Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 7 municipalities to adopt its regulations, reflects legislative determination that regulations are valid Citation: Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth ManagementHear- ings Bd., 2015 WL 686883 (Wash: Ct. App. Div. 2 2015) WASHINGTON (02/18/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a county that did not elect to participate in the Voluntary Stewardship Program for critical areas protection could comply with the state's Growth Management Act by adopting critical areas regulations in the statutes governing the Voluntary Stewardship Program. In other words, the case addressed the issue of when a county can invoke RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b) and achieve compliance with the Growth Management Act by adopting critical area regulations outlined in the statutes governing the Voluntary Stewardship Program. The Background/Facts: Under Washington's Growth Management Act ("GMA"), counties are required to designate and protect "critical areas." (RCW 36.70A.060.) "Critical areas" include: wetlands; aquifer recharge areas; natural fish and wildlife habitats; frequently flooded areas; and geologically hazardous areas. (RCW 36.70A.030.) As required, in December 1999, Clallam County ("Clallam") adopted critical areas regulations. As part of those regulations, Clallam exempted preexisting agricultural operationsffrom the critical areas protection requirements. The organization Protect the Peninsula's Future ("PPF") petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (the "Board") to invalidate Clallam's agricultural exemption and other parts of the ordinance. The Board invalidated Clallam's agricultural exemption, find- ing it did not comply with GMA requirements. Clallam then amended its ordinance to limit the agricultural exemption to preexisting agricultural uses on land classified as farm and agricultural land under the open space tax program. PPF again petitioned the Board and the Board again found the exemption was invalid. PPF again appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed with PPF that Clallam could not exempt all preexisting agricultural uses from criti- cal areas regulations. The court remanded to the Board for further proceedings. Among other things, the court directed the Board to determine whether the agricultural exemption complied with the GMA. Before the Board could make that determination on remand, the legislature enacted a moratorium on alteration of GMA critical areas that lasted from 2007 to 2011. In August 2012, PPF reinitiated the delayed compliance review before the Board. • Clallam moved to dismiss the compliance action. It pointed to the Legislature's 2011 amendments to the GMA. Those amendments estab- © 2015 Thomson Reuters 3