The GMA precludes rural centers from expansion beyond current development,
except for infill. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (FDO 12-5-96).
Activities permitted in rural centers must be dependent on a location in
a rural area, functional and visual compatibility with that area, and limits
in size and density to preclude need for future urban services. Dawes v. Mason
County 96-2-0023 (FDO 12-5-96).
Infill of historical development patterns is allowable in rural centers
as long as it is contained and does not create a new pattern of sprawl. Dawes
v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (FDO 12-5-96).
The delineation of lines tightly drawn around pre-existing built-up areas
which allowed only limited infill for rural villages complies with the GMA.
Abenroth v. Skagit County 97-2-0060 (FDO 1-23-98).
In rural areas a logical outer boundary delineated by the built environment
must preclude allowance of new low-density sprawl. Public facilities and public
services can only be provided in a manner that does not permit low-density
sprawl. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
The GMA requires that limited areas of more intensive rural development
be subject to minimization and containment. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023
(CO 1-14-99).
The GMA requires rural areas to accommodate appropriate rural uses not
characterized by urban growth and which is consistent with rural character.
Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
The allowance of a range of uses including auction houses, auto sales,
banks, bowling alleys, etc., in rural areas did not comply with the GMA. Dawes
v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
Rural Densities
Rural densities of 1 dwelling unit per acre are not absolutely prohibited,
but would rarely comply with the goals and requirements of GMA. A reasonable
and thorough analysis of the necessity for such densities is required before
compliance can be achieved. Compliance decisions of a GMHB are based upon
the record of each case, and involve concepts of regionality and local decision-making.
Therefore, no "bright line" density requirements can be established. Port
Townsend v. Jefferson County 94-2-0006 (FDO 8-10-94).
A rural density of 1 dwelling unit per acre without proper analysis and
appropriate rationale did not comply with the GMA. Port Townsend v. Jefferson
County 94-2-0006 (FDO 8-10-94).
The absence of a cap on PUD clusters in addition to a relaxation of aggregation
standards to allow 8,400 square foot minimum lot sizes outside of an IUGA
did not comply with the GMA. FOSC v. Skagit County 95-2-0065 (FDO 8-30-95).
The imposition of a 5-acre minimum lot size north of a designated "resource
line" under the record in this case did not comply with the GMA. Achen v.
Clark County 95-2-0067 (FDO 9-20-95).
The requirement of RCW 36.70A.070(5) to provide for a variety of rural
densities must involve densities that are rural and not urban. WEC v. Whatcom
County 94-2-0009 (CO 3-29-96).
Invalidity was found for rural densities more intense than 1 dwelling unit
per 3 acres and above under the record in this case. WEC v. Whatcom County
94-2-0009 (CO 3-29-96).
A DR which allowed expansion of 1 and 2.5 acre minimum lot sizes in rural
areas prior to adoption of RL designations and conservation and before an
overdue CP was completed substantially interfered with the goals of the GMA.
FOSC v. Skagit County 95-2-0065 (CO 8-28-96).
A recognition of growth that will occur outside IUGAs due to preexisting
lots in rural areas must not encourage growth in those areas but merely recognize
its existence. C.U.S.T.E.R v. Whatcom County 96-2-0008 (FDO 9-12-96).
Where the record demonstrated that a greater variety of rural densities,
a decrease in urban and rural sprawl and an increase in RL conservation would
be achieved by a greater than 5-acre minimum lot size, maintaining a minimum
5-acre lot size throughout the county did not comply with the GMA and substantially
interfered with the goals of the GMA. Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (CO
2-5-98).
An ordinance which allowed lots as small as 12,500 square feet continued
to allow non-rural densities in rural areas and thus did not comply with the
GMA. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
The use of bonus densities along with failure to limit the number of clustering
lots allows non-rural densities in rural areas at a magnitude that demands
urban services. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
When an ordinance adopted in response to a determination of invalidity
continued to allow non-rural densities in rural areas, and the local government
failed to carry its burden of proving the elimination of substantial interference
and petitioners proved noncompliance, a prior determination of invalidity
will continue. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
While intensive rural development is now allowed by the GMA such development
must be subject to minimization and containment. Such rural areas must include
only appropriate rural uses not characterized by urban growth and must be
consistent with a rural character. Dawes v. Mason County 96-2-0023 (CO 1-14-99).
