Opinion ID: 2600501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: LCC 17.30.620(3) and (4): Primary Uses

Text: ¶ 70 LCC 17.30.620(3) and (4) allowed several primary uses on agricultural land including: (3) One-single family dwelling unit or mobile home per lot, parcel, or tract, and the following farm housing: (a) Farm employee housing; or (b) Farm housing for immediate family members. (4) Active mineral resource activities, including mining, processing, storage, and sales. LCC 17.30.620(3), (4). The Board held these uses noncompliant and invalid. CP at 38-39. ¶ 71 Regarding section (3), housing, the Board inconsistently acknowledged that [f]arm worker housing and housing for immediate family members . . . may well be a resource-related use. CP at 38. The record here supports the necessity to encourage young members of families to stay on the farm. CP at 877. Further, farm worker housing is a resource related use that maintains and enhances the agricultural industry. Section (3) is an allowable use under the GMA. ¶ 72 Regarding section (4), mining, the Board held that the provision does not comply with the GMA to the extent mining activities are allowed without restriction in agricultural resource lands. CP at 37. The Board noted that mining activities are nonagricultural uses with great potential to impact agricultural activities and the lands themselves. CP at 38. ¶ 73 Lewis County argued that mining (presumably sand and gravel) is allowed to provide on-farm non-farm income. CP at 877. ¶ 74 The Board erroneously held that allowing any such mining in agricultural areas would not comply with the GMA. It is likely that mining (as further defined) could be allowed in an agricultural area with the appropriate restrictions. However, such use may be better included in the incidental uses section discussed directly below.