Loading...
Correspondence 95 : SEWER PERMIT 3 4575 UMW Sawaraga Agen otwaahingtant.ouner CITY OF Tigard OATS 10 -23 -87 OWNER, John Drennan PHONE. G39 -5792 • OWNER'S ADDRESS, 114 SW GTPenbnra Rd. 97223 TYPE OF INSTALLATION, ® BUILDING SEWER ❑ LINE TAP AND BUILDING SEWER ❑ LINE TAP , TYPE OF OCCUPANCY, ® NEW ❑ EXISTING © SINGLE FAMILY ❑ CGM ERC:AL • 'li ❑ HULT. DES. ❑ .:D�57 =I FIXTURE UNITS DWELLING UNITS 1 ADDRESS OF STRUCTURE, 11495 SW Greenburg Rd. 97223 Permit Conditions: The applicant agrees to comply with all rules and regulations of the Unified Sewerage Agency. When calling for an inspection. please refer to the Permit Number. The Permit expires one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of issuance. The total amount paid (permit fee. connection charge. line tap fee and /or other charge) will be forfeited if the permit expires. 1 • The Agency does hat ;ca the accuracy of the location of side sewer laterals. If the sever is ■ not located at the measurement given. the installer shall p rospect th ree feet in all direction; ' • '' from the distance given. If not so located. the installer shall purchase a 'Tap and ioe Sewe Permit at the current charge and the Agency will install a lateral. . . -yt ,. FEES, XXYlfXXYBXXXXconvert ing + c s 35.00 single family dwelling PERMIT FE,. to duplex • .;' CONNECTION CHARGE 1,100.00 - -• • • cr LINE TAP INSTALLATION • • ISSUED BY • OTHER 1,135.00 TOTAL s DATE OF ISSUANCE 9,4 a APPLICANT DATE OF EXPIRATION r• • • SEWER PERMIT . - - 1149s Sw G- »rbu Rci 1- :: , - TAX MAP 1S135CU, Xi - QUARTER — ''''A LOT ` SECTION �' LOT BLOCK ' OF BCR 10 -23 -87 { APPROVED BY SATE ISSUED BY DATE OF ISSUANCE `+'' `'4 D.U.'S 1 _ -- riE'•7AR min.s ewer line _',add. BP 6815 - - -. -- BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PENDERGRASS & HOFFMAN 300 Pioneer Tower Fax (503) 295-0915 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue Cable Address Port law (503) Portland, OR 97204-2089 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (503)228 -6351 PAUL D. MIGCHELBRINK Direct Dial (503) 499-4474 March 20, 1996 VIA FACSIMILE ,ND REGULAR MAIL Mr. L. Eri•tton Eadie Attorney/at Law 5695 Hood Street West Linn, OR 97068 Re: John Drennan v. Thomas D. Hastinq, et al Washington County Circuit Court No. D952621CV Dear Mr. Eadie: As per Allen Reel's letter of March 14, 1996, the hearing on your client's motions to dismiss, strike, and make more definite and certain has been scheduled for April 3, 1996. Mr. Reel has scheduled the arbitration hearing on the merits for April 18, 1996. I wish to take the depositions of your clients following the motion hearing. I am available to conduct the depositions on April 4, 5, 8, 9 or 10. Please contact your clients and let me know as soon as possible which of these dates you prefer. In addition, please advise as to where the depositions should be conducted. Of course, our offices are available if you wish. I realize that the outcome of the motion hearing may force us to change the deposition schedule. However, unless the hearing results in a complete dismissal of Mr. Drennan's claims, I intend to move forward with the depositions. Very truly ,yours, g e,e...e)-vtAreed...4 4 c-&-Lte.— Paul D. Migchelbrink PDM: cc: John Drenna David Scott Paul Elsner PORTLAND. SACRAMENTO • SEATTLE . VANCO.UV ER O /ytD tza 5695 Hood Street (� West Linn, Oregon 97068 Attorney at Law Telephone (503) 650 -2998 Facsimile (503) 650 -3665 March 18, 1996 Mr. Paul D. Migchelbrink Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, P.C. Attorneys at Law 300 Pioneer Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 -2089 RE: Drennan vs. Hasting & Lewis, etal WCDC D95- 2621CV Dear Mr. Migchelbrink: I have your letter of March 18, 1996, purportedly addressing the meeting of our respective clients and ourselves with Mr. Scott and Mr. Elsner, on March 12, 1996. Of importance is the fact that you failed to indicate that the meeting was called by Mr. Scott on behalf of the City of Tigard. In Mr. Elsner's words, "the meeting was not called as a discovery tool for anyone, but an effort to get the parties together to discuss the issues from the City's perspective." My clients and I have not admitted anything other than they have a legal right to use and maintain their real property as they wish, not as your client would want. As I indicated in my previous letter, Mr. Scott opened the meeting with a rendition of his "facts" regarding the location of buildings and alleged connections on the three properties. We discovered