Opinion ID: 2455395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: rural character and multiple rural densities

Text: ¶ 86 I must concede that Fred makes a persuasive point that it seems plain wrongheaded for the growth management board to require a county as vast and sparsely populated as Kittitas to waste too much time and process explaining its rural character. ¶ 87 The overall land use scheme is a good one but the devil lurks in the details. To conclude that there simply is no written explanation that articulates how the County's rural element harmonizes the goals and meets the requirements of the GMA, majority at 1200, is to exalt form and procedure over reason. To state that a county populated by forest and sagebrush but few people [v]iolated the GMA by Failing To Protect Rural Character in Rural Areas, majority at 1201, borders on the absurd. The board and the majority are critical of the county because the county's A-20 agricultural zone violates the GMA by allowing for conditional use permits and one-time lot splits. Majority at 1202. The board did allow that some of the uses might be permissible in the rural area, such as kennels and agricultural-related auctions and museums. Kittitas County Conservation v. Kittitas County, No. 07-1-0015, 2008 WL 1766717, at  (E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. Mar. 21, 2008). Certainly, preserving the rural character of rural areas is of great importance in counties with bountiful populations and industry. But in counties where there are few people, fewer jobs, and the only hope is growth in nonagricultural businesses, to flatly deny the option of granting conditional use permits seems inflexible and inconsistent with the GMA's vision of allowing each county to develop plans tailored to its unique circumstances and goals. ¶ 88 That said, I agree with the majority and the board that the county must show its work and that the act requires a county's plan to include multiple densities. Majority at 1198-99. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(a) provides: Growth management act goals and local circumstances. Because circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing patterns of rural densities and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the requirements of this chapter. ¶ 89 Further, the act requires, The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b). The record reflects that the county was in the process of adopting additional ordinances to satisfy these requirements. I agree with the board and majority that the county must produce a written record explaining how the rural element harmonizes with the planning goals in the GMA, and the county must provide for multiple rural densities. But these requirements must be read within the scope and context of the overall growth management planning scheme. The planning is to be done locally and in full consideration of local circumstances. RCW 36.70A.3201. The board must defer to the county unless it finds the comprehensive plan clearly erroneous in view of the entire record. RCW 36.70A.320(3). In my view, there is nothing inconsistent with the application of the rule of law and local decision making under the law.