Rural Land Use Regulation/Development
Contents
- Introduction
- Statutes, Administrative Rules and Selected Cases
- Documents
- General Background
- Flexibility for Varied Economic Uses
- Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) Under RCW 36.70.070(5)(d) – General
- Rural Area Major Industrial Developments under RCW 36.70A.365 and Industrial Land Banks under RCW 36.70A.367
- Master Planned Resort Information and Examples
- Other Strategies to Expand Rural Economic Uses
- Planning and Design tailored to Rural Areas
- Rural Subdivision Regulation
- Rural Cluster Development/Conservation Subdivisions
- Rural Zoning and Land Use Examples
- Rural Zoning Flexibility
- Rural Land Stewardship Plans
- Rural Ombudsman/Resource Teams/Permit Coordinator
- Links to Other Rural Issues Sites
This Web page provides information on rural land use and development in Washington. This page particularly focuses on providing information helpful in planning and shaping development patterns in those rural areas that are not designated for long-term resource uses such as agricultural and timber production or mineral extraction. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “rural” as “of or relating to the country, country people or life, or agriculture, which may represent a common understanding of the term “rural.” However, Washington’s Growth Management Act (GMA) creates a separate category for rural areas, which are outside of designated urban areas and which are not in long-term resource use. By creating a separate category, the GMA focuses attention on how these non-resource lands, may be developed, and on their relationship to resource lands. 1994 amendments to the GMA (ESHB 6094) sought to give further definition to the concept of “rural” and added definitions for “rural character,” “rural development,” and “rural governmental services.” The 1997 amendments also provided further detail about what should be included in rural elements of a comprehensive plan, including guidelines for limited areas of more intensive development.
These amendments provide flexibility for more varied economic uses in rural areas, while maintaining rural character and scale. Some local jurisdictions are tailoring regulatory and/or non-regulatory tools to address rural and resource areas, where urban solutions typically have not worked. At times, inflexible regulations have made resource operations more difficult, despite goals for protecting farmlands, resource areas, and open space. Urban, suburban or rural settings will likely require different types of approaches to be effective and gain acceptance. Greater flexibility regarding uses and performance standards, and strategic incentives, may better meet the needs of rural areas and resource-related operations.
Included on this page are several guidebooks prepared for the Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development for the purpose of helping counties plan for and control development while preserving rural character on the non-resource rural lands. The two guides are Defining Rural Character and Planning for Rural Lands A Rural Element Guide, (
4.5 MB) and the Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character and Planning for Development. The article Avoiding Sprawl in Rural Areas, summarizes and comments on Growth Management Hearing Boards cases that have struggled with interpreting Washington laws related to rural development issues. A number of other articles, statutes, growth management hearing board cases, and examples of plan policies and ordinances related to rural issues are also presented on this page.
If you have information to share or are aware of other Web sites that we should link to, please contact Sue Enger, Planning Consultant at senger@mrsc.org, or call at (206) 625-1300.
