Bill would let counties reclassify some historic village clusters to allow more rural housing

The House Local Government Committee heard testimony on House Bill 16-95, which would create a pathway for counties to allow more intensive development in certain existing unincorporated villages, often called limited areas of more intensive rural development, or LAMIRDs.

Kellen Wright, committee staff, described the bill and the way it interacts with existing Growth Management Act provisions. “Turning now to this bill, it would allow development within an existing area that was previously characterized as a town, village, or hamlet, but which never incorporated, to not be limited by restrictions on building size, scale, use, or intensity,” Wright said. Under the proposal, a county that uses the option must adopt a subarea plan, allocate a portion of projected 20‑year population and housing growth to the subarea, and amend capital facilities plans to show adequate services over the planning period.

Representative Andrew Engel, sponsor, said the change would give rural counties flexibility to concentrate housing in historic clusters rather than pushing development farther into fields and forests. “I believe this provides good flexibility for counties and will be helpful for our housing issues,” Engel said.

Supporters included county planners and elected officials who described local examples in Eastern Washington. Curtis Steinhauer of the Washington State Association of Counties said LAMIRDs “often provide the only source of affordable housing in smaller rural communities,” and urged support. Commissioner Mark Burrows and former Commissioner Wes McCart said modest infill in historic village clusters can help sustain local water and sewer systems and local economies.

Opponents and cautionary witnesses warned about the bill’s lack of explicit limits. Bryce Aden of FutureWise testified in opposition, saying the bill “creates a weird standard” because it would allow extension of certain urban services without clear guardrails on development intensity. Aden warned there are “no limitations to what type of development would be allowed,” and urged jurisdictions to use existing tools such as urban growth area adjustments instead.

Committee members questioned how the bill differentiates among LAMIRD types and how service providers would confirm capacity. Staff said the first type of limited area includes existing commercial or mixed‑use hamlets and that development to change building use, size, or intensity remains subject to confirmation from service providers and to commercial size limits unless a county adopts the subarea plan option provided by the bill.

The hearing record shows local officials urging flexibility to contain sprawl and support aging infrastructure, while land‑use advocates cautioned about opening the door to urban‑scale development without clearer limits. The committee suspended the public hearing on HB 16-95 for later consideration.