Does the County have a valid cognizable property right to prevent a developer from obtaining a permit for development without meeting the conditions attached to the permit?

The County, citing Rhod-a-Zalea v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 10, 16, 959 P.2d 1024 (1998), and Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, 82 Wn.2d 475, 481, 513 P.2d 36 (1973), argues that, even if the permits and plats once constituted cognizable property rights, they are no longer valid once a developer violates the conditions attached to their issuance. This argument is misplaced. Both Rhod-a-Zalea and Eastlake involve the self-executing nature of vested permits, holding that vested permits are not cognizable property rights if they do not conform to existing regulations. We need not concern ourselves with the self-executing nature of vested permits because the permits and plats involved in this case had already been validly approved.