From: Rachel Gay Rosser [saverosserhome@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 6:57 AM
To: Hill, Elizabeth
Cc: peter ray; Truman O'Brien; John (Jack) R. Venrick; Calderwood,
Amy; Starbard, John; Ortiz, Cathy
Subject: Re: VPD Water tanks
Good Morning Elizabeth,
It is good to hear that
a large part of the KC Ombudsman investigation is completed and has written
results.
Two questions: 1) may we
have a copy of what has been accomplished to review to be better informed @ a
future meeting? , 2) "a large part" is an implication that there are
yet factors that have not been investigated, what are these topics and when
does KC expect to remedy and rectify them? .
We are happy to schedule
a meeting after we have some information to review so that we may best be
informed and expedite resolution.
Thank you,
Margaret and Gay Rosser
Friends and Neighbors of
saverosserhome@yahoo
On Friday, April 25, 2014 11:47 AM, "Hill, Elizabeth"
<Elizabeth.Hill@kingcounty.gov>
wrote:
Gay:
We have completed a large part of our investigation into your
allegations regarding DPER’s enforcement of the County’s development
regulations on the Vashon Park District Project. I would like to
schedule a time with you to come out and review the written results of our
investigation with you next week.
Can you please send me some times and days that would work for
you? In the meantime I will find out where the County office
is now located on Vashon since I know it has recently moved closer to town.
Perhaps we can meet there. I will check.
Thank you Gay.
Elizabeth Hill
Senior Deputy Ombudsman for Rural and Unincorporated Area Affairs
King County Ombudsman’s Office
516 Third Avenue, Room W1039
Seattle, Wa. 98104-2317
206-477-1058
This email is a public record and may be subject to public
disclosure
From: Rachel Gay Rosser [mailto:saverosserhome@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:34 PM
To: Hill, Elizabeth; Calderwood, Amy; Starbard, John; Ortiz, Cathy
Cc: peter ray; Truman O'Brien; John (Jack) R. Venrick
Subject: VPD Water tanks
Elizabeth,
Yes, the tanks were moved but not the 50 feet as KCC states in a
rural residential area found in recreational/cultural KCC 21A.
The question that was asked over a month ago and yet to be
answered is; "why is KC DPER allowing the use of a code that is for tank
setbacks located in industrial/commercial rural area and not the codes that
apply to recreational / cultural rural residential areas of 50 feet?
Why is KC DPER allowing a Tank Farm Utility Facility to be located
on a public play field?
A complaint was filed with KC DDES reference # 437, filed
03/02/2011, 9:29AM, Clearing and Grading without permits, "Fence and
property markers…torn out…" The destruction to our property and this
complaint has not been responded to yet.
Various Agencies within KC have been advised of the destruction to
private property during a KC permitted project.
KC Ombudsman & DPER has been advised of noncompliance to WAC,
KCC and RCW in the removal of survey markers and WM Section monuments.
KC Ombudsman & DPER has been advised of installations without
permit. Numerous setbacks are in noncompliance, stadium lights, electric poles,
bleachers, dugouts backstops. These actions and installations by VPD are
in blatant noncompliance to KCC, WAC and RCW of WA State.
VPD has admitted to not having secured the legal steps required by
Law and Regulation to usurp private property into the VPD Fields project or use
as inclusions of setback footage. VPD has admitted that, "no papers
exist," that legally alter, move or change the previously existing lot
lines and borderlines & VPD acted without securing documents as Law and
Regulation requires. Forestry permits were not secured, water rights were
not secured. This is wrongful exercise by a lawful authority.
How much of an investigation does it take when the perpetrators,
VPD, have admitted to malfeasance that is negatively impacting private citizens
for KC to uphold and enforce VPD compliance to law and regulation?
How much investigation does it take when VPD admits to
misrepresenting documents, surveys and statutory property jurisdiction to
determine that elements of the project are flawed and in need of correction
prior to signing off and allowing the park fields to be dedicated & opened
for public use?
A code is a code, we can detect no ambiguity in this section of
law and regulation that would require such an extensive period of time to
expire, since March 2011, prior to requesting VPD to adhere.
We are not asking that the fields be shut down forever, ONLY that
KC require KCC, WAC and RCW as is directed and required to be adhered, brought
into compliance and the damages that have been inflicted upon abutting property
owners be remedied and rectified. When can we expect a definitive answer
on these matters?
Thank you.
Margaret and Gay Rosser
Neighbors and Friends of