The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 December JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES DECEMBER 18, 1997 BOARD MEMBERS Glen HUIlU,word, CMinflafl - COUIlty commissiofler D~trict 2 Richard wojt, Member - COUflty commissioller District 3 Dan Haryole, M<mber - COUIlty commissioller District I Ted shoulbe'l} M<mber - pori TOWltsend City C0<1I1cil Jill Buhler, M<mber - J effersoll county Hospital District #2 commissioller Sheik westenflmt, M<mber - Citizefl at Large (City) Roberta Frissell, Member - CiUzen at Large (county) STAFF MEMBERS David syeeter, Health Deparimellt Direetor Jeall Baldwin, Director of Nursillg services Lany Fay, Director of EIlviroflmc>tinl Health chester mdhomme, Director of srwsinflcc Abuse Thomas Locke, M.D., H~alth officer Mary MMdeU, MmillistraUve su"ori Chairman Glen Huntingford called the meeting to order. All Board and staff members were present with the exception of Commissioner Richard W ojt and Member Jill Buhler. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Westerman moved to approve the minutes of November 20,1997 as presented. Member Shoulberg seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD No public comments. OLD BUSINESS ALCOHOL/DRUG PROGRAM UPDATE & REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL (R.F.P.) SCHEDULE: David Specter introduced Judith McClure who is contracting with Jefferson County to provide professional services as the Interim Manager of the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program. Ms. McClure stated that direct substance abuse services, such as assessments, will be privatized using an open and competitive bidding process. The request for proposals (R.F.P.'s) will be advertised in late January/early February 1998. There is currently one private organization in the community which provides these services and the R.F.P. will be circulated in other communities in the surrounding area. Vice-Chairman Harpole noted that there will be a stakeholders meeting held in January and the Health Board members are welcome to attend. BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES - DECEMBER 18,1997 Page 2 COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION AGAINST SUBSTANCE ABUSE (C.M.A.S.A.) GRANT: David Specter stated that in the past this grant has been used to fund the crisis intervention program. He stated that the purpose of community mobilization is to address strategies for dealing with substance abuse issues. The key is community involvement, and while over the years that relationship has gotten lost, the Health Department is getting back to the fundamental purpose of this grant. While there are many issues in the community that fit the definition for this grant, the plan is to use it in connection with the Community Network. David Specter introduced Susan Roberts, Director of the Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse (C.M.A.S.A.) Program with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (C.T.E.D.), and Jack Pollard, also with C.T.E.D., who provides technical assistance to the C.M.A.S.A. agencies. The Health Department met with Ms. Roberts, Mr. Pollard, Ms. McClure and the Community Network Coordinator Katie Jacobs to discuss various strategies. Susan Roberts stated that in talking with David Specter, Katie Jacobs and Judith McClure it appears that Jefferson County needs to work on regrouping its Community Mobilization Board and making sure that the program is actually community operated, and that the contractual agent only takes direction from the Community Mobilization Board on prioritization of funding as well as making sure the work is done. Some of the structure included conducting a risk and protective factor assessment which every county participated in this last spring. The State Division of Alcohol and Substance Abuse and the State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development use the same form to gather information for this process from each County. The County Prevention Coordinators funded by D.A.S.A. may prioritize one need, while the Community Mobilization which is funded by C.T.E.D. might choose the same priority or choose a different priority, and be working from the same assets and needs of the community when completing the grant application for funding. She noted that the State has included in their paperwork risk and protective factors such as mission, goal, objective and activity measures to support what they have been teaching the communities in terms of how to implement and measure activities. This year C.T.E.D. and D.A.S.A. worked together and developed the same activity report form for both groups. In this process the State will be reviewing Board configuration to insure that communities are meeting the intent of the legislation. Legislation requires representation from law enforcement, education, local government and community members to determine and prioritize what activities will be funded by the program. She added that it looks like Jefferson County is developing a good plan. Katie Jacobs added that the Community Network is still deciding if they want to take this on and become the Community Mobilization Against Substance Abuse. Ms. Roberts stated that the State is emphasizing that this is a community driven program. The Board is commissioned by the community and the strategies and priorities for planning are determined and chosen by the community board. The County just needs to advise the State when the community board has been established. Member Shoulberg asked if this affects funding? David Specter replied that the $25,000 ($20,000 State grant and $5,000 County match) in funding for this program would go through the Community Network. NEW BUSINESS REOUEST FOR HEARING: FLOYD HEFFERLINE: In the absence of Larry Fay, Linda Atkins explained that in the Board members' packets she included a letter she wrote to Mr. Hefferline responding to his concerns, an outline of what has occurred to date, and a list of options to be considered. She explained the standard practice of the Health Department in addressing complaints. In this case, a determination was BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES - DECEMBER 18, 1997 Page 3 made by the Health Department and subsequently Mr. Hefferline requested a hearing before the Board of Health. The Health Department reviewed the matter with the Prosecuting Attorney who concluded that based on adopted policy, an appeal is appropriate in cases where there has actually been a decision made on an application. That is not what occurred in this situation. A complainant does not have a cause for an appeal. Ms. Atkins explained that she is happy to answer any questions regarding the Health Department's process, however, it is the Prosecuting Attorney's opinion that in order to be fair, the specifics of the complaint should not be discussed without Mr. Hefferline present. If the Board decides to grant Mr. Hefferline his request for a hearing, then that would be the appropriate time for details and all the parties would be notified. Member Frissell stated that in reviewing all the materials, she feels that Mr. Hefferline is unhappy and thinks he is not being heard and that his complaints are not given proper attention. She does not understand why Larry Fay did not want to talk to him. Mr. Hefferline appears to be very articulate and has taken a lot time and effort to express that he feels something is wrong and nobody is listening. This concerns her. Member Shoulberg stated that the Health Department has only outlined three alternatives, but before that is discussed he would like to ask some questions. Mr. Hefferline makes many factual representations in his case. Is there sufficient record to show that the factual representations are not correct? He stated that the word "significant" was used in the cover letter to the Board from Larry Fay dated December 11, 1997. It states "Linda's investigation did not support the allegations in that she found no significant permit violations." He asked ifthat is a legal definition of the word "significant" or if that is an evaluative term based on experience? Member Westerman followed by asking if the Health Department staff went to Mr. Hefferline's property to measure the distances in question? Ms. Atkins replied yes. Chairman Huntingford asked if the Health Department has reviewed the case, issued the permits within the requirements of County regulations, and whether or not Mr. Hefferline has legitimate concerns? Ms. Atkins replied that she is hesitant to answer specific questions regarding the case due to the issue around representation. The Board may want to consider whether or not to hold a hearing. Chairman Huntingford asked if all the rules and regulations were followed when the permits in question were issued. Ms. Atkins replied yes. Chairman Huntingford stated that the question that needs to be answered is what the Board of Health wants to do knowing the regulations have been followed. Ms. Atkins agreed and stated that this complaint was investigated, a site visit was made, measurements were taken, and the permits were reviewed. The Health Department does not always have perfect documentation from old cases and exact measurements are not always available, so sometimes staff does use professional judgement based on experience and evidence. In these cases, the Health Department had very accurate information and could be specific. Dr. Locke stated that these systems were permitted in 1990, and what a Health Specialist does in a site visit for an initial permit is fundamentally different than what is done in a site visit for a complaint investigation. Once a system is permitted and installed, the Health Department no longer has legal authority to revoke an installation permit. Member Shoulberg asked why not? Member Westerman asked what ifthe system fails? Dr. Locke replied that the Health Department gets involved when a system fails. When a complaint is made, a sanitarian investigates for failure. Member Westerman asked if Member Shoulberg's question about the word "significant" being used in the cover letter could be answered? Linda Atkins explained that she did not find any violation of a permit. While the word "significant" does not apply in this case, there may be other circumstances where it would apply. BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES - DECEMBER 18,1997 Page 4 The Board considered the following options: I. Request a more in-depth legal review by the Prosecutor's Office before making a decision to schedule a hearing. 2. Deny the request for a hearing while recognizing that Mr. Hefferline may bring up any issues during the public comment process. 3. Schedule a hearing to review the departmental actions in response to the action request. It was decided that a letter will be drafted for the Board of Health's signature which will be sent to Mr. Hefferline clearly stating that the Board reviewed the information submitted and determined that the issue is not appropriate for hearing, however public comments are welcome. Due to another commitment, Chairman Huntingford excused himself from the meeting. PORT LUDLOW LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION SEWER SERVICE SURVEY RESULTS: Linda Atkins stated that the Port Ludlow Lot Owners Association developed this survey which evaluates the possibility of connecting existing lots to the sewer currently serving that area. The area residents were not interested in connecting the existing lots to the sewer since new development was going to be occurring and they wanted to save the sewer connections for that new development. In the past year and a half it has become apparent that the development will not be as large as initially anticipated so there will be excess sewer capacity available. This is of interest to the Health Department as the existing lots which are not connected to sewer are small, have shallow soils, high water tables and uneven topography making it a challenge to design and effectively install onsite sewage disposal systems. There have been a couple of residences which have connected to the sewer system when their onsite systems failed. Mr. Wilke, a resident of the area, explained how that was done. Ms. Atkins stated that the property owners in this area completed the survey in an effort to evaluate the level of interest in obtaining sewer service. It was also initiated due to the policy adopted by the Board of Health regarding minimum land area requirements. Many of the lots do not meet the minimum land area requirements. The initial policy stated that the Health Department would not permit sites that did not meet the minimum land area requirements, and subsequently a policy was developed for waivers under certain standard conditions. One of the elements of this policy is that a waiver will only be granted where no other waivers are required. In other words, a waiver will be granted if all other conditions can be met and sewer service is not available. In this situation there is sewer service available and some level of interest by the property owners in the area to proceed with connecting the existing lots to the sewer service. An instance may arise where a property owner chooses not to connect to the sewer service available and then at some point in the future applies for an onsite sewage system permit and is denied because the site does not meet the minimum land area requirements and does not fall under the policy for a standard waiver. The property owner would then need to request a site specific waiver be granted by the Board of Health. If the Board decides to stand by their policy then the Health Department will need to contact the property owners or Port Ludlow Lot Owners Association and advise them so they can plan and maybe decide to connect to the sewer system available in the event their lots do not meet the requirements and are determined to be unbuildable. Ms. Atkins stated that the Health Department will send out a cover letter explaining the policy and Board's position on this issue. Those who choose not to connect to sewer, will make it more expensive for those who do. Bill Wilke, a Port Ludlow area resident, stated that his neighbor recently built a new home and has paid $9,000 for a septic system. He wouldn't be able to afford the $15,000 it would cost to connect to the sewer system. BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES - DECEMBER 18,1997 Page 5 Ms. Atkins agreed and stated that generally when sewer connection is made available, there is usually time allotted for buying in, or some other type of mechanism such as long term financing. Member Shoulberg asked how many more lots the utility company is willing to connect to sewer? Ms. Atkins stated that there is capacity for all of the unsewered lots. Mr. Wilke replied that there are approximately 140 unsewered lots. Ms. Atkins presented a map outlining the areas being discussed. Member Shoulberg stated that if the capacity is available the Board should stand by the policy and absolutely not allow septic systems. Dr. Locke stated that the existing policy will put constraints on future septic systems, however, it will not prohibit them. He then discussed the authority of Board in this regard. Discussion ensued regarding the Health Department possibly drafting a letter to be sent to area residents which refers to the policy recently adopted and explains that due to their proximity to available sewer, they will not qualifY for waivers. Vice-Chairman Harpole suggested that staff contact the utility company to obtain confirmation in writing that sewer service is available and information on the cost to provide the service to area residents, prior to sending out any letters. He would like to have this information before the Board acts on this matter. The Board concurred with Vice-Chairman Harpole's suggestion. HIV/AIDS CASE MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION: Jean Baldwin stated that she has interviewed Pacific and Thurston Counties which have both privatized their HIV case management to mental health agencies, and she has reviewed issues with funding proposals. The Health Department conducted a preliminary interview with the AIDS task force and Mental Health agency in Jefferson County and learned that three of the services which Mental Health can