing of a site plan and conditional-use permit request.
- Because Deer Creek did not file a vesting-eligible application for Phase II (such as a complete building-permit application) before the zoning amendment, Spokane County properly applied the amended zoning to deny Phase II.

## Legal Principles

- In Washington, a developer generally gains vested rights to have an application processed under the land-use rules in effect at the time of filing only when the developer files a complete application of a type that triggers vesting (most commonly a building-permit application; and, in some settings, other applications identified by statute, such as certain subdivision-related filings).
- The vested-rights doctrine is a narrow exception to the general rule that the regulations in effect at the time of the government’s decision apply to a land-use request.
- A site-plan application or a conditional-use permit request, by itself, does not trigger vesting unless the Legislature has provided that such an application type vests rights.
- For a project pursued in phases, vesting must be established for the phase at issue; a permit for one phase does not automatically secure vested rights for later phases that lack a qualifying vesting application.
- Under LUPA, courts review local land-use decisions using the standards in RCW 36.70C.130; where no vested right exists, a local government may apply intervening zoning changes to pending, non-vesting applications.

## Conclusion

The court held that Deer Creek did not obtain vested rights for Phase II by filing only a site-plan application and a conditional-use permit request. Because Deer Creek never filed a vesting-eligible permit application for Phase II before Spokane County amended its zoning to bar residential uses on the property, the county lawfully applied the amended zoning and denied the Phase II request, and the denial was affirmed on review.


Deer Creek Developers, LLC v. Spokane County, 236 P.3d 906 (2010)