Issue Paper # 9 2nd Draft
Rural and Agricultural Lands
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUE
This issue paper addresses the issue of rural and agricultural lands under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA requires counties and cities to adopt development regulations to preserve natural resource lands, including agricultural lands. In addition, counties are required to include a rural element in their comprehensive plans. Farmers, rural residents, and a number of counties have expressed concerns that the GMA requirements for rural and agricultural lands do not offer sufficient flexibility to accommodate the different circumstances and needs found in different areas of the state.
2. BACKGROUND
A. Legislative History
Pre-GMA
Land use planning in Washington State was dramatically altered with the enactment of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in 1990 and 1991. Except for land use regulations in the shoreline areas, regulation of land use in Washington State prior to the enactment of the GMA was performed, if at all, by counties and cities on more or less ad hoc basis.
Post-GMA
In 1990, when the Legislature passed SHB 2929, the first phase of the Growth Management Act (GMA). The legislation included findings "uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state." Footnote1
The GMA also included planning goals to guide the adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations. These included goals to reduce sprawl and protect natural resource industries. The natural resource industry goal Footnote2 is "maintain and enhance natural resource base industries, including productive timber lands, agricultural and fisheries industries," and to "[e]ncourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricultural lands."
The GMA includes a definition of urban growth areas Footnote3 and agricultural lands Footnote4, but it does not have a definition of rural lands. In place of a definition of rural lands, the GMA requires county comprehensive plans to include a rural element Footnote5.
The Legislature has amended the original GMA several times, including changes to the rural element and the agricultural lands provisions. New fully contained communities and master planned resorts can be located outside urban growth areas Footnote6. A second amendment required the designation of urban growth areas Footnote7. More recent amendments have included: allowing rural areas outside the urban growth area to include a variety of land uses; allowing the siting of industrial developments outside the urban growth area; and allowing a pilot project to bank master planned industrial locations outside urban growth areas Footnote8.
B. CTED Procedural Criteria and Minimum Guidelines
The Legislature directed the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development (DCTED) to adopt procedural criteria to assist counties and cities in developing and adopting their comprehensive plans and development regulations. Footnote9 In addition, DTCED was directed to adopt minimum guidelines for the designation and classification of natural resource lands, including agricultural lands. Footnote10
The definition of the rural element is essentially based on what is not included: it does not include lands that are designated for urban growth, or agriculture, forest, or mineral resource lands. DCTED's rules do provide much additional guidance Footnote11. The procedural criteria do include definitions in addition to those provided in the GMA. Footnote12
The procedural criteria relating to the rural element direct counties to prepare an inventory of rural lands, identify the population growth within the twenty year planning period which will be permitted to live and work on these lands. The population distribution for these lands is to be consistent with an area of low-density where the full array of urban governmental services is not available. Counties must permit land uses that are compatible with the rural character of the lands and provide for a variety of rural densities. The GMA identifies urban development, urban governmental services, and urban growth areas but pays little attention to the issue of rural character.
The procedural criteria provide direction to counties about what should be included in the rural element. The direction provides guidance on the variety of land use densities; critical area protection; protecting natural resource lands; and the establishment of a definition of rural governmental services which identifies the limited public facilities and services which should be provided. Footnote13
C. Local Government Interpretations
The majority of counties planning under the GMA have completed the first steps towards compliance, including designating agricultural lands. The following is a review of four county plans as they relate to: (1) general intent; (2) rural activity centers; and (3) general densities permitted. The plans evaluated were from Douglas, Kittitas, Thurston, and Pierce Counties.
C. (1) General Intent
Existing "urban" development patterns in rural areas. Dramatic differences in zoning have created pockets of "urban" or "suburban" development in areas that have been declared rural under GMA. In many cases, citizens own a larger tract of land that is surrounded by smaller parcels subdivided prior to GMA. These larger landowners are frustrated by a perceived unfairness in GMA that denies them the same opportunity to subdivide their land. However, many of these existing smaller lots also face limitations. If a lot is inconsistent with the requirements of new rural zoning, legally referred to as a non-conforming lot, homeowners may be prohibited from remodeling or replacing their home.