provide which the Health Department is unable to provide in its current structure, are: I) Job training; 2) Rehabilitation; and 3) Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy. These services are built in to the Mental Health structure for the chronically mentally ill and for individuals with dual diagnosis. The Health Department will still be involved, however, the goal is to transfer the case management portion to a vendor which already has long range case management services in place. F AMIL Y PLANNING PROGRAM OVERVIEW: Jean Baldwin stated that this is a community based program which has several components. She presented and discussed information on the budget. In 1996 the Health Department served 752 clients and 90% of those clients were at or below 185% of poverty. Due to the high number oflow income clients, the Health Department qualifies for Federal funding assistance. United Good Neighbors (UGN) also provides funding support for Family Planning. The UGN funding, along with a State grant, pays for education services. Clinical services are offered five days a week (walk-ins welcome), while exams and structured appointments are offered three days a week. The Health Department began providing outreach services for Quilcene and Brinnon, but now that there is a hospital clinic in that area providing Family Planning services, the Health Department has discontinued their services. The Health Department now provides outreach services one day a week in Port Hadlock, in clinic space provided by Olympic Primary Care doctors. The Board concurred that a letter be sent from the Board of Health to Olympic Primary Care, thanking them for the use oftheir facility. Jean Baldwin will draft the letter. Lesa Barnes discussed the data gathered from doing an assessment of the Family Planning program. The data indicates that the program is meeting the needs of the community. Based on age groups, client levels are right on target with expectations. Discussion ensued regarding specific figures, the possibility of privatizing Family Planning and the role of the Health Department in regard to this issue. BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES - DECEMBER 18, 1997 Page 6 DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY HEALTH FORUM AND HEALTH PARTNERSHIP: David Specter reported that a second meeting sponsored by the Health Partnership was held to hear from the community on priority health issues. The group came up with two main issues to deal with: I) Access issues for individuals enrolled in Group Health who do not have local doctors; and 2) Developing a master health plan for the community. He asked the Board to consider how they want to be involved in these issues and how it relates to the role and responsibility of the Board of Health. Member Frissell stated that she was not impressed with the meeting or the facilitators. She believes there is interest, however she felt that there should have been more representation from the medical community and that specific issues and details needed to be discussed rather than generalities. Dr. Locke replied that given the enormity and complexity ofthe different goals, it is inevitable to become frustrated with these types of meetings. While he agreed that this forum is not appropriate in dealing with managed care, he does share the encouragement of community focus. After some discussion of group health, David Specter reported that there will be a follow up meeting which has not yet been scheduled. RECORD KEEPINGIMINUTES: Earlier in the meeting, Chairman Huntingford proposed that the task of preparing minutes of Board of Health proceedings be turned over to the Health Department. Office Manager Mary Mandell reported that the Health Department does not have adequate staff to perform these duties. Vice-Chairman Harpole stated that this may require increasing the Commissioners' Clerk Hire budget to staff a part-time person to assist with this task. Meeting adjourned. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, January 15, 1998 at 2:30 p.m. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH 11 (Excused Absence) Jill Buhler, Member " .\ ~1(,t~L" \}j tt,~d F'n::~_/--- Sheila Westerman, Member (Excused Absence) Richard E. Wojt, M ber ~.l JfJ~:fi/JN~'{b';~ ~ Roberta Frissell, Member Ted Shoulberg, Member ..~ .. -,!.. ,0 D4..c..97 J ~JW:so" G<./,,-I1 Boa,,) 01 Codltr1 i 6'5 iO(Je(S/ ? /uJ. S e.. .; ,-"J Ct'IlP;"'d; ,.,~ do Gt.1fY'/ I!/l ..fee.- +, (; II : /. Cof?rl 01ori5iollal /t-ftkr ~U1.j- -/0 1.""r t!JJ{i 2~ I 1.b ,../00. 91. IJ.. utbr -froll" 1-1(. hMf, JQ, #'ersot1 Co",A1 Heo.l-fh D~p1. Direefo{; 5.0; rep4 .fo 1'1,;: {~,,'O I t-ffef'. ?/~ &. ,Je#,I,;'<!. .,\,,\'11 Gs\e..\. 0(\ ~ i\,pu\o.-' ~-\o . \ \ \ o.J. '(f J.. .z. -, . . FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A. 98365 360/437-0962 1,'! I December 6, 1997 Mr. Larry Fay, Director Jefferson County Environmental Health Jefferson County Health Department 615 Sheridan Port Townsend, W A. 98368 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Mathis and Mr. & Mrs. Wells Action Request, Violation Health Codes & Building Permits Dear Mr. Fay: Thank you for the letter dated December I, 1997, answering and addressing my concerns with regard to the above referenced. As you discussed, but may not have known, I had already sent a complete copy of the same submission provided your office with reference to County Building Permits, or lack thereof, to the County Building Department. However, my primary concern still lies with the contamination or potential thereof with the Mathis' and Wells' On-Site Sewage System (OSS) and what I maintain is in Substal1tial violation of Chapt~r 246.272. WAC. It is interesting to note that an individual, Mr. Edward J. Koopmans, has been ordered to appear in Skagit County Superior Court for arraignment December 18, 1997 to face criminal charges on four counts of violating the Washington Pollution Control Act, for contaminating public waters with manure. I believe that the outcome of the above proceedings will have very strong implications with residential OSS as it relates to management of same and violations of the above discussed WAC throughout the entire State of Washington. Accordingly, because of my concerns I respectfully requested a meeting with our Board of County Commissioners, a copy of which is enclosed herein. . . Page 2 Mr. Larry Fay, Director Jefferson County Environmental Health December 6, 1997 Again, thank you for your letter outlining the County Health Department position with the Mathis' and Wells' situation. 7J:,J~.~J L Floyd E. Hefferiine Enclosure cc: Mr. Richard Wojt, Commissioner Mr. Dan Harpole, Commissioner Mr. Glen Huntingford, Commissioner Jefferson County Board of Commissioners PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA. 98368 Mr. Bruce Miyahara, Secretary of Health Washington State Department of Health 1112 Quince Street SE Olympia, W A. 98504 ., County Health & Human Services December 1, 1997 FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 NORTH BEACH DR PORT LUDLOW W A 98365 Re: Mathis and Wells Action Request:; Dear Mr. Hefterline: Thank you for your interest and expression of concern with respect to the onsite sewage systems on the above-referenced properties. Not often are citizen action requests accompanied with the level of detail that was provided by you. The attention to detail greatly assists environmental health staff with follow-up. Linda Atkins is an environmental health specialist with this office. In response to your action request she made site visits to both properties and met with both property owners. Using existing septic and building permit infornlation and making on-the-ground measurements, Ms Atkins was able to determine that drainfields on both properties appear to have been installed in accordance with the terms and conditions of C>1ch of the permits, and subsequent development (buildings, driveways, etc.) substantially confornls to the limitations imposed by the septic system. Neither system appears to be compromised by placement of buildings or driveways. TIlere are storage sheds installed on both properties in the areas identified as reserve. Both buildings are essentially portable. Neither building requ. red disturbance of the reserve area for installation and either could be easily moved if the reserve area "ere needed to repair a failure to the primary system. At this time the Health Department has dekrmined that there are no apparent violations of onsite sewage system regulations or permit conditions that necessitate follow-up enforcement action. As to how a building can be constructed without a permit, that is a matter you may want to discuss with the building department. Thank you again for your concern, and please feel free to call if we can be of further assistance. smp' / () . ,r"",: ,~~L,,-,lU"-CJ Lawrence D. Fay, Jr. Environmental Health Director /~ "\- ---- . \ / LDF/wg HEAL ~H DEPARTMENT 360/385-9400 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 360/385-9444 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITiES 360/385-9400 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE CENTER 3601385-9435 FAX 360/385-9401 '_ _ ~ J" FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A. 98365 360/437-0962 November 26, 1997 ~[[~~~~{l~fm NOIf 2 6 1997 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SOARD OF COi\<I\1IS~)IONERS Mr. Richard Wojt, Commissioner Mr. Dan Harpole, Commissioner Mr. Glen Huntingford, Commissioner Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A. 98368 Re: Failure by the Jefferson County Health Department to comply with Chapter 246-272 WAC, On-site Sewage Systems, as designated by the Washington State Board of Health under Statutorv Authoritv RCW 43.20.050. Dear Honorable Commissioners: Enclosed please find my submission to the Jefferson County Health Department regarding the On-Site Sewage System (OSS) ofMr. & Mrs. Duane Wells and Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis. The "Purpose, objectives and authority" WAC 246-272-00101 (1), (1) (a) (b), (3), provides the direction of "The potential for public exposure to sewage from on-site sewage systems." Under WAC 246-272-01001 Definitions: "Expansion", means a change in a residence, facility, site or use that: Reduces the treatment or disposal capability of the existing on-site sewage system or the reserve area or "Failure" means a condition of an on-site sewage system that threatens the public health by inadequately treating sewage or by creating a potential for direct or indirect contact between sewage and the public. In the enclosed Addendum on the Wells' property, Item #6 clearly shows both the drain field and reserve area being covered. Yet, the County Health Officer, Ms. Atkins, explained to me over the phone that neither the drain field or reserve area are covered by the concrete driveway. So, I asked where then are they located? She .- did not reply to the question, but it is obvious there is not room to provide same and meet the WAC requirements, and County set-backs with present existing conditions. Also, the drain field is approximately 83 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the required 100 feet (WAC 246-272-0950 I "marine water"). Nor, is there any documentation in the County construction files that indicates a variance or waiver. WAC 246-272-25001; (1) (a), (I) rD. Enforcement, WAC 246-272-26001 (I) (I a) (2), (2) (b), (2) rD, (3) rD, (3) (I) (i), (6), (6) (a), (6) (b), the properlY owners have subseQuentlv misrepresented their situation from the wav it now exists. Ms. Atkins also explained that the storage building is built on "skids"; therefore, she wrote to the Wells' and explained that if ever the need arose to use the reserve area, adjustments would be required, or words to that effect. That means to me that anyone in the State can build anvthing over a reserve area if it is on "skids". She has thereby negated several of the Sections and Subsections of Chapter 246-272 WAC by her actions or inactions, say nothing of paving over 25% of the 'drain field and reserve area. With regard to the Mathis' property, Submission Addendum Item #3 places the Storage Shed completely and directly over the reserve area. The reserve area is approximately 61 to 63 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the 100 feet as required by WAC 246-272-0950 I, "marine water". Again, Ms. Atkins explained that she wrote the Mathis' a letter similar to the Wells' letter, "built on skids". Additionally, while examining the County construction files, OSS permit, I noticed Ms. Janet Welch R.S., the designer of the Mathis' system, indicated that the water table came within 30" of the surface at certain times during the year and the drain field is 24" below the surface. Under the WAC definition section "Water table", means the upper surface of the ground water, whether permanent or seasonal. Why then was the permit issued~ If the Jefferson County Health Department is attempting to adopt their own rules, I suggest they first read WAC 246-272-02001 (I) and especially (I) (a). While speaking with Ms. Atkins over the phone, I asked that she arrange a meeting with her field director, Mr. Larry Fay, and me to explain her findings. She said she would try, but doubted Mr. Fay would agree. I heard nothing for about a week, so I sent Mr. Fay a letter requesting the meeting. About another week passed, and I did not hear from Mr. Fay. I phoned him, but was told he was in a meeting. I, therefore, left a message on his voicemail.stillnoreply.This entire episode has been continuing since the first week in October, 1997. The County Health Board is required by WAC 246-272-27001, (I), (I) (a), (I) (b) to provide hearings to contest a local health officer's actions. As a "Person", WAC 246-272-01001, I am respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners hold a meeting because the County Health Department has ignored my several requests. At the meeting, I am also respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners include themselves, Ms. Atkins, Mr. Fay and a representative from the Washington State Department of Health together with my presence. 2 -- ~ Inasmuch as the County Health Department comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners, I would like Ms. Atkins and Mr. Fay to explain to all of us why they are allowing two Nonconforming OSS' as required by the County Sewage Disposal Permits and provisions of Chapter 246-272 WAC. Respectfully submitted, .) ,'-' ) -~) //.. eYe3 FIOYd~fferline ./ / I~ .. I ~/;lftv,,-- ' cc: Mr. Bruce Miyahara, Secretary of Health Washington State Department of Health 1112 Quince Street SE Olympia, W A. 98504 Enclosures: Submission to Jefferson County Health Department 1. Mr. & Mrs. Duane Wells 2. Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis Letter to: Mr. Larry Fay, Jefferson County Health Department, Director 3 ~ ",,(. +0 ~'2Jv\t-h 111~lql J ....,J FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A. 98365 360/437-0962 Mr. Richard Wojt, Commissioner Mr. Dan Harpole, Commissioner Mr. Glen Huntingford, Commissioner Jefferson County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A. 98368 I~~ ~ [~ ~ U \yl ~ rm ~O\j 2 fJ 1997 Co\\e:s~: ~'(\ E_RSO~ 50cUNT.Y ~ ~e..- 'ro-> \~ ~r CO.