We’ve developed a comment guide on Okanogan County’s updated zone code as a follow up from our Zoning Webinar. You can also watch the full webinar or view the power point presentation

We’ve listed our comment priorities as well as the full good, bad and ugly below that.

How to Comment

Comments can be submitted by emailing Rocky Robbins, Sr. Planner at rrobbins@co.okanogan.wa.us or by mailing comments to her at Okanogan County Office of Planning & Development, 123 5th Ave. N, Suite 130, Okanogan, WA 98840. You can also comment in person at the public hearing on the zone code on February 20 at 6pm.

Priorities to Comment on:

• Request that the County incorporate the recommendations from the Okanogan County Community Wildfire Protection Plan such as adopting the WUI Building Code or similar fire safe measures.
• Request the County to require exempt segregations creating building lots to show that water is legally and physically available, that fire safety is addressed, and that the lots will have adequate access.​
• Support including the new Water Availability requirements in OCC 17.010.140, but ask the County to include the requirements for permit-exempt wells in state law to protect senior water rights holders and instream flows.​
• Request that the County replace the R2 zone with the R5 zone.
• Request that the County include a clearing and grading permit and review process in the zoning regulations to protect the neighbors and the environment.
• Request the County to revise the District Use Chart to prevent grocery stores, office buildings, and other incompatible commercia luses from being developed outside of incorporated towns or Neighborhood Commercial zones throughout the Methow valley watershed (within and outside the current Methow Review District (MRD)). Let’s encourage consistency!​
• Request that the county expand current provisions for Light and Glare (currently included only in certain zones and applications) to include all zones and applications in the Methow Valley watershed (within and outside the current MRD).
• Request that the County limit ridgetop building where the new building will interfere with the viewshed in the Methow Valley watershed (within and outside the current MRD).​
• Request that the County change R5 Zoning in closed basins and upland areas of the lower valley to MRD20 or R20.​
• Request that the County accurately show the boundaries of the Methow Review District, MVMCPA Sub Unit A, and other Sub Units on the zoning map.
• Provide for solar siting in least conflict areas following the principles in the WSU Study Least-Conflict Solar Siting on the Columbia Plateau (June 2023).​

The Good

• The Updated Zone Code Requires Site Analysis for all structures! ​
• Closes a loophole that has been problematic for many years by requiring site analysis and zone permit approval on almost every activity related to building or occupying any structure
• New Water Availability section in OCC 17.010.140 requires an analysis for physically and legally available water before many types of development can be approved.​
• Methow Review District (MRD) provision for “no structures for human habitation in the 100-year floodplain” is retained throughout the MRD. 5 and 20 acre zoning is extended down into the lower Methow below Gold Creek. This area was previously zoned for 1-acre lots​
• The R2, R5, and R20 zones no longer allow 5 multi-family units or mobile homes per acre (we don’t have enough water for that density in unincorporated Okanogan County)​
• The new 160-acre zone reflects awareness of lack of water availability, agriculture, and wildlife issues in the Tunk valley, where water levels have been in decline

The Bad

• The Minimum Requirement (MR) District allows uses that are incompatible with the parts of the county it is applied to and densities too high for the available water and transportation facilities.​
• The new R2 designation (which requires two acre lots replacing one acre lot zoning) is still too dense for unincorporated Okanogan County given the lack of available water, the limited transportation facilities, and the limited public facilities and services.​
• The allowed uses proposed for the Methow Review District (MRD) in the District Use Chart are not compatible with community values and the preferred future of the valley.​
• Aircraft salvage, petroleum service stations, commercial parking lots, office buildings, grocery stores and similar commercial uses​
• Allowed outside existing cities and commercial areas
• The Methow Review District (MRD) is not clearly shown on the zoning map.​
• Exempt Subdivisions do not require a potable water analysis and it’s not clear if they require a site analysis.​
• Exempt subdivisions should comply with these requirements.​
• This is a commonsense consumer protection measure to ensure lots are not sited in dangerous or environmentally sensitive places, have access to water, and can be protected from fire.​
• A clearing and grading review is not​
• The County’s failure to review clearing and grading for compliance with County regulations
• Only limited protections for dark skies.​
• No protections against ridgetop development.​
• The Lower Methow Valley is not protected from incompatible densities and uses.​
• R5 zone should not be applied in French Creek and McFarland Creek, these basins are closed to further water appropriations including wells.​
• Or the dry uplands near Pateros.​
• The lack of available water and high wildfire risk in these areas warrants lower density (20-acres or larger lot sizes).​
• Allowed uses in the R5 and R20 zones (which apply countywide) are not consistent with existing rural uses, community values, and available public services and available water.​
  • Multifamily developments​
  • Petroleum bulk plants​

The Ugly

• Does not include measures to protect communities, homes, residents, and first responders from wildfires.​
• Does not include the County Community Wildfire Protection Plan recommendations such as requiring Firewise principals or similar fire safety measures.​
• Does not require two ways out for new subdivisions. ​
• We appreciate the County does require water adequate for fire protection when approving subdivisions.​
• Support including the new Water Availability section, but it:​
• Does not comply with the state water codes.​
• Failing to comply with the water codes will not protect senior water rights holders and instream flows.