Senate Bill 5461 would allow denser housing in limited rural communities if counties opt in and require affordable units

Senate Bill 5461 would direct counties to allow, within designated limited areas of more intensive rural development (LAMRs), by ordinance or other official controls, at least four housing units per lot for parcels zoned predominantly residential and up to six units per lot if at least two units are affordable housing.

Karen Epps, committee staff, told senators the Growth Management Act’s rural element already allows LAMRs—small population centers and preexisting built areas within rural counties—and SB 5461 would give counties optional regulatory authority to authorize the denser configurations in those locations. Epps noted a fiscal note had not yet been requested.

Sen. Liz Lovett, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure followed committee field visits to LAMRs and aimed to provide middle housing options for people who work in rural gateway and tourist communities. “We want to make sure that folks in these rural areas have the ability to develop multifamily housing just like we're able to do in our urban areas,” Lovett said.

Advocacy and local-government groups generally supported the bill but asked for technical changes. Bryce Yaden of Futurewise said the bill should probably phrase density as “no more than 4 units” (or “no more than 6” for the higher-density option) rather than mandating a minimum of four, to avoid infrastructure or service conflicts.

Curtis Steinhauer, representing the Washington State Association of Counties and county regional planning directors, supported SB 5461 and told the committee LAMRs often provide “the only source of affordable and workforce housing in smaller rural communities.” Mindy Brooks, director of community development for Lewis County, said Lewis County’s single-family home prices in gateway LAMRs have risen dramatically and workers cannot afford housing: “We need to provide more affordable options. Senate Bill 5461 would make it clear that middle housing is appropriate in LAMRs.”

Builders and business groups supported the bill’s intent but cautioned that the affordability requirement for the two additional units could, in practice, limit many projects to four units. Morgan Irwin from the Association of Washington Businesses and Andrea Smiley of the Building Industry Association of Washington both asked the committee to review how the affordability trigger would operate in practice.

Committee members asked staff technical questions about applicability to the three LAMR categories and whether the bill’s units-per-lot standard applies to all lots in zones predominantly residential; Epps confirmed it applies where a county’s ordinance designates LAMRs and the lot’s zone is predominantly residential.

No fiscal note or formal vote was recorded at the hearing. Sponsors and supporters indicated they will continue technical work and stakeholder conversations to refine the bill’s language before the committee’s next steps.