Long-term landscaping

COEUR d'ALENE - Jim and Nancy Barney didn't think landscaping their Hayden Lake backyard would take this long.

Yet after two years of battling the Kootenai County Building Department over permit minutiae, and spending nearly $30,000 working to meet new requirements, Jim said they are still ensnared in bureaucracy and conditions that when met are unacknowledged.

"In retrospect, I probably should have (quit)," Jim said. "I kept thinking we were going to resolve it. There was a carrot leading us all along."

The retired couple obtained a site disturbance permit in September 2007 to landscape their lakeside property, Jim said, which included rebuilding walkways and retaining walls to stabilize the property.

"The engineer (we hired) said 'You've got to stabilize this land or your deck will eventually give way,'" Jim said.

Much of the construction, as well as some planting, was planned within the 25-foot no-disturbance zone along the lakeshore, which Jim said the county approved.

Yet when the work was nearly completed in June 2008, after roughly $80,000 had been spent on the endeavor, a county inspector red tagged the project on account of work done inside the no-disturbance zone.

Building Department management overruled the previously issued permit.

"How could you possibly say you didn't know what was going on?" said Jim, 64, adding that the department had repeatedly scrutinized his plans for construction inside the buffer zone before granting a permit.

He added that while the contractors were working on the project, county inspectors came out three times to look at the project, each time allowing the work to proceed.

"One guy from the county came down and talked to the contractor when he was down there working. You could see what he (the contractor) was doing and he (the inspector) never said a word," Jim said. "So obviously we kept going and kept spending money."

Scott Clark, director of the Building and Planning Department, said county staff doesn't discuss the details of permits under review.

"We're working on trying to come to an amenable solution," Clark said.

It was only a fourth inspector, whom the Barneys had called out to inspect a gas line, who declared a violation.

The county offered a compromise, Jim said, that if the couple tore out all the work done in the 25-foot zone, the county would pay to remediate the property.

"I said, 'I've spent a lot of money on this. Would you reimburse me?' And they said 'no,'" Jim said. "That's when it started."

Over the next two years, the couple went through two attorneys and a consulting firm trying to negotiate a new agreement with the county. In that time they spent more than $20,000 in attorney's fees, engineering reports and consulting fees, Jim said.

"It always seemed we were on the verge of an agreement," he said.

They also spent $9,000 in construction costs changing the project according to the county's directions, Jim said, including installing swales and planting vegetation, which the Barneys were told to photograph.

"My indication from the county was if we did this, we'd be fine," Jim said. "We did it, and nothing happened. We took photos and got them down to the Building and Planning Department, and I never heard a word. I still haven't heard."

Sandy Young, owner of E2 Planning and Design consulting firm in Post Falls, said she worked with the Barneys for more than a year trying to alter the project to the county's specifications so the violation would be lifted.

Eventually, she recommended the Barneys hire an attorney.

"My efforts were futile, despite the fact that the Barneys agreed to additional site improvements, improvements that not only benefited their property, but directly benefited the water quality of Hayden Lake," Young wrote in an e-mail. "The county still refused to remove the violation notice. It became apparent that the Barneys would have to seek legal counsel in order to get the county to remove the violation on the property."

The county's latest stipulation, Jim said, is that the couple plant more trees and other vegetation on the property for remediation, which he estimated will cost them another $1,000.

If this isn't successful, Jim said, the couple plans to go through a county hearing on Thursday and afterward sue the county.

"I don't have any choice," he said of the additional planting. "It's either that, or spend another $30,000 in attorney's fees."

Clark said that it is not uncommon for debates over permits to stretch several months or years before being resolved.

"There are too many (reasons) to really give scenarios. We have many code violations that are active," Clark said. "We're trying to work cooperatively with the landowners, as we always do, to find a solution."