The Douglas County Comprehensive Plan states that the intent of the GMA is to recognize the state's rural diversity as well as to recognize the important economic contributions that these areas provide to their respective jurisdictions and to the state as a whole. The goal for Rural Lands in Douglas County's Comprehensive Plan summarizes this position as:
Provide a balance between maintaining the existing traditional pattern of uses in the rural areas of Douglas County, including agricultural resource activities, which define the cultural heritage of the community while still providing opportunities for future, compatible development.
The Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan does not have a rural element separate from its traditional land use element. This plan included rural lands concepts in the land use element of the plan. Kittitas County favored a variety of rural densities in order to:
concentrate development on rural lands in a manner that is compatible with infill urbanization, preserves resource functions, critical lands, and rural land use patterns that reflect local customs and traditions.
Thurston County County Wide Planning Policy 2, promotes "contiguous and orderly development and the provision of urban services." Goal 2.1(d) calls for the concentration of development in growth areas:
Designate rural areas for low intensity, non-urban uses that preserve natural resource lands, protect rural areas from sprawling, low-density development and assure that rural areas may be served with lower cost, non-urban public services and utilities.
Thurston County establishes the following four criteria for locating rural designations: (1) land capability and environmental characteristics; (2) natural resources; (3) public services; and (4) existing land uses.
Pierce County's rural element provides major emphasis in four areas including: (1) encouraging economic vitality in ways compatible with the rural environment; (2) allowing a range of rural densities; (3) providing a mix of uses to be directed at rural activity centers or gateway communities; (4) respect for carrying capacity.
C. (2) Rural Activity Centers
Activity centers in rural areas that are neither urban nor rural. Historic development patterns do not always fit within the GMA distinction between "urban" and "rural". In many counties, commercial and industrial development to serve a surrounding rural community has been built up around major intersections. However, this development is rarely served by traditionally urban governmental services like sewer and piped water. Business owners are concerned that they will be gradually forced out because their land uses may be declared unacceptable, or non-conforming, under new GMA zoning. These business owners believe that the new zoning will prevent them from expanding or remodeling their businesses to accommodate the needs of the surrounding rural population. In addition, some rural residents are worried that new commercial centers will not be allowed to serve the growing needs of a rural community.
The Douglas County Comprehensive plan like many others, allowed for rural activity centers within their rural element. The Douglas County Rural element, however, will be defined through implementation criteria which are to be developed through development regulations.
Kittitas County developed a system of "urban growth nodes" with the following definition:
Urban Growth Nodes--are those existing unincorporated areas which are established town sites or communities having at a minimum: a community water system; established residential, commercial, and industrial densities; and other vestiges of urban development, with defined boundaries established by the County.
Thurston County's Comprehensive Plan provided this description for commercial development within their rural areas:
Commercial uses will be small in scale and provide convenience services to the rural neighborhood.
In addition, the County provided for the following variety of land use categories in rural areas: (1) Military Reservation; (2) Institutional; (3) Neighborhood Commercial; (4) Arterial Commercial; (5) Highway Commercial; (6) Industrial.
Pierce County's rural neighborhood centers have three defining characteristics which include:
(a) having established commercial uses that provide for limited convenience shopping and services; (b) having immediate access onto state routes, major or secondary arterials; and (c) new rural neighborhood centers should be located more than two miles from the rural center.
Under the Pierce County Comprehensive Plan, rural gateway communities have the primary purpose of providing commercial services to accommodate the needs of visitors and tourists. As with rural neighborhood centers, they may have greater densities than surrounding land uses.
C (3) General Densities Allowed
Appropriate range of "rural" densities. Counties have zoned a variety of densities in rural areas. In some cases, "rural" densities are very similar to "urban" densities. Citizen groups have appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Boards challenging that densities are either too low or too high. In addition, groups have challenged the variety of density categories in rural areas. Though the Central Growth Management Hearings Board has ruled what densities and categories are appropriate, many counties continue to zone rural areas in a manner that is inconsistent with these rulings.
The Thurston County's Rochester sub area plan residential land use goal is a restatement of County Wide Planning Policy Goal 2.1(d). The County's interpretation of rural density is reflected both in the goals and in the conclusions of the plan. This goal states:
Housing density should be determined by the development suitability, the limitations of sensitive areas, existing land use patterns, availability of public utilities and facilities, and the impacts upon roadways.
The sub area plan applied the rural definition and criteria established for rural lands by designating Rural Residential/Resource densities (1 du/5 acres) to areas outside sewer and water service areas. In addition, the county provided policies which will encourage clustering of development to preserve open spaces, and site-sensitive areas.
