਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

From:                              Rachel Gay Rosser [saverosserhome@yahoo.com]

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Sent:                               Tuesday, April 08, 2014 11:38 PM

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

To:                                   John (Jack) R. Venrick

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Subject:                          Fw: Progress on your complaint

਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

just a thread in this mess  hope all is well  G and Marg

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

On , Rachel Gay Rosser <saverosserhome@yahoo.com> wrote:

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Elizabeth,

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Thanks for the well਍ഀ wishes of spring.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

The tanks were moved but਍ഀ not 50 feet as rural code specifies.  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

The question of why਍ഀ Resource and Commercial/Industrial Zones density dimension setback codes are਍ഀ being enforced by DPER to the VPD water tanks setbacks and other installations਍ഀ located in a Rural Residential area Recreational/Cultural zone is still on the਍ഀ table, unanswered.  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Are the four full size਍ഀ water storage tanks defined as a Utility Facility as found in KCC 21A. 06.1350? 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Here is another਍ഀ development that relates to the topics at hand. 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Last week in an effort਍ഀ to determine our lot lines, borderlines and property usurped in this VPD਍ഀ project, we PRA (RCW਍ഀ 42.58) requested recorded and filed documents that would have justified VPD਍ഀ tearing out our fences, cutting our trees and taking over our private roadway,਍ഀ prescriptive easement and relocating property lines.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

VPD responded਍ഀ "There was no adjustment to the property line.  The property line has਍ഀ been determined to be what it always has been; hence no lot line adjustment.਍ഀ  The documents requested do not exist."

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

This information of਍ഀ "no legal lot line adjustment" is what we have averred for the last਍ഀ several years to KC agencies and in our requests to have VPD Fields Project਍ഀ adhere to law and regulation and compliance to code and not destroy or include਍ഀ portions of our private property.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Given the fact that no਍ഀ documents exist that legally alter or change lot lines, borderlines or property਍ഀ acreage, is admitted as such by VPD and  that VPD have torn down our਍ഀ fences, removed and destroyed property survey markers and monuments, installed਍ഀ a backstop and dugouts over our easement and claim our private road as theirs਍ഀ to use in setbacks, we are curious why the DDES/DPER has allowed and approved਍ഀ these actions and use of our private property in this VPD Fields Project?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Is the DPER going to use਍ഀ the previously established and now admitted as recognized as "always have਍ഀ been" lines of 1947, 1912 & 1864 for setback requirements and਍ഀ installations?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

What has the VPD਍ഀ provided to the DDES/DPER or KC that would cause DDES/DPER to dismiss our਍ഀ complaints levied since March 2, 2011, of the destruction and negative impacts਍ഀ to our private and abutting property & simultaneously approve installations਍ഀ & inspections for the VPD Fields project?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Regarding drainage਍ഀ control and the impacts to our property, what is the percentage of grade of the਍ഀ slope that was created by the fill in this project that covered the Type O਍ഀ Stream Head and altered water flow?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

When can we expect King਍ഀ County DPER to enforce VPD Fields Project   to remedy and rectify the਍ഀ damages allowed to be created?  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

What is the DPER਍ഀ enforcement when a public agency has falsely misrepresented documentation and਍ഀ property jurisdiction to acquire permitting?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Thank you.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Margaret and Gay Rosser

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Friends and Neighbors of 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

saverosserhome@yahoo.com

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ


਍ഀ
਍ഀ

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 10:32 AM, "Hill, Elizabeth"਍ഀ <Elizabeth.Hill@kingcounty.gov> wrote:

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Gay:

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Our office is working on an evaluation of your complaints਍ഀ regarding the Vashon Park District’s development of a sports park next to your਍ഀ property. 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

As you know we have been working closely with you, the Parks਍ഀ District, and DPER to get the water tanks moved out of the setback and thereby਍ഀ bring them into compliance.  The Parks District was required to move the਍ഀ tanks and the Parks District has completed moving the tanks.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

I am in the process of developing a written response to you਍ഀ regarding the other concerns you raised with me during my site਍ഀ visit.   When I get it done I will send it to you and we can talk਍ഀ through it.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

At this time I am still looking into your complaint about the਍ഀ wetland mitigation work and your complaint about drainage control and how it਍ഀ may be impacting your property.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

I hope you are well and that you are enjoying the spring਍ഀ weather. 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

All the best Gay,

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Elizabeth Hill

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Senior Deputy Ombudsman for Rural and Unincorporated Area਍ഀ Affairs