Rural Element
Rural areas are the leftover meatloaf in the GMA refrigerator. Port Townsend
v. Jefferson County 94-2-0006 (FDO 8-10-94).
An appropriate definition for rural areas is found in WAC 365-195-210(19).
Port Townsend v. Jefferson County 94-2-0006 (FDO 8-10-94).
Urban government facilities and services are not totally prohibited in
rural areas but may only be placed there for compelling reasons. Port Townsend
v. Jefferson County 94-2-0006 (FDO 8-10-94).
The GMA ends the prior practice of planning for tax revenue purposes in
the rural areas of counties. Port Townsend v. Jefferson County 94-2-0006 (FDO
8-10-94).
While rural lands may be the leftover meatloaf in the GMA refrigerator,
they have very necessary and important functions including an important symbiotic
relationship to provide necessary support of and buffering for RLs. Achen
v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (FDO 9-20-95).
"Rurban sprawl" has the same devastating effects on proper land uses and
efficient use of tax dollars as urban sprawl. Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067
(FDO 9-20-95).
A "variety of densities" requirement set forth in the GMA can be accomplished
by existing and historical vested lot sizes, and need not be exacerbated in
the CP. Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (FDO 9-20-95).
Nonresidential uses outside IUGAs must, by their very nature, be dependent
upon being in a rural area and must be compatible both functionally and visually
with the rural area. WEAN v. Island County 95-2-0063 (CO 4-10-96).
The failure to change or make more difficult continuing development of
"urban sized lots" or "multi-family zones" in rural areas did not comply with
the GMA. Achen v. Clark County 95-2-0067 (CO 10-1-96).
The use of historical development patterns for expansion of residential
and commercial growth beyond what is needed to allow infill and provide appropriate
services to the surrounding community did not comply with the GMA. WEC v.
Whatcom County 94-2-0009 (MO 7-25-97). C.U.S.T.E.R v. Whatcom County 96-2-0008
(MO 7-25-97).
The 1997 amendments to the GMA found in ESB 6094 provide considerable guidance
in reviewing challenges to the rural element of the CP. Where a local government
did not clearly delineate and identify logical boundaries over existing areas
or uses of more intensive rural development, GMA compliance was not achieved
under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d)(iv). Wells v. Whatcom County 97-2-0030 (FDO 1-16-98).
The 1997 amendments to the GMA found in RCW 36.70A.070(5) are intended
to accommodate pre-existing actual uses, not pre-existing zoning. Existing
zoning cannot be used as a sole criterion for designating rural lands for
more intense development. Wells v. Whatcom County 97-2-0030 (FDO 1-16-98).
Even under the amendments contained in ESB 6094 more intensive development
in the rural areas is limited to existing areas or uses and does not allow
new patterns of sprawl of commercial, industrial and residential uses. Abenroth
v. Skagit County 97-2-0060 (FDO 1-23-98).
Existing zoning cannot be used as a sole criterion for the retention of
commercial and industrial zoning under the GMA. Abenroth v. Skagit County
97-2-0060 (FDO 1-23-98).
The allowance of mining activity in rural areas did not violate the GMA.
Abenroth v. Skagit County 97-2-0060 (FDO 1-23-98).
An ordinance, adopted in response to a finding of noncompliance, that allowed
smaller "urban sized" lots and reduced the buffer area for such "urban sized"
lots in the rural areas and RLs did not comply with the GMA. Achen v. Clark
County 95-2-0067 (CO 2-5-98).
As long as an ordinance precluded new urban growth outside of UGAs, serving
new rural development with community on-site septic systems rather than individual
septic tanks did not violate the GMA. Abenroth v. Skagit County 97-2-0060
(FDO 9-23-98).
