What began with a Sammamish family’s desire to build on their Beaver Lake property nearly a decade ago led to a lawsuit against the city and eventual settlement of $90,000.

The city of Sammamish immediately paid $50,000 of settlement fees to longtime residents David and Megan Gee last week after the couple filed suit in December 2013 regarding city staffs’ “incomplete, inadequate and perfunctory” response to a 2012 public records request, court documents say. The city will pay the remaining amount directly into escrow.

Although the Gees filed the lawsuit nearly two years ago, Megan Gee said the development issue began in 2008 when the city told them they could not build on the small wetland located in the middle of their property.

“It was seven years of heck,” Megan Gee said. “It’s not over until they give us that shoreline variance.”

Per the settlement agreement, the city will allow the Gees to submit a variance which would allow them to develop in the buffer around the wetland. This variance is still dependent on the hearing examiner and the Washington State Department of Ecology review. If the plans are not approved, the case will go to trial.

In the early 2000s, the Gees bought two parcels on Beaver Lake. One already had a structure on it and the other, the low-grade wetland.

Megan Gee hoped to build a single-family home overlooking the lake for her young children.

“That’s all I want. I just want to be able to see the lake,” she said. “(Now) that dream is over.”

In 2008, when the Gees began talks with the city’s community development department, staff told the couple the wetland posed a significant barrier to their dream home overlooking the lake, court documents say.

The 3,800-square-foot wetland, located in the middle of the undeveloped parcel, in addition to the 50 foot buffer zone and minimum distance requirements from the lake, meant the Gees only option to build was a small area near the road.

Not only was building so close to the road a safety hazard for their son with special needs, but the 12,000-square-foot space did not support a sewage system, according to the critical areas study Seattle consultant ENVIRON International Corporation produced in 2009 at the Gees’ request.

The Gees had tried to sell the property in 2009.

“Nobody would buy it,” Megan Gee said. “And the value plummeted.”

In 2012, the Gees decided to take part in the city’s review of the environmentally critical areas (ECA) regulations. This review was part of the larger comprehensive plan update, due this year as mandated by the state’s Growth Management Act.

The Gees hoped the city would allow wetlands under 4,000 square feet to be filled; whereas, current regulations permit wetlands of 1,000 square feet to be developed on.

The Gees argued that their wetland was created by urban development, does not support animal life and has very little use for filtering pollutants from the water. The ENVIRON report supports those claims.

Megan Gee made her first public records request in January 2012 for an “inventory of all known isolated[d] wetlands under 5000 (sic) square feet within the [C]ity,” according to court documents.

In response, Community Development Deputy Director Susan Cezar said the city does not have an inventory of all wetlands under 5,000 square feet, but listed three sites she and staff could recall off the tops of their heads, according to court documents.

City staff then asked for the reason Gee made the request, which goes against the Public Records Act.

In any case, Gee responded.

“We are interested to help inform the Planning Commission and the City Council about the actual and likely (future) impacts of the current ECA ordinances and of potential changes to the ECA ordinances, including such things as the definition and regulation of hydrologically isolated wetlands (sic),” Gee wrote in her response to the city.

A few months later, city senior planner Evan Maxium gave a presentation to the planning commission where he said there were several isolated wetlands in Sammamish, according to court documents.

The Gees submitted another records request March 2012 in order to gather a list of wetlands not previously released.

In response, Kathy Curry, a wetland biologist and senior environmental planner with the city, said “it would be near impossible to provide a more detailed response,” and resent the previous list staff gave in January 2012, court documents say.

It was this response that was unsatisfactory and the basis for the lawsuit, as city staff eventually did produce a list of 42 hydrologically isolated wetlands, under 4,000 square feet, throughout the city at the request of a city councilmember during the May 2013 ECA update meeting.

These cutoff wetlands have similarly low habitat scores to that of the Gee’s wetland.

Megan Gee said it felt like the city’s response was a personal attack on her family.

“The city has acted in a horrific way,” Gee said. “Citizens should be shocked.”

The case was scheduled to go to trial June 15.

City spokesman Tim Larson said the decision to settle was based on a “risk assessment;” that is, it would be more expensive to go to court.

The city maintains settlement is a two-party process, one that is usually achieved close to the trial date.

“Frankly, I think (the city) got a screaming deal,” Gee said of the settlement.

The variance the Gees seek will not set precedent for other homeowners.