Chapter § 13.8 Substantive Role of Board

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§13.8 Substantive Role of Board

In its role as the adjudicative administrative agency, the GMHB has an inherent tension between its need to interpret the goals and requirements of the GMA and the GMA's strong deference to local government choice and a "bottom-up" approach to planning. This tension is especially difficult to balance when, as various courts have noted, the GMA is a political compromise that seeks to achieve diverse, sometimes conflicting goals and contains "internal inconsistencies" and "vague language," all in a framework that clearly defers to local decision making. Quadrant Corp. v. State GMHB, 154 Wn.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132 (2005); see also RCW 36.70A.320, .3201; Manke Lumber Co. v. CPSGMHB, 113 Wn.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011 (2002). This tension has played out through the years in board decisions in which the boards, over time, developed strong guidance (originally labeled "bright-line rules") that, if not followed, led to "increased scrutiny" of local government enactments. As these labels suggest, adoption of bright-line rules or changing the standard of review to one of increased scrutiny has raised debate over the board's substantive role and often has led to appellate court review in an attempt to resolve disputes over the board's substantive authority as balanced against deference to local government decisions.

A detailed discussion of each of these areas is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, probably the most debated example of this tension arises in the context of GMHB and court decisions regarding GMA requirements for urban and rural densities, discussed in more detail in Volume 5, Chapter 1 (Growth Management Act), of this deskbook. Over the years, as the boards reviewed various challenges to GMA-adopted urban and rural densities, the boards developed density parameters (of one label or another) that established four dwelling units (DU) per acre as a minimum acceptable urban density (barring unusual circumstances). See, e.g., Bremerton v. Kitsap Cnty., CPSGMHB No. 95-3-0039, 1995 WL 903165 at *35 (Final Decision and Order) (Oct. 6, 1995), http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/LoadDocument.aspx?did=1889. Additionally, the boards adopted a bright-line limit of one DU per five acres as the maximum rural density (also barring unusual circumstances). See, e.g., Yanisch v. Lewis Cnty., WWGMHB No. 02-2-0007c, 2002 WL 31863235 at *4 (Final Decision and Order) (Dec. 11, 2002), http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/LoadDocument.aspx?did=497; Citizens for...