\'j,.I.SIONER.. ~.f~+O ~~'\V\ ~~l~C(\ November 26, 1997 Re: Failure by the Jefferson County Health Department to comply with Chapter 246-272 WAC, ,... On-site Sewage Systems, as designated by the Washington State Board of Health under Statutorv Authoritv RCW 43.20.050. Dear Honorable Commissioners: Enclosed please find my submission to the Jefferson County Health Department regarding the On-Site Sewage System (OSS) ofMr. & Mrs. Duane Wells and Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis. The "Purpose, objectives and authority" WAC 246-272-00101 (1), (1) (a) (b), (3), provides the direction of "The potential for public exposure to sewage from on-site sewage systems." Under WAC 246-272-01001 Definitions: "Expansion", means a change in a residence, facility, site or use that: Reduces the treatment or disposal capability of the existing on-site sewage system or the reserve area or "Failure" means a condition of an on-site sewage system that threatens the public health by inadequately treating sewage or by creating a potential for direct or indirect contact between sewage and the public. In the enclosed Addendum on the Wells' property, Item #6 clearly shows both the drain field and reserve area being covered. Yet, the County Health Officer, Ms. Atkins, explained to me over the phone that neither the drain field or reserve area are covered by the concrete driveway. So, I asked where then are they located? She ... did not reply to the question, but it is obvious there is not room to provide same and meet the WAC requirements, and County set-backs with present existing conditions. Also, the drain field is approximately 83 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the required 100 feet (WAC 246-272-09501 "marine water"). Nor, is there any documentation in the County construction files that indicates a variance or waiver. WAC 246-272-25001; (I) (a), (I) IQ. Enforcement, WAC 246-272-26001 (I) (la) (2), (2) (b), (2) IQ, (3) IQ, (3) (f) (i), (6), (6) (a), (6) (b), the properlY owners have subseauentlv misrepresented their situation from the wav it now exists. Ms. Atkins also explained that the storage building is built on "skids"; therefore, she wrote to the Wells' and explained that if ever the need arose to use the reserve area, adjustments would be required, or words to that effect. That means to me that anyone in the State can build anything over a reserve area if it is on "skids". She has thereby negated several of the Sections and Subsections of Chapter 246-272 WAC by her actions or inactions, say nothing of paving over 25% of the 'drain field and reserve area. With regard to the Mathis' property, Submission Addendum Item #3 places the Storage Shed completely and directly over the reserve area. The reserve area is approximately 61 to 63 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the 100 feet as required by WAC 246-272-0950 I, "marine water". Again, Ms. Atkins explained that she wrote the Mathis' a letter similar to the Wells' letter, "built on skids". Additionally, while examining the County construction files, OSS permit, I noticed Ms. Janet Welch R.S., the designer of the Mathis' system, indicated that the water table came within 30" of the surface at certain times during the year and the drain field is 24" below the surface. Under the WAC definition section "Water table", means the upper surface of the ground water, whether permanent or seasonal. Why then was the permit ... issued? If the Jefferson County Health Department is attempting to adopt their own rules, I suggest they first read WAC 246-272-02001 (I) and especially (I) (a). While speaking with Ms. Atkins over the phone, I asked that she arrange a meeting with her field director, Mr. Larry Fay, and me to explain her findings. She said she would try, but doubted Mr. Fay would agree. I heard nothing for about a week, so I sent Mr. Fay a letter requesting the meeting. About another week passed, and I did not hear from Mr. Fay. I phoned him, but was told he was in a meeting. I, therefore, left a message on his voicemail.stillnoreply.This entire episode has been continuing since the first week in October, 1997. The County Health Board is required by WAC 246-272-27001, (I), (I) (a), (I) (b) to provide hearings to contest a local health officer's actions. As a "Person", WAC 246-272-01001, I am respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners hold a meeting because the County Health Department has ignored my several requests. At the meeting, I am also respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners include themselves, Ms. Atkins, Mr. Fay and a representative from the Washington State Department of Health together with my presence. 2 Inasmuch as the County Health Department comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners, I would like Ms. Atkins and Mr. Fay to explain to all of us why they are allowing two Nonconforming OSS' as required by the County Sewage Disposal Permits and provisions of Chapter 246-272 WAC. Respectfully submiited, /) /! J- --~ 'i( .!r:>=\O<- .-r~,.,.~ I L/ \;. r Floyd E. efferline cc: Mr. Bruce Miyahara, Secretary of Health Washington State Department of Health 1112 Quince Street SE Olympia, W A. 98504 Enclosures: Submission to Jefferson County Health Department 1. Mr. & Mrs. Duane Wells 2. Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis Letter to: Mr. Larry Fay, Jefferson County Health Department, Director , .I /'. ; ,~". ! Ii i l0t/f tcvf" . / / j/ 3 FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, WA. 98365 360/437-0962 October 24, 1997 Mr. Larry Fay, Director Jefferson County Environmental Health Jefferson County Health Department 615 Sheridan Port Townsend, W A. 98368 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Mathis' & Mr. & Mrs. Wells' Action Request, ViolationHealthCodes & Building Permits Dear Mr. Fay: Thank you for your very prompt insrection of the above referenced properties. Ms. Atkins of the Health Department called me at my home to report the findings of her investigation, and claims that the Wells' Drain Field and Reserve Area do not extend under the Wells' driveway which llind is impossible. I am, therefore, requesting a meeting with you and Ms. Atkins at your earliest convenience so she may explain to us where the Wells' Drain Field is in Llcr located, using the Plot Plan I submitted as a reference. Secondly, I am wondering why anyone is allowed to build, without a permit, a structure over a Reserve Area or Drain Field, so long, as Ms. Atkins stated, "the structure is built on what she called skids". This occurrence has happened in both the Wells' and Mathis's situation. Again, thank you for your prompt consideration. S~~cf!s (~f2~ Floyd E. Hefferline . JE ,TERSON COUNTY 1 i-:RMIT CEN"'[R CASE # ACTION REQUEST REQUESTED BY: Floyd E. Hefferline DATE: October 8, 1997' MAILING ADDRESS: 334 North Beach Drive PHONE: 360/437-0962 Port Ludlow, Washington 98365-9521 NATURE OF REQUEST: I2SI IN PERSON 0 I . PHONE ~ BY LETTER & DOCUMENTATION TAKEN BY: PERTAINING TO: ~ BUILDING P PLANNING o PUBLIC WORKS ~ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH H: \HOM!:\ PLNCNTR\ f'QIIJ.IS\,'\CT. doc VIOLATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT "SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT" & "BUILDING PERMIT" The subject property owners continue to have total flagrant disregard for Jefferson County Codes. In the past, they added a "Sun Room" to the west side of their home, extending it into the water channel frontage setback. It seems obvious they did not apply for a County Permit because they were aware of their encroachment. However, when confronted in writing by Mr. Jim Pearson, Associate Planner, and subsequently in writing by Mr. Michael Ajax, County Building Official, the Mathis's applied for and were granted a Variance for the setback violation and paid for a belated permit, but no penalty. However, the County makes no reference as to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements with regard to Tempered Safety Glass on both the side walls and ceiling of the Sun Room. More recently, the subject property owners have built a detached outbuilding without a permit of record 12 feet by 12 feet over their existing Reserve Field, and attempted to conceal same from the public and County Official's scrutiny behind plantings of Arbor Vitae Pyramidalis evergreen-type trees. Additionally, a concretelbrick walkway has been built from their front entry porch (approximate width 3 to 4 feet and length about 25 to 30 feet partially over the Reserve Field to the detached outbuilding. They also increased the width of their driveway and built a graveled parking area seemingly into the Reserve Field Area by several feet (please see attached sketch copy of the "As-Built" from Jefferson County files, Addendum Item #3), in spite of the fact the Jefferson County Health Department has checked Paragraph #6 under "Comments" - "Do not disturb reserve drainfield area; do not build on. drive on or pave". Under Washington State Statute, WAC 246-272-15501 Operation and Maintenance: (Please see Addendum Item #5) (I) The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall: \l';) Protect the OSS area and the reserve area from: (i) Cover bv structures or impervious material; (iii) Soil compaction. for examplt! bv vehicular traffic or livestock. Page 2 Inasmuch as the Mathis's existing Drain Field is only 83 feet from the water channel to the west (per "As-Built": 49 feet to house, 24 foot house width and 10 foot setback from the waterway), it becomes especially important that the existing Drain Field be maintained to the strictest regulations set forth by both the Washington State Department of Health (DOH 334-006C, On-Site Sewage System Regulations) and the Jefferson County Health Department as discussed above. Secondly, it becomes extremely important, should the occasion arise to utilize the Reserve Drain Field, when one considers the normal waterway County setback requirement is normally, but arguably, around 100 feet and the Reserve Field will only be about 64 feet from the waterway. Considering the Mathis's OSS designer, Ms. Janet Welch, R.S., has estimated from the soil log holes that the water table is as high as 30 inches below the undisturbed surface before Drain Field installation, and the Drain Field is 24 inches below what was the undisturbed surface, there is a high probability that considerable pathogenic action will infiltrate the water table. I, therefore, contacted Mr. Richard R. Burleigh, Cooperative Extension; Washington State University; Water Quality Program Assistant and On-Site Sewage Systems Instructor. He explained that effluent treatment generally stops at about 36 inches below the Drain Field, thereby leaving a possible 30 inches of untreated effluent entering the water table when it reaches Ms. Welch's estimate of a high of30 inches below the surface. With the water table likely to have an alluvial direction toward the saltwater boat channel, it seems that all the help the Drain Field system can obtain from unobstructed evaporation is highly important and accordingly the natural process toward the waterway be undisturbed. In retrospect, analyzing the evidence set forth by the designer, Ms. Welch, prior to an OSS approval for construction, it is puzzling why a permit was in fact issued, especially considering the close proximity to the saltwater boat channel. Then to have the Mathis's abuse the setback forbearance, together with. disturbing the Reserve Field Area is arrogantly irregular. Additionally, the negligence and disrespect the Mathis's have shown for the Jefferson County permit process together with the health and safety of their neighbors by breaking the well-founded codes and statutes is appalling. If they continue to willfully flout the rules, what is to stop anyone from contempt of the regulations? As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sand~spit, together with being a former Bridgehaven Marina Manager, I have always aspired to the well-being of our surrounding ecosystem as it relates to the waterways and Hood Canal. Nevertheless, when I informed Mr. Mathis and his neighbor to the north, Mr. Wells, that I was Page 3 gathering information on their properties to file a formal complaint, they immediately petitioned for a Restraining Order and received an Unlawful Civil Harassment Order (97- 2-369-4 and 97-2-368-6). When I explained to Judge Howard that Mr. Mathis and Mr. Wells are using this ploy or stratagem as a defense, the Judge told me to)et the proper governmental authority do the investigating.lt Consequently, I was unable to more completely define property lines, set-backs and other measurements. While it is understandable the County is not concerned or obligated to act upon Bridgehaven By Laws, The Mathis's did not apply for permission, as required, from our Architectural Control Committee to construct the herein described Sun Room or Storage Shed. Many of the neighbors here in Bridgehaven are also concerned about the ecosystem and code violations undertaken by the Mathis's and are all hopeful, in the near future, that both Mr. Ajax and the County Health Department officials will investigate the premise of the statements outlined herein. Rji;"ll";J/IL- Floyd E. Hefferline cc: Mr. David Specter, Jefferson County Health Department Director Mr. Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director Mr. Mike Ajax, Jefferson County Building Official , ' . --","""-' ~tr' lie ;;)tN~~ Jone! Welch, R.S. r.o. lox 1221 Hnrll.ck. WA 98339 f., . 'J - INST ALLER SHOL D JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT S02 SHERIDAN AVENUE PORT TOWNSEND, WASHtNGTONIU}E.tE] V ~CEIPT NO. 7L3 (, \5 'i (206) 38S.o722 - SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT OCT 26 '6g0AT'E (o -...)..~ -R'i_ . JEfF. COUNTY ~ 'Pow _<;{\~Jtt DEPT779-539'-1 rri 9~37o Phone ~ o - < - 1.6. (3/))( 575 Address BUILDER '1YJ tJ /j) An/) M A RTltlM fmH \, . Owner !y?IDGElffltJF0 s:Prr: J.)~{lR 61J/\ (Ii' (F~ Directions for locating slle INSTALL NEW SYSTEM lEI REPLACE SYSTEM 0 PARTIAL REPAIRO TANKtORA1NFIELDO. SITE .SIZE (Pox /.;lQ r If. (;: > <fl r - <fl C ~ 6i ~ o {' ;0 - ::I m< n- ., O<fl EJ - ( m 51 ~ o TYPE OF NO. OF BUILDING R~.J . BEDROOMS c:2 Previous site evaluation by Health Department Yes No k BASEMENT .00 o " ( SOIL TYPE' DESCRIPTION 1) - ( . Depth to maximum seasonal vater table 'P;77A1f1 TF 30' Source of potable water supply Public X Private Source type: Drilled well .Dug well Other \ 2) - ( 3) . ( EVERY APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT OF APPEAL AS PER JEFFERSON COUNTY ORDINANCE 2- 77 . 4) o =< Oi - ~ I r -In1l01Mc ~~S ~GNATURE OF PP CA ANY i<El'O OF OR W\JOR DISTURBANCE OF SOIL IN THE PROPOSED OR APPROVED DRAlNFIElll m MEA W\.y c.~TE SITE CONDITIONS 1l1AT ARE lI'lACCEPTABLE FOR 1HE iNSTAUATIotJ OF A rg SEI"AGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM. Mf( OWJGE IN BUIlJ)ING OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL PlANS (INCLUDING PLLMBING STLIBOUT LOCATION) ANoIOR LOCATION OF HOUSE OR DRAINFIElJ) INVALIDATES THIS r PERMIT lJ'lLESS PRIOR APPROVAL IS OBTAINED. fR(X'\ THE HEAUl1 DEPMTMENT.. (Call Health Dept. fo!: final inspection). STUB OUT PLl.I'1BING N'lJVE FO\J'IDATI~ FOOIlNG, Drainfield Length /.'~3.f Trench width~Trench dept~1'i~-:'~~s__~.Jank size IOO() . Soil type and application rate us"d for design <( GPD/ftL - fa COMMENTS: . <;;<<e. ""tf-.tc-4.J c".,.....~rr. &If..-\[..~: It-la.V!. APPROVED . . DAT~ ~NS~~~Js......\'''\' I certify thaI thiS system was Installed In a manll.er approved by If.e 6".",0 DATE -r;..,sb-/{ ,'1</ T--.<.)- 4!dca.-,':> ,)-<..<",':"", d.:tiz..J IO-""--<s-"t. INSTALLER'S SIGNATURE JCHD!7-'84 ..e;G-'IJ:':':~vJ luL0i) J2.iL; 1/. '/ fj' DATE DATE INSTALLED O. $1.1'5. D>{>fo '"" "'''' -.,.,.. p'W"Jl,,,,, (o.,,<>.!iiL.- ..._ . _.C c...' 1"4' lJ 1/- P-?'l I:. Perfonnance monitoring contract reQ'1ired with PUD #]. Contract r""Iuired for fin,,; approval of sewage disposal pemit. ',: Contact PUD #1 at 385-.5800 for infonnation. " Recomnend installation of low waterhse fixtures. Divert al1 sources of surf'lce rlunoff from drainfield (fol.md'ltion dr'lins, downk~Jts, etc.). Install drainfield in exact area of soil logs. and all surface waters (including seasoIlAl Remain 100 feet fran all _lls drainages) . Do not disturb reserve drainfield area; , do not build on, drive on , or p<\ve. Drainlines should be installed along~natural contours. Drainlines should be installed cross slope. Bottans of trenches/bed must be level. Drainlines must be level. Distribution boxes must be set on concrete pads am water leveled. End c.aps required on distribution lines. Curtain drain required per instructions. "'" , .,. Inspection ports required in absorption bed/downslope portion of fill.~ ~./J;'~/~' Dry season installation required (summer/fall). The septic tank/pump ch3mber/closing siphon sh<\ll be watertight to prevent groundwater intrusion. ~t'I7<-~....,I::... P.......f c.h-...,......,-h. k "'~pr-..D(e,) po.;- 4"-"'''''''-'''> sf''''-' t;c-.ii<l>7.s. Minimum pump chamber size ;:)Crt> gallons. Maximum flow per cycle \20 gallons. Owner to provide adequate size pump with audiovisual alarm. Pump to be set on foundation a minimum of 6" above chamber floor. - ( ,,/ 24. ,/ 25. /26. Risers to grade required for septic tank/pump tanle' Trenches to be installed no deeper than 12" into native soil; 18" of partial fill (sandy loam) required for cover. Alternating drainfields required. Sand lined ./ v' trench required. -",<-, de.,ih,.....y':, .,.,p..Lihc....n-.... j. Recommend ag;'l.inst the U-"E! of gar~ disposal units (will severely shorten drainfield life). : I Drainfield should be seeded soon aft~r installation to aid in evapotranspiration of effluent. II . : ~i H".., ;,Jo d.