Statutes, Administrative Rules and Selected Cases
- Statutes
- Substitute Senate Bill 6037 (Chapter 477, Laws of 2005) - Amends RCW 36.70A.070 relating to connection of limited areas of more intensive rural development for recreational or tourist use to existing public facilities, including sewer lines
- Administrative Regulations
- WAC 365-195-330 - Rural Element
- WAC 365-195-210 - Definitions, including "rural lands," and "fully-contained communities"
- Rural-Related Growth Management Hearing Boards Cases
- Selected Court Decisions
- Henderson v. Kittitas County, 124 Wn. App. 747 (11/16/2004) (Rezone of land)
- Thurston County v. Cooper Point Association, 148 Wn. 2d 1, November 21, 2002 (Sewer line extension)
- Manke Lumber Co., Inc. v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 113 Wn. App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011 (2002 (LAMIRD) (Appeal related to revised rural element)
- Dawes v. Mason County (
1.56 MB)
- Clark County v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (
782 KB)
- Diehl v. Mason County (94 Wn App 645 (1999)) (
3.13 MB)
Documents
- Defining Rural Character and Planning for Rural Areas (
8,343 KB)
- Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character and Planning for Rural Development
- "What to Do About Rural Sprawl?" by Tom Daniels, Paper presented at American Planning Association Conference, Seattle, April 1999
- Avoiding Sprawl in Rural Areas
- Rural Issue Paper - Kitsap County (WA)
- Federal Agency Definitions of Rural Land Use
- "Rural and Resource Area Densities," excerpted from "Art and Science of Designating Urban Growth Areas: Some Suggestions for Criteria and Densities (CTED Guidebook)"
- A New Generation of Rural Land-Use Laws (
1.20 MB) (posted with permission from APA)
- The Need for New Models of Rural Zoning (
1.24 MB) (posted with permission from APA)
- Preserving Rural Character Through Cluster Development (
1.23 MB) (posted with permission from APA)
- The Conflict at the Edge (
949 KB ) (posted with permission from APA)
Flexibility for Varied Economic Uses
Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRD) Under RCW 36.70.070(5)(d) - General
The 1997 amendments to Section RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) of the Growth Management Act (GMA) provided further direction for the rural element of a comprehensive plan, including guidelines for limited areas of more intensive development. These amendments provide flexibility for more varied economic uses in rural areas, while maintaining rural character and scale.
Most Washington county has examples of existing areas of more intensive development such as unincorporated hamlets, villages, crossroads, shoreline development or other areas built or vested prior to the adoption of GMA comprehensive plans. Certainly, every county has some some isolated cottage industries or small-scale businesses that do not specifically serve resource uses and that predate current plans. These developments may or may not be served by sewer, water, fire, and other public services. The uncontrolled expansion of such areas of intensive, non-rural uses tends to promote sprawl and threaten the rural character that GMA seeks to protect. Counties found these existing developments difficult to reconcile with newly adopted goals and requirements for rural areas. At the same time, many of the resource industries that have traditionally provided jobs and income to rural residents have cut back operations or even disappeared. Many rural residents expressed a need for more employment opportunities and convenient services in rural areas.
The 1997 amendments recognized the opportunity that existing developed areas might offer to provide additional jobs, services and a varied housing choices for rural residents while limiting impacts. The amendments allowed limited areas of more intensive rural development ((LAMIRDs) as exceptions to the rural plan element requirements, while retaining protections for rural character and the operation of resource uses. Most significantly, the amendments required that counties establish logical outer boundaries, based on the boundaries of existing development, to contain more intense development.
RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d) describes three different types of LAMIRDs. The first type is rural development consisting of the infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential or mixed use areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i). This type of LAMIRD may range in character from shoreline development to villages, hamlets, rural activity centers or crossroad developments, provided the development or redevelopment occurs within the logical outer boundaries of the LAMIRD, as defined by the local jurisdiction. In addition, the intensification of development on lots containing, or new development of, small-scale recreational or tourist uses that rely on a rural location and setting are generally allowed in the rural area per RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii). Finally, the intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses, or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses may be generally allowed in the rural area under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii). For the later two LAMIRD types, intensification, or expansion, of these businesses will be limited to the existing lot.
The following are examples of LAMIRD provisions adopted by Washington counties. The two sections that follow this section illustrate specific types of LAMIRDs.
