Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A county or a city may use a variety of innovative zoning techniques in areas designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance under RCW 36.70A.170. The innovative zoning techniques should be designed to conserve agricultural lands and encourage the agricultural economy. Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, a county or city should encourage nonagricultural uses to be limited to lands with poor soils or otherwise not suitable for agricultural purposes.
(2) Innovative zoning techniques a county or city may consider include, but are not limited to:
(a) Agricultural zoning, which limits the density of development and restricts or prohibits nonfarm uses of agricultural land and may allow accessory uses, including nonagricultural accessory uses and activities, that support, promote, or sustain agricultural operations and production, as provided in subsection (3) of this section;
(b) Cluster zoning, which allows new development on one portion of the land, leaving the remainder in agricultural or open space uses;
(c) Large lot zoning, which establishes as a minimum lot size the amount of land necessary to achieve a successful farming practice;
(d) Quarter/quarter zoning, which permits one residential dwelling on a one-acre minimum lot for each one-sixteenth of a section of land; and
(e) Sliding scale zoning, which allows the number of lots for single-family residential purposes with a minimum lot size of one acre to increase inversely as the size of the total acreage increases.
(3) Accessory uses allowed under subsection (2)(a) of this section shall comply with the following:
(a) Accessory uses shall be located, designed, and operated so as to not interfere with, and to support the continuation of, the overall agricultural use of the property and neighboring properties, and shall comply with the requirements of this chapter;
(b) Accessory uses may include:
(i) Agricultural accessory uses and activities, including but not limited to the storage, distribution, and marketing of regional agricultural products from one or more producers, agriculturally related experiences, or the production, marketing, and distribution of value-added agricultural products, including support services that facilitate these activities; and
(ii) Nonagricultural accessory uses and activities as long as they are consistent with the size, scale, and intensity of the existing agricultural use of the property and the existing buildings on the site. Nonagricultural accessory uses and activities, including new buildings, parking, or supportive uses, shall not be located outside the general area already developed for buildings and residential uses and shall not otherwise convert more than one acre of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses; and
(c) Counties and cities have the authority to limit or exclude accessory uses otherwise authorized in this subsection (3) in areas designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance.
(4) This section shall not be interpreted to limit agricultural production on designated agricultural lands.
[ 2006 c 147 s 1; 2004 c 207 s 1; 1997 c 429 s 23.]

Notes:

Severability—1997 c 429: See note following RCW 36.70A.3201.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 12× “We hold that the amendments do not comply with the Act and that the land in question does not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177. BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA or Act), chapter 36.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 11× “We hold that the amendments do not comply with the Act and that the land in question does not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177. *546 BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA or Act), chapter 36.”
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 13× “RCW 36.70A.177. Despite that, the Board found that the allowance by chapter 17.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wa. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 139 P.3d 1096 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 8× “¶ 23 Lewis County contends that the Board ignored RCW 36.70A.177 and mandated that all agricultural land be zoned for agriculture only, thereby imposing a "per se prohibition" on all nonagricultural uses there.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash. 2d 488 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 5× “¶22 Lewis County contends that the Board ignored RCW 36.70A.177 and mandated that all agricultural land be zoned for agriculture only, thereby imposing a “per se prohibition” on all nonagricultural uses there.”
City of Redmond v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 959 P.2d 1091 (Wash. 1998). “A more recent indication of the Legislature’s concern for preserving agricultural lands is a new section the Legislature added in its 1997 amendments to the GMA, RCW 36.70A.177, which urges employment of “innovative zoning techniques” to conserve agricultural lands.”
Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings, 259 P.3d 227 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “" The Orchardists' argument is, in short, that to permit an R-O district on land zoned for agricultural purposes is to allow a local legislation decision to conflict with a general policy of the state to protect agricultural lands.”
Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wash. 2d 367 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 2× “In support of that argument, the Orchardists point to this court’s decision in King County, where we stated that, although RCW 36.70A.177 provides that a county may use innovative zoning techniques in areas designated as agricultural lands, a county “may not then undermine the…”
Low Income Hous. Inst. v. City of Lakewood, 77 P.3d 653 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “060(1) [development regulations for natural resource lands and critical areas], and .170 [designations for natural resource lands and critical areas] evidence a legislative mandate for the conservation of agricultural land.”
Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 220 P.3d 1248 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 7× “We discuss this evidence in the section entitled "Substantial Evidence for Facts Supporting Recreational Overlay Designation" below.”
Il Kim v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 115 Wash. App. 157 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “900; RCW 15.62.010; RCW 15.65.028; RCW 15.65.”
Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 153 Wash. App. 394 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “And, therefore, they had no duty to enter findings to address GMA requirements under RCW 36.70A.177. Buffers were adequately covered in the hearing examiner’s findings and attached conditions of approval.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(1) — 8 cases
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 36.70A.177. Despite that, the Board found that the allowance by chapter 17.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wa. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 139 P.3d 1096 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 23 Lewis County contends that the Board ignored RCW 36.70A.177 and mandated that all agricultural land be zoned for agriculture only, thereby imposing a "per se prohibition" on all nonagricultural uses there.”
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 157 Wash. 2d 488 (Wash. 2006). “¶22 Lewis County contends that the Board ignored RCW 36.70A.177 and mandated that all agricultural land be zoned for agriculture only, thereby imposing a “per se prohibition” on all nonagricultural uses there.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound, 14 P.3d 133 (Wash. 2000). “We hold that the amendments do not comply with the Act and that the land in question does not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177. BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA or Act), chapter 36.”
King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 543 (Wash. 2000). “We hold that the amendments do not comply with the Act and that the land in question does not qualify for innovative zoning techniques under RCW 36.70A.177. *546 BACKGROUND The Growth Management Act (GMA or Act), chapter 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(2) — 1 case
Lewis Cnty. v. W. Wa. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 139 P.3d 1096 (Wash. 2006). “¶ 23 Lewis County contends that the Board ignored RCW 36.70A.177 and mandated that all agricultural land be zoned for agriculture only, thereby imposing a "per se prohibition" on all nonagricultural uses there.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(2)(a) — 1 case
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 36.70A.177. Despite that, the Board found that the allowance by chapter 17.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(3) — 1 case
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). “RCW 36.70A.177. Despite that, the Board found that the allowance by chapter 17.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(3)(a) — 1 case
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(3)(b)(i) — 2 cases
King Cnty., V. Friends Of Sammamish Valley (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.177(3)(b)(ii) — 2 cases
King Cnty. v. Friends of Sammamish Valley (Wash. 2024).
King Cnty., V. Friends Of Sammamish Valley (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
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.