&"'1S .+ Urncr'~ 27. Certified "as-bull t" drawing require<'t, by instalJer.~igneQ o/'-Ik<.. s~>~ 28. Final inspection required by Health ~partment~jgnei":) OTHER, IVoh~ t/.......,Tt., l)"t"c,ytr........,t' '18- t.,.ow-".;'i'1 ct,.dv"''7<:L J& ~e.. tt,e f'7'~>s<v't. JesT. v 1? /p./rlQ Tro1Tr.. _.:-.'.~.. -\ I ~ BOft1" Olu"'L Ux)' , ccr:/gcc9 OC C)C cr &C'>Cf:,c-o ~ "",'IS OrODCCYCCCCC st:r81/Ck. ID 6E EJEf"El!){loJ 6D BI' PUt,H)/I')€' i eUl6 D/!,P T. l'~ose;;o.;).. UlR. !tOW," 10' ,------ I I I I I ;;:,,'IL#,L I !!;S/Ul3 la _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 'IU/'/ 5' / / 4.4 ltJsT(Rr G.<?ADe:) 7&EP1IoNE. P€ilIJ'TIlL N OR.Tl-l ]3f1'ICH 'ROA b ) >-z-c Sl'JILE t.~.:J.O' 1 50' .. "_u"., ::iSOllO anIdNIVlla , 75' Uf, , ;'1:: ill loa' 'if i; 'III ()Cill~ E5'TiAA,I,TEiJ H1C,I171iJe;; {J1.)~jEff. C,- . \'\t:Alirl OE?i. fWV CHRIJ6ES I,,) HoUSr=. OR DR./. UElJ/llf (()DF16Uf!.ll710AJ M..LtsrNOT I1FFecrrANt:., DT<ltIORE1...h,DR...RESEfWr;: . AREA tv fttJif LiJftlI. DI'tUID II/JI) I1I1f?rHII ;'f.l1TH /s BRIO G.EH/lUl:AJ; Dtu I, MT 9 (sf,.) DE:5/GIJE.l> 8'1 j<) J1WET (,,)Et.cI7,R..s. ~ ......;"- 'r -. :fi\';'. Date; I (]/.:x/ X'9 Designer; ~ t.;::t~:'S " JEFFERSON ON-SITE SEWAGE Legal Description: Section ~Q Township Subdi vi sion f'.R ,Dr7Ft..;(1()F,U Block . Owner; idf!,)/fJ fllJ{) /<UIf!:nt1l ft.1A7H1 <; Address: 730>: 5Z&) /) Tll.J..L<;; (3 0, wA 9l<: ;<,7 0 , I :1: II! ill Iii ~ , . I " Ii_, . SEPTIC SENSE Jonet Welch, R.S. P.O. I.x 1221 H..I.ek. WA 9a:J:l9 I. CALCULATIONS If for residential use: Number of bedrooms: c1 ,. x 120 G.I".D. = ~'f(') Total G.P.D. If for non-residential use, attach calculations used to determine G.P.D. Soil te:x:ture waste water application rate (see page 214 of the EPA Design Manual) ,0 G.P.D./ft. squared DRAINFIELD SIZING: Absorpt ion area; .Lj()() square feet (Total' GPD -- GPD/ft squared) Tren~h or ~d width ~ feet Trench or getl length / 3 3,'- lineal feet (sq. ft. -- trench or bed width) II. APPURTENANCES Septic Tank Size MOO gallons Pump Requirements (If Necessary) Elevation differance in feet &.0 Friction loss /.3"1 Pump capacity should be 07""3 gpm at /1 TDH Number of doses per day ~ Dosing volume / .;L() gallons Pump chamber size .)-0 (J gallons :, .' ! ) ~ ~ ~ II Ii i: , ..,.:;:"'.;~""" .-..-....--.- __~..~:J.f'>I" . "~jJ":I"" .~:.- .. . '~""-J' .. I ...".;,..."...., < . ' , . "";_' '.,'.-", ',' .,' __ ,.",.J' . ,. ',;i';'.~ , :it>", "-...... . /' d ~p~ -- ~~G\:; T/O:;; ~ N€:-w --..... C>.v% ~ f'ARK\NG '<(~/C'~ ARf:'A '\ ~ 1-\ - ,- \2. 5' o SHf;D "10 t-!OUst:- *'~ RESfRUE n I<.EA 75Cl &1'1 TIl/J I:: Sl'O~AGr:- SHE'D qq' To H LSG: 12' fL. I 5~ SHE-D 1b FiZOr-J"I PRoP. \.1 ~e-- IDSPECl70AJ poer m 7l2EAXJj BO'T7l)Cl T (J \ t IJ S PECTl OIJ -rn eel n CR. 1le1 U E lL.W1 /'-1' (- ~8/ 27' 5' ~ ~ ) --y -nll!.fflDEn CJ..EACOLLT' R celVEI JUL 2 0 1990 . UNTY HEALTH DEPT.'- /rJORI!! 13g{{' II Ra9 D ) >- Z -c======- 'I SCI/ LE 1<' /0' .M.ff77f/:5 AS f3 W tT . . VARCEL if933. 900-0/1 '7W31-1. I~V T3 'f .j<J .. .._ -flitJ{;r l<)et.f!-t{/ RS. -:ft:-M ~:~,=--=--~ ;f {!f-(...u,rr:.c;-~J: ",:.0.Ji<M Z~ltd~']W@\~:4fl Hiwdl cotner~." 7; N8rS8'oo-~t" nce N 1l"15'2S"E c'p/dlllerem de- Il1e(/c(' S 72"44 35E 'e/, Menee #23"00'00"[ o ' ., thence #62 'JOOO W thence 57?'4435'E 11 eS5 onel ul;11 tle5 ~3~ . '~"',r:''';IIi'''''';'''' -" >i,~1 ,~;.~,.",_.~~.c~".'\. ,.....-'". ,.Jft~lr" ).,\;!.: ""., '. ::';;, .(:~j;::!~~$1J,::. :; <F-;/ . , 8 / / .\ / ~ 'I.',/.. . oS/. '1,0,/'1" 'i/.ro'" S~/ \ , /( . '\j ~ .'; 't: G',-' ), ~ C\:: '-- ~ ~ " ..... ~ ? -;"vt2 ;;',,3, 8f;j64<iYJ'6"h1 _ , (""') / ~ , // 'le '\i /)6\': {P /0"',' -"'S~ r ':r,," ,tv ,~ ~.' a I~ ) <v'IV \- l;,; ~ fo., ()q,; ~'" ~ -; /7-5:0/ O'S6"S C{ t; OJ '" "- i~ lr. ,'\i ~ . ;; c., ( .X ~/;':,;S ,'; .~',,\[( '--"'~"'(,)(' c";' i ':;-<. ";N t I - $,/ . ,/11'\ .'~i" .,~, .v'--'~'" .s "?' "I,' >.:, '," '. "/ <'0 "<131-~-"""" "", ~ p, ~ ,'. (f ,"'i/ 6' <- I ,1.';..: 8,2 o i\,YOS l.t. ~ :,,:," 5'3 C) f ,!~" '<J /0 ';: ',~t;' 45!: -- CONe MON*----- ...." . _ $7;>' I // <'6 <:4 ~c, ," j c /::: ~5'7?' f/<rjs.. 'us E s3__ /.., ~ ~ ~70 <v o '\ Iq " /", '" /" !~ s7'?"d ,?':Js "E .;/ ,~ c, ,rv ,!:> " I:l " '", '., -~ I / t ;' Q- ;0 I J2 ~ l ~ . \ <J V, () Q' .' " ,';? ..3 J"?,? , '<l'<f' 3S-- /Os ~ 53 (;:. "./l.;) "'!\o " /2 ~--------..- ,1>," c 44' ys--"" /o,~_ /3 2 ;>. ------------------.... . ----,-------------- S?,:>... .c:. .;(4' :?s',,- .,".' / 2.'. ,- :c-re:-M @ .. , . On..site Sewage System 2~6~1i!.1..\501 I J I .-\ssure the OSS meets the approved design: and I b I Direct the pcrson responsible for final cover of the system to place a pcnnanent marker at finished grade where needed to identify the location of the septic tank's first manhole. 131 The designer or installer. as directed by the local health officer. upon completion of the OSS shall develop and submit a complete and detailed. "as.built" or "record drawing" to both the health officer and the OSS owner that include: (a) For new OSS. measurements to existing site fearures enabling the first tank manhole to be easily located. and a dimensioned reserve area; and (b) For repaired or altered OSS. the new. repaired. or altered components with their relationship to the existing system. (St.ttulOry AUlhonlY, RCW 43.20.0l0. 94-09.02l.! 246-272-14l01. filed 4/15/94. effecove 1I1195.) WAC 246.272.15501 Operation and maintenance. (\ ) The OSS owner is responsible for propcrly opcrating and maintaining the OSS. and shall: (a) Determine the level of solids and scum in the septic tank once every three years; (b) Employ an approved pumpcr to remove the septage from the tank when the level of solids and scum indicates that removal is necessary; (c) Protect the~Sma-2.i!d the reserve arca)from: (i) Cover by stiUctures or tmpemous material; (ii) Surface drainage; (iii) Soil compaction. for example by vehicular traffic or livestock; and (iv) Damage by soil removal and grade alteration; (d) Keep the flow of sewage to the OSS at or below the approved design both in quantiI)' and waste strength; (e) Operate and maintain alternative systems as directed by the local health officer; and (f) Direct drains. such as footing or roof drains. away from the area where the OSS is located. (2) The local health officer shall: (a) Provide opcration and maintenance informagon to the OSS owner upon approval of any installation. repair. or alteration of an OSS; and (b) Develop and implement plans to: (i) Monitor all OSS performance within areas of special concern; (ii) Initiate periodic monitoring of eacb ass no later than January 1. 2000. to assure that each ass owner propcrly rttaintains and operates the ass in accordance with this section and in accordance with other applicable opcra- tion and maintenance requirements. (iii) Disseminate relevant operation and maintenance information to ass owners through effective means rou. tinely and upon request; and (iv) Assist in distributing educational materials to OSS owners. (3) Persons shall not: (a) Use or introduce strong bases. acids or chlorinated organic solvents into an ass for the purpose of system cleaning; (411119~) tb) lTse a sewage system additive un\es~ It b ::.re....:r\..:J.i~ ly approved by the depanment: or IC) Use an OSS to dispose of waste components Jt,'P'Ca] of residential wastewater. (4) The local health officer shall require annual inspcc- lions of ass serving food service establishments and ma;' require pumping as needed. (5) The local health officer may require the owner of the OSS to: (a) Use one or more of the follOWing management methods or another method consistent with the following management methods for proper opcration and mamtenance: (i) Ohtain and comply with the conditions of a renew- able or opcrational pcrmit; (ii) Employ a public entity eligible under WaShington state statutes to. directly or indirectly. manage the OSS: or (iii) Employ a private management entil)'. guaranteed by a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes or sufficient financial resources. to manage the OSS; (b) Evaluate any effects the OSS may have on ground water or surface water; andlor (c) Dedicate easements for inspections. maintenance. and potential future expansion of the OSS. (6) Persons may obtain a handbook with material outlining management methods to .achieve propcr opcration. maintenance. and monitoring of OSS from the department one year after the effective date of this chapter. (7) The local health officer may require installation of observation pons in each individual lateral or bed which extend from the bottom of the gravel to the finished grade for monitoring OSS performance. (SWUlory AlIIhority, RCW 43.20.0lO. 94-09.025.! 246-272.ll501. filed 4ItlI'l4. effective l/ll'll.J WAC 246-272.16501 Repair of fallures. (l) When an OSS failure acetin. the OSS owner shall: (a) Repair or replace the ass with a conforming system or a Table VI repair either on the; (i) Propeny served; or (ii) Nearby or adjacent property if easemenlS are obtained; or (b) Connect the residence or facility to a: (i) Publicly owned LOSS; or (ii) Privately owned LOSS where it is deemed economi- cally feasible; or . (iii) Public sewer; or (c) Perform one of the following when requirements in (a) or (b) of this subsection are not feasible: (i) Use a holding tank; or (ii) Obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System or state discharge pcrmit from the Washington statc department of ecology issued to a public entil)' or jointly to a public entil)' and the system owner only when the local health officer determines: (A) An OSS is not feasihle; and (B) The only realistic method of finaJ disposal of treated effluent is discharge to the surface of the land or into surface water; or ~ (iii) Abandon the property. ~ (Ch.146-m WAC-p. 11'\ . ~ ...., ~ !:ti ~ /~~~ Y ~ \J\ "'5" ~. t;...~ 0 (1 ~~ ~ - ~ ~~". '1. '1'10 "" .... ...~ ... '(f\ ---.... ~ . .-.-'<) .. -... ~ -~~\ TOT.O ~ '1>:.', \\, l~1~J'o26 ~.' - ',< 'd'S<; 1,01__., ....tft ~~. .ey.., ~ ','- . . -. " -" . ~ 0 :)0) 'j., \1' ~Ul 23314 '" 105.38 .. ~ z :E ::; ;;; ~ m I tv ..... Z o , ,.r"4D fo.)~~ $: p ,,~ N 11 '" ;! Q) '-- .j>. fT1 '-" O<'h G). . 4t',;() '. o -'-'>~k ", --... '"'" <. ... '....,.",., -I ..~.C.,.".:,..'i.."... Ii: ,.. U '" Co o 200.08 0"''' !3?<~ P~j:j ,,'DL/, is: .- . !l p'" ~ '" - 0 ~" ~ '" ;;; .. .. --l u)> -x P.,. i>l~ x POI Sou_ T f-/ P o IN]' ~o.o= '-tt,)'l lIva T/. llv <00) a"s Q. :s ;;; ;: .: " ~: VAl:. 3-1-88 1-1-t' .,Jo I o. 804,.. Ci-/J,^'N~L 'D oc ~ " ". .~. . .<'1. . I ,,'. :ID~~-. " .l..,\,,~';j..' . rf> of,,<2..c;,.'\ . . ~ ~~'b I .'. 'lb"f;.<;j.. . ''00. i.. . . <;j-'i;.",. .. -s:~"I ~"v-,,' 0'000 C-4I1;-4!. ~ '" Co -., '" o ?' (SE 1/4 9-27N-1E ~ :S ~ (J) "'0 ':::l,:;o <o::r;: ~:z - . "ll < ......(f) ulls;? 1\),- 0(T1 0.. . :r:-ftM ~-"--'~ II "ERNIT CENTER ACTION REQUEST 'REQUESTED BY: Floyd E. Hefferline . DATE:October 8, 1997 PHONE: 360/ 437-0962 MAILING ADDRESS: 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, Wilshington 98365-9521 NATURE OF REQUEST: I8J IN PERSON 0 BY PHONE I'!;] BY LETTER & DOCUMENTATION TAKEN BY: PERTAINING TO: ~ BUILDING P PLANNING D PUBLIC WORKS 6(J E~JVIRONMENTAL HEALTH H:\HOHt\PLHCHTR\roRHS\~CT.doc 1 E PARCEL :'. ....: :.,,~ . POSTAL DISTRICT: (,DDENDUM VIOLATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT "SEW AGE DISPOSAL PERMIT" & "BUILDING PERMIT" As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sandspit, I am, together with neighbors, very concerned and upset about the activities ofMr. & Mrs. Duane Wells as it relates to the abuse of their Drain Field and Reserve Field Areas which we feel will lead to an ecosystem imbalance in the saltwater boat channel contiguous on the west boundary of the Wells' NY, Lot 9, Bridgehaven. Additionally, it is unclear how the Wells' were successful in seemingly over-extending the setback requirements regarding proximity of their house to the boat channel. Presently on the Wells' property, there exists a wood deck extending over their rock bulkhead, thereby disguising the reference point from which the high-water setback may be calculated or determined. The best reference point is most likely located midway between the north and south boundary along the waterway. While perusing the Wells' Building File at the County Archives, I was unable to locate the County Approved Set of Building Plans or the Plot Plan. When I asked Mr. Mark Burnfield about same, he explained that after several years the plans are discarded because of lack of storage capacity. It would, therefore, appear necessary, when County Officials, hopefully, make a field inspection that Mr. Wells provide his set of County Approved Plans and Plot Plan to verify what otherwise appears to be a significant setback violation. For example, the kitchen nook extension seems to have been added after final approval of Building Permit Field Inspections. The nook is extended under an upper bedroom deck on the northwest corner. The actual length of the north and south boundary lines as they relate to the high-water mark is uncertain, as depicted on my plot plan in Addendum Item #6. This hinders my perception of the nook setback, since I was unable to actually measure the distance which I will explain later. My plot plan (Please see Addendum Item #6) has been developed from the recorded Bridgehaven Plat, per Jefferson Title Company. Placement of the existing Drain Field is derived from the installers, Shold Excavating "As Built" sketch, filed with the County, 15 May 90. However, one Shold reference point, "water meter", may have subsequently been changed or moved. Placement of the Reserve Field is as designed by Mr. Mitchell, P.E. of Northwest Septic; Mt. Vernon, WA. and approved by Jefferson County. However, exhibits subsequently filed, assumably by the Wells', with the County (Please see Addendum ltem #4) presumably for the purpose of defining placement of the existing Drain Field as it relates to the residential structure is erroneous; that is, nowhere near accurate - extremely misleading. Although not indicated, the Wells' sketch appears to have a 118" = I' scale. Thus, when scaling the garage width off the sketch, at say 25 feet (most likely 24 feet), then scaling the Drain Field length (supposedly 33 feet), the actual scaled measurement is 26 feet, not 33 feet as written on the sketch. If corrected, this Page 2 would obviously place the Drain Field under the existing 20 foot wide concrete driveway or possibly under the garage depending upon the actual east/west bearing, but most probably less than the 10 foot required setback from the garage. To add to the above discussed and alleged violations, the Wells' have recently, within the last - say one year, built a detached storage shed 10 feet by 12 feet without a building permit ofrecord. The shed is located about 4 feet, not 5 feet, from their south boundary line. To make it worse it seems, when measured from the garage, to be built over the area which is to be set aside for the Reserve Field Area (Please see Addendum Item #6). Consequently, when examining the allotted area available, given the situation as it now exists; setback requirements, shed and driveway coverage, it is impossible to find enough uncovered ground area to legally accommodate a 33/34 foot long Drain Field and Reserve Field with the proposed and County-approved design which includes a total width of 18 feet. The residence, shed and driveway were built after final County approval and coverage of the existing Drain Field (Drain Field approval 15 May 90, House Permit issued 23 May 90). The proposed design by Mr. Mitchell, P.E. for the Wells' Sewer Disposal Permit, received by Jefferson County 19 May 89, indicates an entirely different driveway configuration and location to accommodate uncovered clearance for the proposed Drain Field and Reserve Field Area. Please see enclosed document (Item #3) in the Addendum, indicating a driveway width of 12 feet and starting near the northeast comer of the Wells N 'h Lot 9, Bridgehaven. The now 20 foot concrete driveway appears to be set