Developer Says Rules Hold Him Hostage Raymond Hanson Wants A Break From Shoreline Regulations

A heavyweight businessman is brawling with Spokane County over environmental regulations.

Raymond Hanson, an industrialist turned land developer, portrays the lawsuit he filed last year as self-defense. Hanson contends the county has held him hostage for a year, refusing to let him start a commercial development overlooking the Spokane River.

The development comes with a strong recommendation from the county’s shoreline administrator, who frequently is criticized by environmentalists and neighborhood activists for being too accommodating of developers.

Hanson’s proposal is opposed by every state agency that has commented in writing.

In addition to the county, Hanson lists Commissioner John Roskelley as a defendant in his lawsuit. Hanson contends Roskelley defamed his character and has fought behind the scenes to squelch Hanson’s request for an exception from shoreline regulations.

County documents leave little doubt that Hanson is correct on his second charge. But Hanson may have a tough time portraying himself as a victim, given the magnitude of his empire and the fact that he offers the county a scrap of commercially worthless land in exchange for the concessions he seeks.

No one involved would discuss the lawsuit.

According to county documents, Market Pointe II would contain a restaurant and at least six stores, for a total of 114,000 square feet. It would include parking for 475 cars. The 13-acre development would sit between the Centennial Trail and Indiana Avenue, on the west side of Sullivan Road.

Across Indiana is the Spokane Valley Mall, which Hanson developed, and his Market Pointe I commercial strip, which includes Circuit City, Staples and other stores. Across Sullivan is vacant land he owns and hopes to develop for retail.

The fact that ground for Market Pointe II remains unbroken is a symptom of overregulation at every level of government, said Hanson, who is backing Steve Forbes for president.

“Government’s gone goofy,” he said.

Stream protection required

As part of the planning required under the state’s Growth Management Act, the county in 1996 adopted new rules for protecting streams, wetlands and other “critical areas.”

The ordinance initially prohibited new construction within 200 feet of the Spokane River and some other streams. The required buffer later was widened because the state said the county had to follow “the best available science.” Scientists had testified 250 feet was needed to protect wildlife.

There are exceptions. The county can allow landowners to build 200 feet from the river if the owner agrees to protect a wider buffer elsewhere. Hanson applied for such an exemption and was given one by the county’s shoreline administrator, John Nunnery.

The blueprint for Market Pointe II shows some stores less than 200 feet from the river. That’s the crux of Hanson’s fight with regulators.

Along shorelines designated “pastoral” under the county’s 1975 shoreline master plan, the only intrusion allowed into the buffer is the one Hanson already was granted. Where the shoreline is designated “urban,” the county can grant other exemptions under certain conditions.

Hanson’s land was designated “pastoral” back when it was owned by a farmer. He contends the Valley has changed so much that the designation no longer fits.

Even if the county changes the designation, Hanson still must convince the state Department of Ecology. Then, he must apply for a zone change and jump through other regulatory hoops before starting construction.

A `generous’ offer

To strengthen his case, Hanson hired biologists to evaluate his land.

Within the shoreline buffer, they noted a strip 40 to 60 feet wide that’s thick with trees and native brush. That land, on a steep bank, ends at the Centennial Trail. Between the trail and the river is a narrow band of state land, which also provides good habitat.

Atop the river bank, on the plateau where Hanson proposes his development, “earth-moving and farming have disturbed the soils and removed native vegetation, allowing invasive, noxious weeds to infest the site,” the consultants wrote. As a result, the value of the land to wildlife is “very low.”

Hanson proposes planting about $6,300 worth of Ponderosa pine, chokecherry, serviceberry and other native plants on the edge of the plateau to widen the strip of land that’s useful to wildlife.

He would then give the entire 1,000-foot-long strip to the county as a concession for being allowed to intrude on the shoreline buffer. Market Pointe II would butt against the newly enhanced wildlife habitat.

The land Hanson would donate includes an existing paved path leading to the Centennial Trail.

By donating the two acres, Hanson would avoid paying future taxes on it. He would lose nothing, since the land is in a shoreline buffer and could not be developed. The county would have the responsibility for maintaining it.

The consulting firm Biology, Soil & Water Inc., which wrote Hanson’s mitigation plan, calls the offer “generous.” Whether it actually is generous is a moot point, said Hanson.

If the government won’t let him use the land, the government might as well own it, Hanson said. But if the government turns down his requested exception from shoreline regulations, he’ll close the access trail.

Hanson contends it took far longer than necessary for his request to make its way to the county planning commission. In October, with one member absent and one member abstaining, a majority of the planning commission rejected the request, recommending instead that the county review shoreline designations throughout the Valley.

Now, Hanson’s request goes to county commissioners for a decision. But before they hear the matter, a judge must decide whether it’s proper for Roskelley to rule on a development over which he’s being sued.

Waiting for that ruling has held up the issue still further. Commissioners were going to hear Hanson’s request on Nov. 2. The hearing was postponed until Dec. 14, then Jan. 18. Most likely, it will be delayed again, said Bob Boyle, vice president of Hanson Industries Inc.

Among other damages, Hanson’s suit seeks $5 to $100 for each day the county delays a decision after Oct. 11.

Bucking the odds

As the county shorelines administrator, it’s Nunnery’s job to see that landowners comply with shoreline regulations. Not that he always likes it.

In 1998, Nunnery complained that the critical areas ordinance treats developed shoreline as if it were pristine. He contends there’s no scientific evidence to justify 250-foot buffers. Those views have put him at odds with environmentalists.

“John Nunnery has a philosophy that property should be built on no matter what restrictions are on it,” said Bonnie Mager of the Washington Environmental Council. “He promotes that to the detriment of clean water, to the detriment of wildlife.”

Not so, said Nunnery.

“It’s not my job to take sides based on who wants what,” he said. “My job is to evaluate (a proposal) against the criteria of the law.”

For Hanson’s request, Nunnery issued a “declaration of non-significance,” meaning an environmental impact statement was not justified.

Hanson’s proposal marks “a significant environmental improvement” for both wildlife and trail users, since he would improve habitat on the donated land. Nunnery noted that Hanson even agreed to use muted colors and paint the silhouettes of trees on the trail side of his stores.

State officials read Nunnery’s recommendation with incredulity.

“Absurd” was the word used by the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Spokane County Conservation District. “True ecological restoration of such a site would never include a retail store of any kind,” the conservation district noted.

Within the courthouse itself, the utilities department and long-range planning department both filed mild objections.

Nunnery noted it could take two years or longer to review the entire shoreline, as state agencies urged and the planning commission recommended. Making Hanson wait would “deny the applicant due process,” he wrote.

Roskelley has steadfastly opposed Hanson’s request, noting that the county’s goal is to protect shorelines.

“Yet here we are pressing forward to continue piecemeal development,” he wrote in a June 14 memo to Building and Planning Director Jim Manson.

Manson, who was Nunnery’s boss until a recent reorganization, responded that Roskelley’s memo was inappropriate.

County commissioners could have squelched Hanson’s proposal before it ever went to the planning commission, Manson noted. Instead, Commissioners Phil Harris and Kate McCaslin in March asked Nunnery to press ahead with the matter.

“We are administrators of the various ordinances and regulations, not the decisionmakers,” Manson wrote.

Map: Proposed Market Pointe II development