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