ENTERPRISE — An enforcement complaint against Dollar General submitted Monday, Feb. 5, to Wallowa County officials demands a stop to work on the Dollar General store being built just outside the Wallowa city limits.

Addressed to Planning Director Franz Goebel and county Commissioners John Hillock, Todd Nash and Susan Roberts, the complaint alleges that Dollar General is in violation of the Wallowa County Land Development Ordinance and an agreement between the county and city of Wallowa regarding the city’s urban growth boundary. The complaint requests an investigation and, depending on the results of the investigation, a “stop-work order” until the violation can be corrected or satisfactorily addressed.

The complaint was submitted by Michael Eng of Lostine. Eng is not one of the appellants who objected to the Wallowa County Planning Commission’s decision to approve the construction permit for Dollar General. 

“I’m just an informed citizen,” he said.

He said that even though he is not a Wallowa resident, he has a right to file such a complaint.

“Any county resident can file a complaint,” he said. “All they’re doing is drawing attention to the county that there is a violation.”

The complaint requests the selection of an enforcement officer who, if the county decides the violations are legitimate, would issue the stop-work order.

The alleged violations are based on four elements: The correction of a lot line application, zoning for Dollar General, a Feb. 15, 2023, survey and a preliminary site plan for the lot approved by the county Planning Department on March 30.

The site plan allegedly shows that the Dollar General building is in violation of a city zoning ordinance dealing with setback requirements in a commercial/industrial zone. That ordinance reads, in part, that “No building shall be closer to a lot in a residential or agricultural zone than a distance equal to the height of the building or 50 feet, whichever is greater.”

Eng said Dollar General could ask the city for a variance on its zoning ordinance, in which case the city would be required to hold a public hearing.

“That gives the public an opportunity to weigh in again,” Eng said. “And it puts accountability on the City Council. They really dropped the ball and didn’t respond to county request for input.”

As part of the approval process for Dollar General’s application, the city was notified by the county and required to respond if it had any objections. This is because such matters in the urban growth boundary are handled by the county, which must do so taking into account city zoning ordinances.

Eng said the city should have noted the Dollar General building is too close to other lots in a residential zone.

“The city of Wallowa really dropped the ball on overseeing development in their city,” he said.

Wallowa Mayor Gary Hulse said Monday that while it’s true the City Council did not submit any objections to Dollar General’s plans, he and the council had come to the conclusion that opponents and proponents of the new store were about equally divided.

“The City Council’s tried to stay completely out of it,” Hulse said. “It’s about 50-50 so we decided to let it run its course.”

Eng, like those appealing the Planning Department’s approval of Dollar General, is an opponent of the store.

“I don’t think Dollar General is good for the county, for a number of reasons,” he said. “I am supporting the appellants because I think they have a number of concerns that have not been addressed.”

But Hulse is trying to remain above the fray.

“I’m neutral on the whole thing,” he said. “We’ll let the majority decide when it gets down to it.”

No one in the county Planning Department was available for comment on Monday. A call late Monday afternoon to Dollar General’s corporate headquarters in Alabama was not immediately returned.

The Monday filing comes on the heels of a Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 30 in which opponents of the store supported a pair of appeals of the commission’s actions to approve the development. The Planning Commission opted at the meeting to accept additional public testimony on the matter.