in 8 feet from the north property line extending the south edge of the concrete driveway 28 feet distant from the said north boundary line, not the approximate 13 or 14 feet as specified by the Designer, Mr. Mitchell. Although the Sewage Disposal Permit specifies changes in the building plans are not permitted "without prior approval" (Addendum Item #1), the Wells' did in fact make substantial, unauthorized changes after the Septic Drain Field was approved and covered thereby fallaciously portraying what actually and presently exists. Theyassumably deceitfully submitted a false and erroneous "As-Built" sketch to the County Building and Health Departments. The date of the Wells' sketch, (11 May 90) (Addendum Item #4), indicates intentional and deceptively wrongful placement of the residence before the House Permit was issued, and before the Drain Field "As-Built" was received by the County (15 May 90). Accordingly, the Wells' obviously had total disregard for placement of their garage and driveway by subsequently and deliberately building over said Drain Field and Reserve Field. For sure, the County Officials certainly would not have allowed building over the Drain Field and Reserve Field, had they been informed with honest intentions by the Wells'; not to mention, the subsequent erection of their detached storage shed. Page 3 The Wells' have entered into a contract (Agreement for Provision of Municipal Oversight for an On-site Septic System) with the PUD, whereby said agency will provide municipal oversight responsibilities with regard to the operation and maintenance by the Wells' of their OSS. However, the PUD specifies that they take no responsibility for approval or installation, but rely entirely upon the County Health Department for satisfactory compliance for plans, specifications and construction. The problem later arises with the fact that the County Health Department has been deceived by the assumably Wells' documented relationship of the Drain Field to the residence and driveway, and more recently the shed. Therefore, the Health Department had no reason to be alerted or alarmed by what now appears to be an entirely intentional, deceptive "snow job" representation from the Wells'. lt is inconceivable to understand why the Wells' presumably, but purposefully took it upon themselves to flagrantly violate County Codes and Regulations together with Washington State Statues and State Health Department Regulations. I. Line #6 of "Comments" in the County Health Department Sewage Disposal Permit "Do not disturb reserve drain field area; do not build on. drive on or pave". 2. Washington State Department of Health; DOH 334-006C; On-Site Sewage Svstem Regulations. 3. Washington State Statute, WAC246-272-15501 Operation and Maintenance: (1) The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall: ~ Protect the OSS area and the reserve area from: (i) Cover by structures or impervious material; (iii) Soil compaction, for example bv vehicular traffic or livestock. The County permitted a less than required 100 foot waterway setback; that is, the existing Drain Field appears to be about 90 feet distant from said waterway, and the Wells' have abused this magisterial forbearance with their own self-serving and illegal agenda. Certainly, the Wells' have substantially choked the efficiency of their Drain Field from its designed conception by at least 25%, and the Reserve Field seems to now be covered by 50%. Page 4 While it is understandable that the County has no real interest or jurisdiction with Bridgehaven By Laws, it is interesting to note that the Wells' did not apply for written permission (at least it is not of Bridgehaven record), as required, from our Architectural Control Committee to change their original building program, or for that matter build a storage shed -- another example of the Wells' audacious behavior. As stated in my "Action Request" with the outrageous conduct ofthe Mathis Family, "As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sand-spit, together with being a former Bridgehaven Marina Manager", I have always aspired to the well-being of our surrounding ecosystem as it relates to the waterways and Hood Canal. Nevertheless, when I informed Mr. Wells, and his neighbor to the South, Mr. Mathis, that I was gathering information on their properties to file a formal complaint, they immediately petitioned the County Superior Court for a Restraining Order and each received an Unlawful Civil Harassment Order (97-2-369-4 and 97-2-368-6). When I explained to Judge Howard that Mr. Wells and Mr. Mathis are using this ploy or stratagem as a defense, the Judge told me to "let the proper governmental authority do the investigating". Consequently, I was unable to more completely define property lines, setbacks and other measurements as I stated above, specifically regarding the Wells' north and south boundary lines for more accurate distance. The reason for describing these many and obvious violations by the Wells' is to draw regulatory attention to them, and hopefully solicit County action in locating the Drain Field with ,:)'f steel rod and requiring corrective procedures. Otherwise, the consequence may well be the imbalance of the ecosystem and contaminatiOn/pollution of our boat channel, waterway and Hood Canal which is not only of interest to Jefferson County, but also the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Natural Resources and the State Department of Health. Respec~.fU~IY su mitte<:l.,. . ~~l {/... -pl.e .' G Floyd E. Hefferline cc: Mr. David Specter, Jefferson County Health Department Director Mr. Larry Fay, Jefferson County Environmental Health Director Mr. Mike Ajax, Jefferson County Building Official TABLE OF CONTENTS - ADDENDUM Item Description 1. Sewage Disposal Permit. 2. "As-Built" by Shold Excavating. 3. Proposed Septic System Layout by Mitchell, P.E. indicating placement and width of driveway together with relationship to the Drain Field and Reserve Field. 4. Plot Layout, assumably by the Wells', falsely placing proximity of Drain Field to residence. Scale appears to be 1/8 inch = I foot. 5. WAC 246-272-15501. 6. Plot Plan by "Action Request" petitioner, Hefferline, indicating what more closely exists with the Drain Field and Reserve Field area. Layout indicates coverage by 20 foot concrete driveway and storage shed, also questionable with setbacks and coverage. 7. Recorded Plat, per Jefferson Title Company, indicating Subject Lot; N Y:z.9, Bridgehaven. 8. Bridgehaven Area Map showing location of Subject Lot; N Y:z 9, Bridgehaven. 'U~ r'~ 't-!),. " . . . . JEfFEnSO!l COUNTY IlEAlll1 DEPAnTMENlcEP' ~q e02 SHEnlDAN AVEIJUE ..,=>, 0 - () /'ifJ. ronT TOWNSEND. WASIlIHG Tew USJ6a RECEIPT NO. :2 gr ;/J.3 . (206)38S'()722 t< E eEl V E D - DATE ~-ff--Fq SEWAGE DISPOSAL PEnMI~AV 19'89 . ( - _ JEFF. COUNTY. 7619 /47 A-IW S./~ HEAlTH nr;pb.3/- 9464 Address KEJJT 1J4. 980fZ:; SlbO ) phone , . _ " W'E:. 1-. L:;) j) 1I j\('J r;,^, INSTAllER ~r-U OUllOER J DUAJJFo. A - Bmt'tf J}) Olrecllons lor loe_nog sll. Uk! rs Owner /'. 63/ AJORTII '- 5"~ 1 II/STAll NEW SYSTEM l2i N. \S'C'''''''- '\::::,tt. 'Yo!\., LvMO~ hI1*> Y37- 's77 FlEPLACE SYSTEIAO PARTIAL REPAIR 0 TA IN El:t)~. TYPE OF T7fT'/,'Trlttfr NO. OF llUllDlNG t\CO u::1VlL- BEOROOMS Previoua aite evaluation by Health Department . Yea 110 JJD Depth to maximum "paaonal lIster table _ 75" Source of potsble lIster supply Public lC Private .. Soutte type: D,illed "ell' .Dug "ell -r-- Other SITE .sIZE /q~ ~bO ?1Jf(, llASEMENT SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION 1) . 2) 5~~ kTlP\ C\-\.I3J J) INSTAllER'S SIGNATURE DATE DAlE INSTALLED .<. JCltO[7.JB4 ,~ 1ill lui' !~ r '" H ~. < H r (f) H(f) 1:1 ~rn '" l.O () n1< :n .~~ ~ 0 Z 0> In ~ 0 Z '0 (l,- 'pltO 'i(u/f'i \? ~~ 1<.-\-\ L,.A- Q ;;\ I i ! i ~ I I , , h I I , ,.r; , ~Q A. ..>' o .. ,tv'" if LJ V. .;.., ... .~. ," '.. I , . , . ;,(,;.. , "S'l'~' .'/'" "iil , . -:{rlf, . "I~' "',(!f! <....~,. ~\ .' .~ . ,I.. . ,:;" (t... 1\ UUCLJ1<-:: 1\ ! : ., ~ ! uJ ells l-\"., ;. COTTON REDI- MIX SI10(p"EXCA v A TING INC. .:. .' 1', :0. !lox 179 ..Hadl()ck.WA 98339 I-re: IV'\ MAY 1 5 '90 f2\ JEFF. CUuN", ~ HEALTH DE" " "I' I:'.... "'" "i ~ ,. . ."~ ~'~}~';dJ!?1Ii~~-.:.1::&l. 'r~'"i,~;i;f~!i~;;~;;, '\>\;r)'iI'l~;",;;,'\',.,\;. :>:\'JJ":';f~~_" .\{' . ,<1[tJ' i~JY RECfWEli ,,,,,,""''o.;.'M' " i........ .,......, ./ !1J(.~ 'K 'AA'.~' .'f<h.", . '~:'.1tio&WJJ\j,:;,,''i'''0. .\~. .V'. . . l'~..rq;~.~,~'P.l~~~~ho'..t;,,\,:M.of''#'''('''I' I L "'''~''-'''''';'_ .,.~ \"":'l.I.';";I;~ ". .' ,;~I':,~,:'?;r'i"-~:~\'f,' ',,:, _,.' , ".,' ~~. rP-nt ~'-' ~~. ............ ~~,M- ~------s --( ~ .~ ~ DATI! '''!'i'.'''' , ,~ '. ,.\ ........."1. ",,'1r- '~:iq~~~,~~,;:: '!'-"', , ".t""'., '....t' .",\'" I 'I I ; , :: :~~ ?~P~';:,)<<"~: ", Ii:,: I .,. .~~t~. ~'~', 'l "r- '",1 ''''':'. n___' .1 I ~ ~ / J 'f1 r. ~ ~ ~ // 1c-H6 <: \J1 Y1fj'(,'01- \, 'r.' \ _ _.- .' - - - _ , _ /' L:tJ !1---~~!' -::._--~------ - - - --\ - I ~\- __~ . ~~~~-n _ w 'f-;~liQr~ ~~~ ~ II ~~______. <\:::. I I :::l b,u ~ '-' , lQ . "- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W !E ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~.~~ . .~ki 0~Et ~0 ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ >-~ I:t: r:::!~ td~ .~ ~"8 ~ ~~~ (!1 ~~~ .~ ~~~ 1(\. ~q:1-.I.. H:,. ._.U.'HV ~~E/\U-H DE?T. "3 ~.~~ ~ "'- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -------- 'l'- --------"~ . / '-----------------.J !C.: c:(J ~ ~ ~ ~. I RfCEIYEO ~.~19~89 ~ ~ fRCfUflGoll(l~Y!;f.Jlnc.C""" 1l.1lo 01111 I.-'~'._- . ". *ih)- . . I' '. ,.... "", Ii ~.f:~'>'V" !'." t' ~ . '- " ' ':0, ;', - .' ,', . . ..,.,. ~l.,..,.\,r; . ,'1" .., I... \, ... 1__ 1,. ,{. . .~~~;: ;:0 "'"'t,. ~ m . 0.-.11'.", "lit -' n ...;'~'1:';po'I!'2 ::: m .~1]~ B ~ '.ilf:'~' 0 l no;~;:.~/:: :':f:l;;~ %",,': ~,fr. ~~i' .""'" . -5- Me-A suR e-t1f"'}J1'"S lJo'f 1'0 SCA\...e- . ,I \O~ all ~' /I , ~ / 0-" ..., /' ---.-- ...-=---.--.... ...+._-tf.w~_.-. PRo~R FLACeMelJ1'/ "- OFWE."5" L.INt'" or- ...- DI(AII.J FiE'1- b IF- 1"0...- ...- ./ SCALe' ~ ...- ...-./ ./ ,./ ...- . ...- ./ ./ ...- ...- I JO ..- ..- ...... :3' ~...- /~ t~\t,!rFIe-l-D ARe-A 1f" ...-"'- I PROP'f"R\...Y e-)CfI?NDe-D ...- I -ro seA\.- e- /. . ~ ...- .... I 10 -'L ~ I ~ Me-I\$\J~~I"\f::'N-r :> Nar1"o SCALe:-- 7 - bV 1/6 On-site Sewage System 1.1' Assure the ass meets the appro\'ed design: and [b J Direct the person responsible for final cover of the system to place a permanent marker at finished grade where needed to identify the location of the septic tank's first manhole. (31 The designer or installer. as directed by the local health officer. upon completion of the OSS shall develop and submit a complete and detailed. "as-built" or "record. drawing" to both the health offtcer and the ass owner that include: la) For new ass. measurements to eusting site features enabling the first tank manhole to be easily located. and a dimensioned reserve area; and (b) For repaired or altered OSS. the new. repaired. or altered components with their relationship to the existing system. IStatutory AUlhonty: RCW 43.20.050. 94-09.Q25, ~ 246w272-14501. filed 4115194, effectJve 11I/95.J . WAC 246.272-15501 Operation and maintenance. ( 1) The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS. and shall: (a) Determine the level of solids and scum in the septic tank once every three years; (b) Employ an approved pumper to remove the septage from the tank when the level of solids and scum indicates that removal is necess~; (c) Protect theeOS area and the reserve arealfrom: (i) Cover by structures or ImperviOUS materi8l: (ii) Surface drainage; (iii) Soil compaction. for example by vehicular traffic or Ii vestock: and (iv) Damage by soil removal and grade alteration; (d) Keep the flow of sewage to the ass at or below the approved design both in quantity and waste strength: (e) Operate and maintain alternative systems as diro:ted by the local health officer; and (I) Direct drains. such as footing or roof drains. away from the area where the ass is located. (2) The local health officer shall: Ca) Provide operation and maintenance information to the ass owner upon approval of any installation. repBJr. or alteration of an ass; and (b) Develop and implement plans to: (i) Monitor all ass performance within are.u of special concern; (ii) Initiate periodic monitoring of eacb OSS no later than January 1. 2000. to assure tbat each ass owner properly maintains and operates the ass in accordance with this section and in accordance with other applicable opera- tion and mainttnance requirements. (iii) Disseminate relevant operation and maintenance information to OSS owners through effective means rou- tinely and upon request; and (iv) Assist in distributing educational materials to OSS owners. (3) Persons shall not: (al Use or introduce strong bases. acids or chlorinated organic solvents into an OSS for the purpose of system cieaning; . ("'III9~l 2~6-2n- HSOt lb) LIse a sewage system additive unles'i It b ~re.::f:":.Ji~ Iy approved by the depanment: or Ie) Use an OSS to dispose of waste components atypIcal of residential wasteWater. (~) The local health officer shall require annual inspec- tions of ass serving food service establishments and ma\' require pumping as needed. - (5) The iocal health officer may require the owner of the OSS 10: (a) Use one or more of the follOWing management methods or another method consistent with the following management methods for proper operation and mamtenance: (i) Obtain and comply with the conditions of a renew- able or operational permit; (iil Employ a pubiic entity eligible under Washington state statutes to. directly or indirectly. manage the OSS: or (iii) Employ a private management entity. guaranteed by a public entity eligible under Washington state statutes or sufficient financial resources, to manage the OSS: (b) Evaluate any effects the OSS may have on ground water or surface water, and/or (c) Dedicate easements for inspections. maintenance. and potential future expansion of the OSS. (6) Persons may obtain a handbook with material outlining management methods to achieve proper operation. maintenance. and monitoring of ass from the depanment one year after the effective date of this chapter. (7) TIle local health officer may require installation of observation poru in each individual lateral or bed which extend from the bonom of the gravel to the finished grade for monitoring ass performance. [Statutory AlIIhority: RCW 43.20.0~. 94-<l9-02S. I 246-272.15S01. filed 4115,<)4. effcellve IlIm.J WAC 246-272.16501 Repair of failures. (1) When an ass failure occurs, the OSS owner shall: (aj Repair or replace the OSS with a conforming system or a Table VI repair either on the: (i) Property served; or (ii) Nearby or adjacent property if easements are obtained; or (b) Connect the residence or facility to a: (i) Publicly owned LOSS; or (ii) Privately owned LOSS where it is deemed economi- cally feasible; or . (ill) Public sewer, or (c) Perform one of the following when requirements in (a) or (b) of this subsection are not feasible: (i) Use a holding tank; or (ii) Obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. or state discharge permit from the Washington state department of ecology issued to a public entity or jointly to a public entity and the system owner only wben the local health officer determines: (A) An ass is not feasible; and (B) The only realistic method of tinal disposal of treated effluent is discharge to the surface of the land or into s\ll'face water; or ~ (ill) Abandon the property. ~ {Ch.l46-m WAC-p. 17] z z '60' u. '+~ i->'- , r- ~- ~IO", 0 .\) T -\ 0- -.l) ,.. ~ (7 44' 0 ;:: '" l;. ~ <Jl - i" ~ 7\ , <:7 - 1+ -I "' ('\ f'\\ '-.l :I: :r: lJ1 Il' ~ Z '" z:. - ----- 24' ~ I 1+' :] 75 rc ",n <:7 %0 -"- f'.> ""co (Jl :1 0 !('" ,... - ,.. "'- 10 ,1- :E"'" ~ !Jl ~<> ~ '" ",0 I" r,:7 :to '" >z Ii> ~ ~~ <I' 'iI ,- -*- ,- " ",c., U'> N. r~ r'" '--" ",U1 ".. , ].~ ~"" ~n 8' "''' ~ lilall1 ,.. a~ _ ~n (jl o ):> .. -"'" "'- ,~ -, ~ <: 1'1 ~ ~ -.. ()l .,[) ~ '" 11 f-o ~~~ ()..,-\~ oO;c::>; ,,:::,<JlClfl ~(j)(fI-\ "'- --... ;llGl>;:; pr;x>~ G>lI'o(l\ lI'~o->, """'0> tj)r-~ ~Z:)> Z.",iU ";p- O--\Z l\IG' ~(J>c zJ> 2 "z('< -,,\, 11'__ )\) ;: -0, .0170 eli'\\, f\\~r lP~~ j~1" o'-\~ ~'iI", <p<ftu\ ,... "''''~ "I x. lj) t.b u; 'I' '" -\ --\ )\) - 0> Z z:. J>~ij'\ o)><ft ?S_m. NORtH Be-Ac.li DRI\lf: (J\ o ~ 10 ~ \ \ ~- \ \ \ -.t.H'-t1t.A!.!;)'J" ~;~~;f-;._-,~)lr.