Laserfiche WebLink
1 in compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA).$ The Board is charged with <br /> 2 adjudicating GMA compliance and, when necessary, invalidating noncompliant plans and <br /> 3 development regulations.9 <br /> 4 The scope of the Board's review is limited to determining whether a County has <br /> 5 achieved compliance with the GMA only with respect to those issues presented in a timely <br /> 6 <br /> 7 petition for review.10 The Board is directed to find compliance unless it determines that the <br /> 8 challenged action is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the Board and in <br /> 9 light of the goals and requirements of the GMA.11 <br /> 10 <br /> 11 IV. APPLICABLE LAW <br /> 12 Provisions of the Growth Management Act identified in the issues presented here, <br /> 13 having to do with agricultural lands and urban growth areas which the petitioner relied on or <br /> 14 has provided legal argument are as follows:12 <br /> 15 RCW 36.70A.030(2) defines "agricultural land"; (11) defines "long-term commercial <br /> 16 <br /> 17 significance" as applied to agricultural land. <br /> 18 RCW 36.70A.050 directs the Department of Commerce to adopt guidelines for <br /> 19 classification of agricultural lands applicable to all jurisdictions, which includes WAC 365- <br /> 20 190-050, central to this case. The guideline sets out the requirements for classifying and <br /> 21 designating agricultural resource lands. <br /> 22 RCW 36.70A.060 requires local jurisdictions to adopt development regulations for <br /> 23 <br /> agricultural lands. <br /> 24 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 s RCW 36.70A.320(2); See also Lewis County v. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 497 (2006); Dept of Ecology <br /> 29 v. PUD 1, 121 Wn.2d 179, 201 (1993); King County v. CPSGMHB, 142 Wn.2d 543, 561 (2000). <br /> 9 RCW 36.70A.280, RCW 36.70A.302. <br /> 30 10 RCW 36.70A.290(1). <br /> 31 11 RCW 36.70A.320(3). In order to find the County's action clearly erroneous, the Board must be "left with the <br /> firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made." Dept of Ecology v. PUD 1, 121 Wn.2d 179, 201 <br /> 32 (1993). <br /> 12 Petitioners alleged violation of RCW 36.70A.190 but did not cite this section or offer legal argument, so the <br /> issue is deemed abandoned. <br /> FINAL DECISION AND ORDER Growth Management Hearings Board <br /> Case No. 18-1-0001 1111 Israel Road SW,Suite 301 <br /> July 2,2018 P.O. Box 40953 <br /> Page 4 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 <br /> Phone:360-664-9170 <br /> Fax: 360-586-2253 <br />