My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3301 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
SHORE AVE
>
3301
>
3301 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/9/2017 6:31:01 PM
Creation date
3/9/2017 6:30:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SHORE AVE
Street Number
3301
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
193
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 When askecl why he initiatcd the lawsuit, Mr. Reinertsen's answer to ihe question of"why you <br /> 2 and your wife and Carolyn and Craig are were where we are"was"Well... he continually attacks <br /> 3 the deck"(DP I.R page 74 lines 10-12 and page 79 line 2). <br /> 4 The issue of th�deck being in violation of sctb�ck requirements was severed without prejudice <br /> 5 Gom the lawsuit due to it not being ripe for Superior Cuurt review---construction of lhe project <br /> G had halted completely preventing a final decision on lhe �roject by the Planning Departtnent that <br /> 7 could bc appcaled. <br /> R On April 21,2004 Margaret McLeod of the IIuilding Division sent a letter to Mr. Reinertsen for <br /> 9 the reason of an"expiring permit"due to incompletion of Ihc deck. This letter made no mention of <br /> 10 inadequate exils f'or the projecl. On June 4, 2004 Mr. Rcinertsen submitted a plan with an added <br /> I 1 section of deck. <br /> 12 On August 30,2004,the appcllants filed a formal written complaint with the Planning <br /> 13 Department dctailing deceptivc conswction methods by the builder that included a unique <br /> 14 doubleherraced footing and backfilling the area within the required side setback sF��wing intent to <br /> I S violate thc law. 'Phc August 30, 2004 Icttcr also noted thc inadequatc exit condi:ions of lhe deck <br /> IG duc lo thc 30"section. On Septemtxr R, 2004 the Planning Uepartmenl sent a response stating lhat <br /> 17 the gradc"cannot be unquestionably dctcrtnincd at this time as it was necessarily disturbed tor <br /> 18 construction ol'the footing." 'I�he August 30,2004 Ietter included photographs of the area showing <br /> 19 the gradc wherc the footing was constructed before construction began. <br /> 20 On Septembcr 20, 2004 a revised plan including mi additional mcans ofegress that met <br /> 21 minimum width rcyuiremcnts was submilted. In deposition, Mrs. Reinertsen stated the revision <br /> 22 was duc to the ap�llants' complaint, stating"Craig may—raised some kind of—and then we had <br /> 23 to changc somcthing" �DP KR pagc70-71). <br /> 24 <br /> MItMOItANDUM OP API'IEI.I.nM�S'ARGUMIiNT ANU CMIO DILWO0.71I;3223 SIIORG AVIi GVIiRhTf,WA 9820J <br /> 'ZS AUI'110RI7'YANUiORSUPI'I.I:�fliNl'7'OMIiMORANUUM-4 423-3534120 <br /> of 14 <br /> EXHIBIT #� <br /> FAG E.�O F� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.