Pierce County established seven density categories, including: reserve (1 unit per ten acres); Rural Separator (1 unit per 2 and 1/2 acres); Rural Five (1 unit per five acres plus variation for marine areas), Rural Ten (allows a basic density of 1 unit per 10 acres with various density incentives plus variations for marine areas). Accessory dwelling units are not counted in density calculations.
In Kittitas County the rural element was largely based upon the existing patterns and zoning found in the jurisdiction. Density is based upon minimum lot sizes of between three and twenty acres. The average density is one unit per three acres.
In Douglas County, very little of the jurisdiction was actually designated rural, instead a large percentage of the county was designated as agricultural lands. Douglas County will now require a review process for all types of land subdivisions which create lots smaller than 160 acres in size, except that one 20+ acre tract out of apparent parcel will be allowed as an exemption. In particular, large tract (5 to 20 acre) recreational and/or residential subdivision that were previously exempt from the subdivision ordinance will now be reviewed to review impacts.
D. Agricultural Lands
Wide range of definitions of commercially viable agricultural land. The agricultural community has raised concerns about a single definition of agricultural land. Productive agriculture is determined by micro-climates, crop selection, adequate water supply, and tract size. The requirements of a commercially viable apple orchard differ dramatically from the requirements of a commercially viable wheat farm. In addition, regional differences between Western and Eastern Washington must also be accommodated. Finally, uncertainty surrounds land that had previously been used for agricultural purposes but has remained fallow for a number of years. The Growth Management Hearings Boards have ruled that an adequate tract of fertile land can become non-viable agricultural land due to recent non-use. Footnote14
Family subdivision of rural land. A number of landowners in rural areas are becoming frustrated over their inability to subdivide land and construct a home for a family member. Usually, the family does not own a parcel that is large enough to accommodate subdivision into lots that satisfy rural zoning densities. Often this issue arises when a parent dies and the land cannot be subdivided into parcels to accommodate each child, or when an adult child hopes to continue farming a family farm without displacing aging parents from their home.
E. Board Decisions
The Growth Management Hearings Boards (Boards) have made a number of decisions that have interpreted the GMA provisions governing rural and agricultural lands. A summary of some of these decisions is provided in Appendix A. The following is a discussion of some of the key holdings from these cases.
The Central Board has ruled that any residential land use pattern of 10 acres, or larger , is rural. Smaller lots in the rural area will be scrutinized to assure that, they do not constitute urban growth. They have also gone on to say that a pattern of 1-and 2.5 acre lots is an urban land use pattern that constitutes sprawl both inside and outside a UGA. And as a general rule, lots of this size are prohibited as a residential development pattern in rural and urban areas.
The Western Board has determined that the rural density designation in Jefferson County of one dwelling unit per acre did not comply with the Act, particularly where no prior analysis substantiating that designation had take place. They also have gone on to say that counties can't allow new urban residential, industrial, and commercial growth outside the UGAs.
The Eastern Board has not had similar opportunities to decide what is considered appropriate rural densities. Most of their decisions have related to the designation of natural resource lands, critical areas, and agricultural lands. However, in the Woodmansee v. Ferry County case, the Board did rule that the Act requires urban services for urban development, and it leaves it to the local communities and the Boards to decide what is" urban" and what is "rural'. The Ferry County plan did define that lots of 2.5 acres or less should have community water and sewer services. By default, lots greater than 2.5 acres must be rural and the County cannot allow lot less than 2.5 acres outside of the UGA.
From these examples, we can see that the local governments and the Boards are learning as they go because the lack of direction in the Act. Maybe that is what the Legislature intended to have happen.
3. ISSUE DISCUSSION
In its public meetings during the Spring, the Land Use Study Commission heard many times that "one size does not fit all." This statement was often directed at perceived inflexibility in the GMA with how rural and agricultural lands must be treated under the GMA. Many of the concerns reflect a belief that the GMA will not allow agriculture to develop over time according to the changing national and international markets. There is also a belief that the GMA imposes a particular planning vision of compact urban developments surrounded by open space on areas of the state that have historic development patterns that do not meet this vision.
