In Schneider Homes, Inc. v. City of Kent, 87 Wn. App. 774, 779, 942 P.2d 1096, 971 P.2d 56 (1997), review denied, 134 Wn.2d 1021, 958 P.2d 316 (1998), the main issue was whether a completed application for a preliminary plat, which was inextricably linked to a PUD permit application and could not go forward without it, also vested in the developer the right to have the PUD permit application considered under the county ordinance in effect on the date the application was submitted. Schneider Homes, 87 Wn. App. at 778. The Court of Appeals held that "the doctrine reflected in RCW 58.17.033 vests rights to develop, not merely divide the land." Id. The court recognized that a PUD application is only a proposed development for the land and not "'in effect on the land.'" Id. (quoting RCW 58.17.033(1)). But the PUD ordinance at issue in Schneider Homes allowed the applicant to establish that the proposed PUD complied with applicable land use controls and other criteria. Schneider Homes, 87 Wn. App. at 780. If the PUD did comply, the County had to approve the preliminary PUD. Id.