We have a housing crisis. Our Board of County Commissioners declared an Affordable Housing Emergency three years ago. But we have seen no movement on addressing one of the primary causes of our affordable housing shortage: minimum lot size regulations.
Jefferson County’s latest Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December 2018. Under the current development code the minimum lot size for any subdivision is 5 acres. This can and should be changed in the yearly amendment process. Nothing really stands in the way except politics and a conflicting desire by some powerful interests to make Jefferson County an ever more exclusive reserve for wealthy retirees and second-home owners.
The Growth Management Act does not require a 5 acre minimum lot size.
In Thurston County v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 80115-1, the State Supreme Court ruled that there is no 5 acre “bright line” standard under the GMA. As a result of that decision, the Western Washington Growth Management Board has stated:
So what is the minimum lot size in rural lands? To answer this question you need to look at the Growth Management Act. The answer waiting there provides hope for affordable housing in Jefferson County.
Under RCW 36.70A.070(5)(b) the GMA states that: “The rural element shall provide for a variety of rural densities….”
RCW 36.70A.030(17) states that: “Rural development can consist of a variety of uses and residential densities….”
And RCW 36.70A.030(18) states that: “Rural services do not include storm or sanitary sewers….”
Lastly, RCW 36.70A.030(20) states that: “Urban governmental services” or “urban services” include those public services and public facilities at an intensity historically and typically provided in cities, specifically including storm and sanitary sewer systems…”
In other words, the difference between “rural” and “urban” is whether there is an available sewer or not.
Under WAC 246-272A-0320 Table X the minimum lot size depends on the type of soils and whether there is public water available. The minimum lot size ranges from 12,500 square feet to 2.5 acres. Requiring a 5 acre minimum lot size is not consistent with the GMA. The minimum lot size could be 12,500 square feet (0.2869 acres). Another section of the GMA states that the determining factor for minimum lot is the type of soils (suitability for septic) and the availability of public water.
It is clearly up to the county itself to decide whether it wants a range of rural residential densities.
I would propose that based on the requirements of septic design under WAC 246-272A-0320 Jefferson could have two more zoning densities, 2.5 acres and a performance based zoning determined by septic capability.
The category of Performance Based Zoning would allow subdivision of property, which is something that was done in the past in Jefferson County, back when we built a good deal of affordable housing.
Affordable housing requires density. It is simply not affordable to build on a 5 acre lot. It is entirely feasible to build affordable housing on a 12,500 to 20,000 square foot lot.
We have a solid, legal opportunity to challenge the Jefferson County Comprehensive Plan. By opening up our land use regulations we can make it possible to again build on small lots around the county. And with that positive change, there will hope for truly affordable housing in sufficient quantity to make a difference.
Well said! A public sewer system in Hadlock and easing up on septic permits would sure help, too! Long ago, back in the day, “lots” were very tiny. We call them “Chinese” lots because of all the Chinese people who used to live and work here. We ourselves have a standard home lot but to this day it amounts to five of these old “lots,” and you see that history reflected on land titles all around here.
Thanks Craig for your research. I was told a county commissioner wanted to allow affordable septic systems where appropriate. Got nowhere. As I understand it the move is towards $30k systems where $5k systems are appropriate.
Many county parcels are 10 acres and 20 acres. I am very supportive of clustering 2 or more homes close to each other and requiring mitigation by placing open space and forest in conservation on the rest of a parcel. This helps costs of running power etc. As it is you might be limited to one home and an ADU up to 1200sf, and clear cut your property. Seems mitigation might conserve older forest and open space while allowing property owners some income to help pay taxes and mortgage and do more for affordable housing. Of course details on this idea are important.
Currently my home on 10 acres has a nice neat no frills mobile home hidden away which provides affordable housing and helps me pay taxes and mortgage. If you are not living on a property you own with a home you are not allowed to add an affordable ADU the last I knew. Lots of options out there that might actually serve many needs while protecting quality of life. And wildlife.
As the FWPDA tanks with an elitist business model perhaps constructing modular homes or just training construction skills could be a part of the bankrupted Makers Place. So many answers. So few question the status quo. Win win situations abound.
Craig, thank you for your informative posts on lots and the Hadlock sewer system. I’d like to make a suggestion that deals with both issues. A while back I studied the proposed sewer system for Port Hadlock when I was trying to help a client develop a RV park to help with the homeless problem. Needless to say, the county rejected the proposal, but in the process I learned quite a bit about the proposed system.
In my opinion there are two problems with the current proposed sewer system. First, the affluent discharge from the system, which is where the gravel and storage business is off of Chimacum Road, is piped down Chimacum Creek. A large earthquake would probably damage the pipe enough to create a ,massive sewage spill, killing the salmon run so many have worked to restore. The second is that the beneficiaries are the land owners in the commercial area, not the residents.
In the alternative I suggest that they build the sewer plant in Irondale on top of the large concrete area to the south of Irondale waterfront park which was the site of the old Iron Mill. The county owns this property, the affluent could be easily piped to deep fast moving water, it would all be a gravity system, and the plant would be out of sight. I understand that there are new ways being developed to handle sewage that would eliminate the smell. A sewage plant in this location could serve all of Irondale, allowing much denser home sites on the already platted small lots, at least doubling the number of homes within a system that is platted, the roads are in, as are the other utilities. Laying the gravity flow sewer lines to the Iron Mill site would be a lot less expensive than the currently proposed system.
I suggest a citizens group to work on the feasibility of this alternative. Do we really need to hire very expensive “experts” to do a feasibility study when the preliminary work could be done by people like yourself and others of similar mind.
It is the Jefferson County Department of Public Works that is responsible for the design. As for your comment, the clean effluent is not going into Chimacum Creek. It goes to a fast infiltration pond. Sewage outfalls are no longer permitted directly into the water. You can of course interface with Monte Reinders at the Dept. of Public Works. I have no real input.
Good background Craig. Your basic argument also applies to Port Townsend where there are many hundreds of lots tied up in double lot zoning of 10,000 square feet minimum. Taking it a bit further, the city has many lots uptown that are non-conforming at 3500′ though 5000′ is the minimum. Too small by the zoning, they are still desirable. And as far as I’m aware, the city has no provision for row housing on 2500′ lots. The most troubling aspect of all this is the years of hand-wringing while dancing around the solution. Why?