Developers Argue Against Regulations For Erosion Control

Regulations to stop erosion at construction sites aren’t needed and will make houses more expensive, developers and builders told Spokane County commissioners during a hearing Tuesday.

“Give us a break. Builders are going out of business,” said Suzanne Knapp of the Spokane Home Builders Association.

Commissioners said they’ll decide Feb. 3 whether to adopt the proposed “erosion and sediment control” ordinance, which would set new standards for all construction projects.

But they didn’t postpone another land-use policy decision, voting 2-1 not to allow two homes on large suburban lots. The tandem homes would have been allowed only temporarily and only if the occupants in one home were caring for an ill or disabled adult in the other.

Both issues sparked disagreements among commissioners.

Commissioner Phil Harris at one point chastised planners for explaining the erosion ordinance rather than leaving that task up to members of the citizens committee that wrote it. Staff seem to often present their own views, he said.

“I totally disagree with that,” said Commissioner John Roskelley.

“Of course he disagrees, because he believes government has the answer for everything,” Harris told the audience.

The erosion ordinance would force builders to write plans for controlling runoff for most projects that require permits. Projects of any size would violate the ordinance if they sent more than 2 gallons of dirt a day onto public roads or any dirt onto neighboring private land.

The regulations are needed because rapid growth is spreading development onto highly erodible land, said county utilities Director Bruce Rawls.

Among the developers who argued against the ordinance was Bill Evans, who later told commissioners he built houses in five counties this year. Evans said Spokane County had more regulations and was far more costly than the other four counties.

The housing proposal would have allowed large-lot owners in suburban neighborhoods the same leeway as those in more rural areas.

Homeowners with more than a half-acre of land could have applied for permission to put a mobile home next to an existing house. The proposal required the homeowner to prove each year that he or she was caring for another adult living in one of the two homes.

The planning commission recommended against the proposal, saying mobile homes wouldn’t fit the character of most neighborhoods. Commissioners Roskelley and Harris agreed.

Harris noted that homeowners can add rooms to their homes for less than the cost of moving in a mobile home, and Roskelley said he feared the value of neighboring homes would drop.

Roskelley said the “temporary” housing could become long term if someone begins caring for a young adult with a head injury or other lifelong disability.

Commissioner Kate McCaslin argued that the proposed law contained plenty of safeguards to assure that the mobile home is not an eyesore and is placed on the property only temporarily. Neighbors would be notified in advance, and would be given time to protest, she said.

McCaslin noted that the county already allows mobile homes permanently in all neighborhoods - just not on the same lot with an existing house.

, DataTimes