~r'a~"'-'~'~"" :', '.;.!.i;:"",." ~,"'~':I(t'j'''l;\i;'''- ''-' -01'-' .': .,-. 'n' - - .;'- lfjJ/a:;~:r;'~':~"';:1)r~iji{l~J~rF,!{\g ':'.' ~~:'~.'~i\:i;~~l!t{~;,:<,,:'t~,..]!-: \;:j~~;1:j';:i('_"I~R'4~\':'~' ~"/;:.: > :~J~~p(;{~;i~~J~rtl~J"/.'. ";:}'\~'f;'j'~~f::\?i{:~jJ~'.r~"';~~'~:"":"" '. nee N/l"/S'25"E ;~.,.:~, "p/dt /wrelfi de,- . ">'LtL thence S7Z'4435E:'.i\J 'e/, !lienee 1123'00'00'[ . ~.. thence t1I62"30'oO "w~' thence S7?"44j5'E~.' 7q.V' eS5 dnd uhirtle5 Z3~ , / / .\ / "'/ . oS/. ,.0,/,\" 'i/.'Otx. ,}/\ ,/ 8 .' / . -,~~J~l:::~ .,-:,i:".:<;t- eij"?2"ii'.J,p .' 6 .... H1 .. . ,. (..........) / "'~f::::j.;l~~1J: :,., . '''''.:7'' .....< -.; Cl::: '- ~ C) ... ~ ~ l' .~ , ~ 45? " ~\..u CONe M~~""---- ~..., .", "'..... '" i~ "" .1\) ~ . ::: ." < ,Iv ,~ ~. .~,~ '} <V. 'Ii *' I I f If(- I Cl ,'0 / ~ <.-" :'- '" ~ ~ , , ; ~ ;... S'/,?" .. 4,' , ~ ..5 r '.".' ," i. ~<u " " <J~ <f:<tJ ~ ~J';>? ~~3S" /OS E S:J __ .;r / J"72' "''''' ciS" /os to S:1 .3 S',>,. " 4",' .:?S"c /0 S' _________ 2 I1"E-M (j) ~ Ol I N .....1 Z , , ~ rrl "'t:I \~ c ..~ \~ ~ ----. /'" ~ ';0 ';!. y ~~j' 105.3B ~ --. z ::E ;;; rT'I ~ p,....~ -,- lli!:lt! , .;-e:8 . ... !!l. '" :.. '" ~ <b - ~ ~ Po ~o 'rT'I -l z~ o ,...-" 4D ;~! ~ ~- '" ;;! 01 " .. "- .j>. C) O(';~ . . ... ~.... o. ->~{(;! "<" "'" ,<.. . ~ -; o .. ,.. '" '" '" o """ Iol;tl ... " Ii! PI;" G lOW ~ tl . g p" e No Z 9: r>_ ~ .. 200.0B .&'.:':~::~~' %~ ;: 1 \Y04~:'S. o"rri..",: ''t.e'' z ,,-,. ,.:,,~~, -;.,. '':','\~'\J_:..:,~ o U ~ .-. '-')> -x p... ~~ "'x POI SOu_ '1-/ PO, ~<'l09= Iv.,- r.q.-,}"4 "'a 1/.l" "00) o.<tQ Q,;so ~ t: ;: :,-'t,: .. '''l.f' .Jo < Q. V~c. 3-7-88 B04,.. ..... . Ci/-4NNEL '0 on .. I "' L~\.'io.?'il>. . 'I"!~r"':.~ 'I'~~.~i~. . 'I"~i' . . a ~~ . .. ~?.~,... .. -s,-,.- ~..~. . . "~' ..<:, . "yooo C~II;~L. 0> o ..., LA o ?' :u 0>0 rrt ~:u S "'~ ~ III - . ~ " < (J) (SE 1/4 9-27N-1E ->'(/) 1I11s;? I\.)r- 0('Tl 0.. ~ ~ d',~~ Jefferson County Health & Human Services FROM: Lawrence D. Fay, Jr., Environmental Health Director /04 TO: Jefferson County Board of Health DATE: December 11, 1997 RE: Hefferline Complaint On October 8, 1997, Mr. Floyd Hefferline filed an "Action Request" with the Permit Center alleging violations of terms and conditions of onsite sewage system permits for two lots in Bridgehaven. Following submission of the action request, a meeting was held between Mr. Hefferline and me to review the specific allegations. Linda Atkins was directed to investigate the allegations to determine whether violations did exist. Linda met with both property owners on October 22, 1997, to review the allegations, the terms and conditions of their respective permits and conduct site inspections. Linda's investigation did not support the allegations in that she found no significant permit violations. She then called Mr. Hefferline to inform him of her findings. Mr. Hefferline then requested a hearing to contest the departmental action. I have reviewed Mr. Hetterline's request, briefly, with Paul McIlrath to determine whether he is entitled to a hearing under state or county regulation. Paul is not aware of any state or county law or regulation requiring a public hearing in response to departmental findings regarding a third party complaint. Mr. Hefferline may be able to request a hearing to review whether the department responded appropriately to his action request. It appears that there are three options for the Board to consider . Request a more in-depth legal review by the prosecutor's office before making a decision to schedule a hearing. . Deny the request for a hearing while recognizing that Mr. Hefferline may bring up any issues during the public comment process. A note of caution--there should be no discussion of specific allegations without notification to the affected property owners and provision for them to be heard and/or represented. . Schedule a hearing to review the departmental actions in response to the action request, avoiding any discussion of the specific allegations. HEALTH DEPARTMENT 3601385-9400 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 360/385-9444 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 360/385-9400 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE CENTER 360/385-9435 FAX 360/385-9401 FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A. 98365 360/437-0962 November 26, 1997 WI Ul [S r~ rs n IVI ~ ~~'.'.1 ( Ib ~ [; U \.. bIll; iLl) NOIf 2 /J 1997 -- JEFFERSON COUNTY SOARD OF COMM):~:~IONERS Mr. Richard Wojt, Commissioner Mr. Dan Harpole, Commissioner R E eEl V E D Mr. Glen Huntingford, Commissioner Jefferson County Board of Commissioners DEe 0 11997 P.O. Box 1220 Port Townsend, W A. 98368 & JEFF. CO. HEALTH / HUMAN SERVICES \/ Re: Failure by the Jefferson County Health Department to comply with Chapter 246-272 W AC, ~ On-site Sewage Systems, as designated by the Washington State Board of Health under Statutorv Authorilv RCW 43.20.050. Dear Honorable Commissioners: Enclosed please find my submission to the Jefferson County Health Department regarding the On-Site Sewage System (OSS) ofMr. & Mrs. Duane Wells and Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis. The "Purpose, objectives and authority" WAC 246-272-00101 (1), (I) (a) (b), (3), provides the direction of "The potential for public exposure to sewage from on-site sewage systems." Under WAC 246-272-01001 Definitions: "Expansion", means a change in a residence, facility, site or use that: Reduces the treatment or disposal capabililv of the existing on-site sewage svstem or the reserve area or "Failure" means a condition of an on-site sewage system that threatens the public health by inadequately treating sewage or by creating a potential for direct or indirect contact between sewage and the public. In the enclosed Addendum on the Wells' property, Item #6 clearly shows both the drain field and reserve area being covered. Yet, the County Health Officer, Ms. Atkins, explained to me over the phone that neither the drain field or reserve area are covered by the concrete driveway. So, I asked where then are they located? She did not reply to the question, but it is obvious there is not room to provide same and meet the WAC requirements, and County set-backs with present existing conditions. Also, the drain field is approximately 83 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the required 100 feet (WAC 246-272-09501 "marine water"). Nor, is there any documentation in the County construction files that indicates a variance or waiver . WAC 246-272-25001; (1) (a), (1) 10. Enforcement, WAC 246-272-26001 (1) (1a) (2), (2) (b), (2) 10, (3) 10, (3) (t) (i), (6), (6) (a), (6) (b). the properlY owners have subseauentlv misrepresented their situation from the wav it now exists. Ms. Atkins also explained that the storage building is built on "skids"; therefore, she wrote to the Wells' and explained that if ever the need arose to use the reserve area, adjustments would be required, or words to that effect. That means to me that anyone in the State can build anything over a reserve area if it is on "skids". She has thereby negated several of the Sections and Subsections of Chapter 246-272 WAC by her actions or inactions, say nothing of paving over 25% of the drain field and reserve area. With regard to the Mathis' property, Submission Addendum Item #3 places the Storage Shed completely and directly over the reserve area. The reserve area is approximately 61 to 63 feet from the salt water boat channel, not the 100 feet as required by WAC 246-272-09501, "marine water". Again, Ms. Atkins explained that she wrote the Mathis' a letter similar to the Wells' letter, "built on skids". Additionally, while examining the County construction files, OSS permit, I noticed Ms. Janet Welch R.S., the designer of the Mathis' system, indicated that the water table came within 30" of the surface at certain times during the year and the drain field is 24" below the surface. Under the WAC definition section "Water table", means the upper surface of the ground water, whether permanent or seasonal. Why then was the permit issued? If the Jefferson County Health Department is attempting to adopt their own rules, I suggest they first read WAC 246-272-02001 (1) and especially (1)(a). While speaking with Ms. Atkins over the phone, I asked that she arrange a meeting with her field director, Mr. Larry Fay, and me to explain her findings. She said she would try, but doubted Mr. Fay would agree. I heard nothing for about a week, so I sent Mr. Fay a letter requesting the meeting. About another week passed, and I did not hear from Mr. Fay. I phoned him, but was told he was in a meeting. I, therefore, left a message on his voice mail,stillno reply. This entire episode has been continuing since the first week in October, 1997. The County Health Board is required by WAC 246-272-27001, (1), (1) (a), (1) (b) to provide hearings to contest a local health officer's actions. As a "Person", WAC 246-272-01001, I am respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners hold a meeting because the County Health Department has ignored my several requests. At the meeting, I am also respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners include themselves, Ms. Atkins, Mr. Fay and a representative from the Washington State Department of Health together with my presence. 2 Inasmuch as the County Health Department comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners, I would like Ms. Atkins and Mr. Fay to explain to all of us why they are allowing two Nonconforming OSS' as required by the County Sewage Disposal Permits and provisions of Chapter 246-272 WAC. Respectfully submitted, .... J.. '! /;'1 ,'.,' I: duD Fl:y~ dfferl;ne ' cc: Mr. Bruce Miyahara, Secretary of Health Washington State Department of Health 1112 Quince Street SE Olympia, W A. 98504 Enclosures: Submission to Jefferson County Health Department 1. Mr. & Mrs. Duane Wells 2. Mr. & Mrs. David Mathis Letter to: Mr. Larry Fay, Jefferson County Health Department, Director .' 1.~ /. I i"\,/" ,";'!:L/v" r..--'j j" " ;' I~ I r 3 Human Services December 1, 1997 FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 NORTH BEACH DR PORT LUDLOWWA 98365 Re: Mathis and Wells Action Requests Dear Mr. Heffer1ine: Thank you for your interest and expression of concern with respect to the onsile sewage systems on the above-referenced properties. Not often are citizen action requests accompanied with the level of detail that was provided by you. The attention to detail greatly assists environmental health staff with follow-up. Linda Atlans is an environmental health specialist with this office. In response to your action request she made site visits to both properties and met with both property owners. Using existing septic and building pennit information and making on-the-ground measurements, Ms Atkins was able to determine that drainfie1ds on both properties appear to have been installed in accordance with the terms and conditions of each of the pennits, and subsequent development (buildings, driveways, etc.) substantially conforms to the limitations imposed by the septic system. Neither system appears to be compromised by placement of buildings or driveways. There are storage sheds installed on both properties in the areas identified as reserve. Both buildings are essentially portable. Neither building required disturbance of the reserve area for installation and either could be easily moved if the reserve area were needed to repair a failure to the primaty system. At this time the Health Department has determined that there are no apparent violations of onsite sewage system regulations or pennit conditions that necessitate follow-up enforcement action. As to how a building can be constructed without a pennit, that is a matter you may want to discuss with the building department. Thank you again for your concern, and please feel free to call if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, J/ , ,("\a~ :/ J\ ~ L/ L-/ V~ j Lawrence D. Fay, Jr. Environmental Health Director LDF/wg C~ roy 1.;........ .I HEALTH DEPARTMENT 360/385-9400 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 360/385-9444 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 360/385-9400 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE CENTER 360/385.9435 FAX 360/385-9401 FLOYD E. HEFFERLINE 334 North Beach Drive Port Ludlow, W A. 98365 360/437-0962 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1997 JEFF. COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. October 24, 1997 Mr. Larry Fay, Director Jefferson County Environmental Health Jefferson County Health Department 615 Sheridan Port Townsend, W A. 98368 Re: Mr. & Mrs. Mathis' & Mr. & Mrs. Wells' Action Request, Violation Health Codes & Building Permits Dear Mr. Fay: Thank you for your very prompt inspection of the above referenced properties. Ms. Atkins of the Health Department called me at my home to report the findings of her investigation, and claims that the Wells' Drain Field and Reserve Area do not extend under the Wells' driveway which I find is impossible. I am, therefore, requesting a meeting with you and Ms. Atkins at your earliest convenience so she may explain to us where the Wells' Drain Field is in fact located, using the Plot Plan I submitted as a reference. Secondly, I am wondering why anyone is allowed to build, without a permit, a structure over a Reserve Area or Drain Field, so long, as Ms. Atkins stated, "the structure is built on what she called skids". This occurrence has happened in both the Wells' and Mathis's situation. Again, thank you for your prompt consideration. VIOLATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT "SEW AGE DISPOSAL PERMIT' & "BUILDING PERMIT" As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sandspit, I am, together with neighbors, very concerned and upset about the activities of Mr. & Mrs. Duane Wells as it relates to the abuse of their Drain field and Reserve field Areas which we feel will lead to an ecosystem imbalance in the saltwater boat channel contiguous on the west boundary of the Wells' N Y, Lot 9, Bridgehaven. Additionally, it is unclear how the Wells' were successful in seemingly over-extending the setback requirements regarding proximity of their house to the boat channel. Presently on the Wells' property, there exists a wood deck extending over their rock bulkhead, thereby disguising the reference point from which the high-water setback may be calculated or determined. The best reference point is most likely located midway between the north and south boundary along the waterway. While perusing the Wells' Building file at the County Archives, I was unable to locate the County Approved Set of Building Plans or the Plot Plan. When I asked Mr. Mark Burnfield about same, he explained that after several years the plans are discarded because of lack of storage capacity. It would, therefore, appear necessary, when County Officials, hopefully, make a field inspection that Mr. Wells provide his set of County Approved Plans and Plot Plan to verify what otherwise appears to be a significant setback violation. For example, the kitchen nook extension seems to have been added after final approval of Building Permit field Inspections. The nook is extended under an upper bedroom deck on the northwest comer. The actual length of the north and south boundary lines as they relate to the high-water mark is uncertain, as depicted on my plot plan in Addendum Item #6. This hinders my perception of the nook setback, since I was unable to actually measure the distance which I will explain later. My plot plan (Please see Addendum Item #6) has been developed from the recorded Bridgehaven Plat, per Jefferson Title Company. Placement of the existing Drain field is derived from the installers, Shold Excavating "As Built" sketch, filed with the County, 15 May 90. However, one Shold reference point, "water meter", may have subsequently been changed or moved. Placement of the Reserve field is as designed by Mr. Mitchell, P.E. of Northwest Septic; Mt. Vernon, WA. and approved by Jefferson County. However, exhibits subsequently filed, assumably by the Wells', with the County (Please see Addendum Item #4) presumably for the purpose of defining placement of the existing Drain Field as it relates to the residential structure is erroneous; that