American Planning Association flags statutory language gaps, urges edits to design‑review and variance language

The Washington chapter of the American Planning Association (APA Washington) briefed the Senate committee on three statutory inconsistencies that, the chapter argued, create uncertainty and risk for local implementation.

Robin Probsting, chair of APA Washington’s legislative committee, said APA’s members — practicing planners in cities, counties, tribes, regional agencies and consulting firms — are closely involved in implementing land‑use laws and have observed confusion where the Growth Management Act (GMA), the Planning Enabling Act and the subdivision statute intersect.

Joe Tovar (APA) identified three specific issues: first, the insertion of the undefined term "guidelines" into the design‑review provision (codified in the RCW citation cited in testimony) departs from recent bills that require objective, ascertainable standards and introduces ambiguity that can delay permitting; APA suggested deleting the undefined term from statute. Second, the term "variance" was included in an administrative design‑review definition in recent middle‑housing legislation; Tovar argued that the statutory definition of variance has a longstanding hardship test and does not fit the administrative design‑review context, and he recommended replacing "variance" with the more commonly used planning tool "departure" to allow design flexibility without triggering hardship standards. Third, administrative design review was added to the subdivision statute without a clear reference to or replication of the GMA definition; APA recommended adding an explicit cross‑reference or defining the term in the subdivision statute to avoid inconsistency.

Tovar noted many jurisdictions already use design departures and that the suggested changes would be modest clarifications to align statutory language with common planning practice and the GMA’s objective/ascertainable standards goal. APA said it will submit written comments and offered to work with the legislature on drafting corrective language.

Committee members and APA representatives discussed whether the recommended edits would conflict with existing local code; APA told the committee that the proposed clarifications are intended to reduce confusion and are not meant to prohibit jurisdictions from using flexible design tools now in practice. APA offered to provide written examples and bill citations to help the committee reconcile overlapping statutory provisions.