Published January 2004

Arlington approves
annexation of 266 acres

SCBJ Staff

Snohomish County and now the city of Arlington, after a 5-2 vote Dec. 15, have thrown their support behind Dwayne Lane putting in a car dealership near the I-5 exit.

So, now it’s up to the courts and the Boundary Review Board if opponents are to have any hope.

In their first public meeting after taking over the issue from the Snohomish County Council, the Arlington City Council approved an annexation of 266 acres that in the past has been used for agriculture and is in a floodplain. Council members Ryan Larsen and Graham Smith voted against it, saying they needed more time to study the issue.

Once the boundary board reviews the proposal, it will be kicked back to the City Council for a final decision.

Included in the proposal is a lowland area that for years has caused a heated battle among Snohomish County’s elected officials, farmers, environmentalists, developers, Lane and even Gov. Gary Locke.

Representatives from most of those constituencies converged on the council meeting for a public hearing about the annexation.

Farmers and environmentalists say the proposal would allow urban, commercial development in the 100-year floodplain, land they say is better suited for agriculture.

Lane and other proponents, including majorities on the city and county councils, say his car dealership can be built in a way that would mitigate flood hazards and boost city sales tax revenues.

Dan Flynn, who is working in public relations for Lane, said the city’s cost-benefit analysis showing potential revenues of $638,000 a year is probably low. He said the figure should be about $1.4 million a year.

Lane triggered the public hearing Dec. 4 by turning in petitions from 50 percent of landowners and 50 percent of residents in support of the annexation.

Lane moved the proposal through the County Council in the fall. The council approved a rezone that set the stage for Arlington to annex the area. County Executive Bob Drewel vetoed it, but the council overrode his veto. The proposal’s critics have appealed to a state growth management hearings board.

Back to the top/January 2004 Main Menu