<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday,  June 13 , 2024

Linkedin Pinterest
News / Politics / Clark County Politics

Camas OKs annexing land in North Shore area

40 acres near Lacamas Lake Elementary in urban growth boundary since 2008; 7 property owners asked city to take in 40-acre block

By Kelly Moyer, Post-Record staff writer
Published: December 23, 2023, 6:10am

CAMAS — The Camas City Council on Monday voted 5-2 to approve a 40-acre annexation request that caused divisions among neighbors in the North Shore area.

Council members Tim Hein and Leslie Lewallen voted against the annexation of 40 acres off Northeast 232nd Avenue and Northeast Weakly Road, near Lacamas Lake Elementary School.

The 40-acre block of land, valued at $4.33 million, includes eight parcels as well as a 9-acre Bonneville Power Administration power line right of way. It has been in the city of Camas’ urban growth boundary since 2008, according to Camas Planning Manager Robert Maul.

The seven property owners requesting the annexation represented 90 percent of the property’s total valuation, well above the 60 percent required by state law, Maul said.

Nearly two dozen residents weighed in on the annexation during the council’s Dec. 4 public hearing. Several Clark County property owners near the proposed annexation said they worried it — and future residential or mixed-use developments — would change the peaceful, rural character of the area.

“I’m asking you to vote ‘no,’ ” said Katie Real, a Weakly Road resident. “My husband and I invested everything we had into (our) acreage and wanted to get away from city crowds and live in a rural environment surrounded by family farms just like ours. This annexation will take that away from my family.”

Maul said the property in question has been in Camas’ urban growth boundary for 15 years.

“I would refute that this has been a hasty process,” Maul said. “It has met all the statutory requirements and has been well thought out and planned.”

Maul added that any development on the property would need to meet the city’s requirements for critical areas, wetlands, shorelines and stormwater and would not block access to anyone’s property.