- “Rural Cities, Towns and Neighborhoods,” Excerpt from Ch. 3, 2004 King County Comprehensive Plan Update, "Rural Legacy and Natural Resource Lands," (See especially policies R-401 through R-411)
- Mason County Comprehensive Plan, updated 2005 – Ch. III-3 Rural Lands (See especially policies RU-100 through RU-218) and Ch. III-1 policies GL-17 through GL-20
- Mason County Code, Sec 17.04.251 - 17.04.357
- Land Use & Rural Element, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 as amended through 2002 (see especially Rural Commercial Lands” and “Logical Boundaries of Rural Commercial Areas” and “Industrial Lands Strategy”)
- Jefferson County Code, Sec. 18.15.015 – Rural Lands; Sec. 18.15.035 – Table 3-1, Allowable and Prohibited Uses (rural areas); Sec. 18.20.140(1)(e) & (2) (rural commercial); and 18.30.050 Density, Dimensions & Open Space Standards
- Jefferson County Code, Sec. 18.15.455 - 470, Article VI-L. Remote Rural Overlay Districts for the West End Planning Area and the Brinnon Planning Area; and Sec. 18.15.475 – 490, Article VI-M. Planned Rural Residential Developments (PRRDs)
- “Rural Settlements,” Plan 2015: A Blueprint for Yakima County Progress (Comprehensive Plan) Yakima County (scroll to page I-65; See policies LU-R-6 & LU-R-7)
- Yakima County Code, Ch. 15.37 – Rural Settlement Zoning District
- Ch. 3 – Rural Land Use Spokane County Comprehensive Plan (See especially “Residential Limited Development Areas” Policy RL 1.3 & “Rural Activity Centers” Policies R-2.1 – RL 2.4)
- Clark County Unified Development Code, §40.210.030 Rural Center Residential Districts (RC-2.5, RC-1)
- Sec. 2.3.B, Activity Centers, Element 2 – Land Use Element, San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 (updated through Dec. 31, 2002 – Policy 2.3.B includes areas of more intensive development; See also Policy 2.3.C(10)(d) & (e) – Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial)
- San Juan County Code, Sec. 18.30.040 - Land use table – Rural, resource, and special land use districts; and Sec. 18.30.200 - Interim controls in village and hamlet activity centers; and Sec. 18.30.230 - Residential development standards in island centers, rural industrial and rural commercial districts
- Lopez Village Planning Alternatives, San Juan County (Includes comparison of UGA vs. LAMIRD)
- Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs), Thurston County
Rural, Commercial, Industrial and Mixed Use within LAMIRDs
This section includes examples of infill, development, or redevelopment of existing commercial, industrial, residential or mixed use areas, as provided in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(i), and the intensification of development on lots containing isolated nonresidential uses, or new development of isolated cottage industries and isolated small-scale businesses as allowed under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iii)
- Land Use & Rural Element, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 as amended through 2002 (see especially “Industrial Lands Strategy” pp. 3-8 through 3-30)
- Jefferson County Code, Sec. 18.20.170 – Cottage Industry
- “Nonresidential Uses and Development Standards in the Rural Area,” Ch. 3., Sec. IV, King County Comprehensive Plan (See policies R-412 through R-414)
- King County (WA) Code 21A.14.280, Rural Industrial Standards (214 KB)
- Ch. 3 – Rural Land Use Spokane County Comprehensive Plan (See especially “Industrial and Commercial Lands” RL 5.2 – 5.5 and “Home Professions and Home Industries” RL 5.8 & 5.9)
- Clark County Code, Sec. 40.260.100 (See especially Table 40.260.100-1 “Rural Major Home Business Requirements)
- Sec. 2.3.B, Activity Centers, Element 2 – Land Use Element, San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 (updated through Dec. 31, 2002 – See also Policy 2.3.C(10)(d) & (e) – Rural Industrial and Rural Commercial)
- San Juan County Code, Sec. 18.30.040 - Land use table – Rural, resource, and special land use districts; and Sec. 18.30.200 - Interim controls in village and hamlet activity centers
- San Juan County Code, Sec.18.30.030 Land use table 3.1 – Activity center land use districts
- Mason County Code, Sec. 17.02.043 – 17.02.045, and 17.04.321 - 17.04.407
- Whatcom County (WA) Code, Ch. 20.61 - Small Town Commerical District
- Excerpts (Rural Communities and Villages), Kitsap County Comprehensive Plan (2000) – Rural Element, pp. 72 – 77
- Manchester Subarea Plan, Kitsap County (LAMIRD or AMIRD)
- Kitsap County Staff Report Related to a LAMIRD - George’s Corner, May 20, 2003
- Southhampton (NY) Comprehensive Plan - Hamlet Business Area
Small Scale Recreation & Tourist Use LAMIRDs (RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(ii))
