Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County defers decision on Fish Lake shoreline easement after residents object
Summary
Spokane County commissioners on Feb. 4 deferred a decision on a request for a shore access easement at Fish Lake after neighbors raised environmental and access concerns.
Get email alerts on the Shoreline Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Spokane County commissioners on Feb. 4 deferred a decision on a request for a shore access easement at Fish Lake after a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors said recent work on a lakeside parcel has damaged habitat and created precedent for more shoreline development.
The request, filed by property owner and applicant Michael Morrow, would formalize an access easement across county park land to a small waterfront parcel he owns. The board voted unanimously to close the public hearing and defer action to the county’s Feb. 4 consent agenda to allow staff and commissioners time to gather additional information and review written testimony the county received.
Why it matters: Residents said the parcel is part of a largely undeveloped, non‑motorized lake used for paddle boarding, fishing and wildlife viewing and that granting an easement could permit further shoreline change. The applicant said the proposed access is intended to provide ADA‑accessible boating for people with disabilities and that he has worked with permitting agencies over three years.
Neighbors said recent work at the site has altered shoreline vegetation, removed trees and introduced metal grating and a fixed (footed) dock that they say disturbs lakebed habitat. Leslie King, a Fish Lake homeowner at 14705 South Cheeseboken Road, told the board the parcel is "an anomaly left over from the county purchasing and preserving all the lakeshore" and said the lot’s size fluctuates with high‑water marks. King said the owner installed "a 25 foot aluminum ramp and railed walkway" and that "we are unaware of any approved permit for these structures." She asked commissioners to "leave this parcel as boat in access" and to inspect the site to ensure the owner stops altering county property.
Other residents described wildlife impacts. Philip Apple said that since construction began "you don't hear bullfrogs anymore" and that springs have at times left the applicant’s parcel under water. Jim Doty said he was disturbed to see shoreline areas stripped to bare dirt and noted the dock appeared to be a "footed dock, not a floating dock," adding that "no one on that lake has a footed dock." Bradley Warren, who is not a property owner but uses the lake, said seeing the houseboat "sets precedent" by suggesting others could place permanent houseboats on the lake.
Harry Green, who described experience with waterfront projects in Montana and Idaho, said he had "never seen such disrespect for neighbors" and referenced the Shoreline Management Act and setback rules in urging denial of the easement. Several speakers raised questions about waste disposal; neighbors said they were "unaware of any approved permit" for graywater or septic and questioned whether the pontoon or houseboat was equipped to contain waste. The applicant said his houseboat is "a pontoon boat" with "a self contained, toilet." Michael Morrow also said he had worked with agencies, listing the Department of Ecology and permitting and code enforcement, and that "if there was something illegal, the Department of Fish and Wildlife would have cited me. If there was something illegal, then code enforcement would have cited me."
Commissioner Waldorf asked staff to clarify elements of the site photographs submitted with staff materials, specifically asking, "can you explain what's going on in photo 12?" County staff indicated they had photos taken by a parks staffer and noted some site features (including metal grates) were not present on earlier site visits.
After receiving more than 17 written submissions and nearly a dozen public speakers, a commissioner moved to close the public hearing and defer action to the Feb. 4 consent agenda to allow time for further questions and review. The motion passed unanimously.
Next steps: The board will reconvene the matter on Feb. 4 at its 2:00 p.m. consent agenda, at which point commissioners said they expect to consider additional staff information and the submitted written testimony before making a final decision.

