Unhappy with council's decision on annexation
March 7, 2011 · 4:06 PM
I would like to thank councilmen Sean Krebs and Glen Jensen for their vote on the recent Abbott-Blick annexation of zoning this special area of Enumclaw as R-1 (larger lot size, single-family dwellings).
Until recently, we, one of the longest property owners of the 23 residents who live in the middle of this annexed property, were outside the city limits. We did not sign the original petition for annexation, we attended an informational city planning meeting, we wrote a letter to the city planners stating our position against an R-2 zoning and we attended a city staff meeting and spoke for an R-1 zoning. Somehow, we were under the impression that the R-1 zoning was preferred by all (except the annexation petitioners).
The surprise came through the Courier-Herald article, “City grows again when council OKs annexation.” No wonder people say they don’t like surprises. We live right next door to the carpet baggers who, about four years ago, purchased the home with two acres. This young man lived there for about six months, made some remodeling updates to the house and then rented the place. We helped him with the loan of tools, raking up the field grass (the homeowner suffers from hay fever) and shared a few beers with him.
Now, with the R-2 zoning, we are likely to see six to eight lots (if they can squeeze them in just so). I guess it’s true, “no good deed goes unpunished.” What frosts us is that we were under the impression that the Enumclaw planners saw this as a transition area from smaller lots to farmland, but it now becomes just another potential development. The owners of this two acre parcel aren’t even Enumclaw residents. So, we’ll go to Plan B, fast-growing hedge. And then Plan C, retirement to a place away from the clutches of a City Council that doesn’t have the foresight to see the cost of these decisions.
According to the Courier-Herald article, Mr. Krebs stated at the Feb. 14 council meeting that he supported an R-1 annexation because an R-2 designation would result in “unattractive and undesirable” development; unfortunately, we couldn’t agree more.
Jodi and Phil Grager