Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

Ordinance Rezoning Agricultural Land to Commercial

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In City of Arlington v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 193 P.3d 1077 (Wash. 2008), the Supreme Court of Washington held that the Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (Board) had erred in reversing the county's decision to rezone a parcel of agricultural land as commercial because it had failed to defer to the county's determination that the land had no long term commercial significance to agricultural production.

Background

A triangular piece of land located north of the city of Arlington was designated and zoned agricultural in 1978. Id. at 1080. The county redesignated it as urban commercial and included it in the city's Urban Growth Area (UGA) in 1995, and the Board affirmed the decision. Id. The decision was contested, and after several appeals the city council determined that the land was devoted to agriculture and was actually used or was capable of being used as agricultural land, therefore redesignating it as agricultural resource land and removing it from Arlington's UGA. Id. Later in 2003, the land was rezoned again to general commercial. Id. The Board reversed the decision, concluding that the land still met the criteria for designation as agricultural land of long-term commercial significance, and the city and other plaintiffs appealed. Id. at 1081-82.

Analysis and Holdings

Under the Growth Management Act (GMA), counties must designate "[a]gricultural lands that are not already characterized by urban growth and that have long term significance for the commercial production of food or other agricultural products." Id. at 1083. The court stated that three factors must be met before land may be designated agricultural land for the purposes of the GMA:

Agricultural land is land (a) not already characterized by urban growth (b) that is primarily devoted to the commercial production of agricultural products enumerated in RCW 36.70A.030(2), including land in areas used or capable of being used for production based on land characteristics, and (c) that has long-term commercial significance for agricultural production, as indicated by soil, growing capacity, productivity, and whether it is near population areas or vulnerable to more intense uses.
Id.

Additionally, counties are allowed consider the following development-related factors enumerated in WAC 365-190-050(1) in determining which lands have long-term commercial significance:

(a) The availability of public facilities; (b) Tax status; (c) The availability of public services; (d) Relationship or proximity to urban growth areas; (e) Predominant parcel size; (f) Land use settlement patterns and their compatibility with agricultural practices; (g) Intensity of nearby land uses; (h) History of land development permits issued nearby; (i) Land values under alternative uses; and (j) Proximity of markets.
Id. at 1083-84.

After considering those factors, the court agreed with the county's conclusion that the land was not primarily devoted to the commercial production of agricultural products and was not agricultural land of long-term commercial significance. Id. at 1084. The court stated that under the GMA, the Board was required to defer to the county's findings on those issues and should have affirmed its decision to redesignate the land urban commercial. Id. at 1087. The court also held that because the land touched the Arlington UGA, it was adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth for the purposes of RCW 36.70A.110(1), which provides that a UGA may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth. Id. at 1088-89. The court therefore reversed and remanded the matter for further determinations consistent with its findings. Id. at 1091.

The case was decided on October 9, 2008.