 | A topical index to MRSC's information resources. |
Planning: PL 2.1125 - Vested rights
Electronic Documents (0 Results)
- No electronic documents related to this topic were found.
Paper Documents (0 Results)
- No paper documents related to this topic were found.
MRSC Library Catalog Documents
Featured Inquiries (2 Results)
- Would a land use application submitted just prior to the adoption of a traffic impact fee ordinance vest to the current no-fee regulations or would such fees apply regardless of when a completed land use application was submitted?
An applicant does not vest to traffic or transportation impact fees, as the applicant would with respect to the land use regulations in effect at the time of submittal of a complete land use application. As summarized well in Pavlina v. City of Vancouver, 122 Wn. App. 520, 529-30 (2004), the court stated:Pavlina argues that the superior court erroneously applied New Castle [New Castle Invs. v. City of LaCenter, 98 Wn. App. 224 (1999), review denied, 140 Wn.2d 1019 (2000)] in deciding this case. He asserts that New Castle does not apply to this case because there was no preliminary approval in New Castle like in the present case. We disagree.
Pavlina appears to argue that he has vested rights and thus the City cannot impose impact fees. But as we noted in New Castle, an impact fee is not a land use ordinance that vests with the application. New Castle, 98 Wn. App. at 232-33.
In New Castle, we held that TIFs [traffic impact fees] do not affect any physical aspects of development or the types of uses allowed. New Castle, 98 Wn. App. at 237. If the fees did, a TIF would be subject to the vested rights doctrine. New Castle, 98 Wn. App. at 237. We further noted that a TIF is a fee charged on new development. New Castle, 98 Wn. App. at 232. Since traffic impact fees do not limit land use, the City can impose them on a development at the building permit application stage.
Pavlina attempts to distinguish New Castle by contending that unlike in New Castle, he had obtained preliminary approval of his development. But we addressed this issue, noting:
Thus, the fee calculated by LaCenter at the time of preliminary plat approval would bear little relationship to the actual impact of growth at the time the permit is issued.
… If the fee were frozen, then new growth could take place without the developer paying its fair share for improving public facilities.
New Castle, 98 Wn. App. at 237. RCW 82.02.050 clearly intended for developers to pay for their share of system improvements. In order to accomplish this goal, impact fees must be imposed at the time of building permit application. It was irrelevant in New Castle that the developer had previously obtained preliminary plat approval and it is irrelevant here.
.
- Does a developer have a vested right to a connection fee at a certain level?
No. In Lincoln Shiloh Assoc., Ltd. v. Mukilteo Water District, 45 Wn. App. 123 (l986), the court of appeals refused to find a vested right to be charged only the fees for water connection in effect on the date of a building permit application. The court stated that the vesting rule applied to zoning regulations, not to fees, and found the building permit cases not controlling. So, if a city raises utility connection fees after a building permit has been applied for, the owner will have to pay the connection fees in effect at the time of the of the actual connection.
Subject Pages (1 Results)
- Vested Rights
Information about the doctrine of vested rights in the state of Washington