Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.160
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Each county and city that is required or chooses to prepare a comprehensive land use plan under RCW 36.70A.040 shall identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas. They shall include lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails, and connection of critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030. Identification of a corridor under this section by a county or city shall not restrict the use or management of lands within the corridor for agricultural or forest purposes. Restrictions on the use or management of such lands for agricultural or forest purposes imposed after identification solely to maintain or enhance the value of such lands as a corridor may occur only if the county or city acquires sufficient interest to prevent development of the lands or to control the resource development of the lands. The requirement for acquisition of sufficient interest does not include those corridors regulated by the interstate commerce commission, under provisions of 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1247(d), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1248, or 43 U.S.C. Sec. 912. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to alter the authority of the state, or a county or city, to regulate land use activities.
The city or county may acquire by donation or purchase the fee simple or lesser interests in these open space corridors using funds authorized by RCW 84.34.230 or other sources.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1999–2018 · leading case: King County v. Central Puget Sound
King County v. Central Puget Sound (2000)
“RCW 36.70A.160. The County is to identify open space corridors that include lands useful for recreation.”
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (2000)
“RCW 36.70A.160. The County is to identify open space corridors that include lands useful for recreation.”
Diehl v. Mason County (1999)
“” RCW 36.70A.160. Mason County’s CP and DRs do not.”
Karl J. Thun, Et Ux v. City Of Bonney Lake (2018)
“RCW 36.70A.160; former RCW 36.70A.060(2) (1998); see former RCW 36.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.