Many of Washington’s rural areas offer magnificent scenic settings and natural amenities with potential to attract tourists and recreational enthusiasts. Small-scale recreational or tourist uses (SSRTs) provide the opportunity for additional sources of rural jobs and income. When carefully planned and sited, some of these recreation-related uses can be developed without jeopardizing neighboring resource uses or sacrificing rural character. Small-scale recreational or tourist uses rely on a rural location and setting. They generally involve a more limited investment and a smaller scale of development than master planned resorts. SSRTs occupy an individual parcel and focus on offering one or several activities rather than broad range of activities or services. They may be a Ma & Pa type operation, but they still must provide access to a high-quality recreational opportunity to be successful. They can include commercial but not permanent residential uses. Washington has numerous examples of small-scale uses such as bed and breakfast lodging, campgrounds, fishing or river rafting guide services, and equipment rental (such as boats, cross-country skis or sail boards) in areas bordering park, forest, or recreational areas. SSRTs are different from master planned resorts, which are larger scale developments that are more fully discussed in a following section.
- Jefferson County Code, Sec. 18.15.572 – Small-scale recreation and tourist (SRT) overlay district and Sec. 18.20.350 - Small-scale recreation and tourist uses and Sec. 18.20.290 – Recreation developments
- Skagit County Code, Sec. 14.16.130 - Small Scale Recreation and Tourism (SRT)
- Island County Code, Sec. 17.03.180(T) - Small-scale recreation and tourist uses and Ordinance C-29-00
- San Juan County Unified Development Code, Sec. 18.40.330 – Recreation Developments
- King County Code, Sec. 21A.08.040 (Includes some standards for recreation uses, although not necessarily within recreation and tourist use areas under GMA)
Rural Area Major Industrial Developments (RCW 36.70A.365) and Industrial Land Banks (RCW 36.70A.367)
Major Industrial Developments Outside of Urban Growth Areas
Counties may establish a process for approval of a major industrial development outside of the UGA for a specific business. A “major industrial development” is defined as a "master planned location for a specific manufacturing, industrial, or commercial business" (RCW 36.70A.365). The process for approval must be established in consultation with cities. Major industrial developments must require a parcel of land so large that no suitable parcels are available within the UGA or must be a natural resource-based industry that requires a location near the resource lands on which it is dependent. Upon approval, the development will be designated as a UGA. A major industrial development must meet the statutory criteria specified in RCW 36.70A.365.
Industrial Land Banks for Counties That Meet Certain Conditions
In addition to major industrial developments, the GMA allows certain counties to designate industrial land banks outside of UGAs (RCW 36.70A.367). In 1996, the Legislature authorized Clark County to designate a bank of no more than two master planned locations for major industrial activity outside UGAs. This authority was later extended to Whatcom County in 1997, to Lewis, Grant, and Clallam counties in 1998, to Benton, Columbia, Mason, Jefferson, Franklin, Garfield and Walla Walla Counties in 2002, and to Jefferson and Clallam Counties in 2003 (Clallam, Jefferson and Mason Counties no longer met the eligibility criteria established in 1998, until the criteria was revised in 2003 to make Clallam and Jefferson Counties eligible). Note that a county’s eligibility based statute criteria may vary over time, especially if population size or unemployment rates change, making a county ineligible under the criteria specified in (RCW 36.70A.367(5).
Counties must designate land banks in an adopted county comprehensive plan, and then adopt development regulations for the approval of specific major industrial developments through a master plan process. The development regulations must ensure that the criteria specified in RCW 36.70A.367(3) are met.
Counties choosing to identify land banks must take action to designate them and adopt regulations on or before the deadline for completion of the county's next periodic comprehensive plan and development regulations review that occurs before December 31, 2014. The authority of a county to designate a land bank area in its comprehensive plan expires if not acted upon within these time limitations.