very quickly that his "facts" were not necessarily correct. The meeting continued after correcting the general layout of the three properties in respect to the private sewer line. Mr. Scott specifically identified Mr. Drennan's property as a commercial development property consisting of two (2) separate buildings encompassing four (4) units, whereas the Lewis and Hasting properties are single family residential properties. In addition, Mr. Scott alluded to various permits (we never saw the permits) dating apparently from 1957 to 1989. Some of those permits, in fact, were attributed to the residential properties of Mr. and Mrs. Hasting and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Mr. Drennan's property is not a residential single family property. I do not agree . with your assertions of what Mr. Scott explained or intended in his comments, and I further disagree with your self- serving comments about what you, Mr. Elsner, Mr. Scott and Mr. Drennan were prepared to discuss. Apparently it was your intent to attempt to intimidate or coerce my clients into an • Mr. Paul D. Migchelbrink • March 18, 1996 Page 2 untenable circumstance. Mr. Drennan has not been trying to resolve anything other than "have his own way and do . what he will on other people's property." You should know by now that Mr. Drennan has no superior right to the use of my client',s'properties for his commercial purposes, regardless .of how you word it. In fact,• I have already advised you that any right Mr. Drennan may have had, at any timne, has been extingushed by the prescriptive use of my clients and by the law .of adverse possession. In that regard, the City is now aware that a Court "may" terminate Mr. Drennan's use of the Hasting /Lewis property for any reason, or "may" allow all three (3) of the property owners to use the private sewer line and maintain it for as 'long as it is connected to a public sewer. Mr. Drennan's tactics won work. He may try to work it out with my clients, if he wants, but his time is running • out. I•n my opinion, he' is going to have to connect his commercial properties to the public sewer on Greenburg Road, and not to Lewis Lane through other people's properties. We do not agree with your resolution to this dilemma. • I don't think I need advise you that if My client's properties are damaged by any adjacent or subjacent drainage, runoff or overflow from your client's property, he will be held accountable for such damage. Those costs could be substantial. Apparently the City has studied the problem for some considerable period of time. Because it does not want to await the outcome of whatever lawsuit may be filed in this matter, Mr. Scott has indicated that the City intends to take the only course it can in the present circumstances. I think you and your client need to plan for that eventuality, either now or later. I further think your continuous threats of litigation will "backfire" on you very shortly. My clients are still willing to talk with Mr. Drennan, but Mr. Drennan's use of my clients properties is short - lived, in or out of Court. Please pass that on to your client. Si.cer- y, i /ice // jr . on Eadie LBE : le CC: lients ✓Mr David Scott Mr. Paul Elsner • X / � Z � 1� U ,U 5695 Hood Street !�J West Linn, Oregon 97068 Attorney at Law Telephone (503) 650 -2998 March 13, 1996 , Facsimile (503) 650 -3665 Mr. David Scott, P.E. Building Official 13125 SW Hall Boulevard • Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: City of Tigard Dispute with Drennan, Hasting & Lewis over use of private sewer line connected to public sewer line. Dear Mr. Scott: • .My clients, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis and Mr. and Mrs: Hasting, and. I are concerned that our meeting with you, Mr. Elsner, Mr. Drennan and Mr. Micghelbrink at 3:30 p.m. on March 12, 1996, may not be properly recorded. There did not appear to be any method of recording the:comments, statements or decisions of the parties, including the City, to this dispute or the opinions of counsel for the parties present at the meeting, except as may be deduced from the contemporaneous notes of the participants. In that regard, I recorded the events of the meeting as carefully and accurately as possible, under the circumstances. My notes reflect the following general understanding, conclusions and decision of the City of Tigard in resolving the dispute over the use of the private sewer line to its satisfaction, after a brief discussion with counsel for the parties to the dispute concerning