As the background discussion has pointed out, the GMA omits some critical definitions. There is also some confusion between how lands are classified. Urban growth areas are defined by the intensity of their use. Agricultural lands are defined as those lands which are of long term commercial significance. Rural lands are those lands that are not urban or natural resources lands. As one Board decision noted, they are the left-over meat loaf in the GMA refrigerator. Footnote15 In some ways, these seems incongruous, since common sense would suggest to most people that agricultural lands are by their very nature rural in character. For many people, the two terms may be synonymous.
The lack of a definition of rural also causes problems in areas where there have been historic development patterns along lake shores and other water bodies, or at the convergence of major roads, that may have urban densities and may also have some of the urban services defined by the GMA. One of the concerns raised by residents of these areas is whether any additional development is permitted if it is deemed to be "urban".
There are similar issues raised with the GMA's treatment of agricultural lands. Agriculture is a dynamic business, subject to increasing pressures from both the national and international markets. The GMA requires the designation of agricultural land based on its "long-term commercial significance." Many farmers argue that it is impossible to say whether any particular parcel has long term potential because of the shifting nature of those markets. There is also a concern that designating land as agricultural will prohibit activities necessary for the agricultural economy, including agricultural businesses and industries.
In addition, what is commercially viable agricultural lands varies from one place to another. The agricultural community has suggested that the designation of agricultural lands can be very site specific. Micro climates on a particular section can make some lands not very economical to farm. On the other hand, there has been debate about the viability of different tract sizes. In Eastern Washington large tracts may be necessary for commercial viability, while in Western Washington a tract as small as one acre can be economically viable.
Flexibility within unincorporated rural townships. These areas are well people have naturally settled, but because they are in unincorporated it has been perceived their is lack of flexibility within the GMA.
Several people have brought forward a perceived problem that if they are in a rural area, they can't build another house on their land for a family member.
When counties and cities decided the urban growth areas, one of the consequences has been tax revenue allocation problems. Counties are required to pay for regional services but the tax base for these regional services is shrinking and shifting primarily to residential uses. The other issue that has been brought forward is how does the county pay for and recover the cost of services if the lands have been annexed into a city.
4. OPTIONS
Rural Lands
Option 1: No Action
Pro:
| Will allow the counties and Boards to determine what is rural on a case by case basis. |
Con:
| Will not help resolve some problems. |
| Results in continuing litigation over the definition of "rural." |
| Delays resolution of the issues surrounding inconsistent existing development in rural areas-promise of later litigation. |
Option 2: Add a definition of rural lands to the GMA
Pro:
| Adding a definition would provide additional direction to County's and the Hearing Boards. |
| Creates certainty and consistency across all counties in the state |
| Eliminates the need for continuing litigation over densities adopted by a county |
Con:
| Who would decide what an acceptable definition of rural is? The argument over the definition would be difficult and time consuming. |
| Fails to recognize the diverse needs of agriculture in different parts of the state |
| Denies local communities the flexibility to adopt "rural" definition that balances the interests of local citizens |
Option 3: Add a rural lands goal to the GMA
Pro:
| Would help provide direction to the counties. |
Con:
| Who would decide what an acceptable definition of rural is? The argument over the definition would be difficult and time consuming. It would also take away some local control. |
Option 4: Set state minimum guidelines specifying densities.
Pro:
| It would provide some guidance and direction to counties. |
Con:
| It would be difficult to find guidance that would work for every county. |
Option 5: Specify that densities and rural lands are a matter of local discretion.
Pro:
| Forces local interest groups to negotiate acceptable definition of "rural" through the democratic process to meet the needs of the majority of residents |
| Creates "ownership" of decision and results in minimum disagreements over later interpretation |
Con:
| Densities would be subject to change with each election (However, this is currently possible through zoning amendments and UGA adjustments) |
| Risks "opening the door" to dramatic expansion of non-rural development in rural areas |
Option 6: Providing site specific flexibility in designating and protecting agricultural lands.
Pro:
| This would allow for fine tuning of agricultural land designations. |
Con:
| It would only apply to large tracts of land. It would also be difficult to administer and collect the site specific data. |
Agricultural Lands
Option 1. No Action
Pro:
| This would allow counties to determine what agricultural lands are. |
Con:
| Agricultural land protection would still be subject to political changes (However, this is currently possible through zoning amendments.) |
| Wouldn't provide any additional direction to counties about the State's interests. |
Option 2. Develop current agricultural use value zoning.
