Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate bill would loosen restrictions in limited areas of more intensive rural development to allow some commercial and industrial uses
Summary
Senate Bill 5699 would let counties allow certain new commercial or industrial development inside Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development if the county finds economic necessity, while existing statutory limits emphasize small‑scale, rural‑serving uses.
Senate Bill 5699 would change rules governing Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs) by allowing some new commercial or industrial development inside a LAMIRD’s logical outer boundary if the local legislative authority deems it economically necessary. Current statute generally limits LAMIRD development to projects principally designed to serve existing and projected rural populations and imposes limits on retail floorplate sizes for mixed‑use areas; SB 5699 would add a discretionary economic‑necessity exception for non‑retail commercial or industrial uses.
Chelan County Commissioner Sean Smith testified in support, saying some rural communities such as Plain in Chelan County have grown so residents must travel more than an hour round trip for essential services. “Economic necessity and flexibility within LAMIRDs are our considerations in supporting Senate Bill 5,699,” Smith said, arguing the change would allow communities to provide services and jobs closer to where people live without creating low‑density sprawl.
Opponents and policy organizations urged caution and asked for tighter drafting. Bryce Yaden of Futurewise said the bill as drafted lacked limits on size and scale and could allow development that serves urban markets rather than local rural needs; Futurewise asked for narrower language focused on small‑scale, locally oriented services. Suwani Madsen of the Washington Rural Economic Network supported the bill’s intent, emphasizing local legislative discretion and county authority to balance ecological, economic and social outcomes.
Committee staff described existing LAMIRD rules, including retail size caps in many situations (2,500–10,000 square feet depending on location and circumstances). No vote was recorded; stakeholders suggested continuing work on drafting clarifications to ensure the statute preserves the rural‑serving focus of LAMIRDs while allowing local economic flexibility where appropriate.
