Neighbors oppose proposed Fish Lake easement, raise shoreline and safety concerns at Spokane County hearing

Neighbors of Fish Lake told the Spokane County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 2 that a proposed private access easement across county parkland would threaten shoreline protections, public safety and wildlife habitat, and they urged the board to deny or impose strict limits on any approval.

The hearing followed a staff presentation by county real‑estate and planning staff explaining that the easement under consideration would cross park property and could allow the adjacent private parcel holder to seek permits and utility access. Jonathan Smith, described by staff as a county real estate and planning expert, and Doug Chase, who appeared as a presenter, explained that any physical improvements to the easement would still require separate permitting and approvals from county planning and other agencies, including potential shoreline permits with the Washington State Department of Ecology.

Multiple residents said the parcel owner, identified in testimony as “Mr. Morrow,” already has driven across parkland, cleared vegetation, installed a dock and moored a houseboat for months without authorization, and that those activities damaged habitat and local property. Kathy Krause said her family’s property has been trespassed upon and described vehicle use, clearing and other activity near the water. “He has been driving vehicles on the Spokane County Park and Recreation Park Service with no access,” Krause said in testimony.

James Ebish told commissioners the proposed access route includes a section with a 25% grade that he warned could be dangerous; he suggested the county require a reclamation or surety bond to protect taxpayers from cleanup or accident costs. “If a vehicle had a problem with the brakes or it was slippery out there...if you don’t make that turn, you go in the lake,” Ebish said.

Eddie Lee referenced county zoning and the state shoreline law, saying the property is zoned rural conservation to protect sensitive areas and noting the Shoreline Management Act applies to development within shoreline jurisdiction; Lee urged restoring damaged areas and said building a long‑term parking or living arrangement at the water’s edge would conflict with county and state protections.

County staff described Fish Lake Park’s unusual acquisition history and said some residential lots bordering the park carry historic easements or license agreements dating back decades; they cautioned that private improvements would require separate approvals and that the county does not guarantee that an easement would enable road upgrading to a road standard.

The board heard nine people during the public testimony portion of the hearing. Commissioners asked staff to identify which permitting authorities would be involved for shoreline work (county planning, Washington Department of Ecology, and possible joint aquatic permits) and confirmed that improvements to the easement would require separate approvals and could be limited by shoreline and permitting rules.

The hearing record does not show a final decision on the easement at this meeting; the board took public testimony and questioned staff about permit pathways and limitations.