Recent changes to Woodland’s land use planning focused on the Bottoms region located outside of city limits could be rescinded due to legal action by Cowlitz County.
During its Nov. 21 meeting, the Woodland City Council heard from city staff about the reasons behind an upcoming vote to rescind two ordinances focused on the area to the south and west of the city.
The ordinances allowed for an expansion of the city’s urban growth area so it would include the land to the southwest of the city bounded by the Lewis and Columbia rivers, and the creation of an agricultural zoning designation. The designation was intended to protect agricultural uses in the areas included in the growth area expansion. Properties in the area can be potentially annexed into the city, which subjects them to city development code.
The county filed a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal against the growth boundary expansion and filed a lawsuit in Cowlitz County Superior Court against the adoption of the ordinances, Woodland Community Development Director Travis Goddard said. The lawsuit is also in response to a resolution the council passed that rescinded prior ordinances dating as far back as 1981, which held the city to the county’s planning decisions.
The city originally approved the ordinances as a way to address the effects development in the Bottoms would have on the city. The city includes the only roads leading outside of the area.
“We’re trying to plan for impacts that occur and we’re taking into account all the influences that affect the city,” Goddard said.
The ordinances were originally approved by the council in September and October. Goddard said reversing the new ordinances is a way “to avoid costly and unnecessary litigation.”
Though removal of the ordinances could prevent further legal action, Goddard said the city still intends to continue its planning measures in the Woodland Bottoms. One of a number of points he brought before the council was the creation of a “sub-area plan” for the Bottoms, and some form of agreement with the county for future planning in the area.
Goddard said a potential compromise would be to only expand the growth area on the east side of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad that bisects the Bottoms. The city could also seek impact mitigation, which could come through impact fees on development in the area like transportation, schools and fire protection.
Goddard hopes the county will take the lead on master planning, because the county’s pushback on Woodland’s changes are a reaction to the city taking initiative. Any of the county’s planning would have to follow the state Growth Management Act, which is something the city abides by, but the county does not.
“We’re in this catch-22 where we try to plan for growth, and they shut us down, and now we’re in this strange position where they will not necessarily consider expansion of the urban growth boundary until we’re done planning,” Goddard said. “Now they won’t consider our wishes because we never finished the planning process that we were asked to stop.”
A vote to rescind the ordinances is set for the council’s Dec. 5 meeting.
