Laserfiche WebLink
1 The Board finds and concludes that the City of Arlington case provides controlling <br /> 2 authority, and Petitioners have not demonstrated under the specific facts of this case that <br /> 3 the original designation must remain. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 • Application of WAC 365-190-050 <br /> 6 Petitioners thereafter argue that the County did not correctly apply the WAC 365-190- <br /> 7 050 criteria, the third prong of the test set out in Lewis County, to the facts in this case. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Petitioners present an alternative application of those criteria to the facts here, challenging <br /> 10 the County's assessment of Parcel A, either alone or in comparison to Parcel B.18 <br /> 11 The County argues that the cases cited by Petitioners stand for the proposition that <br /> 12 jurisdictions have discretion in dealing with agricultural designations "[a]s long as the County <br /> 13 properly utilizes and stays within the framework of the GMA."19 The County presents <br /> 14 argument that the factors codified at WAC 365-190-050(3)(c) were considered throughout <br /> 15 the process leading up to Ordinance No. 468, and that the Petitioner has not met its burden <br /> 16 <br /> 17 to show that the County's decision was clearly erroneous.20 <br /> 18 In Lewis County, the Supreme Court explained that a singular focus on the physical <br /> 19 nature of the land could stifle economic development of the agricultural area as a whole.21 In <br /> 20 that case, the court reversed this Board's conclusion that the county violated the GMA by <br /> 21 focusing on the agricultural industry's projected needs, stating: <br /> 22 [T]o be guided strictly by the physical nature of the land would stifle economic <br /> 23 development in counties like Lewis, which have a significant amount of <br /> 24 potentially good farmland, much of which is unproductive.22 <br /> 25 <br /> 26 <br /> 27 <br /> 28 <br /> 29 18 Petitioners brief at 4-7. <br /> 30 19 Walla Walla County's Prehearing Brief at 5. <br /> 20 Id. at 6. <br /> 31 21 "The Board also said "[t]he GMA calls for designation of agricultural lands based on characteristics of the <br /> 32 land"that affect long-term production capability. Id. But to be guided strictly by the physical nature of the land <br /> would stifle economic development." Lewis County v. Hearings Bd., 157 Wn.2d 488, 499 <br /> 22 Lewis County, 499. <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 7 of 17 Olympia,WA 98504-0953 <br /> Phone:360-664-9170 <br /> Fax: 360-586-2253 <br />