Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate panel backs clarification allowing middle housing to use large on‑site septic in some rural areas
Loading...
Summary
The committee heard substitute House Bill 2269, which clarifies that middle housing in rural LAMIRD areas may be served by public sewer or a large on‑site septic system (3,500–100,000 gpd), while urban areas would require public sanitary sewer, giving planners greater certainty.
Substitute House Bill 2269 was before the Senate Housing Committee on Feb. 18 to clarify when middle housing can rely on large on‑site sewage systems. Committee staff said the bill responds to ambiguity in prior changes to the Growth Management Act (GMA) and related middle‑housing provisions.
Rep. Birnbaum, the sponsor, said the bill is a narrow clarification intended to ensure counties and developers understand whether the phrase “existing sewer service” includes large on‑site septic systems. He described interim work with Rep. Engel, FutureWise and WASAC and said the bill allows rural counties to permit middle housing on either a publicly owned sanitary sewer system or on a large on‑site sewage system, while non‑rural (urban) counties may allow only connection to public sanitary sewers.
Sen. Gaynor and other members asked whether ‘‘large’’ means a system sized at the statutory large‑OSS threshold (3,500 to 100,000 gallons per day). The sponsor confirmed that the bill targets large OSS units at or above the statutory threshold and that the policy intent is to provide planning certainty so that middle‑housing projects are not inadvertently excluded where a large on‑site system is planned. He noted potential financing and permitting questions for communities considering replacing failing septic systems or creating shared systems to serve multiple units.
Supporters from FutureWise, county planners and regional advocacy groups testified in favor, saying the clarification helps rural communities catalyze additional housing while maintaining oversight and regulation of large septic systems. Opponents were not recorded during the hearing; committee discussion focused on technical definitions and real‑world feasibility.
The committee took questions and moved the bill forward for consideration.
