Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Walla Walla County commissioners deny Hansen site‑specific rezone, citing state Growth Management Act
Summary
The Board denied Cheryl Hansen's request to de‑designate 41 acres of PA‑40 agricultural land, citing state rules requiring a countywide agricultural study before site‑specific changes; motion to deny carried 3‑0.
The Walla Walla County Board of Commissioners voted 3‑0 Oct. 27 to deny a site‑specific rezone and comprehensive‑plan amendment (CPA24‑01/REZ24‑01) requested by landowner Cheryl Hansen.
The denial followed a lengthy staff presentation and public testimony. Commissioner Todd Kimball, who reviewed the record and visited the site, said the 41‑acre parcel "is not commercially significant" farmland but appealed to state law in concluding the board could not proceed: "The GMA is clear... this is not a should, this is a shall," he said, referencing Growth Management Act requirements that site‑specific de‑designations be deferred until a comprehensive countywide analysis is completed. Commissioner Clayton and the chair echoed that view, citing potential cumulative loss of productive agricultural land and concerns about fire and emergency services in the remote canyon location.
County staff and the Planning Commission had examined environmental constraints — including steep, geologically hazardous slopes and fish‑and‑wildlife habitat along a creek — and confirmed that critical‑area protections would remain in place under present zoning. Staff also noted uncertainty about property‑value comparisons presented during public testimony and said assessed values did not match the applicant's poster board figures.
Commissioner Kimball said that, while the parcel "could probably be RR‑40," the requirements of the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC 365‑190‑050) require a countywide review before altering resource‑land designations. The board carried a motion to deny the amendments and requested Community Development and the Prosecuting Attorney prepare an ordinance reflecting the decision.
Next steps: staff will draft the ordinance requested by the board and return it for review; any future change to the parcel's designation will likely await the countywide agricultural land study required under the Growth Management Act.
