Hearing examiner closes public comment on plat alteration for Lot 13 in Lorraine J Ranch; staff recommends approval, neighbors voice concerns

The City of Richland hearing examiner heard public testimony and closed the record Aug. 11 on a plat alteration request to remove an open-space designation from Lot 13, Block 1 of the Lorraine J Ranch Number 1 Final Plat (address listed as 3094 Bruce Lee Lane). Planning staff told the examiner the application meets the requirements of the statutory plat-alteration standard cited in the staff report, RCW 58.17 0.215, and recommended approval. The hearing examiner said he would take the record under advisement and issue a written ruling later.

Ryan Nelson of city planning presented the staff review and recommendation; staff noted the zoning is R110 (single-family residential) and that the city’s comp plan designates the parcel as developed open space. David Baalman, a surveyor representing the landowner Scott Tyler LLC and Rogers Surveying, described the parcel’s history: the plat was approved in 1976 while in unincorporated Benton County, the homeowners association later became defunct, and the parcel has been conveyed several times, including a conveyance to the current owners in 2021. Baalman said the lot has been in private hands for more than 20 years and that strips of land along the rear edges of lots in the block were originally part of Lot 13; many of those strips have seen varied maintenance and, in some cases, adverse possession by adjoining owners.

Neighbors who live immediately west and adjacent to Lot 13 spoke against removing the open-space designation without more information about future uses. Richard Westberg, who said he lives at 145 Travis Lane immediately west of the site, said he had expected that area would remain an open area and expressed worry about the impact on views. Todd Ofsthun (spelled in the record phonetically) and James Hague told the examiner they were concerned about dust and construction impacts, pointing to prior uses when the parcel had been used as a storage or laydown yard for pools, conex boxes and equipment. Hague noted his wife has severe asthma and said construction dust from a prior nearby project created health problems for his household. David Hanna, another adjacent resident, said some narrow strips behind lots originally intended as horse-riding trails had become overgrown and were a fire hazard; he asked that those strips be surveyed and transferred to adjoining owners or otherwise addressed before any development occurs.

Baalman told the examiner the owners’ intent for the property had not been finalized; he said the owners had considered options ranging from a single-family residence to other uses compatible with city zoning but that no specific development proposal was before the hearing examiner. He also explained the administrative process neighbors would need to pursue to acquire narrow back-strip areas: a boundary line adjustment processed through the planning department, a consolidation deed and recorded documents for each parcel transfer, and associated survey and recording fees. Baalman estimated that recording fees alone for multiple deeds could be on the order of $10,000 (amount provided in hearing testimony) and emphasized that a court would need to resolve any claim of adverse possession.

City planning manager Mike Stevens told the examiner he had been involved in code-enforcement contact in 2021 concerning storage of pools and unpermitted grading on the parcel but said he was not aware of code complaints specific to the perimeter strip area. Nelson and Stevens confirmed the staff recommendation that the plat alteration application met the cited state statutory standard and city code requirements; the hearing examiner closed public comment and will issue a written decision after taking the record under advisement.

If the examiner approves the plat alteration, Baalman and staff indicated further administrative steps would be needed for boundary-line adjustments or consolidations to resolve narrow back-strip ownership and to address neighbor concerns about maintenance and fire risk. Neighbors asked the city and the applicant to consider those adjustments and maintenance steps as part of any subsequent development process.