the eventual impact of Court decisions on the dispute: In the words of Mr. Scott, "after reviewing the documents on file and discussion with counsel, the property owners (Drennan, Hasting & Lewis) will have thirty (30) days, from the date of the meeting [April 12, 1996], to confer and reach an amicable agreement among themselves as to who will have use of the private sewer line in question, as presently connected to the public sewer line along Lewis Lane. If the parties have not conferred and reached an amicable agreement that is acceptable to the City of Tigard within thirty (30) days from the date of the meeting, the City will disconnect the private sewer line from the public sewer line on Lewis Lane and will thereafter require each property owner connecting to said private sewer. line to remove any connections thereto. • The:City realizes the disconnection from the public sewer• will deprive two properties [on Lewis Lane] and the four commercial development units [not on Lewis Lane] from connecting to the public sewer Lewis Lane from the private sewer line." • Mr. David Scott, P.E. March 13, 1996 Page 2 ' Apparently. Mr. Scott had the benefit of counsel in . reaching the decision indicated above as the decision of. the City of :Tigard`. My clients and I did not argue with that decision and there being no apparent basis for further discussion, -left the -meeting.' - In the interest of facilitating the decision of the City of Tigard, Mr. Drennan is welcome to personally contact my clients in an amicable and reasonable manner, as often. as he likes or they . tolerate, during the next thirty (30) days to discu use ,f,;', the private sewer line, as - is presently connected•to the'public sewer line along Lewis Lane. This invitation ends thirty. (30) days from todays date and will be renewed without good cause. We-will. expect the City of Tigard to comply w' its decision in this matter, as stated herein, without further r ourse. Sificere "� �� . ____,, .7;7--) , .::. L. B itton Eadie LBE:lbe CC: Mr. and Mrs. Hastings Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Mr. David Scott (for the City of Tigard) Mr. Paul Elsinore Mr. Pau; Micghelbrink (for Mr. Drennan) • One Lincoln Center, Suite 240 O i f OIL dCZCZ. 10300 SW Greenberg Road 56 Portland, Oregon97223 ?M r Attorney at Law Telephone (503) 452 - 6068 6 June 12, 1995 Facsimile (503) 452 -6168 .A665 • Mr. David Scott • Building Official . 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: John Drennan /Thomas & Sharon Hastings Private sewer dispute Dear Mr. Scott: On the request of my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas D. • Hastings, I am providing for your review a copy of .a letter. addressed to Mr. Kimball H. Ferris, Esquire, attorney for Mr. John Drennan. Mr. and Mrs. Hastings live in a single family home located on Lewis Lane off of 95th Avenue in Tigard. Mr. Drennan'is one of several owners of a multifamily commercial residential • property located on Greenburg Road which is parallel to Lewis Lane, also in the City of Tigard. I am informed that Mr. Drennan's • property was converted from a single family residence to a multifamily fourplex development several years ago. Mr. Drennan has attempted to force Mr. and Mrs. Hastings to discontinue their use of a private sewer line running through the Hastings property through the use of. a City plumbing inspector. The City plumbing inspector contends that Mr. Drennan has a non- public (private) exclusive easement over and through the Hastings property for the purpose of providing a sewer connection from his multifamily units on Greenburg Road to the public sewer on Lewis Lane. The Hastings disagree with that contention, particularly since Mr. Drennan has a public sewer line to his disposal on GrOenburg Road for connection with his multifamily units on Greenburg Road, and as set forth in the letter to Mr. Ferris. My clients request that you or the appropriate City official responsible for the City plumbing inspectors require that the City discontinue any further interference with their property rights in this matter. My clients do not wish to be bothered with and will not tolerate City inspectors attempting to come onto their property to enforce some nonpublic and esulous purported private. property right. ,0/7,7 44 40/ on a•ie LBE:lbe Enclosure CC: Mr. and Mrs. Hastings • • • One Lincoln Center, Suite 240 • 0/` &OlL (7 10 z Lllf/ �•_ 10300 SW Greenburg Road Portland, Oregon 97223 • Attorney at Law 'Telephone (503) 452 -6068 June 12, 