is, nowhere near accurate - extremely misleading. Although not indicated, the Wells' sketch appears to have a 118" = I' scale. Thus, when scaling the garage width off the sketch, at say 25 feet (most likely 24 feet), then scaling the Drain Field length (supposedly 33 feet), the actual scaled measurement is 26 feet, not 33 feet as written on the sketch. If corrected, this Page 2 would obviously place the Drain Field under the existing 20 foot wide concrete driveway or possibly under the garage depending upon the actual east/west bearing, but most probably less than the 10 foot required setback from the garage. To add to the above discussed and alleged violations, the Wells' have recently, within the last _ say one year, built a detached storage shed 10 feet by 12 feet without a building permit of record. The shed is located about 4 feet, not 5 feet, from their south boundary line. To make it worse it seems, when measured from the garage, to be built over the area which is to be set aside for the Reserve Field Area (Please see Addendum Item #6). Consequently, when examining the allotted area available, given the situation as it now exists; setback requirements, shed and driveway coverage, it is impossible to find enough uncovered ground area to legally accommodate a 33/34 foot long Drain Field and Reserve Field with the proposed and County-approved design which includes a total width of 18 feet. The residence, shed and driveway were built after final County approval and coverage of the existing Drain Field (Drain Field approval 15 May 90, House Permit issued 23 May 90). The proposed design by Mr. Mitchell, P.E. for the Wells' Sewer Disposal Permit, received by Jefferson County 19 May R2, indicates an entirely different driveway configuration and location to accommodate uncovered clearance for the proposed Drain Field and Reserve Field Area. Please see enclosed document (Item #3) in the Addendum, indicating a driveway width of 12 feet and starting near the northeast comer of the Wells N V, Lot 9, Bridgehaven. The now 20 foot concrete driveway appears to be set in 8 feet from the north property line extending the south edge of the concrete driveway 28 feet distant from the said north boundary line, not the approximate 13 or 14 feet as specified by the Designer, Mr. Mitchell. Although the Sewage Disposal Permit specifies changes in the building plans are not permitted "without prior approval" (Addendum Item #1), the Wells' did in fact make substantial, unauthorized changes after the Septic Drain Field was approved and covered thereby fallaciously portraying what actually and presently exists. They assumably deceitfully submitted a false and erroneous "As-Built" sketch to the County Building and Health Departments. The date of the Wells' sketch, (11 May 90) (Addendum Item #4), indicates intentional and deceptively wrongful placement of the residence before the House Permit was issued, and before the Drain Field "As-Built" was received by the County (15 May 90). Accordingly, the Wells' obviously had total disregard for placement of their garage and driveway by subsequently and deliberately building over said Drain Field and Reserve Field. For sure, the County Officials certainly would not have allowed building over the Drain Field and Reserve Field, had they been informed with honest intentions by the Wells'; not to mention, the subsequent erection of their detached storage shed. Page 3 The Wells' have entered into a contract (Agreement for Provision of Municipal Oversight for an On-site Septic System) with the PUD, whereby said agency will provide municipal oversight responsibilities with regard to the operation and maintenance by the Wells' of their OSS. However, the PUD specifies that they take no responsibility for approval or installation, but rely entirely upon the County Health Department for satisfactory compliance for plans, specifications and construction. The problem later arises with the fact that the County Health Department has been deceived by the assumably Wells' documented relationship of the Drain Field to the residence and driveway, and more recently the shed. Therefore, the Health Department had no reason to be alerted or alarmed by what now appears to be an entirely intentional, deceptive "snow job" representation from the Wells'. It is inconceivable to understand why the Wells' presumably, but purposefully took it upon themselves to flagrantly violate County Codes and Regulations together with Washington State Statues and State Health Department Regulations. 1. Line #6 of "Comments" in the County Health Department Sewage Disposal Permit "Do not disturb reserve drain field area: do not build on. drive on or nave". 2. Washington State Department of Health: DOH 334-006C; On-Site Sewage Svstem Regulations. 3. Washington State Statute, WAC 246-272-15501 Operation and Maintenance: (1) The ass owner is resoonsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall: <0 Protect the OSS area and the reserve area from: (i) Cover bv structures or imoervious material: (iii) Soil comoaction. for examole bv vehicular traffic or livestock. The County permitted a less than required 100 foot waterway setback; that is, the existing Drain Field appears to be about 90 feet distant from said waterway, and the Wells' have abused this magisterial forbearance with their own self-serving and illegal agenda. Certainly, the Wells' have substantially choked the efficiency of their Drain Field from its designed conception by at least 25%, and the Reserve Field seems to now be covered by 50%. Page 4 While it is understandable that the County has no real interest or jurisdiction with Bridgehaven By Laws, it is interesting to note that the Wells' did not apply for written permission (at least it is not of Bridgehaven record), as required, from our Architectural Control Committee to change their original building program, or for that matter build a storage shed -- another example of the Wells' audacious behavior. As stated in my "Action Request" with the outrageous conduct of the Mathis Family, "As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sand-spit, together with being a former Bridgehaven Marina Manager", I have always aspired to the well-being of our surrounding ecosystem as it relates to the waterways and Hood Canal. Nevertheless, when I informed Mr. Wells, and his neighbor to the South, Mr. Mathis, that I was gathering information on their properties to file a formal complaint, they immediately petitioned the County Superior Court for a Restraining Order and each received an Unlawful Civil Harassment Order (97-2-369-4 and 97-2-368-6). When I explained to Judge Howard that Mr. Wells and Mr. Mathis are using this ploy or stratagem as a defense, the Judge told me to "let the proper governmental authority do the investigating". Consequently, I was unable to more completely define property lines, setbacks and other measurements as I stated above, specifically regarding the Wells' north and south boundary lines for more accurate distance. The reason for describing these many and obvious violations by the Wells' is to draw regulatory attention to them, and hopefully solicit County action in locating the Drain Field with ap steel rod and requiring corrective procedures. Otherwise, the consequence may well be the imbalance of the ecosystem and contamination/pollution of our boat channel, waterway and Hood Canal which is not only of interest to Jefferson County, but also the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Natural Resources and the State Department of Health. -{.lC Floyd E. Hefferline / /. i /. /~r/{( J / Respectfully su . mitte.d, ._' /}- ,. ...- .---' I( i Ii cc: Mr. David Specter, Jefferson County Health Department Director Mr. Larry Fay, Jefferson County Environmental Health Director Mr. Mike Ajax, Jefferson County Building Official VIOLATION JEFFERSON COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT "SEW AGE DISPOSAL PERMIT" & "BUILDING PERMIT' The subject property owners continue to have total flagrant disregard for Jefferson County Codes. In the past, they added a "Sun Room" to the west side of their home, extending it into the water channel frontage setback. It seems obvious they did not apply for a County Permit because they were aware of their encroachment. However, when confronted in writing by Mr. Jim Pearson, Associate Planner, and subsequently in writing by Mr. Michael Ajax, County Building Official, the Mathis's applied for and were granted a Variance for the setback violation and paid for a belated permit, but no penalty. However, the County makes no reference as to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements with regard to Tempered Safety Glass on both the side walls and ceiling of the Sun Room. More recently, the subject property owners have built a detached outbuilding without a permit ofrecord 12 feet by 12 feet over their existing Reserve Field, and attempted to conceal same from the public and County Official's scrutiny behind plantings of Arbor Vitae Pyramidalis evergreen-type trees. Additionally, a concrete/brick walkway has been built from their front entry porch (approximate width 3 to 4 feet and length about 25 to 30 feet partially over the Reserve Field to the detached outbuilding. They also increased the width of their driveway and built a graveled parking area seemingly into the Reserve Field Area by several feet (please see attached sketch copy of the "As-Built" from Jefferson County files, Addendum Item #3), in spite of the fact the Jefferson County Health Department has checked Paragraph #6 under "Comments" - "Do not disturb reserve drainfield area: do not build on. drive on or pave". Under Washington State Statute, WAC 246-272-15501 Operation and Maintenance: (Please see Addendum Item #5) (I) The OSS owner is responsible for properly operating and maintaining the OSS, and shall: ~ Protect the OSS area and the reserve area from: (i) Cover bv structures or impervious material: (iii) Soil compaction. for example bv vehicular traffic or livestock. Page 2 Inasmuch as the Mathis's existing Drain Field is only 83 feet from the water channel to the west (per "As-Built"; 49 feet to house, 24 foot house width and 10 foot setback from the waterway), it becomes especially important that the existing Drain Field be maintained to the strictest regulations set forth by both the Washington State Department of Health (DOH 334-006C, On-Site Sewage System Regulations) and the Jefferson County Health Department as discussed above. Secondly, it becomes extremely important, should the occasion arise to utilize the Reserve Drain Field, when one considers the normal waterway County setback requirement is normally, but arguably, around 100 feet and the Reserve Field will only be about 64 feet from the waterway. Considering the Mathis's OSS designer, Ms. Janet Welch, R.S., has estimated from the soil log holes that the water table is as high as 30 inches below the undisturbed surface before Drain Field installation, and the Drain Field is 24 inches below what was the undisturbed surface, there is a high probability that considerable pathogenic action will infiltrate the water table. I, therefore, contacted Mr. Richard R. Burleigh, Cooperative Extension; Washington State University; Water Quality Program Assistant and On-Site Sewage Systems Instructor. He explained that effluent treatment generally stops at about 36 inches below the Drain Field. thereby leaving a possible 30 inches of untreated effluent entering the water table when it reaches Ms. Welch's estimate ofa high of30 inches below the surface. With the water table likely to have an alluvial direction toward the saltwater boat channel, it seems that all the help the Drain Field system can obtain from unobstructed evaporation is highly important and accordingly the natural process toward the waterway be undisturbed. In retrospect, analyzing the evidence set forth by the designer, Ms. Welch, prior to an OSS approval for construction, it is puzzling why a permit was in fact issued, especially considering the close proximity to the saltwater boat channel. Then to have the Mathis's abuse the setback forbearance, together with disturbing the Reserve Field Area is arrogantly irregular. Additionally, the negligence and disrespect the Mathis's have shown for the Jefferson County permit process together with the health and safety of their neighbors by breaking the well-founded codes and statutes is appalling. If they continue to willfully flout the rules, what is to stop anyone from contempt of the regulations? As a homeowner and resident of the Bridgehaven Sand-spit, together with being a former Bridgehaven Marina Manager, I have always aspired to the well-being of our surrounding ecosystem as it relates to the waterways and Hood' Canal. Nevertheless, when I informed Mr. Mathis and his neighbor to the north, Mr. Wells, that I was Page 3 gathering information on their properties to file a formal complaint, they immediately petitioned for a Restraining Order and received an Unlawful Civil Harassment Order (97- 2-369-4 and 97-2-368-6). When I explained to Judge Howard that Mr. Mathis and Mr. Wells are using this ploy or stratagem as a defense, the Judge told me to;let the proper governmental authority do the investigating." Consequently, I was unable to more completely define property lines, set-backs and other measurements. While it is understandable the County is not concerned or obligated to act upon Bridgehaven By Laws, The Mathis's did not apply for permission, as required, from our Architectural Control Committee to construct the herein described Sun Room or Storage Shed. Many of the neighbors here in Bridgehaven are also concerned about the ecosystem and code violations undertaken by the Mathis's and are all hopeful, in the near future, that both Mr. Ajax and the County Health Department officials will investigate the premise of the statements outlined herein. 