2017-01-12-minutes-continuation-of-mountanin-river-trails-camping-associatin-appeal-hearing

Home Browse Search

Board of Health Appeal Minutes January 12, 2017 2 of 4 Commissioner Jewell believes that if it's the position of the appellant, which they are limited in their rights to enforce, or enter onto the property through a membership agreement that they have. They therefore, should not be responsible for the ultimate abatement, but the individual members themselves. Commissioner Jewell asked for discussion. Mr. Elliott stated that if it is legal to hold the landowner responsible, as it is not practical for the county deal with each individual lot owner. Laura Osiadacz would like the thoughts of legal to note whether or not it is lawful to hold the landowner responsible. Commissioner Jewell noted that it is legal, and it is the county's position to hold the landowner responsible. Commissioner Jewell did research code 1375.020 Service of Health Order sub 4 states the following: It is unlawful and a violation of this title for any person, firm, or corporation found guilty of having created or suffering to exist on premises either owned or leased by them any violation defined herein. Owners remain liable for violations of duties imposed by this chapter even though an obligation is also imposed on the occupants of the premises, and even though the owner has, by agreement, imposed on the occupant the duty of complying with this chapter. Successive property owners are liable for abatement of violations created by their predecessors in interest. No right can be acquired to continue a violation by virtue of its longtime existence. It shall not be necessary to show that the owner participated in, or was even aware of, the code violation in order to hold him/her liable. (Ord. 2011-006, 2011) That code talks about the owner of the property and we have one owner and one parcel. In the MRT agreements for use and limit enforcement is really the problem of the association and not the county. The county asked for specifics and asked for legal basis for the appellant's positon and there was none provided at the hearing. Commissioner Jewell noted that in his opinion, the county holds them responsible. The code allows the county to abate eventually and that code also talks about that responsibility being the landowner. When you look through county code, it's clear that it is the landowner that is responsible. Any leases, rental agreements, and membership agreements are inconsequential. If they cause an issue for the association, it is the association's matter. Mr. Elliott and Commissioner Osiadacz were in agreement with that. Commissioner Jewell moved to the next issue which was reporting. The most current reporting requirements in Amendment Iaccordance with WAC 246-272A-0270: • Securing and renewing contracts for periodic maintenance, and submitting evidence of such contracts to KCPHD by January 31, 2017 • A complete evaluation of the 3 onsite septic systems serving as RV waste ports, to determine functionality, maintenance needs and compliance with regulations and permits at least once every three years; evidence by a licensed septic service provider must be provided to KCPHD by January 1, 2020 and again by January 1, 2023 • Annual operation and maintenance reports including all pumping records must be provided to KCPHD annually through January 1, 2023 • Any failure of any onsite septic system must be immediately reported KCPHD Commissioner Jewell stated that he believes the appellant was objecting to these requirements because he believes there was not specific requirement that obligates them to these reports. Commissioner Osiadacz noted that we are all here because of some practices that occurred and created an unhealthy situation. The reporting requirements are not unreasonable and as long as they comply, and reports are satisfactory, they can do away with these requirements after 2023.