At the community meeting on Aug 17th, the Bennett wall caused a major eruption of questions, comments and emotion. Subsequently, there have been numerous comments about the wall on the blog. As the one dissenting vote in regard to the Bennett wall during our July 28th Board meeting I was attempting to respond to some of the comments being made from the floor and had my response cut off by the abrupt ending of our meeting. Therefore, I have decided to use this forum as a means of completing those comments.
At the meeting, I tried to respond to a statement made by an individual in the audience; a statement that the county has no authority over Seven Bays. I am not sure how such an attitude developed as property owners in Seven Bays are no different than property owners elsewhere in the county. What happens when someone decides to build a new home in Seven Bays...they go to the county and obtain a building permit to construct that home. Even our own construction packets reference the county's requirements regarding set backs in relation to our own more stringent requirements. Surely if the county has no authority, no one would bother with getting the required permits before building; they would just start digging and pouring and nailing with no regard for the requirements of the county. And if the county has no authority in and over Seven Bays, why do we as an entity, file documents with the count y? Our own covenants were filed with the county as were any number of other documents, plat maps and even our building packet. The county does have control over what and how buildings, retaining walls, roadways and easements are handled. Gentlemen, you are misinformed if you believe we are above the laws, rules and regulations put forth by the county. You do a disservice to this community if you make such ill informed, inaccurate statements to the public in general. And then if you have used that belief as you made decisions past or present while serving on the board you compounded that disservice.
As to the Bennett wall, my dissenting vote on July 28th was based on not just a concern about fire department vehicles; it was a concern for life, fire, safety. It was also a concern for what potential impact the impingement on the easement might mean in regard to county requirements for that easement. I urged the board to check with the county before taking any further actions and had my concerns dismissed with words to the effect that the county doesn't control us, we are private property. While I may not have fully expressed my worries, leaving it at the "life, fire, safety" issue my worries were there and justified as it turns out. Granting even a one week extension of the requirement of the previous board's letter telling the homeowner to remove the wall would have allowed for additional information to be gathered and allowed for a more informed decision to be made. Would that information have changed the outcome ? Who knows, but at least the information could have been factored into the decision making process.
On the following Tuesday, July 31st, I called the county and spoke with two different individuals in the county building department. Based on my conversations with those individuals I understood that the county requires a building permit for any "wall" over four feet in height and if it is an unsupported wall it requires engineering as well. From the information given to me, I believe the Bennett wall is an unsupported wall (the county described it as a wall with dirt pushing against the back of the wall with nothing to support the wall from the front) and that it is over four feet tall at its upper end. I was further informed that no building permit had been obtained from the county. This failure rests not only on the property owner but on the licensed contractor who built the wall. The State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries, in licensing individuals as contractors requires a higher standard of knowledge regard ing building requirements. While private property owners might be forgiven a lack of knowledge regarding permitting and engineering requirements a licensed contractor should know better and should never agree to undertake a construction project without the proper permits in place; doing so opens licensed contractors up for possible sanctions or even revocation of their license by the state.
More importantly, the impingement on a Seven Bays easement and the board's decision to allow that impingement has potentially violated a platting agreement with the county that required a 60' easement to the property located above and behind the Bennett's. This 60' easement is what was required by the county in order for the property Seven Bays sold to be short platted into two lots.
I know there will be some who will feel that as a board member, I am maligning my fellow board members, that my purpose in saying these things is suspect or that I am just mad that I lost the vote on the Bennett wall. Guess what folks, I fully expect to "loose" many more votes during my term. And I fully expect to win many more votes. Its not about my winning or loosing, its about what Seven Bays may stand to loose should this wall ever become one of liability for the impingement of the easement and possible invalidation of the short plat.
Margot Rach
Board Member
No comments:
Post a Comment