Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning And Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate rezoning, say TDR program has failed to meet housing targets
Summary
Staff proposed rezoning vacant parcels in the Sequim urban growth area from SR2 to SR3 (and in one area SR4) to meet GMA housing targets and recommended temporarily suspending the county's transfer-of-development-rights (TDR) program, prompting questions about notice to landowners, sewer service and neighborhood compatibility.
Planning staff (Speaker 1) outlined proposed map amendments that would change specific parcels in the Sequim urban growth area from SR2 (5 units per acre) to SR3 (10 units per acre) and noted an adjacent area already zoned SR4 (16 units per acre). Staff said the parcels were chosen because they were largely vacant, close to existing urban services and had capacity to be redeveloped to meet the county's lower‑income housing targets under the Growth Management Act.
"We're proposing to just allow up to 10 [units per acre]," the staff member said, and explained that the push to increase density is driven by a state-mandated requirement to provide higher‑density zoning to meet very-low, low and other income targets.
Several commissioners questioned whether landowners had been contacted and raised concerns about neighborhood compatibility and notice. One commissioner noted adjacent homeowners may be surprised by rezoning and that the parcels in question do not belong to the city but are unincorporated county jurisdiction. Commissioners asked whether the parcels have sewer service and whether the county's proposed height limits and design standards would align with city rules.
On the TDR program, staff argued the program has not functioned for decades and is now an obstacle to meeting housing targets. "We've given this thing 30 years. It hasn't worked," the staff member said, recommending suspension while the county monitors results and takes other actions to meet GMA obligations.
Board members who voiced concern urged more public scrutiny and clearer notice to adjacent property owners before rezoning is finalized. The board did not adopt zoning changes at the meeting; the hearing was opened and continued to Dec. 3 so staff can present additional materials and the public can review the full record.