1995 Facsimile (503) 452 -6168 Mr. Kimball H. Ferris Bullivant, Houser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, P.C. Attorneys at Law 300 Pioneer Tower • 888 SW Fifth Avenue • Portland, Oregon 97204 -2089 RE: Tom & Sharon Hastings /John Drennan Dear Mr. Ferris: This letter confirms my. telephone call to your secretary, Faye, on June 6, 1995 and my conversation with you by telephone on the same date. When I first called your office, you were busy and I left a message for you with your secretary. You returned my call approximately an hour later on the same day. In the first call, I asked your secretary to inform you of my call and that: (1) I represented Mr.. and Mrs. Hastings in the John Drennan matter; and (2) Mr. Drennan's position on the exclusive use of a private sewer line through the properties of Lewis and Hastings is not well taken; and (3) Mr. and Mrs. Hastings have as much right or a superior right as and to John Drennan's use of a private sewer running through a purported sewer easement across the Hastings' property; and (4) Mr. Drennan's right to use the sewer or purported easement has probably been terminated by the use of Mr. and Mrs. Hastings. In my later telephone conversation with you, you asked what legal basis I had for my communications to your secretary concerning the matters listed above. I advised you that Mr. Drennan did not have exclusive use of the easement and that his right to use the easement, if any, was terminated through the use of Mr. and Mrs. Hastings over the prescribed period of time for a prescriptive right to the easement. • August 7, 1995 T.D. Hasting • 9555 SW Lewis Lane Tigard, OR 97223 • Re: Non - Permitted /Inspected Connection to Public Sanitary Sewer System The City of Tigard has become aware that'you have connected•the . dwelling located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane to the public sanitary sewer system via an existing private sewer line located in a private sanitary sewer easement on'your property. Our records indicate that no permits for this connection were obtained and no inspections were performed. Also, your dwelling is one of three connected to the public system via this private line. The issue at hand is not the status of that pipe and easement or the property •rights thereto, but violations of both the Tigard Municipal Code (TMC) - and Unified Sewerage Agency (USA) requirements. TMC Section 14.04.030(7) adopts the 1993 edition of the State of • Oregon One and Two Family Dwelling Code. Section 110.1 of this code requires that a permit be obtained before commencing any construction and indicates that alterations to drainage systems are not exempt. Section 4A of USA Ordinance No. 21 requires that no connection be made to the sanitary sewer system without first obtaining a permit to do so. Section 16 of USA Ordinance No. 23 requires that no connection to the sanitary sewer system be made without first paying the appropriate connection fees. Section 8.01.4 of USA Resolution and Order No. 91 -47 indicates that each single - family dwelling must have a separate connection to the public sewer.system. As you can see from the above, your connection to the sewer system is in violation of several provisions. In fact, if you were to request a permit to connect to the sewer system in the way you are currently connected, we could not grant such a permit because of • Section 8.01.04 of USA Resolution and Order No. 91 -47. Therefore, you must disconnect from the private sewer line and connect to the public sewer via an independent connection. Of course, we will require all necessary permits and fees for this work. Alternatively, if you can demonstrate that you are the only • T.D. Hasting August 7, 1995 Page 2 dwelling connected to the sewer system via this private line, we will issue a connection permit and perform inspections to ensure compliance with the code. Both the TMC and the USA's ordinances provide for civil proceedings to effect compliance. I wish to not utilize that authority in this case. I would prefer to allow you to bring your property into compliance based upon this letter alone. However, if you do not provide a plan to bring your property into compliance within 15 days from the date of this letter, I will begin formal civil proceedings. