A statewide advocacy group filed an appeal against the city of Ridgefield’s annexation of 107.28 acres of property north of the city. The land was recently added to Ridgefield as part of Clark County’s 2016 growth plan update.
Seattle-based Futurewise filed the appeal on Sept. 16. In it, the environmental group alleges that the annexation does not comply with the state law and threatens “agricultural land and natural resources to the detriment and prejudice of Futurewise and the people of the state of Washington.”
In July, Futurewise filed an appeal against the county’s growth plan update, as well.
“Their case is with the county,” Ridgefield City Manager Steve Stuart said Friday. “We’re just in the middle.”
In the Ridgefield appeal, Futurewise notes that the annexation violates state law because the “urban growth area expansion, the Clark County Comprehensive Plan designation and the Clark County zoning was under appeal” when Ridgefield annexed the land.
The nonprofit’s appeal also alleges that the annexation fails to comply with the state’s Growth Management Act, including the goal of reducing sprawl, because the city failed to consider whether the land being annexed should have been designated as agricultural lands of long-term significance.
Confident in city’s actions
Stuart said the city followed the law when annexing the land.
“From our perspective, we went above and beyond the annexation requirement,” he said.
The 18-parcel property was annexed into the city as low-density residential, calling for six units per acre on the property. Stuart said the development might go as low as four units per acre, which is the smallest amount allowed per state law.
Other alleged errors in the annexation zoning that Futurewise brings up in the appeal include the city failing to follow statutory requirements for a direct petition annexation.
Stuart said city officials will meet with their attorney to discuss the next steps, but he’s confident the city did things properly. No development will happen on the annexed property until the infrastructure is in place to handle the development, Stuart said. It’s up to the developer to provide that infrastructure, which will include a 15-acre park and trail system.
“We wanted to make sure this area created an added benefit to our city and didn’t drain resources,” Stuart said.
The other defendents along with the city are Milt Brown, the property’s owner, RDGB Royal Farms, RDGK Rest View Estates, RDGM Rawhide Estates, EDGF River View Estates and RDGS Real View.