Pro:
| Would base farmland values on the property tax values of farmland or its agricultural value, rather than the speculative value of non-farmland development, or development value. |
| It would provide an opportunity to link with other voluntary farmland preservation techniques. |
| Would provide tax relief and could reduce development pressures. |
Con:
| A program would have to be set up with county auditors and the agricultural community. |
| Could impose a tax shift. |
Option 3. Eliminate Personal Property Tax on Farm Equipment
Pro:
| This is one of the harsher taxes on agriculture. Eliminating it would make farming in some areas much more economical, increasing the liklihood that farmers could stay in business. |
Con:
| Primary impact would be on city and county governments, many of which have revenue shortfalls. |
Option 4. Authorize Agricultural Protection Zoning
Pro:
| Can help protect a farming community from being fragmented by residential development. |
| The density of residential development would be controlled by establishing a minimum lot size that corresponds to the amount of land needed to sustain an individual farm. |
| Allows flexibilty for the needs of different areas of the state. |
| Adopted at the local level, therefore will have the support of the local community. |
Con:
| Like other zoning ordinances, agricultural zoning is vulnerable to change. If community attitudes or political leadership shift, an ordinance may be dismantled. |
Option 5. Provide additional resources to purchase development rights.
Pro:
| Avoids making individual property owners pay the cost for the public benefits of keeping land in agricultural production. |
| If connected to lower property taxes, will reduce the cost of business and make economical production more likely. |
| Provides additional resources to local governments in developing and implementing a development rights program. |
| Encourage private sector market development and support. |
Con:
| Development rights programs are difficult to develop and implement. |
| Requires either public or private funds that are not readily available. |
Option 6. Allow some development on agriculturally insignificant plots.
Pro:
| It would allow some development to occur in the agricultural areas. |
| Recognizes that not all land in agricultural areas is valuable for production. |
| Will have no impact on viable agricultural land. |
Con:
| There could be disagreements over the definition of "insignificant." |
| Would cause the permanent loss of farmlands that could be viable in the future. |
| Could result in conflicts between farm activities and other uses, particularly if there is residential development. |
APPENDIX A
Listed below are several board decisions that relate to rural and agricultural lands. Not all of the cases are listed below, only highlights from several of the cases. Each case represents a significant decision by one of the boards.
CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GMHB DECISIONS
1. Benaroya and Cosmos v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0072 (3/25/96)
| A city may not make agricultural lands designations
within an urban growth area prior to its enactment of a
program authorizing a transfer or purchase of development
rights pursuant to RCW 35.70A.060(4). [p.11]
|
2. Peninsula Neighborhood Association v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0071 (3/20/96)
| Pierce County failed to demonstrate how rural shoreline
densities of 2.4 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
constitute permissible exceptions to the general rule
that urban growth is prohibited in rural areas, or how
such a pattern of land use constitutes permissible
compact rural development. [p.17] |
| The historical discretion of counties to craft nonconforming use provisions has been limited by the GMA, particularly with regard to areas outside the UGA. In a rural area, the expansion or enlargement of use that constitute urban growth would itself constitute new urban growth outside the UGA, and therefore prohibited. [p.27] |
3. Sky Valley, et al., v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB No. 96-3-0068c, (3/12/96)
| A pattern of 10-acre lots is clearly rural; a new land
use pattern that consists of between 5 and 10-acre lots
is an appropriate rural use subject to certain provisos;
and any new land use pattern of lots smaller than 5 acres
would constitute urban growth and is therefore generally
prohibited in rural areas. The exception to this general
rule are few, and will be more difficult to justify as
the density increases. [p.46]
|
5. Agriculture for Tomorrow v. City of Arlington, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0056
| A city is not authorized by GMA to designate resource
lands outside its corporate boundaries. [p. 8]
|
6. Pilchuck Audubon, et al., v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0047
| All lands that are designated as critical areas must be
protected by critical area development regulations and
may not be exempted or excluded from protection. [p.19]
|
6. Gig Harbor, et al., v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0016