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, David Scott, P.E. Building Official h: \login \david \hastings.as c: L. Britton Eadie Paul Mickelbrink File • One Lincoln Center, Suite 240 0 /4 o ,� 6 10300 SW Greenburg Road —�/ Portland, Oregon 97223 Attorney at Law Telephone (503) 452 -6068 August 18, 1995 Facsimile (503) 452 -6168 Mr. David Scott, P.E. Building Official 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Thomas & Sharon Hastings Private sewer dispute Dear Mr. Scott: I have received and reviewed a copy of your letter of August 7, 1995 to "T.D. Hasting, 9555 SW Lewis Lane, Tigard, OR 97223." I am surprised that you would send such a letter to Mr. Hastings, particularly since you have not responded to my letter to you of June 12, 1995. The first and third sentences of your letter to T.D. Hasting, referenced above, are not factually correct. Mr. and Mrs. Hastings have not connected the dwelling located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane to the public sanitary sewer system via an existing private sewer line located in a private sanitary sewer easement on their property. Your second sentence is nonsense for the reason indicated herein. Apparently your references to various requirements under the Tigard Municipal Code and the Unified Sewerage Agency in your letter to T.D. Hasting, as would apply to the dwelling of Mr. and Mrs. Hastings located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane, in the City of Tigard, are in error. In fact, it appears that you are attempting to unlawfully coerce M-. and Mrs. ':asti*:gs into assuming responsibility for the acts of others that affect their property or into performing acts inconsistent with their property rights. My clients request a meeting with the appropriate City department officials or the City Council, as necessary, to discuss your letter to T.D. Hasting and the implications contained therein. I do not believe that my clients would want to meet with you alone because of your obvious bias and apparent lack of concern for their property rights in this matter. Incidentally, and based on my conversations with the Unified Sewerage Agency located in Hillsboro, Oregon, and review of its regulations, your reference to the Unified Sewerage Agency requirements in these circumstances do not have any me-it. I am very concerned about your lack of knowledge and inability to properly investigate and proceed on the concerns raised in my letter of June 12, 1995. Mr. David Scott, P.E. August 18, 1995 Page 2 My clients and I look forward to your cooperation in reaching a reasonable, effective and meaningful resolution of this matter in an expeditious manner. Please address all future correspondence relating to Mr. and Mrs. Hastings and their property located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane in the of Tigard to my office address above. /AT ..0K r 4 % - te =r' ton Eadie LBE:lbe CC: Mr. and Mrs. Hastings , One Lincoln Center. Suite 240 �,/ 10300 SW Greenburg Road /'���� (JQClGe Portland. Oregon 97223 Attorney at Law Telephone (503) 452 -6068 October 3, 1995 Mr. David Scott, P.E. Building Official 13125 SW Hall Boulevard Tigard, Oregon 97223 RE: Hasting and Lewis (Lewis Lane) vs. Drennan (Greenburg Road) Dear Mr. Scott: As you may recall from our telephone conversation of August 21, 1995, we discussed the City of Tigard's concerns with Mr. and Mrs. Hasting's purported use of a private sewer line and Mr. Drennan's claim to an exclusive use of the private sewer line running through the Hasting /Lewis properties. I understood from that conversation that you would advise the City engineers that Mr. Drennan does not have an "exclusive" use easement over or through the Hasting /Lewis properties. I also understood that you expected some Court of appropriate jurisdiction to eventually decide whether any of the parties to this dispute (Hasting, Lewis or Drennan) had an exclusive or non - exclusive use to the purported sewer easement and that decision would decide what happens with use of the sewer by Mr. Drennan. I informed my clients (Mr. and Mrs. Hasting) of your comments and concerns on that date. Although I have heard nothing from you subsequent to that conversation, my clients, now including Mr. and Mrs. Lewis, have been served with summons and complaint from and through Mr. Drennan's attorneys, specifically Paul D. Migchelbrink. We believe the a? ? ecatiors of Mr. Drennan are without merit and will respond accordingly. I am concerned, however, that the City's recent correspondence in this matter is also copied to Paul D. Migchelbrink. How is the City of Tigard associated with Mr. Migchelbrink or of ise involved with Mr. Drennan in this matter? 'nce -'�• /� i - 1100P9150:;% 705 ` 1 on Eadie LBE:lbe CC: Clients