Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.530

Current through 2024

Section 36.70A.530 - Land use development incompatible with military installation not allowed-Revision of comprehensive plans and development regulations

(1) Military installations are of particular importance to the economic health of the state of Washington and it is a priority of the state to protect the land surrounding our military installations from incompatible development.

(2) Comprehensive plans, amendments to comprehensive plans, development regulations, or amendments to development regulations adopted under this section shall be adopted or amended concurrent with the scheduled update provided in RCW 36.70A.130, except that counties and cities identified in *RCW 36.70A.130(4)(a) shall comply with this section on or before December 1, 2005, and shall thereafter comply with this section on a schedule consistent with *RCW 36.70A.130(4).

(3) A comprehensive plan, amendment to a plan, a development regulation or amendment to a development regulation, should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation that is incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. A city or county may find that an existing comprehensive plan or development regulations are compatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements.

(4) As part of the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(1) each county and city planning under RCW 36.70A.040 that has a federal military installation, other than a reserve center, that employs one hundred or more personnel and is operated by the United States department of defense within or adjacent to its border, shall notify the commander of the military installation of the county's or city's intent to amend its comprehensive plan or development regulations to address lands adjacent to military installations to ensure those lands are protected from incompatible development.

(5)

(a) The notice provided under subsection (4) of this section shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the adoption of a comprehensive plan or an amendment to a plan. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed plan or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation.

(b) When a county or city intends to amend its development regulations to be consistent with the comprehensive plan elements addressed in (a) of this subsection, notice shall be provided to the commander of the military installation consistent with subsection (4) of this section. The notice shall request from the commander of the military installation a written recommendation and supporting facts relating to the use of land being considered in the amendment to the development regulations. The notice shall provide sixty days for a response from the commander to the requesting government. If the commander does not submit a response to such request within sixty days, the local government may presume that implementation of the proposed development regulation or amendment will not have any adverse effect on the operation of the installation.

RCW 36.70A.530

2004 c 28 § 2.

*Reviser's note:RCW 36.70A.130 was amended by 2020 c 113 s 1, deleting subsection (4).

Finding-2004 c 28: "The United States military is a vital component of the Washington state economy. The protection of military installations from incompatible development of land is essential to the health of Washington's economy and quality of life. Incompatible development of land close to a military installation reduces the ability of the military to complete its mission or to undertake new missions, and increases its cost of operating. The department of defense evaluates continued utilization of military installations based upon their operating costs, their ability to carry out missions, and their ability to undertake new missions." [ 2004 c 28 s 1.]