| If a county wishes to use a five acre lot size abutting the UGA line as , in effect, an urban reserve, it must include provisions to assure that such lots will not be divided or developed to impermissibly constitute urban growth in the rural area, and include provisions that, if and when included in the UGA, such parcels could be truly urban density. [p.58] |
7. Vashon-Maury, et al., v. King County, CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0008
| Generally speaking, doubling the residential density or changing use from residential to commercial or industrial, will be considered a "substantially different" modification. [p.58] |
| The requirements for a "variety" and compatibility with rural character" in a rural area apply to non-residential uses as well as to residential uses. [p.66] |
| In determining if a proposed use is permitted in rural area, the words" such lands" in RCW 36.70A.070(5) refers not to the individual parcel, but to the land use pattern in the immediate vicinity. [p.68] |
| "Rural character" has both a functional and visual component. As a general rule, uses that meet the definition of urban growth will be prohibited in the rural area, unless;(1) the use is dependent upon being in a rural area and is compatible with the functional and visual character of rural uses in the immediate vicinity; OR (2) the use is an essential public facility. [p.68] |
| Bright line: Any residential land use pattern of 10 acre lots, or larger, is rural. Smaller lots in the rural area will be scrutinized to assure that, as a pattern, they do not constitute urban growth; do not unduly threaten large scale natural resource lands or critical areas; will not thwart the long term flexibility to expand the UGA; and are not other wise inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the Act. [p.79] |
8. Bremerton, et al., v. Kitsap County, No. 95-3-0039
| Bright line: A pattern of 1- and 2.5-acre lots is an urban land use pattern that constitutes sprawl both inside and outside a UGA. As a general rule, lots this size are prohibited as a residential development pattern in rural and urban areas. [p.49] |
| Bright line: As a general rule, four dwelling units per acre or more constitutes urban densities. [p.50] |
| Permitting new residences on designated mineral resource lands at densities of 1 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres or less is fundamentally incompatible with the use of that land for mineral resource purposes. [p.73] |
9. Kitsap Citizens for Rural Preservation v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB No. 94-3-0005.
| Urban growth is not permitted in a rural area. |
10. Tacoma, et al., v. Pierce County, CPSGMHB No. 94-3-0001.
| A county may include subjective considerations, including a "market factor" in sizing and configuration of its UGA, but must explicitly "show its work' to describe both the objective and subjective factors used. |
| The largest portion of unincorporated UGAs should be assigned to respective cities, not to a generic metropolitan UGA. |
11. Association of Rural Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGPHB No. 93-3-0010.
| A county may draw a UGA beyond the boundaries of cities only under certain circumstances. |
| UGAs must include land uses and densities sufficient to permit projected growth, and must include open spaces and greenbelts. |
| A county must "show its work" in accounting for the size of the UGA. |
WESTERN WASHINGTON GMHB DECISIONS
1. Berschauer v. City of Tumwater, No. 94-2-0002
| The adoption of land use designation of one dwelling unit per acre and two to four dwelling units per acre for the Sapp Road Land Use Overlay area was inconsistent with other provisions within the comprehensive plan. |
2. City of Port Townsend, Olympic Environmental Council, 1000 Friends of WA v. Jefferson County, No. 94-2-0006.
| The County must adopt its resource lands and critical areas ordinances prior to the IUGA designations. |
| The County is required by the Act to gather information and perform the proper analysis of land capacity, fiscal impacts, and capital facility plans for the Tri-Area and/or Port Ludlow prior to designating them as an IUGA. |
| Rural density designation of one dwelling unit per acre in the ordinance does not comply with the Act, particularly where no prior analysis substantiating that designation had taken place. |
| New urban type residential, commercial, and industrial development outside properly designated IUGAs is prohibited by the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110 and the Board of County Commissioners did not have the discretion under the GMA to continue "business as usual." |
3. Whatcom Environmental Council v. Whatcom County, No. 94-2-0009.
| Failure to prepare and use a land use capacity analysis that involves current data can lead to the conclusion that no IUGAs beyond existing city limits are permissible under the Act. |
4. Olympic Environmental Council, Washington Environmental Council, and the State of Washington, by and through the Commissioner of Public Lands, No. 94-2-0017.
