Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Covenants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks commissioners to explain how neighborhood covenants were overridden to allow second dwelling
Summary
A Spokane resident repeatedly raised concerns at the Aug. 12 meeting about county building and planning approving a second dwelling on a lot he says conflicts with neighborhood covenants and plats; he said staff have not answered his inquiries.
A Spokane resident on Aug. 12 asked the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners to explain why county building and planning approved a second dwelling on a small lot that, he said, conflicts with neighborhood covenants and the recorded plat.
Larry Ike told the commissioners this was the third time he had brought the question to the board and said he had been trying to get an explanation from the county’s building and planning section for months without receiving a clear response. “How does Spokane County override our neighborhood's covenants and plat legal plat to allow a second dwelling to be built on 1 small lot?” Ike asked during the open public forum.
Ike said he believes the approval is “contrary to everything that our neighborhood is and what we bought and purchased into,” and asked county officials to point him to the specific code he should be reading to understand the decision. He said county staff have “refused to answer” and suggested either an administrative error occurred or, without naming anyone, that other improper conduct might explain the lack of clarity.
The remarks were offered during the open public forum; no county decision or response was recorded on the transcript at the Aug. 12 meeting. Commissioners did not provide a substantive on-the-record reply during the public comment segment. Ike urged the county attorney or staff to identify the code section that permits the action or to otherwise explain the decision.
Discussion versus formal action: Ike’s remarks were public comment and did not prompt a motion or referral on the record at the meeting. The transcript shows his request for a specific code citation remains unanswered in that session.
Clarifying details: Ike described repeated attempts to get information from the building and planning section over multiple months and that this was his third appearance before the commissioners on the issue; he asked staff or the county attorney to identify which county code allows the second dwelling on the lot.