- “Major Industrial Developments Outside of Urban Growth Areas,” and “Industrial Land Banks for Counties That Meet Certain Conditions” from Keeping the Rural Vision: Protecting Rural Character and Planning for Rural Development, CTED, 1999 pp. 40 – 41
- "Growth Management: Finding Suitable Industrial Sites Outside Urban Areas in Washington," Washington Business Magazine, May/June, 2004
- Jefferson County Code, Ch. 18.15, Art. VIII – Major Industrial Development, Sec. 18.15.600 – 18.15.635
- Ch. 3 – Rural Land Use Spokane County Comprehensive Plan (See especially “Industrial and Commercial Lands” RL 5.1)
- Grant County Code, sec. 23.04.660, sec. 23.12.240, and sec. 23.08.230
- Lewis County Code, ch. 17.20 – Urban Growth Areas – County, & ch. 17.21 - Major Industrial Development - Float Glass Manufacturing Facilities
- Draft - Revisions to Lewis County Comprehensive Plan Amendment August 31, 2004 (proposed amendment for float glass manufacturing facility)
- Roth et. al. v. Lewis County, Final Decision and Order; WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0014c (December 10, 2004)
- OBCT, et al v. Lewis County. and Cardinal FG Company, Intervenor; Decision and Order on Motions; WWGMHB Case No. 04-2-0041c, (February 8, 2005)
- Eugene Butler, et al. v. Lewis County; Final Decision and Order; WWGMHB Case No. 99-2-0027c: (June 30, 2000) (Scroll to Industrial Lands section - see industrial land banks discussion)
- Napavine Master Plan Industrial Park, Lewis County (includes link to DEIS)
Master Planned Resort Information and Examples
According to the GMA definition, master planned resorts (MPRs) are “self-contained and fully integrated
planned unit development(s), in a setting of significant natural amenities, with primary focus on destination resort facilities consisting of short-term visitor accommodations associated with a range of developed on-site indoor or outdoor recreation facilities (RCW 36.70A.360(1)).” In other words, MPR’s are more than just overnight lodging for visitors or a single recreation use. They are carefully planned and integrated developments, centered on special recreational opportunities and natural settings. They provide a package of facilities, services and amenities that largely meet the daily needs of visitors. Visitors are drawn for extended stays because of the high quality and varied recreational opportunity and the area’s natural splendor. In several other states, they are called destination resorts to emphasize their special attractions and ability to draw visitors from distant places.
Careful planning and siting of resort facilities coupled with design excellence are essential ingredients to the success of an MPR. Successful resorts must balance development of an attractive package of amenities with preservation of the features and natural settings that are a major key to attracting visitors.
- "Master Planned Resorts - Washington Style" (2.1 MB) - a handbook for guiding MPR development in Washington
- Clark County Chapter 40.250.040 - Existing Resort Overlay District
- Land Use & Rural Element, Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, 1998 as amended through 2002 (see especially “Master Planned Resorts” p. 3-31)
- Jefferson County Code Title 17 - Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort
- Port Ludlow Master Planned Resort, Jefferson County - Includes EIS, description of planning issues, staff report, code links, and other background
- Proposed Blackpoint MPR, Jefferson County - Includes EIS, description of planning issues, staff report, code links, and other background
- Excerpts from San Juan County (WA) Unified Development Code:
- Okanogan County Code, Ch. 17.20 – Planned Destination Resort
- Ch. 3 – Rural Land Use Spokane County Comprehensive Plan (See especially Master Planned Resorts Policies RL-5.6 & RL 5.7 under Industrial & Commercial Uses)
- Clallam County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, Sec. 31.02.270 – Master Planned Resorts
- Clallam County County Code, Ch. 33.25 – Master Planned Resorts
- Mason County Code, Sec. 17.04.701 – 707 – Master Planned Resort (MPR)
- Douglas County (WA) Code, Ch. 18.74 - Master Planned Resorts (MPR)
- Deschutes County (OR) Code, Ch. 18.113 - Destination Resorts Zone (60 KB)
- Jackson (WY) Land Development Regulations, Art. II, Div. 2500 - Planned Resort District (755 KB)
Other Strategies to Expand Rural Economic Uses
As noted above, the number of jobs and associated income in the natural resource industries that traditionally anchor rural economies has declined in recent years. This decline, in turn has precipitated a decline in the rural commercial service centers that support farm, forest and mineral extraction operations. As a result, many rural residents that wish to stay in their communities are seeking other ways of making a living.
