Suit Urges Commissioners To Make Development Decision

Spokane County Commissioners are being sued by developer Harley Douglass and landowner Robert Scholz, who say the county’s foot-dragging has prevented them from developing Hunter’s Pointe subdivision.

Douglass and Scholz claim the commissioners have put off issuing a decision “to delay development on the Hunter’s Pointe property, and also allow persons opposed to the development to prepare an appeal.”

On Tuesday, the commissioners again delayed the decision. Commissioner John Roskelley said he needed more time to review the request.

Douglass wants to build 40 houses on 21 acres atop a ridge sandwiched between Little Deep Creek and Deadman Creek.

The land was originally zoned for one house per five acres. Douglass filed to have the property rezoned more than a year ago.

The proposal was opposed by Friends of the Little Spokane River Valley. They are concerned pollution from the subdivision’s septic tanks will ruin drinking water, nearby creeks and the Little Spokane River.

Following a complicated parade of hearings and appeals, the commissioners tentatively approved Douglass’ application last Dec. 17 but decided to delay making a final decision until a later meeting.

On Tuesday, county attorneys presented the written decision for commissioners to sign.

Commissioner Phil Harris, who approved the project with then-Commissioner Steve Hasson, wanted to sign the document.

But with Hasson out of office, Harris couldn’t get a second for his motion. Hasson’s replacement, Kate McCaslin, couldn’t sign a decision she didn’t help make.

Roskelley refused to sign the decision, saying he wanted more time to review opponents’ request that the county hold another hearing.

“This has been going on since 1995 and another week is not going to hurt this project that I know of,” Roskelley said.

County attorney Jim Emacio said that by signing the decision, Roskelley wasn’t indicating support, only verification that the project had been approved. The county has no legal authority to hold further hearings, Emacio said.

A judge could force commissioners to sign the decision, Emacio said.

“Commissioner Roskelley, I realize this is a hard decision for you …” started Emacio, who was cut short by a red-faced Roskelley.

“Mr. Emacio, it isn’t a hard decision for me,” Roskelley said. “I’m not going to sign this, so let’s move on to the next item” on the commissioners’ agenda.

Because the decision hasn’t been signed, the clock on the appeal period hasn’t started and Douglass can’t build.

The suit asks the court to require the commissioners to issue the decision on the Hunter’s Pointe application and also award damages.

Douglass said he was “speechless” over Roskelley’s delay. He said he fears the decision will drag on for much longer than a week.

“One week turns to two weeks and then it’s three weeks and then it’s a month,” he said. “Pretty soon, it’s another year.”

In other court news, Gleneden Homeowners’ Association has filed a lawsuit in Spokane County Superior Court asking for a reversal of a rezoning decision.

The suit names Spokane County, property owner Stacey M. Boies and developers Lanzce, Harley and Harlan Douglass.

Harley Douglass was granted a rezoning request that allows him to build 55 homes on 11 acres east of Wandermere Drive in north Spokane.

The land was originally zoned for 3.5 houses per acre; the rezoning allows up to 7 houses per acre.

Art Meikel, president of the homeowners’ association, said the project violates the county’s comprehensive plan.

“We are just asking that they follow the rules,” Meikel said.

The suit cites several flaws in approving the rezoning:

The request was made by developer, not by the property owner, a county code violation.

It claims the planned unit development application is not complete and doesn’t provide the minimum amount of open space required by law and shows roads that don’t exist.

The hearing examiner required a 6-foot-high fence as a buffering technique for separating incompatible uses, a clue that the development is not compatible with existing homes.

“The plan creates an island of high-density, lower income housing in a sea of low-density, high-income residences, exactly the opposite of and entirely defeating the purposes and criteria for a zone amendment,” the suit says.

Homeowners are also concerned that rezoning doesn’t require a planned unit development, giving the developer the right to someday submit a plat for 77 homes on the property.

“The decision is all wrong,” concludes the suit.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Kathy Mulady and Dan Hansen Staff writers