1i:r~~!t,L Floyd E. Hefferline cc: Mr. David Specter, Jefferson County Health Department Director Mr. Larry Fay, Environmental Health Director Mr. Mike Ajax, Jefferson County Building Official County Health & Human Ser.vices TO: Jefferson County Board of Health FROM: Lawrence D. Fay, Jr., Environmental Health Director DATE: December 11, 1997 RE: Ludlow Sewer Service Survey The attached report was developed by the Ludlow Lot Owners' Association partly in response to changes in Ludlow Utilities' policy changes concerning extension of sewer service into the old parts of the North Bay Community and partly in response to the changes in land area requirements for onsite sewage systems. Historically, Ludlow Utilities has been resistant to proposals to extend sewer service into the older unsewered subdivisions of North Bay. In the last year or so, however, Pope has indicated a willingness to extend service provided costs associated with the extension would be born by the users. Because of the small lots, marginal soil conditions and expensive onsite sewage systems, some members of the association initiated discussions with Pope. About the same time, the Health Department policy with respect to rninimum land area requirements was changing. In February, the Department announced that it would no longer waive land area requirements for existing lots through administrative processes. Anyone applying for a permit for sites not meeting the land area requirements would need to apply for a waiver and go through a hearing with the Board of Health. That directive was modified by Policy Statement 97-02 allowing for administrative waivers under some circumstances. Policy Statement 97-02 states that land area waivers will not be approved when sewer service is available in a timely and reasonable manner. Many, ifnot most, of the lots in the communities surveyed do not meet the land area requirements. The basic issue for the Board will be the Departmental position if the community does not take advantage of the opportunity to extend sewer service now. LDF/wg HEALTH DEPARTMENT 360/385-9400 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 360/385-9444 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 360/385-9400 ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE CENTER 360/385-9435 FAX 360/385-9401 Larry Fay From: Sent: To: Subject: Matt Lyons[SMTP:mlyons@waypt.com] Friday, November 14,19972:55 PM Larry Fay Final Report . . at Owners Association Sewer Service Report, Sewer Survey Final Oct 97.doc Larry Attached is the final Sewer Survey Report as approved by the Lot Owners Association (LOA) this morning. The Board of Directors of the LOA approved a motion recommending that the Ludlow maintenance Commission change the CC&R's to prohibit new septic systems after 1 January, 2000. This mayor may not be adopted, however we felt that it was a way to get moving on the problem and provide all parties sufficient time to resolve the construction and funding issues. Without a "push"n nothing will happen. If you declare a moratorium prior to that time, the issue will resolve sooner. Matt Page 1 . . . . Prepared by: Matthew J. Lyons Lot Owners Association P.O. Box 65070 Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 e-mail: mlyons@waypt.com Sewer Service Survey November, 1997 Final Report . . . . . . . . . . A Survey to Assess the Desires of Owners ofNon-Sewered Lots Concerning the Possible Extension Sewer Service to their Property LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 65070 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 November 14, 1997 I. Sewer Service Survey Backip'ound and PUJ:l)ose: A survey of owners of non-sewered lots in the North Bay section of Port Ludlow, Washington was conducted by mail during October, 1997. The purpose of the survey was to gather information on the desires of the owners for the extension of sewer service to these lots. The issue was prompted by recent changes in the Jefferson County Health Department policy which indicated that it would be extremely difficult, very expensive and/or impossible to obtain a waiver from policy to enable an owner to install a septic system on these lots. The county decision was made with the knowledge that Pope Resources was willing to extend the Port Ludlow Sewer System to all unsewered lots, at cost, if the owners desired the service and were willing to defray the costs of the system. The potential implication of this County policy is important in that it may be possible that lot owners without a sewer system may fmd that their properties are not buildable because of a lack of sanitary disposal. An ad hoc committee was convened to examine the problem. Members of the committee included Mike Derrig and Larry Smith representing Pope Resources, Larry Fay of the Department of Health, Oily Gardener, Lois Camella, Bud Johnson and Matt Lyons of The Lot Owners Association (LOA). During the committee deliberations the LOA agreed to make this survey as a public service to enable the owners, Pope Resources, the County and other interested planners and individuals to make observations and possibly aid in making decisions affecting their role in this situation. The LOA is not, nor has been, in the business of managing, designing or coordinating a sewer construction project. The information provided is without grantee as to accuracy. Decisions regarding courses of action, whether for individuals, organizations, businesses or government should be made based on more exact information and cornmitments from parties to the problem. 2. Methodolo~y. Survey Instrument and Statistical TechniqJle: A letter (enclosure 1) explaining the situation was sent on October I, 1997 to 134 owners ofnon-sewered lots identified by Pope Resources, the operator of the Sewer System. The Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) paid for the reproduction and mailing of the letter. Attached to the letter was a survey questionnaire (enclosure 2). We asked each recipient to complete the survey and return it to the LOA. By October 24, 1997, 52 responses were received. This represents a response rate of 39%. This is a statistically significant response rate, however due to the nature of the issue and the potential personal owner costs involved, a 61 % non-response rate is an area of concern. Since the entire population was sampled, there was nothing to be inferred. Therefore, it is important to note that the statistical analysis used for this study is descriptive rather than inferential. 3. Observations from Survey Re&J;lonses: In order to understand the intentions of the owners of these lots, we asked respondents to indicate their reason for owning the property. Possible responses were limited to the following: a. I do not plan to build/live on the property, but I will hold on to it for the foreseeable future b. I plan to build on the lot c. I do not intend to build on the lot, I intend to sell it in the near future d_ I currently live on the lot; we have a septic system Of the 52 com,pleted surveys received, owners provided the following responses: a. 33% (17) Plan not to build/ will hold lot b. 13% (7) Plan to build c. 15% (8) Plan to sell d. 39% (20) Live on the lot (Note that 82, the largest sector, did not respond) Noteworthy observations: a. Only 13% of respondents stated that they intended to build on the lots. b. The largest single group of respondents represents those already living on the lots 4. Who Indicated That They Want An Extension of the Sewer System to their Property? Of those answering a, above (won't build/will hold), 10 respondents representing 59% wanted sewer service; 7 respondents, or 41 % said no. Of those answering b, above, (plan to build), 6 respondents representing 86% wanted sewer service; 1 said no (he already has a septic system installed). It can be assumed that all those responding, who plan to build, and do not have a currently installed system, desire sewer servIce. Of those answering c, above, (won't build/will sell), 3 respondents representing 38% wanted sewer service; 5 or 62% declined. The majority of thos.e contemplating selling seemed uninterested in spending the money or dealing with the issue. The problem would be passed to a potential buyer. Of those responding d, above, (residents living on the lots), 5 residents representing 25 % wanted the sewer; 25 representing 75% did not want sewer services. Many comments indicated significant resistance to the issue. One comment stated that there is "No problem". 5. Results Adiusted Deleting Those With An Existing St;ptic System: If those living on lots with existing septic systems are removed from the sample, the results are: 19 respondents, representing 59% desire sewer service; 13 respondents, representing 41 % do not desire sewer service. The significance of this observation is that many residents with existing systems do not wish to incur additional expense to install what they feel is an unnecessary sewer service for their lots. The majority of those representing undeveloped lots indicated a desire for sewer service. Those actually planning to use the lot themselves for future building universally desire the sewer system extension. 6. Combined Overall Results: 24 respondents, representing 46% of those responding said that they wanted sewer service; 28 respondents, representing 54% said that they did not want sewer service. It should be noted however, that the 24 affirmative responses to this basic question represents only 18% of the population who were asked the question and will be involved in the solution. 7. Payment Options: We asked respondents whether they would prefer a lump sum payment or time payment option to cover their portion of a sewer extension project. Of those responding that they did desire to have sewer service, 42% (10) indicated that they would prefer a lump sum payment, 29% (7) indicated that they would prefer to pay over time, and 29% (7) were undecided. 8. Community Participation: We asked respondents if they were interested in working on an owners cotnmittee to solve the problem. The results were: Yes No Maybe 21%(11) 71 % (37) 8% (4) The II individuals willing to participate in an owners committee represents only 8% of the total population surveyed. As noted earlier, the largest group impacting the survey is the 82 non-respondents. The community's interest in becoming involved in managing its septic problem is low. 9. Comments From Respondents: A variety of comments were received from respondents. They ranged from thanking us for addressing the issue, commenting on the positive environmental issues involved, relief that the lots would become more marketable with a sewer system, to comments saying that there is no problem, as well as angry and obnoxious ranting about us and Pope Resources. Other lot owners argued that they were closer to the sewer main than some and should therefore pay less. Many, but not all, current residents living on the lots felt strongly that their septic systems were fine and that they did not have a problem. Others owner/residents felt that eventually they would have to address the issue of a failed system and/or environmental impact and were interested in having the sewer infrastructure in place. Specific comments which will provide constructive assistance to those addressing the issues will be provided to the decision makers. 10. Conclusions: Because of the informal nature of the survey and study, one should be careful in assessing the results of this project. It was possible however, to see that, at this time, it will be difficult to proceed with a user financed major capital infrastructure expansion program with the indication of owner commitment and support noted by this survey. Most of those queried did not respond. That, in itself, is an indicator of owner interest. Those planning to build, which is a small minority, would like a sewer system. Most of those already living on the lots do not want a sewer. Those not planning to build have little interest in a sewer. There seems to be a feeling that the problem of obtaining a septic permit does not really exist or that someone else will have to deal with the issue iffwhen necessary. Owners may reassess their options if/when the county bans septic permits in North Port Ludlow. Further action on the issue of sewer service to non- sewered lots in the North Bay is the responsibility of the owners, Pope resources and the County. The LOA role in this effort is completed. 2 Enclosures: Letter to Owners ofNon-Sewered Lots, October 1, 1997 Sewer Service Survey LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 65070 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 November 17, 1997 President Ludlow Maintenance Commission P.O. Box 65060 Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 ATTN: Howard Slack Dear Howard: At the November 14 meeting of the Lot Owners Association, The Board of Directors unanimously passed the following recommendation: "The Lot Owners Association recommends that the Ludlow Maintenance Commission (LMC) change the CC&R's to prohibit the installation of any new septic system after January 1,2000. All new construction after January I, 2000 is required to be connected to the sewer service." The Board feels that it is in the best interest of the health and safety of the community that the installation of septic systems in Port Ludlow be ended. The addition of up to 1 00 more septic systems on the hills of the north bay poses a potential threat to the public health. It is a well known fact that the soil in north Port Ludlow does not drain or perk well. Surface water and sub-terranian drainage is currently a major concern which has not been resolved. Imagine this problem complicated by the run off from large numbers of septic systems! Additionally, part of the aquifer which provides all the drinking water for the community, is directly below the north bay residential area. Fortunately, the community has sewer services available for all property owners. Although significant costs are involved in extending the infrastructure to all locations, this is a worthwhile investment in the future of Port Ludlow and the health of its citizens. Please advise me of the decision of the LMC in this matter. Sincerely, OIly Gardener President LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION BOX 65070 PORT LUDLOW, WASHINGTON 98365 October 1, 1997 Subject: Extension of the Sewer System in Port Ludlow North Bay Property Owner Port Ludlow, Washington 98365 Dear Fellow Port Ludlow Property Owner: The Lot Owners Association is writing this letter to all owners of lots in the North Bay area who are not currently served by the sewer system. As you may know, recent policy changes by the Jefferson County Health Department indicate that, in the future, it will become increasingly difficult or impossible to obtain permission to install a septic system in Port Ludlow. Current rules dictate that, even if a septic system is approved for a lot, the system will likely be extremely costly. It therefore is in our community interest to explore the possibility of coordinating the extension of sewer services throughout our community. To this end, the Lot Owners Association has formed a committee to examine the issue, identify owners needs, develop the altematives and facilitate communication between all parties. The LOA is not in charge of a sewer construction project. As the Committee examines this project, we need your input and solicit your ideas, suggestions and participation. Pope Resources (Olympic Resources Management), the owner of the sewer system, has indicated a willingness to complete this project. The LOA Committee has entered into preliminary discussions with the Department of Health and representatives of Pope. Initial estimates, which are NOT at all firm indicate that, if the full system were extended to all unsewered lots, the cost would be approximately $7.000 per lot. In addition to this, there would be the $4,000 connection charge at the time of service commencement. Pope Resources has indicated that they may be willing to arrange a variety of financing options and would consider completing the project at cost. Final costs, of course, will depend on the number of owners participating and actual costs. We anticipate that lots with sewer service may become more valuable and desirable real estate. On the other hand, it is likely that unsewered lots may become less valuable, particularly if they become non-buildable because they are neither served by the sewer system nor permitted to install a septic tank. The county has stated that, if the sewer system is made available to those areas not currently served, septic permits will not be issued. Those currently on a septic system may not receive a permit to replace an existing system, should it fail. These issues are complex and controversial. We feel that there is a need to deal with them before we have a crisis. In order to continue the process of developing this issue, we need to know what you, the affected property owner, want. Please complete the enclosed survey and retum it to the LOA as soon as possible. Completing the survey does NOT commit you; it is merely your opinion. Even if you disagree totally, we need to know that. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions that you feel may be pertinent. This is a critical decision which needs your participation. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Matthew J. Lyons Committee Chairman . LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION SEWER SERVICE SURVEY SEPTEMBER,1997 1. Name: Mailing Address: Telephone Number: May we contact you? 2. Lot/Property Address or Description: 3. Reason for owning the property (please circle one): c) I do not plan to build/live on the property, but I will hold on to it for the foreseeable tutu re d) I plan to build on the lot; when ? e) I do not plan to build on the lot, I intend to sell the property in the near future f) I currently live on the property; we have a septic system 4. Do you want sewer service to be provided to your property? for us to understand your desires correctly, please tell us why yes no. In order 5. If you desire to have the sewer service provided to your lot, are you willing to pay the estimated costs? 6. Would you prefer a lump sum payment or a time payment plan? 7. If you desire sewer service for your property, what time frame would you like this service to be provided? Approximate date 8. Are you interested in working on an owners committee to solve this problem? 9. Should there be and will you attend an open public meeting to discuss the issues? 10. Other thoughts and comments: Please mail this survey to: Sewer Service Survey Lot Owners Association P.O. Box 65070 Port Ludlow, WA 98365