| The County must adopt regulations to ensure that the use of lands adjacent to forest and mineral lands not interfere with the continued use of those forest and mineral lands in their accustomed manner. |
5. Whidbey Environmental Action Network. Island County, No. 95-2-0063.
| The County's allowance of new urban residential, industrial, and commercial growth outside the IUGAs was declared invalid. |
6. Friends of Skagit County et. al., v Skagit County, No 95-2-0065.
| The County must analyze the land capacity, capital facility needs, and fiscal impacts of growth prior to designating the IUGAs surrounding the eight cities and towns. |
| The County's allowance of new urban residential, industrial, and commercial growth was declared invalid. |
7. Albert Marshall Loomis IV v. Jefferson County, No. 95-2-0066.
| The Port Ludlow IUGA was adopted without proper population allocation, without evidence of preexisting urban densities, without requisite LOS standards, without adequate analysis of capital facility needs and fiscal impacts of growth for the entire IUGA from a county-wide perspective without the assurance that either public facilities and services already exist or would be equitably available within the IUGA, and without the proper review of the adequacy of water supply for an urban community at Port Ludlow. |
8. Mason County Community Development Council, et. al., v. Mason County, No. 95-2-0073.
| The County failed to properly designate agricultural and forest lands; afforded inadequate protection for acquifer recharge areas, floodplains, and wetlands; and allowed permissive resource designation. |
9. Friends of Skagit County v. Skagit County, No. 95-2-0075.
| The County failed to adequately protect mineral resource lands from conflicting uses, and adopted IUGAs out of normal sequence and used that adoption as a reason for failing to designate natural resource lands within the IUGAs. |
| The County was found to have readopted pre-existing ordinances that conflict with the goals and requirements of the Act. |
EASTERN WASHINGTON GMHB DECISIONS
1. Mike Williams et. al., v. Kittitas County, No. 95-1-0009.
| The County's ordinance failed to discourage incompatible uses on designated lands and to maintain and enhance natural resource industries. |
| The County failed to designate agricultural lands of long-term significance. |
| The County failed to assure the conservation of agricultural lands. |
2. Gary Woodmansee & Concerned Friends of Ferry County v. Ferry County, No. 95-1-0010.
| The Board noted that the applicability of some the issues remained only with Ferry County. In general, the Board directed Ferry County to develop regulations on subdivisions of property which prevented urban densities outside of urban growth areas. This order would entail a revision or repeal of the ordinance which permitted this inconsistency. |
| The Board asked the question: "Can the Comprehensive Plan permitted urban densities without designation of an "Urban Growth Area". Then the Board asked the question: "What constitutes an urban density"? The Board noted that the Comprehensive Plan accomplished the definition for the question as to what rural is. The Board reasoned, that under the existing comprehensive plan, community water service and sewer service is required for lots sized from 1 acre to 2.5 acres, so, therefore the "...by not requiring utility services on lots larger than 2.5 acres, by default, the plan defines these lots as rural." Conversely the Board held that lots less than 2.5 acres cannot be allowed outside of the Urban Growth Areas. |
RCW 36.70A.010.
The planning goals were adopted to guide the development and the adoption of comprehensive plans and the development regulations. See RCW 36.70A.020
RCW 36.70A.030(14)
RCW 36.70A.030(2)
"Counties shall include a rural element including lands that are not designated for urban growth, agriculture, forest, or mineral resources. The rural element shall permit appropriate land uses that are compatible with the rural character of such lands and provide for a variety of rural densities and uses and may also provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural uses not characterized by urban growth." RCW 36.70A.070(5)
Chapter 32, Laws of 1991, sp.s
Chapter 6, Laws of 1993, 1st sp.s
Chapter 400, Laws of 1995; Chapter 347 Laws of 1995; and Chapter 167 Laws of 1996
RCW 36.70A.190(4)(b)
RCW 36.70A.050
WAC 365-195-330
"Rural lands, means all lands which are not within an urban growth area and are not designated as natural resource lands having long term commercial significance for the production of agricultural products, timber, or the extraction of minerals."
"New fully contained community, is a development proposed for location outside of the existing designated urban growth areas which is characterized by urban densities, uses and services and meets the criteria of RCW 36.70A.350." WAC 365-195-210
WAC 365-190-330 provides for the identification of rural lands and permitted population growth, policies for the development of rural lands, and policies for the preservation of rural character.
See, e.g., Benaroya, et al. v. City of Redmond, CPSGMHB 95-3-0072 (1996), (Final Decision and Order, March 25, 1996).
City of Port Townsend v. Jefferson County, WWGPHB No. 94-2-0006, (Final Order, August 10, 1994)
