Washington Law Review


Part I of this comment reviews the judicial analysis underlying the Washington doctrine, and outlines the elements and scope of the vesting rule. Part II analyzes the Mercer decision and questions whether that decision promotes the purposes of the Washington doctrine in the PUD zoning context. This comment contends that the Mercer court's rule for vesting rights to develop land on the basis of incomplete building permit applications fails to consider important public policy interests. In conclusion, Part III proposes a modified vesting rule that addresses the problems inherent in the Mercer decision.

First Page