As described above, amendments to the Growth Management Act have opened new opportunities for small-scale commercial, industrial and recreation-oriented uses within LAMIRDs, and for master planned developments, major industrial development and industrial land banks outside of urban growth areas. The challenge for Washington counties will be to facilitate new economic uses that are viable in low-density, more remote rural locations that lack an urban level of services and facilities. At the same time, any such new development should be scaled, designed and sited in a manner compatible with resource and critical areas protection goals and with rural character.
The following reports analyze the changing economic conditions, needs and opportunities in rural areas. The King County reports, in particular, examine the market, infrastructure and regulatory factors that affect the rural economy. The report describe a program to support and advance existing and new resource-related operations, including small-scale farming catering to new market demands, farmer-chef connections, and grass fed beef and poultry processing facilities. It outlines programs to increase other types of viable economic uses in rural areas, including home-based businesses, animal specialty services and recreation and tourism uses.
- Understanding Rural America, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture (Rural Information Center) Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 710, Washington, DC, February 1995
- Rural Economic Strategies Report, King County, WA
- Rural Economic Strategies – Public Review Documents, King County, WA
- Regional Planning – Rural Policy, Minnesota Department of Administration (including several excellent reports on changing rural economy)
Planning and Design Tailored to Rural Areas
- Issue Paper on Rural Areas, Puget Sound Regional Planning Council, August 25, 2005 – Helpful discussion of planning issues related to rural character, exception areas such as LAMIRDs, rural services, special purpose district siting and rural economic development
- Rural Design Workbook, southern Tier Central Regional Development Board (Descriptions of programs & incentives; Good site design examples) 2002
- Smart Growth at the Frontier: Strategies and Resources for Rural Communities, Northeast Midwest Institute – Smart growth strategies tailored for rural areas including maintaining working landscapes, revitalizing small towns, and linking natural resource protection with resort and residential development
- "Planning for Rural Areas in Tennessee Under PC 1101," Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, January 2001. See especially Chapter 5 – Strategies for Guiding the Uses of Rural Areas
- Planning for Sustainable Rural Areas, Futurewise, March 21, 2005 – useful analysis and references to statutes and hearings board cases related to rural area planning
Rural Subdivision Code Examples - Washington
- Clallam County Code, Title 29 – Subdivisions
- Jefferson County Code, Ch. 18.35 – Land Divisions; and Ch. 18.30 – Development Standards
- Okanogan County Code, Title 16 – a good non-GMA code
- Pacific County Ordinance No. 149
- San Juan County Code, Ch. 18.70 – Land Divisions, and Ch. 18.60 – Development Standards – Includes transfer of development rights, rural cluster development, extension of services into rural areas, affordable housing bonus density
- Spokane County Code, Title 12 - Subdivisions
- Whatcom County Code, Title 21
- Douglas County Code, Title 17
- Grant County Code, Title 22
- Cowlitz County Code, Title 18 – Land and Development (I’ve included this code primarily because the county has developed a separate procedure and set of requirements for subdivisions of rural classified lands in Ch. 18.50)
Rural Subdivision Code Examples – Model Codes or Codes from other States
- Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission Model Subdivision Ordinance
- Larimer County (CO) Code, Ch. 5 - Land Division (See also Ch. 9 - Land Dedication, and Ch. 8 - Standards for all Development) and Rural Land Use Center
