The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEffect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 _ Washington State6/15/22, 8:06 AM Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 | Washington State https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/effect-growth-management-act-option-counties-require-resubdivision-lands-platted-1937 1/5 AGO 1998 No. 4 - Mar 3 1998 Aorney General Chrisne Gregoire PLATTING AND SUBDIVISIONS - COUNTIES - CITIES AND TOWNS - GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT - Effect of Growth Management Act on opon of counes to require resubdivision of lands plaed before 1937. The Growth Management Act does not obligate a county to require the replang or resubdivision of lands in the county which are outside any urban growth area and which were plaed before 1937, but allows local flexibility in applying GMA standards to such lands. ************************ March 3, 1998 The Honorable David Skeen Jefferson County Prosecung Aorney Courthouse - P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 Cite As: AGO 1998 No. 4 Dear Mr. Skeen: By leer previously acknowledged, you have requested our opinion on a series of quesons we have rephrased into the following single queson: In AGLO 1974 No. 7 and again in AGO 1996 No. 5, the Aorney General's Office concluded that a county is not obligated to honor, for purposes of administering its land use regulaons, an undeveloped plat filed before 1937, and would have the opon of requiring the land covered by such a plat to be replaed or resubdivided to meet current land use regulaons. Does the Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW), especially as amended by Laws of 1997, Chapter 429, convert this "opon" into a mandate, by requiring counes to maintain the rural character of lands located outside urban growth areas? For the reasons stated in the analysis below, we answer this queson in the negave. ANALYSIS Your leer makes reference to two earlier opinions issued by this office. In AGLO 1974 No. 7, we considered the situaon presented by the unincorporated ghost town of Ruby, in Okanogan County, in which a plat had been filed about 1890 under territorial plang codes. Although a small town had briefly existed on the site, it had long since been abandoned and, as of 1974, the plat consisted of open grazing land, primarily owned by a single party. In response to a queson from the Prosecung Aorney, we concluded that the County could apply its current plang law if the owner of the land covered by the Ruby plat now sought to develop it. In other words, we concluded that the mere plang of land in 1890 (under an act which provided for no governmental review and approval, in marked contrast to modern land use laws) did not give the owners of the land a vested right to develop the land a century later. (/) Washington State (/) Office of the Attorney General Bob FergusonAorney General ADA Accessibility (/ago-accessibility-policy)Other Languages (/languages) Home (/)|AGO Opinion (/ago-opinions)|Effect of Growth Management Act on opon of counes to require resubdivision of lands plaed before 1937 Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 (hps://www.atg.wa.gov 6/15/22, 8:06 AM Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 | Washington State https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/effect-growth-management-act-option-counties-require-resubdivision-lands-platted-1937 2/5 We followed this opinion in AGO 1996 No. 5, concluding (among other things) that a county could require the owner of an undeveloped pre- 1937 plat to comply with current county land-use laws before perming development of the land in queson. We added a caveat to our opinion, however, to the effect that its principles could not automacally be applied to plats which had been parally or fully developed. We recommended that any county ordinance on the subject ". . .clearly specify the extent to which it requires replang of land plaed under earlier laws, and to set up substanve standards and/or procedural opons to handle the obstacles which may be encountered in dealing with parally sold/parally developed plats." AGO 1996 No. 5 at p. 5. Your new queson is about the relaonship of the "opon" discussed in these two former opinions to the responsibilies of a county under the Growth Management Act, codified as Chapter 36.70A RCW. You have especially asked about the impact of 1997 amendments to this act contained in Laws of 1997, ch. 429. As amended, RCW 36.70A.070 requires each county's comprehensive plan to include a rural element and sets forth standards to be followed in defining this element. Counes are directed to adopt techniques which will "accommodate appropriate rural densies and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character" and to ". . .reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development in the rural area." You note that Jefferson County alone has a large number of lots plaed before 1937, many of them inconsistent with current noons of "rural character" or "rural density." In light of this, you inquire whether the county, in order to meet its obligaons under the Growth Management Act, is actually obligated to require the resubdivision of any land in the county which was plaed before 1937, because otherwise the county may be held to be out of compliance with its Growth Management Act obligaons. While we recognize that the Growth Management Act requires counes to apply their planning and enforcement efforts to meet the goals and obligaons contained in the Act, we do not read the Act as any absolute requirement that counes require resubdivision of all exisng undeveloped or parally-developed plats which are inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan. We reach this conclusion for two related reasons. First, the language of the Growth Management Act gives each county considerable leeway in deciding how to apply the Act's requirements to local condions. RCW 36.70A.030(15) defines "rural development" to consist of a "variety of uses and residenal densies, including clustered residenal development, at levels that are consistent with the preservaon of rural character and the requirements of the rural element." RCW 36.70A.070(5), relang to the required rural element in comprehensive plans, contains several provisions authorizing counes to vary from any single, fixed, noon of appropriate rural density. Subsecon (5)(a) provides that ". . .