Skagit County planning commissioners recommend narrower ag-policy changes, ask commissioners to study smaller parcel protections

Skagit County Planning Commission members on April 8 reviewed staff and consultant recommendations on agricultural and other natural-resource policies in the county’s 2025 periodic comprehensive plan update and agreed to forward several narrowly framed recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for further consideration.

The commission’s deliberations centered on staff-proposed policy changes in Attachment C of the draft update and on public testimony received during the March 11 open-record hearing and a written comment period that closed March 13. "We have prepared a high level comment summary," said Clay White, a consultant with Kimley‑Horn, explaining the purpose of a summary packet meant to help commissioners correlate written comments to specific proposed amendments.

Why it matters: Agricultural and other natural-resource land designations determine which parcels are eligible for long‑term protection programs and which parcels are subject to county resource regulations. Commissioners said the public feedback showed the need for more targeted discussion with the Agricultural Advisory Board before adopting stronger ag-preservation language.

What the commission agreed to - Revert a set of staff‑proposed agricultural policies to the 2016 language and defer more substantive changes for additional review with the Agricultural Advisory Board. Robbie Acroft, senior planner with Skagit County Planning and Development Services, said staff recommended reverting the policies after receiving comments from the Ag Advisory Board and members of the public. - Add explicit reference(s) to Washington Administrative Code guidance for countywide analyses (WAC 365‑190‑040 and WAC 365‑190‑050) where county policy requires a countywide analysis before any de‑designation of natural‑resource lands. Commissioner Hughes requested that the WAC citation be added for clarity; staff agreed. - Clarify and make consistent language across multiple policies so the document uses the same phrase — "comprehensive countywide analysis" — and removes inconsistent phrasing such as "county‑led" where it could be read to preclude an applicant‑led analysis. - Incorporate more precise naming of special districts in the Natural Resource Lands element: the commission approved adding "irrigation" alongside "diking and drainage" districts to the list of relevant special purpose districts.

Board of County Commissioners action requested Commissioners asked staff to forward two items to the Board of County Commissioners for additional consideration: (1) direct engagement with the Agricultural Advisory Board to revisit agricultural policy language that could strengthen protections and bring the county into alignment with state law, and (2) consideration of whether the designation rules used to identify agricultural natural‑resource lands should be adjusted — specifically the commission recommended the Board consider reducing a minimum parcel threshold from 5 acres to 1 acre for some long‑term agricultural designations and reconsidering a requirement that designated agricultural lands be located in the 100‑year floodplain. The commission framed that as a recommendation for the Board to evaluate with the Ag Advisory Board, not as an immediate change to the draft plan.

Public comment and process notes Consultant White told commissioners the county had accepted written testimony from Feb. 13 to March 13 and had held an open‑record hearing March 11; the March 11 hearing record was closed and the deliberations continued April 8. White said the summary provided comment numbers that tie the packet to original submissions so commissioners and staff could track reviewer concerns.

What remained undecided Commissioners did not adopt substantive new ag policy language at the April 8 meeting; rather they directed staff to revert to the 2016 text on several items and to work with the Agricultural Advisory Board and the Board of County Commissioners to develop any future changes. They also asked for more consistent WAC cross‑references and for staff to clean up inconsistent phrasing about who may initiate a countywide analysis.

Next steps The Planning Commission continued deliberations and scheduled a follow‑up meeting for April 15 to complete consideration of the comprehensive plan update and planned to forward its recommendations, findings, and any suggested redlines to the Board of County Commissioners for review.

Ending note: The commission emphasized that the recommendations are intended to preserve due process and statutory requirements, and that proposed changes to designation criteria would require further analysis and public consultation before any formal plan or zoning amendment was lodged with the Board of County Commissioners.