commissioners involvement

8/3/2019 Commissioners Involvement

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/commissioners-involvement 1/4

Page I of5

Bob Pederson

From: Andrew Hicks

Sent: Wednesday, August 17 ,2011 9:06 AM

To: Angie Homola

Cc: Linda Slane; Bob PedersonSubject: RE: RE: Planning Department performance problem Public Disclosure Request

Dear Commissioner Homola,

Responses to your questions:

1. Yes. The letter that was attached to my last e-mai! dated August 15, 2011 was the

analysis that the landowners requested at the July 15, 2011 meeting.

Z. Since permits were not obtained for the building violations it is impossible to knowexactly when the violations occurred. However, the !andowners have provided

approximate years in which each structure was constructed. The residence on Dead

Goat Rd. was constructed in 1979. The carport on Neely Rd. was constructed in the

earty 1990's. The roof over the deck on Bailey Rd. was constructed in the late 1990's.

Again, these are approximate timeframes that were provided by the landowners.

lf you have any other questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Andrew Hicks I Senior Planner I lsland County Planning & Community Development | 360-678-

782L I [email protected] 5fi

From: Angie Homola

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 6:30 PM

To: Andrew Hicks

Cc: Linda SlaneSubject: RE: RE: Planning Department performance problem Public Disclosure Request

Dbar Andrew,

Thank you for the detailed summary, nice work. I have one two questions:

8t22/2011



of5

l. see letter below in yellow

2. When did these violations occur?

Sincerely,

Angie Homola, Chair

Island County Commissioner D2

1 N.E. 7th St P.O. Box 5000

Coupeville, WA 98239

(360) 67e-73s4

[email protected]

Please note correspondence may be subject to Public Review. If you tvish a reply please includeyour name and contact information.

From: Andrew Hicks

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 2:46 PM

To: Bob Pederson; Angie Homola

Ccz zz districtl; zz district3; Paula Bradshaw

Subject: RE: RE: Planning Department performance problem Public Disclosure Request

Good morning Commissioner,

. The purpose of this e-mail is to provide details regarding complaint investigation requests

LSiltO, L56/L0, and L57lt0. Please be aware that the complainant has officially requested toremain anonymous pursuant to RCW 42.56.240(2). Therefore the complainant's name and

any identifying information must be redacted from all documents pertaining to this issue prior

to public disclosure.

On December 2L,2010 this office received three complaints pertaining to parcels R32803-388-

1640, R32926-06O-2440, and R32803-LLL-2710. A separate COF number was assignedfor eachparcel. The complaints include pictures, internet articles, health records, and notes suggesting

that multiple violations exist on the subject parcels. During an initial review of the complaint,

staff determined that none of the.issues raised pertained to any ongoing construction,

clearing, or critical area violations. For that reason the complaints were not given a prioritystatus.

On March L0,Z:OLL staff conducted a site visit to all three parcels referenced in the complaints

and documented the issues raised by the complainant. While onsite, staff discussed the issues

8/22t20fi



of 5

with the landowners, who provided background for all construction activities. Some of the

issues that were raised in the complaints required extensive research because multiple

structures were constructed over 20 years ago and it was necessary to identify all codes and

amendments that were in effect at the time of construction.

On June 20,20LL staff determined that violations exist on the subject parcel and opened a

violation file accordingly (COV L42/LLl. Staff sent a violation notice letter to the landowners

(attached) which detailed the violations on the subject properties, explained what steps

needed to be taken to bring the properties into compliance, and provided timeframes to be

met in order to avoid formal enforcement action. On June 24, ?OLL a landowner contacted

staff via e-mail to explain that the enforcement letter had been received and the landowner

requested that the timeframes be suspended until further direction could be provided. On

lune27,2O11 staff responded to the landowner via e-mail and suggested that a meeting withstaff and the Director would be an appropriate next step. lt was stated that new timeframesfor compliance could be identified during the meeting.

On July 15,20LL a meeting with the landowners, staff, and the Director was held. During the

meeting the landowners acknowledged the violations and explained steps that would be

taken to bring the properties into compliance with lsland County Code. The Director

requested that the landowners provide staff a written explanation of how they intended toresolve each viotation. The landowners requested that staff provide them with a letter toexplain what elements of the complaints were found to be legitirnate violations and whatelements were found to not be violations. Did staff provide this analysis? And if so on whatdate? On July 23,20\t the !andowners submitted three e-mails to explain how they intended

to resolve each of the violations. On August 15, 2011 staff sent a letter (attached) to thelandowners which provided a determination for each issue raised in the complaints.

The current status for COV L42lLL is pending. The file contains pictures, parcel information,permit information, and correspondence (including e-mails). The file is public record and has

iemained available to the public. To my knowledge, there have not been any requests to viewthe file from anyone other than the landowners.

lf you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Andrew Hicks I Senior Planner I lsland County Planning & Community Development | 360-67g-

7 821 | 4ld f_ey!l_@co. isl a nd. wa. u s

From: Bob Pederson

Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 9:38 AM

To: Angie Homola

8122t201t



of 5

Cc: zz districtl; zz district3; Andrew Hicks; Paula Bradshaw

Subject: RE: Planning Department performance problem Public Disclosure Request

Good morning Commissioner:

The complaints referenced below are active and ongoing. The County has been working with the property

owners to address a number of issues. I will ask Andrew Hicks to provide you with the specific details.

Apart from the details which Andrew will address, I believe a few points of clarification are in order for the

record:

1) As I understand it, the original complaints were filed as complaints and not as requests for public

records.

Z) The code enforcement officer deals directly with the property owner(s) inquestion.

We do notprovide status updates or progress reports to those who file the complaint unless we are

specifically asked.

3) I categorically disagree that the County has not followed procedure in handling this matter. That

allegation is groundless and not supported by any facts whatsoever. The complaints were

inveltigated. The County subsequently contacted the property owners. A number of the alleged

violationb were determined to have no merit. The property owners immediately responded and

asked to have a meeting, which recently occurred. Various courses of action to achieve

. compliance were discussed and are underway. lt is important to note that when a property owner

promptly responds to an enforcement action and expresses a desire to work with the County to

corrected a violation, the County is happy to work with those owners to achieve compliance, even

though that may take considerable time.

'Our Public Records Officer, Paula Bradshaw, will respond to the new public records request contained in

the e-mail below.

Thank you,

Robert H. Pederson, AICP

. Director, lsland County Planning and Community Development

P.O. Box 5000

Coupeville, Washington 98239

(360) 679-7339 or (360) 629-4522 From Camano

(360) 679-7306 Fax

8t22t20rt

commissioners involvement

Documents