Property owner, petitioners and city spar over vacating Schusman Avenue near 39194 SE Park St; council continues hearing to April 28

SNOQUALMIE, Wash. — A contentious public hearing Thursday evening over a petition to vacate public right-of-way adjacent to 39194 Southeast Park Street ended with the City Council continuing the matter to Monday, April 28 at 6 p.m. after more than an hour of testimony and council questions.

The petitioners, represented by in-house counsel Steve Deshazho and outside counsel Dean Williams speaking for NWBF LLC, asked the council to vacate a narrow strip of Schusman Avenue they say was never used for public access and to accept a dedication of other right-of-way related to Park Street. “After 87 years, it is not in the public interest and, in fact, would degrade the public’s trust in government to capitalize on the present situation and compel demolition of this home,” Williams said, asking the city to rule for a vacation or settle the quiet-title dispute rather than risk litigation.

Why it matters: Petitioners say the parcel’s market value has been depressed by the city’s stance and that prior city building permits and surveys show the structure has existed for decades. Petitioners submitted competing appraisals that put the property value in the mid-$500,000s; they said the city’s more recent appraisal (cited by petitioners as a December 2023 appraisal) valued the site at about $10,000–$40,000 before demolition costs, an outcome petitioners contend fails the Fifth Amendment’s just-compensation principle and is inconsistent with historic permit records.

City attorney and petitioner arguments: City counsel advised the council that a vacation may be granted only for a public purpose and that petitioners bear the burden to prove the right-of-way was unused in the statutory period. City attorney Kim Pratt (Madrona Law) told the council petitioners had not shown the requisite evidence that Schusman Avenue was unopened to the public between the late 19th- and early 20th-century statutory window. Pratt also said historical permits and assessor records submitted by petitioners do not clearly place the building in the Schusman right-of-way and that King County survey records show Park Street historically in multiple alignments; she recommended the council deny the vacation portion related to Schusman Avenue and rely on the city’s existing public-purpose plans for the Riverwalk and prescriptive easements for Park Street.

Public comment and owner concerns: A member of the public who identified himself as Johnny Jones (said he lives in Seattle but holds title interest through foreclosure arrangements) asked what the city intends for the property and said he had been told by city staff that the house was subject to demolition; he said petitions and communications led to confusion and claimed the property’s marketability has been affected by staff statements. Petitioners said they had found permit records (including a 1985 change-of-use permit and a 1997 survey that shows a 3.8-foot gap between the structure and boundary in one measured location) and a 1919 King County roads survey they say supports their Park Street dedications.

Council questions and next steps: Council members pressed both sides on historic plats, how nearby homes access their properties, and whether vacating the right-of-way would interfere with public access to the river. Several council members said they were concerned about abrupt changes after decades of what petitioners argued were non-problems. City attorney’s office said questions related to potential litigation could be discussed in executive session under state law, and the council set a continuation date. The public hearing record will remain open for the continuation on April 28 at 6 p.m.; the council also advised that written comments submitted by 3 p.m. the hearing date are accepted by the city clerk.

What the council did: The council closed the night’s portion of the public hearing and continued the item to the April 28 roundtable at 6 p.m. for additional testimony, rebuttals and council deliberation.

Context and outstanding questions: Key facts that remain in dispute in the record are (a) whether the relevant portion of Schusman Avenue meets statutory nonuser vacation criteria for the requisite period; (b) whether Park Street was legally dedicated and whether the city already holds a prescriptive easement for the portion in current public use; and (c) valuation discrepancies among appraisals and whether the city’s position would require demolition or eminent-domain steps. Councilors and both sides signaled interest in more documentary evidence and the council asked staff to provide available permit and survey records for the April 28 continuation.

The continuation is scheduled for April 28 at 6 p.m. in Council Chambers; if the council runs out of time again, staff said the matter could be reconvened later.