Opinion ID: 2600501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: agricultural land and farm centers and farm homes

Text: ¶ 42 The majority properly ascertains the definition of agricultural land from the plain language of the GMA and our prior case law. See majority at 1101-02 (citing City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 136 Wash.2d 38, 959 P.2d 1091 (1998)). However, the majority and I differ as to the appropriate remedy. The majority would remand the issue to the Board and instruct them to apply the definition. Majority at 1103. This will further protract and delay while not allowing the appropriate local government to govern. [6] ¶ 43 I also would remand to the Board (as remand is procedurally necessary) but would instruct the Board to remand to Lewis County to allow the county and its legislative body to correct the designations of land given this new definition. Lewis County must be allowed to alter its plans, if it so desires. ¶ 44 The majority summarily affirms the Board's finding of noncompliance pertaining to farm homes and farm centers. See majority at 1105. Specifically, the Board found that the provisions allowing farm centers and farm homes failed to comply with the GMA requirements for designation of agricultural resource lands. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 31. I disagree. The farm centers and farm homes that Lewis County allowed are compatible with agricultural lands under the requirements of the GMA. ¶ 45 Lewis County allowed specific farm homes and farm centers to be excluded from the designation of long-term agricultural lands (and thus allowed in those areas): Long-term commercially significant designations do not include (a) the farm home (a house currently on designated lands as the date of designation and a contiguous 5 acres, to be segregated by boundary line adjustment for separate financing purposes; and (2) farm centers, being those lands existing at the time of designation, marked by impervious (gravel or paved) surfaces, including buildings and sheds and storage areas) not to exceed 5 acres, which shall be available for rural commercial and industrial uses under guidelines established as a conditional use. (Non-farm development on the farm center shall not be effective until the County completes the terms of the special use permit.) Lewis County Ordinance 1179E, CP at 418 (emphasis added). These farm homes and farm centers were areas that had preexisting nonagricultural uses. Id. In adopting the above ordinance, Lewis County reasoned that [t]he family home on the farm is not farmed and is often used for numerous activities that provide economic return to the farm family other than farm agriculture. CP at 255. Regarding farm centers, such as roadside stands for sale of farm products, Lewis County reasoned that [f]arms in Lewis County have areas developed by paved or gravel level areas, barns, sheds, storage facilities, equipment and machine storage and maintenance areas . . . [s]uch areas support the farm activity, but are not cropped, tilled, or generally used for soil-based agriculture, nor are they likely to in the future. CP at 255. Moreover, the farm centers were to be centered around the existing barn and shed facilities. CP at 255. ¶ 46 The purpose of farm homes and farm centers was to ensure the long-term survival of agricultural land by allowing farmers to supplement their income. [M]ost farms are not economically self sufficient . . . `on farm non farm income' and the ability of the farm to provide non farm economic opportunities are both essential to the survival of long-term agriculture in Lewis County. CP at 254-55; 853. This income is a substantial component of financial viability for farms in Lewis County. ¶ 47 Such farm centers were often already developed on lands in which the soil was not used for agriculture. A farm house and contiguous land was limited to five acres. Lewis County's Opening Br. at 30. Thus, these farm centers and farm homes have a minimal effect on agricultural land. Lewis County notes that The designation of the farm home and the farm center from long-term commercially significant lands will not have a major impact on the conservation and protection of long-term commercially significant agricultural lands because a. Such lands are commonly not in production; and b. The land removed from the total designation is estimated to be approximately 2,000 acres, still leaving ample reserve for current agricultural production and future growth. CP at 255-56. Moreover, home occupations and small commercial activities have previously coexisted with and supported farms and there is no evidence that such coexistence harmed the long term commercial significance of agricultural land. See CP at 857. ¶ 48 The majority states that [s]erving the farmer's . . . economic needs is not a . . . permissible consideration under the GMA. Majority at 1104. This is illogical and would lead to fewer farms. As a legal conclusion, it is wrong; the GMA does not prohibit consideration of farmer's economic needs. ¶ 49 The majority reads RCW 36.70A.030(10) as an exclusive list of what long-term commercial significance means. Majority at 1102. However, the plain language of the statute shows that the list is not exclusive: `[l]ong-term commercial significance' includes the growing capacity, productivity, and soil composition of the land for long-term commercial production. RCW 36.70A.030(10) (emphasis added). Thus, counties may consider other factors in determining whether land has long-term commercial significance, including the farmers' economic needs. Moreover, as the planning commission recognized, most farms are not economically self sufficient, and that `on farm non farm income' and the ability of the farm to provide non farm economic opportunities are both essential to the survival of long-term agriculture in Lewis County. CP at 254-55. Allowing farm centers actually furthers the goals of the GMA because farmers will continue to farm because they are able to ensure a profit by supplementing their income through sales, etc. ¶ 50 Farm centers and farm homes are compatible with the requirements of the GMA and may be necessary to perpetuate farms, as the Lewis County elected officials decided after extended and public consideration.