Ephrata approves annexation
Cameron Probert/Columbia Basin Herald<br> Calvin Kooy speaks to the Ephrata City Council about the request for annexation.
EPHRATA — The Ephrata City Council decided to proceed with an annexation process after hearing objections from homeowners.
Larry Lenssen, the property’s owner, requested the annexation of the property south of the city, after the county turned down an exception request to build a house, said City Administrator Wes Crago.
An adjacent property was annexed into the city in 1994. The county planners consider the 0.73 acre piece of land next to it part of the larger piece, but was left off the annexation request, Crago said. Part of the smaller property is sitting inside the area the city can expand into. This area is referred to as the urban growth area.
The county’s development code states when a parcel is partially inside the urban growth area, the line will be redrawn to include the entire parcel, he said.
“Mr. Lenssen was not able to build until this portion was annexed by the city into the city limits. He made a request to the county. The county applied its statute and redrew the urban growth boundary to go around this portion,” Crago said. “We have a letter from the county that states this is the new urban growth boundary for the City of Ephrata.”
The challenge brought by Greenfield Estates questions whether the county followed the law when it redrew the boundary, he said. City officials gave the issue to legal staff to investigate.
“Essentially if the county did apply their ordinance correctly, then there is nothing stopping you from passing a resolution tonight that would begin the process of annexation,” he said. “If however, the county did make an error in the application of their own laws then we would recommend, as a staff, that the council hold tonight and table this until the county has cleared up their ordinances.”
City Attorney Katherine Kenison said the county acted within the laws when it redrew the line to include the land.
“In terms of proceeding with the annexation process that’s a legislative action for this council and it appears the county has correctly applied their own ordinance,” she said. “From a legal standpoint, there’s nothing that would prohibit the city from proceeding with the typical and normal annexation.”
Calvin Kooy, president of the Greenfield Estates homeowners association, questioned whether the county made a mistake by including a portion of land in the urban growth area, adding the city has not done the work needed to annex the land.
“We wondered how they would be able to (annex the property), since it was not included in the records that we could see that it was part of the urban growth area,” he said.
He pointed out the city has not asked for the land to be included in the urban growth area, adding there is no requirement for the county to add the land if the city doesn’t ask.
“What I’m curious to know is, were the procedures properly followed to get this put into the urban growth area?” Kooy said. “We feel that if the city cannot show that they followed procedures in including this in the urban growth development that this property cannot be annexed.”
The association does not have a problem with Lenssen building a house on the land, he said.
When Mayor Chris Jacobson asked if the city followed the procedure for the request, Crago answered the county followed its procedures and the city wasn’t part of the decision.
Councilmember Ben Davis said Lenssen deciding to not request annexation of the property in 1994, doesn’t imply anything to him.
“It appears to me that (the county) drew these lines and they had to draw it somewhere. Doesn’t mean that it attempted to be perfect,” he said. “Apparently that’s demonstrated, when the county came in with their own ordinance.”
Councilmember Heidi Schultheis said it’s the county’s responsibility for drawing the urban growth boundary, adding the city needs to act on the county’s decision.
“It’s not up to us to decide, so when they go to the county and they say, ‘This parcel has been split in half,’ and the county has adopted an ordinance that says, ‘If something is split in half then it needs to … go into urban growth area,’” she said.
The decision will go the county’s boundary review board for a decision. If the members approve, the request will be sent back to the city council for a final vote.
Become a Subscriber!
You have read all of your free articles this month. Select a plan below to start your subscription today.
Already a subscriber? Login
