Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 18 <br />marijuana production, does require an emergency measure. The court <br />further held that, in enacting Ordinance 561, the Board had sufficiently <br />identified facts constituting the emergency required to justify the <br />interim zoning. <br />Again, the County had argued that since "Ordinance 561 ha[d] noth- <br />ing to do with a zoning map," RCW 36.70.790 did not apply. Again, <br />RCW 36.70.790 provides that a Board may adopt "as an emergency <br />measure a temporary interim zoning map the purpose of which shall be <br />to so classify or regulate uses and related matters as constitute the <br />emergency." In rejecting the County's argument, the court explained <br />that the term "[m]ap" was used in the Act as both a noun and as a verb. <br />"Map," used as a verb, refers to the process of zoning property, said the <br />court. "A county may `progressively and separately' bring property <br />within the county under the control of zoning by `officially map[ping]' <br />it," said the court. "Under the Act, there can be no zoning measure or <br />change without adopting or amending a zoning map at the same time," <br />said the court. Citing case law and the purpose of the Act, the court <br />concluded that "[i]nterim zoning under the Act continues to require an <br />emergency measure." <br />The court also found that the Board had sufficiently identified facts <br />constituting the emergency required to justify the interim zoning <br />Ordinance 561 in that: (1) there was a "judicially -noticeable fact that <br />without a moratorium, applicants for marijuana production licenses <br />could submit building permits for production facilities in the RL-5 <br />zone, thereby frustrating the effectiveness of any effort to prohibit such <br />production as incompatible with other property uses;" and (2) there <br />were several reasons why the Board wanted to investigate further <br />whether marijuana production would be incompatible with other prop- <br />erty uses, including identified concerns raised by the public that <br />marijuana production in the RL-5 district "could conceivably prove <br />incompatible with other uses." <br />See also: Matson v. Clark County Bd. of Com'rs, 79 Wash. App. 641, <br />904 P.2d 317 (Div. 2 1995). <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />