Brad Doll is
a third year law student from Seattle.

Brad Doll
6703 17th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98117

If true, Skagit County is misusing the GMA to justify increased density in rural areas. The LAMIRD framework is designed to restrict density in rural areas, not justify development of undeveloped land.

The County’s logic twists the intent of designating LAMIRDs. The County appears to conclude that because a parcel meets one definition of a LAMIRD (having a logical outer boundary), it should be a LAMIRD, and therefore warrants a more intense zoning designation (e.g., RI or RVR).

See County Map Summary Table [20k PDF] for a summary of all County initiated changes.

Description of LAMIRDs [20k PDF]

Skagit County Comprehensive Plan Information

April 15, 2006

Skagit County seeks to increase the density at which parcel SC05-01 is zoned. In its Summary of Proposal, the County states its intent to

“[e]xtend Rural Intermediate designation to subject property to acknowledge logical outer boundaries created by West Shore Drive on the east and County Row drainage, access, and utility easement directly to the south. Property has two residences (1 ADU), with separate wells. Property owners want to divide property into two separate 6.15 acre lots and will agree to restriction on any future subdivision of property. Proposal is consistent with CP policies 3B-1.4(b) (logical outer boundaries) applying to Rural LAMIRD designations, including Rural Intermediate.

What is unclear is why the County is referencing the Limited Area of More Intense Rural Development (LAMIRD) and Logical Outer Boundary frameworks to justify its intent. It appears that by labeling this parcel a LAMIRD, the County hopes to invoke the LAMIRD exception to the Growth Management Act’s (GMA) limits on rural density.

If true, Skagit County is misusing the GMA to justify increased density in rural areas. The LAMIRD framework is designed to restrict density in rural areas, not justify development of undeveloped land. The GMA does not authorize residential LAMIRDs merely because the County can find a definable or built border near a residence. This strategy relies on a mistaken application of LAMIRDs and is contrary to goals 1, 2, and 10 of the GMA.

Background: Skagit County’s Approach to Zoning Rural Lands

Skagit County maintains three zoning designations for rural lands. The first is Rural Reserve (RRv). The maximum allowable residential gross density on lands zoned RRv is 1 (dwelling unit) du p/5 acres in conservation and reserve development (CaRD) land divisions and 1 du p/10 acres in standard land divisions. 3C-1.1. RRv is Skagit County’s least dense rural designation. RRv is intended to support natural resource production, including agriculture and forestry. It is also intended to provide a buffer between the RR and residential development in the RI zone. Lands in the RRv zone are considered transitional areas between resource lands and non-resource lands for uses that require moderate acreage.

The two more dense rural designations are Rural Intermediate (RI) and Rural Village Residential (RVR). These are lands not developed in 1990 at density greater than 1 du p/2.5 acres. Under Skagit County’s Comprehensive Plan update, if designated RI or RVR, the land is automatically considered part of a LAMIRD.

See “Rural Residential Designations” and 3B-1.2.
Skagit County says that the RI and RVR zoning designations are compatible with LAMIRDs. See 3B-1.1, 1.2. Skagit County says that it “developed and applied” certain land use designations “following the GMA provisions for” LAMIRDs. These include RI and RVR. The Skagit County Comprehensive Plan states that the County designated lands on its Comprehensive Plan/Zoning Map using criteria that accords with the three types of LAMIRDs. As a result of this designation, lands with one of these rural designations are lands available for “infill, development, or redevelopment . . . .” 3B-1.3.

The County’s logic twists the intent of designating LAMIRDs. The County appears to conclude that because a parcel meets one definition of a LAMIRD (having a logical outer boundary), it should be a LAMIRD, and therefore warrants a more intense zoning designation (e.g., RI or RVR).

LAMIRDs and the GMA

The County’s application of the LAMIRD framework is an oversimplification of the statutory intent. According to the County, areas which may be treated as LAMIRDs are commercial, residential or mixed use areas that were in existence on July 1, 1990, and that are surrounded by logical outer boundaries.

The GMA provides for LAMIRDs in RCW 36.70A.070(5)(d). Three types of LAMIRDs are allowed. Of the three, this comment focuses on Skagit County’s use of LAMIRDs to allow for increased residential development (see, e.g., parcel SC05-01 on Guemes Island). Therefore, this comment focuses on so-called “(5)(d)(i)” LAMIRDs.

Though LAMIRDs are themselves an exception for increased density, even the language in this section providing for LAMIRDs implies they are to be used to contain sprawl. The legislature stated that (d)(i) LAMIRDs should be applied for containing “or otherwise controlling rural development.” RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c). “(d)(i) LAMIRDs, being neither rural nor urban, that allow existing areas or existing uses, must always be ‘limited’ i.e., minimized and contained.” Panesko v. Lewis County, WWGMHB, Final Decision and Order, at 14 (March 5, 2001). One means of limiting (d)(i) LAMIRDs is by applying a restrictive logical outer boundary (LOB). The LOB provision of (d)(iv) applies to this type of LAMIRD. Panesko v. Lewis County, WWGMHB, Final Decision and Order, at 14 (March 5, 2001).

The LOB framework was not necessarily intended for application to individual parcels. The language of (d) suggests that LAMIRDs would include multiple parcels. For example, a county must “minimize and contain” the existing area or land use in a LAMIRD. (d)(iv). Examples of LAMIRDs imply multiple parcels: “shoreline development, villages, hamlets . . . .” (d)(i). Furthermore, the county must adopt prohibitions against including lands within the LOB that allow a “new pattern of low-density sprawl” in the existing area. (d)(iv); Panesko, at 14. This language suggests that LOBs should encompass multiple instances of intense development in a rural setting. If they do not, they provide a means for allowing a “new pattern of low-density sprawl” in the existing area. (d)(iv); Panesko, at 14

Even if LOBs can be applied to individual parcels, they should not encapsulate large undeveloped areas of that parcel. Evidence that the legislature did not intend for a LOB to be set that would allow development of undeveloped lands can be found in a couple places. The LOB, not the outer boundary of the “lot,” is the critical feature in limiting development on these parcels. The WWGMHB distinguished (d)(ii) and (d)(iii) LAMIRDs as the two kinds of LAMIRDs bounded by “lots” and “thus LOB requirements are irrelevant” to those LAMIRDs. Panesko, at 14. (d)(i) LAMIRDs are bounded not by lots, but by the LOB as intended by the legislature. See Panesko, at 21 (invalidating a LOB reaching a river because “there was no ‘intensive’ rural development).
Further evidence of that LOBs should not swallow undeveloped lands is found in (d)(iv): “Existing areas are those that are clearly identifiable and contained and where there is a logical outer boundary delineated predominately by the built environment, but that may also include undeveloped lands if limited as provided in this subsection.” (d)(iv). Clearly, undeveloped lands should not be included if that can be avoided. Finally, of the four elements a county must consider in setting a LOB under (d)(iv), none suggest the lot’s boundaries is meaningful.
Finally, though the Board often refers to roads as a means of describing where the built environment existed, it is evident that the Board does not consider roads, rivers, or other such things as the equivalent of showing a built environment. In (d)(iv)(A), (B), (C) and (D) the legislature set out four considerations a county “shall address” in setting its LOB. These include the character of existing neighborhood and physical boundaries like water and streets. Yet when Lewis County cited a river as the LOB for a LAMIRD, the Board rejected this approach.

[I]t is clear that “addressing” the statutory criteria for a LOB cannot be used to establish a LAMIRD, where the other statutory criteria in (d) (v) and (iv) do not exist. It must always be recalled that the establishment of a LAMIRD is foundationally based upon the built environment that existed as of July 1, 1993.

- Panesko, Final Decision and Order, at 20.

Parcel SC05-01 on Guemes Island

The county has suggested that parcel SC05-01 should be zoned for greater density because it has a logical outer boundary: a road and a utility easement. It appears the parcel could not ordinarily be subdivided per its owners’ intent. The parcel currently has a single ADU and one home. “Accessory dwelling units shall not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the principal unit . . . unless allowed by zoning.” Skagit Cty Code 14.16.710. What is “allowed by zoning,” depends in part on the GMA. Thus authority for allowing permitting increased density on this parcel must come from the Act.

Like Skagit’s Code, the GMA would not ordinarily allow increased density on the lot. What the County is seeking is an exception to the rural density requirements of the Act. Hence, the County seeks to treat this single parcel as a LAMIRD.

A single parcel, and this parcel in particular, is inappropriate as a LAMIRD. As the County acknowledges, the lot is over 12.3 acres with two residences. It is basically undeveloped. A LOB referencing the lot makes no sense when the lot has no developed interior. The GMA does not allow the County to reach out, grasping for a “built area” in order consume the land within it.

While logical outer boundaries should be established by referencing the built environment, the County is merely using the road outside this parcel as shorthand for the lot. As noted above, the parcel’s lot lines are irrelevant to (d)(i) LAMIRDs.

The location of the street is similarly irrelevant. Where the streets do not play any role in the use of this parcel of land (i.e., providing access), the streets are irrelevant to setting a logical outer boundary. There is no suggestion that tying the residence(s) to the roads is necessary for their development. This is not a situation where a business within a parcel is being segregated from local roads by a constraining and restrictive outer boundary. This is an example of using a road surrounding a parcel as an excuse to widen the scope of development on a large parcel.

Though the County does explicitly say so, rezoning this lot appears to be part of a pattern of increasing the density of lots on the western side of the island. Many of the lots north and west of parcel SC05-01 are zoned at RI. The fact that the owners of SC05-01 are bordered by higher density lots is irrelevant if this particular LAMIRD violates the GMA.

A County may not look to a parcel’s proximity to developed parcels as a basis for labeling that parcel a LAMIRD. The Panesko court confronted an analogous situation in reviewing a LAMIRD near Randle. Final Decision and Order, at 21. The county had sought to establish a LAMIRD consisting “entirely of undeveloped large acreage single-ownership lots.” Id. These lots were adjacent to an “intensely developed area . . . .” Id. The Board held that including “undeveloped large lot areas” in a LAMIRD violated the Act. Id.

Conclusion

The County may ultimately decide to rezone parcels like SC05-01 as RI after amending its code. Even after its owners subdivide it, each parcel will exceed six acres—still a fairly rural density.

However, the County should not imply that this is outcome is condoned or suggested by the LAMIRD provisions of the GMA. Under the GMA, the logical outer boundary for developing residential parcels is the built environment.

Where that built environment must be sought out, leapfrogging undeveloped land, that LOB violates the GMA. Suggesting otherwise would provide an improper rationale for increasing the density of any rural parcel that, like this one, is bounded by a road and a “drainage, access, and utility easement.”