Selected Examples of Rural Subdivision Flexibility
- Okanogan County Code, Sec. 16.34.010 Subdivisions – Deviations – applicants may propose a deviation from certain standards, if criteria are met)
- Pacific County Ordinance No. 149, Sec. 2B38, Sec. 3B4, and Sec. 3D, (Special category lots, set aside for preservation or other specified purposes, are exempt from subdivision requirements)
- San Juan County Code, Sec. 18.70.040 – Simple Land Divisions (Simplified procedure for division of parcel by gifting to family and certain other circumstances
- Clark County Code, Sec. 40.540.030(H) - Waiver of Survey Requirement
- Kitsap County Code, Sec. 16.40.020 (Innocent Purchaser Provision)
- Walla Walla County Code, Ch. 16.95 - Large Lot Subdivisions (simplified procedure)
- Woodinville Municipal Code, Sec. 20.06.055 - Incentives for flexible lot standards for large subdivisions
- Flexible Subdivision Regulations, Toolkit of Best Practices, Georgia Quality Growth Project
- Flexible Residential Development, Massachusetts Citizen Planner Training Collaborative
- Whatcom County Code, Sec. 21.03.020(5) & (6) – Exemption for divisions for the purpose of lease for agricultural uses and for environmental mitigation
Rural Cluster Development/ Conservation Subdivisions Codes
Guidebooks, Articles, and Model Codes - Conservation Subdivisions
- Open Space Zoning: What it is and Why it Works
Model Residential Open Space Bylaw, Cape Code Commission – Model code for cluster subdivisions - “Chapter 2 - Conservation Design Method,” Rural Design Workbook, Southern Tier Central Regional Planning & Development Board, NY
- The Conservation Subdivision Design Project: Booklet for Developing a Local Bylaw, Metropolitan Area Planning Council (Boston area)
- Conservation Subdivisions, River Basin Center, Institute of Ecology, University of Georgia – Papers, Model Ordinance, Toolkit
- Draft “A Model Ordinance for a Conservation Subdivision,” prepared by Brian W. Ohm Department of Urban & Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, an others for the state of Wisconsin
- Part III - Model Residential Conservation Development Subdivision Regulations for Counties, Ohio Lake Eire Commission, Draft First Revision, April 8, 2003
Rural Zoning and Land Use Planning Examples
- Excerpts from Yakima County Code, Chapters 15.23 -15.27
- Clark County (WA) Code Ch. 40.210 - Resource and Rural Districts (Compile chapter)
- Spokane County Code, Ch. 14.618 Rural Zones, and Ch. 14.820 – Rural Cluster Development
- Excerpts from the Douglas County (WA) Code
- Chapter 18.27 (R-Rec Rural Recreation District) Chapter 18.28 (RR-2 Rural Resource District)
- Chapter 18.30 (RR-5 Rural Resource District) Chapter 18.31 (RR-20 Rural Resource District)
- Chapter 18.32 (RCS Rural Service Center District)
- Chapter 18.40 (A-D Dryland Agriculture District) (1,789 KB)
- Douglas Code Code, Agriculture - Related Uses in Rural Areas:
- Sections 18.16.190 (Livestock and poultry)
- 18.16.230 (Home Fruit Stands)
- Agriculture Related Definitions - Sections 14.98.031 (Agricultural Building) - 14.98.039 (Agritainment) and 14.98.298(Family Farm Support Divisions) - 14.98.310 (Feedlot)
Section 18.80.310 (Conditional use permit matrix) (288 KB)
- Excerpts from the Kitsap County (WA) Zoning Ordinance
- Land Use and Rural Element Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan, Updated 2004
- 2002 San Juan County Comprehensive Plan, Element 2 – Land Use, Sec. 2.3.C
- Pierce County (WA) Code, Sec. 18A.17.020 - Rural Zones Classification and Use Table (
932 KB)
- King County (WA) Comprehensive Plan, Ch. 3 - Rural Legacy and Natural Resource Lands (
3,373 KB)
- Plan 2015: A Blueprint for Yakima County (WA) Progress, Vol. 1 - Ch. VII - Land Use - Rural Lands Sub-Element (
3,387 KB)
- Larimer (CO) Master Plan, Sec. 3.2, Rural Land Use
- Kent County (MD) Land Use Ordinance