[b]ecause circumstances vary from county to county, in establishing paerns of rural densies and uses, a county may consider local circumstances, but shall develop a wrien record rexplaining how the rural element harmonizes the planning goals in RCW 36.70A.020 and meets the requirements of this chapter." Subsecon (5)(b) specifically provides that the element include ". . .a variety of rural densies, uses, essenal public facilies, and rural governmental services. . . " and goes on to state that ". . . counes may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservaon easements, and other innovave techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural densies and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character." Subsecon (5)(d) contemplates that rural elements will include "[l]imited areas of more intensive rural development. . ." describing examples. We could find no language here or elsewhere in the Growth Management Act either expressly requiring the replang of old plats or seng such a firm planning standard as to amount to such a requirement. The Act leaves room for counes to consider a variety of elements in planning in rural areas, and the extent and locaon of previously plaed tracts of land is one logical element to consider. Our second major reason for concluding that the Growth Management Act does not require the replang of all old plats is found in the cauonary language in our earlier opinions. In both of those opinions, we concentrated on pre-1937 plats which remained undeveloped and were sll in single ownership. As we noted in AGO 1996 No. 5, "[i]n such a case, property owners can claim no serious prejudice if, before actually selling or developing such land, they are required to comply with the 1969 act and any ordinances and rules enacted under it . . . ." However, we go on to note that many pre-1937 plats have been sold or developed to varying extents. There are too many variables for us to suggest any fixed "bright line" in deciding which land can be subjected to replang or current subdivision requirements. Does the land remain in single ownership? How many lots have been sold? Is the undeveloped poron of the plat a single block of land, or is the plat a "checkerboard" of developed and undeveloped lots? Is the land adjacent to an urban growth area, or to an unincorporated village or hamlet, or is it distant from even rural development? Is there any evidence that the plang has affected the market value of the land, or its tax assessment? If current subdivision regulaons were applied to the plat, would it render some or all of the land economically worthless? Every plat reflects at least a historical expectaon of development, and the acts taken in reliance of this expectaon could vary from none at all to the expenditure of considerable money and effort. Given these variables, we think counes will not be able to avoid a sensive, parcularized analysis of their individual situaons, leading to the development of standards that make sense for a parcular county. We would expect the Growth Management Hearings Boards and the courts to recognize a county's difficulty in balancing the equies in these cases, but we cannot guarantee the success of any specific approach. 6/15/22, 8:06 AM Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 | Washington State https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/effect-growth-management-act-option-counties-require-resubdivision-lands-platted-1937 3/5 Recent case law in the area underscores our cauous counsel on this issue. Even before our 1996 opinion, in Island County v. Dillingham Development Co., 99 Wn.2d 215, 662 P.2d 32 (1983), the State Supreme Court permied a property owner to aggregate the small lots in a pre- 1937 plat without requiring replang or review by the county under current zoning law. The court viewed the aggregaon as a "boundary line adjustment." Because the case is based on the peculiar circumstances of the parcular plat before the court, we do not consider its holding inconsistent with our earlier opinions to the effect that a county can require resubdivision of undeveloped plats under some circumstances. Sll, Dillingham would undoubtedly be cited in any challenge to our conclusions, and its reasoning could be extended to other cases involving old plats, especially where the equies were strongly in favor of the property owner. The same is true of the recent case of Noble Manor Co. v. Pierce County, 133 Wn.2d 269, 943 P.2d 1378 (1997), in which the Court found that the filing of a "short plat" conferred on the property owner a "vested right" to develop the plat according to the land use regulaons in effect at the me. The Court was careful to state that its decision was based upon the conclusion that a statute (RCW 58.17.033) conferred this "vested right" and did not amount to an expansion of the Court's general rule (see, e.g., Friends of the Law v. King County, 123 Wn.2d 518, 869 P.2d 1056 (1994)) that "vesng" occurs only upon the filing of a complete building permit applicaon. Like the Island County