HOUSE BILL REPORT
HB 2325
As Reported by House Committee On:
Local Government
Title: An act relating to the development of affordable housing through flexible short subdivision.
Brief Description: Encouraging the development of affordable housing.
Sponsors: Representatives Simpson, Tom, B. Sullivan, Springer, Sells, Holmquist, McCune, O'Brien, Pettigrew, Ahern, DeBolt, Jarrett, Appleton, Miloscia, Ormsby, Dunn, Priest, Roach, Dunshee, Woods, Hunter and Ericks.
Brief History:
Local Government: 1/12/06, 2/2/06 [DPS].
Brief Summary of Substitute Bill |
|
|
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Majority Report: The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Simpson, Chair; Clibborn, Vice Chair; Schindler, Ranking Minority Member; Ahern, Assistant Ranking Minority Member; B. Sullivan, Takko and Woods.
Staff: Thamas Osborn (786-7129).
Background:
Regulation of land divisions by local governments.
The legislative body of a city, county, or town must adopt regulations and procedures
governing the approval of proposed divisions of land within its jurisdictional boundaries.
Such regulations must be adopted by ordinance and are enforced by appointed administrative
personnel, who must provide written factual findings supporting decisions to approve or deny
proposed land divisions.
A property owner must have a proposed division of land reviewed and approved by the
county, city, or town in which the land is located. Such divisions of land are generally
categorized as either "subdivisions" or "short subdivisions." Subdivisions are defined as land
divisions resulting in five or more lots, tracts, or parcels. Short subdivisions are defined as
land divisions resulting in four or fewer lots, tracts, or parcels. However, a city, town or
Growth Management Act (GMA) planning county may adopt a local ordinance increasing to
a maximum of nine the number of lots, tracts, or parcels that may be contained in a short
subdivision located within the boundary of an urban growth area (UGA).
The GMA and residential density requirements within a UGA.
Although the GMA includes provisions pertaining to density and the reduction of sprawling
low-density development, neither "density" nor "residential density" is defined in the Act.
The Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development, defined "residential
density" in its September 2004, guidance paper, Urban Densities - Central Puget Sound
Edition, as, in part, the number of dwelling units over a specified land area.
The GMA does not prescribe a uniform minimum residential density, nor does the Act
require jurisdictions to establish uniform minimum residential densities. Growth
Management Hearings Boards have, however, issued decisions pertaining to residential
densities. The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (CPSGMHB), for
example, noted in its 1995 decision from Bremerton, et al., v. Kitsap County, that:
"...rather than adopt a maximum urban lot size, the Board instead adopts as a general rule a
"bright line" at four net dwelling units per acre. Any residential pattern at that density, or
higher, is clearly compact urban development and satisfies the low end of the range required
by the [GMA]. Any larger urban lots will be subject to increased scrutiny by the Board to
determine if the number, locations, configurations and rationale for such lot sizes complies
with the goals and requirements of the [GMA]...Any new residential land use pattern within
an UGA that is less dense is not a compact urban development pattern, constitutes urban
sprawl, and is prohibited. There are exceptions to this general rule...However, this
circumstance can be expected to be infrequent within the UGA and must not constitute a
pattern over large areas."
Summary of Substitute Bill:
Mandatory zoning ordinances permitting the division of single lots into multiple
nonconforming lots.
Subject to specified conditions, cities, towns, and counties planning under the GMA must
have zoning ordinances that permit a single lot to be divided into two or more lots which will
be recognized as legal and conforming for purposes of development. This requirement
applies under the following circumstances:
A city, town, or county not planning under the GMA has the option of adopting such zoning
ordinances, but is not under a legal requirement to do so.
Mandatory zoning ordinances permitting boundary line adjustments that result in
nonconforming lots.
Subject to specified conditions, cities, towns, and counties planning under the GMA must
have zoning ordinances that permit the adjustment of boundary lines between abutting lots
under the same ownership so as to allow the creation of one or more lots of nonconforming
size or dimension that are recognized as legal and conforming for purposes of development.
These requirements apply under the following circumstances:
A city, town, or county not planning under the GMA has the option of adopting such zoning
ordinances, but is not under a legal requirement to do so.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date of Substitute Bill: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Testimony For: This bill will add statutory provisions needed to encourage local
governments to create greater urban densities and will help remedy the shortage of affordable
housing. Its passage will help communities to increase their housing stocks and decrease
prices. "Infill" in urban areas is vital in order to discourage sprawl and to concentrate
populations in areas where urban levels of service are already available. This bill will
encourage local governments to create zoning regulations that will increase the supply of
affordable housing. Many local development regulations present obstacles to creating infill
housing. "Density" is an unpopular word in many communities and local officials need this
legislation in order to take the steps necessary to create adequate urban densities. The
regulations in the bill will encourage communities to carve out additional buildable lots in
older neighborhoods.
(With Concerns) The provisions in the bill should provide local governments with options
rather than mandating the implementation of these infill zoning provisions. Approaches to
planning for infill housing should merely be a tool available to local governments, not an
ironclad requirement.
Testimony Against: None.
Persons Testifying: (In support) Representative Simpson, prime sponsor; Micheal Luis, The
Housing Partnership; Timothy Harris; Building Industry Association of Washington; and
Bryan Wahl, Washington Realtors.
(With concerns) Eric Johnson, Washington Association of Counties; and Dave Williams,
Association of Washington Cities.