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

King County Ombudsman’s Office

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

516 Third Avenue, Room W1039

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Seattle, Wa.  98104-2317

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

206-477-1058

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

This email is a public record and may be subject to public਍ഀ disclosure

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

From: Rachel Gay Rosser਍ഀ [mailto:saverosserhome@yahoo.com]
਍ഀ Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 10:19 AM
਍ഀ To: Hill, Elizabeth; peter ray; Truman O'Brien; Calderwood, Amy
਍ഀ Subject: Resending e-mail to encourage correspondence

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Good Morning Elizabeth,

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Have not heard a response from the March 18th 2014 e-mail so਍ഀ resending.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

How is it going?  Any luck finding answers to our questions?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Hope all is well.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Thank you.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Margaret and Gay Rosser

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Following e-mail send 18 March 2014 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Hello Elizabeth,

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Regarding the KCC Steve refers, here are some questions.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

It has been stated that the parcels involved in this parks project਍ഀ on school titled land have not been re-zoned.  So what are parcels਍ഀ #292-303-9081 and #202-303-9020 currently zoned and what date were they zoned਍ഀ as such?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

21A.12.220 is Steve noted is found in KC Codes under "Resource਍ഀ and Commercial/Industrial Zones"

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Why are KCC Densities and Dimensions being applied to a RA Zone਍ഀ that are found in KCC under Commercial/Industrial Zones?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

21A.08.040, "Recreational/Cultural Land Uses" which਍ഀ clearly states adherence & compliance to 50 feet setbacks EXCEPT IN਍ഀ "Residential Developments" and "Sub-Divisions" neither਍ഀ which are applicable to this project. Why is this VPD project allowed to be਍ഀ exempted from compliance?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Additionally 21A.08.040 A & B.1.a., states "No stadiums਍ഀ on sites less than 10 acres".  Is this applicable to VPD Fields਍ഀ project? 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

21A.08.040 B.1.b., Steve notes, "Lighting for structures and਍ഀ fields SHALL be directed away from rural area and residential zones."਍ഀ   The parcels associated to VPD project (#292-303-9081 & #202-303-9020਍ഀ on ALL sides surrounded by rural area.  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

How will the impact to abutting properties of lights be met? 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Has the privacy between adjacent uses, i.e. green barriers &਍ഀ setbacks to provide privacy to pre-existing uses been adhered as directed

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

By not adhering to the 50 foot setbacks for backstops, dugouts, bleachers਍ഀ etc., endangerments to life and limb from fly balls and trespassing onto਍ഀ private abutting property has been created and approved.  How does the KC਍ഀ DPER plan to manage these safety issues?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

A "steep slope" has been allowed to be created under the਍ഀ C&G Type 1 permit during summer 2011.  Since the autumn rains of 2011਍ഀ we have water running under and through our barn because of these permitted਍ഀ actions.  That is 3 1/2 years now this will only create further damage.਍ഀ   

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

No County representative has come over to our property to਍ഀ investigate inside our private barn that we are aware of other than you.਍ഀ  It was fortunate that your visit was after a rainy period so that you਍ഀ could witness the enormous puddles, runoff directly onto our property and water਍ഀ inside our barn.  This was witnessed, photographed and recorded in movie਍ഀ format during our walk around and has been documented on other rainy occasions.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

This is another issue that MUST be resolved as an਍ഀ "Approved" project has created severe negative impacts to abutting਍ഀ property.  How was the Decision Criteria determined for this VPD project?

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

This is still a mess.  The axis and matrix being the property਍ഀ lines, boundaries, easements and perimeters filed and in existence under law਍ഀ and regulation prior to permit application for this project.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

We received an e-mail from Elaine @ VPD about fencing਍ഀ installations.  Why is the DPER allowing continuation of this project਍ഀ without surveys that meet law and regulation and illegal removal of਍ഀ pre-existing survey markers & monuments?  

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

DDES/DPER was notified 2 March 2011 of the VPD destroying property਍ഀ lines & monuments that had been in place for centuries and decades.਍ഀ  No action appears to have been taken by KC to enforce compliance to਍ഀ replace these monuments and markers as previously existed.   We oppose਍ഀ adjustments to the filed and recorded documents dating from as far back as 1864਍ഀ & 1912 that have been recognized as property lines.  We do NOT approve਍ഀ of VPD putting fences onto our property.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

We look forward to the continuation of working together towards਍ഀ adherence and compliance to law and regulation regarding this VPD project.

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Thank you

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Margaret and Gay Rosser

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

Friends and Neighbors of

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

saverosserhome@yahoo.com

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ

 

਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ
਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ ਍ഀ