case, Noble Manor was largely decided on the equies of the case before the Court. Both cases illustrate that the courts may search for new guiding principles when the equies are sufficiently strong. To conclude, we reaffirm our previous opinion that a county may require a new review under Chapter 58.17 RCW, and potenally a replang or new subdivision, of undeveloped land, sll in single ownership, which was plaed before 1937. However, we decline to read the Growth Management Act as absolutely requiring counes to "dishonor" their old plats. We trust you will find the foregoing useful. Very truly yours, CHRISTINE O. GREGOIRE Aorney General JAMES K. PHARRIS Sr. Assistant Aorney General News Media Contacts (/media-contacts) News Releases (/pressrelease.aspx) Ferguson File (/news/ferguson-file) Social Media (/social-media) Office Information About Bob Ferguson (/about-bob-ferguson) AGO Environmental Policies (/environmental-policies) Mission, Vision & Values (/mission-vision-values) Contact Us (/contactus.aspx) Office Divisions (/office-divisions) Office Locaons (/office-locaons) Annual Reports (/annual-reports) Budget (/budget) History (/brief-history-office-aorney-general) Washington's Aorneys General - Past and Present (/washingtons-aorneys-general-past-and-present) Roles of the Office (/roles-office) Task Forces (/task-forces) FAQs (/frequently-asked-quesons-faqs) 6/15/22, 8:06 AM Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 | Washington State https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/effect-growth-management-act-option-counties-require-resubdivision-lands-platted-1937 4/5 Contracts (/contracts) Technology (/technology) Privacy Noce (/privacy-noce) Rulemaking Acvity (/rulemaking-acvity) Tribal Consent & Consultaon Policy (/tribal-consent-consultaon-policy) Serve The People Economic Jusce & Consumer Protecon Safeguarding Consumers (/safeguarding-consumers) Antrust/Unfair Trade Pracces (/antrustunfair-trade-pracces) Medicaid Fraud Control (/medicaid-fraud) Lemon Law (/lemon-law-0) Protecng Ratepayers - Public Counsel (/ulies-regulated) Protecng Youth (/protecng-youth) Protecng Seniors (/protecng-seniors) Social Jusce & Civil Rights Civil Rights Division (/wing-luke-civil-rights-division) Environmental Protecon Division (/environmental-protecon-division) Hanford Ligaon (/hanford) Veteran and Military Resources (/veteran-and-military-resources) Campaign Finance Law Enforcement (/enforcement-campaign-finance-laws) Criminal Jusce & Public Safety Criminal Jusce (/criminal-jusce) Sexually Violent Predators (/sexually-violent-predators) Homicide Invesgaon Tracking System (HITS) (/homicide-invesgaon-tracking-system-hits) Financial Crimes Unit (/financial-crimes-unit) Firearms (/firearms) Initiatives Open Government (/open-government) Wing Luke Civil Rights Division (/wing-luke-civil-rights-division) Environmental Jusce (/environmental-jusce-iniave) Human Trafficking (/human-trafficking) Sexual Assault Kit Iniave (/sexual-assault-kit-iniave) Combang Dark Money/Campaign Finance Unit (/enforcement-campaign-finance-laws) Opioid Epidemic (/2017-opioid-summit) Veterans Advocacy (/veteran-and-military-resources) 2022 Legislave Agenda (/2022-legislave-agenda) Student Loans/Debt Adjustment and Collecon (/studentloanresources) Immigraon Services Fraud (/immigraon-services) Vulnerable Adult Abuse (/vulnerable-adult-abuse) Robocall and Telemarkeng Scams (/robocall-and-telemarkeng-scams) Federal Ligaon (/federal-ligaon) Resources Consumer Scam Alerts (/scam-alerts) File a Complaint (/file-complaint) Execuve Ethics Board (hp://www.ethics.wa.gov/index.htm) 6/15/22, 8:06 AM Effect of Growth Management Act on option of counties to require resubdivision of lands platted before 1937 | Washington State https://www.atg.wa.gov/ago-opinions/effect-growth-management-act-option-counties-require-resubdivision-lands-platted-1937 5/5 Contact Us (/contactus.aspx) Privacy Noce (/privacy-noce) Accessibility Policy (/ago-accessibility-policy) Employee Resources (/employee-resources) Rulemaking Acvity (/rulemaking-acvity) Sitemap (/sitemap) Access Washington (hp://access.wa.gov) Contact Webmaster (hps://fortress.wa.gov/atg/formhandler/ago/WebmasterContactForm.aspx) (/employee-resources-page)1125 Washington St SE • PO Box 40100 • Olympia, WA 98504 • (360) 753-6200 OFFICE HOURS: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Monday - Friday Closed Weekends & State Holidays Sign up for Newsleer Emails (hp://atg.us10.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=28a64d02479d9d79402df2b20&id=ae281aef5b) Avoiding Unconstuonal Taking (/avoiding-unconstuonal-takings-private-property) Publicaons & Reports (/publicaons-reports) Student Loan Survival Guide (/studentloanresources) Veteran and Military Resources (/veteran-and-military-resources) Civil Rights Resource Guide (/wing-luke-civil-rights-division) Immigraon Guidance (/immigraonguidance) Open Government Resource Manual (/open-government-resource-manual) Data Breach Report (hps://agportal-s3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/2021%20Data%20Breach%20Report.pdf) Keep Washington Working Act FAQ for Law Enforcement (/keep-washington-working-act-faq-law-enforcement) AG Opinions Opinions by Year (/ago-opinions-year) Opinions by Topic (/ago-opinion/glossary) Opinion Requests (/pending-aorney-generals-opinions) Employment Experience Excellence (/experience-excellence) Employee Tesmonials (/employee-tesmonials) Aorneys & Law Clerks (/aorneys-and-law-clerk-careers) General Employment Opportunies (/general-employment-opportunies) Exempt Posions (/exempt-posions) WA Management Service (/wa-management-service-exempts) Volunteer and Internship Opportunies (/volunteer-and-internship-opportunies) Diversity (/diversity) Office Locaons (/office-locaons)