- Yakima County Code, Sec. 15.24.030 – Lot size and density (applies in Valley Rural and Mountain Rural Zoning Districts, among other rural districts; Lot size may vary depending on water availability, soil suitability for septic systems, access conditions and proximity to fire stations); See also Sec. 15.37.030 (applies in Rural Settlement District)
- Spokane County Code, Sec. 14.618.220 – Rural Zones Matrix (Scroll to Table 618-1) and Sec. 14.618.230 – Uses with Specific Standards (a variety of uses are permitted, some subject to conditions to assure compatibility with rural scale)
- Douglas County Code, Sec. 18.16.220 – Agricultural Support (Flexibility for accessory agricultural employee housing, transfer of land for agricultural use, and family support divisions)
- Douglas County Code, Ch. 14.98 – Definitions (See “accessory agricultural housing,” “agriculture to agriculture transfers,” and “family farm support divisions.”)
- Skagit County Code, sec. 14.16.300 - Rural Intermediate - (includes long list of permitted uses, administrative special uses, and hearing examiner special uses)
- Major Programs to Overhaul systems for Added Flexibility, MRSC webpage - http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/planning/majorregulatory.aspx
- Flexibility for Varied Economic Uses in Rural Areas
Rural Land Stewardship Programs
Some communities are providing the option to develop a rural stewardship plan, tailored to a specific property, as an alternative to strict adherence to development regulations. Modification of buffers, a streamlined permit process and/or other departures from standards may be permitted on properties that provide a plan of alternative actions that will protect environmental resources and avoid environmental harm.
- Rural Stewardship Planning in King County – Overview of a program that provides opportunity for modification of buffers and permit process in exchange for long-term commitment to resource protection
- Stewardship Planning Programs in King County - Links to information on farm management, forest management and rural stewardship planning programs
Rural Ombudsman/Resource Teams/Permit Coordinator
King County has hired a rural ombudsman, to conduct impartial investigations into rural citizens' complaints about zoning, land-use and other property-related complaints. The Rural Ombudsman may mediate disputes and make formal recommendations for procedural or legislative changes to address situations that trigger complaints. King County also appointed a rural permit coordinator who will focus on development permit application review and assistance in unincorporated rural areas.
- King County Rural Ombudsman Program - Rural Ombudsman investigates complaints about rural land use issues and county operations
- County Office of Citizen Complaints, King County brochure - http://www.metrokc.gov/ombuds/PDFs/Ombudsbrochure.pdf
- Larimer County Rural Land Use Center (This center assists property owners who wish to develop their property while maintaining their land in agriculture or other open space. The process gives incentives to encourage alternative development that retains rural and agricultural lands.) - http://www.co.larimer.co.us/rluc/, and Rural Land Use Process - http://www.co.larimer.co.us/rluc/rural_land_use_process.htm
- Resource Teams: Providing Specialized Attention to Your Community’s Needs, Georgia Dept of Community Affairs - http://www.dca.state.ga.us/development/PlanningQualityGrowth/programs/downloads/resourceTeams/RTBrochure.pdf
Links to Other Rural Issues Sites
- American Planning Association, Small Town and Rural Planning Division
- The Center for Rural Massachusetts
- Larimer County Rural Land Use Center
- National Association of Counties - Rural County Governance Center
- National Association of Counties (NACo) Rural Technical Assistance
- National Association of Towns & Townships
- National Center for Small Communities
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- Rural Community Assistance Corporation
- Rural Information Center, (USDA)
- Rural Economic Vitality Program, Washington State Department of Transportation
- Rural Transportation Clearinghouse
- USDA National Rural Development Partnership

