Loading...
9555 SW LEWIS LANE-1 i 1h � f i to t t4 1 ,Y i I i I i i i � t I -' INT] gTMg7 MS 5 SSFP CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING I';SPECTION NOTICE 1 �� Inspection Line (Rec-O-Phor : 639 4175 Business Phone: C39-4171 Inspection:_ ( Footing Susp. Ceiling Sprink. Rough-in PP A r/Sdwlk Foundation Plbg. Underslab Mech. Rough-in Fireplace Post/Beam Struct. Plbg. Top Out Elec, Rough-:n FINAI - Post/Beam Mech, San. Sewer Gas Line (Zd- _' Plhg. Underfloor Rain Drain Framing `� -Plumb. Alarm Water Line Insulation -Mach. Underflr. Insul. Shear Wall Gyp. Bd. I -Elect. Date Reqursted: /� t lime: AM c1 _PM Address: �--`,�G� -' _� Permit THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS ARE REQUIRED: Inspector A _ Date: // PPROVED _DISAPPROVED _APPROVED IBJE:'T TO ABOVE Call For Reinsp. CITY OF TIGARD COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT :2126 BW Hall Blvd,Tigard,Oregon 97223.6199 (603)630.4171 CIIN OF Tj V,�1�I� uiu sw ti„u nom. PLNCY./RECT # ---- COtv,MUNIIY 1)EYFI .O I'M ENT DF,PARTMENT 7Sprd.Oregon 9T213 PERMIT # (503)639-4171 DATE ISSUED r JOB ADDRESS: �_ � ,'�S /d-z/ tf_ fAX MAP/LOT SUB: 4 i r J�_ � '1 T: LAND USE: -- ----- -- r OWNER // SPECIAL NOTES NAME: T`' REISSUE OF: ADDRESS: - LA;T REISSUE: 2z 2 a 3 FLOOD PLAIN/ PHONE: ` `�. �� � �x� �� _ _ SENSITIVE LAND: CONTRACI-OR �� - j�i APPROVALS REQUIRED _ NAME: PLANNING,: �'- ADDRESS: �' S _S - ENGINEERING: -_-__- __ FIRE DEPT: _�. --- ------ -- - PHONE: � � rJ �- ��� OTHER: A'� CONIR. 130ARD #: EXP DATE: `r ITEMS RFQUIRFQ SUBCONTRACTORS: PLUMB: _ _ ! IST/SUPCONTRACTORS: MECH: BUS TAX: ARCH ENGINEER CALCULATIONS: NP:;;• TRUSS DETAILS: ADDRESS: OTHER: 'HONE: PROPOSED BLDG. USE: COMMENTS. - -r_ 1 r/I ���L]. -. , (U � 1; •�L l -- w'� 1.'y 1 /,' APPLICANT SIGNATURE Received By: _ —_0-e y_ _„ Date Received: PHU111 # DCCT # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT PD. BAL. DUE 10-432 00 Building Permit Fees ��%3� __ �' Sv 10-431 00 Plumbing Permit Fees 10-431 01 Mechanical Permit Fees 10--230 01 State Building Tax (5%) Building Plumbing _ Mechanical 10-433 00 Plans Check Fee 5 �•�3 `23 13UiIdifig .57'(v,L _ Plumbing _ Mechanical 10-230 OG Fire - 30-202 00 Sewer Connection 30-444 00 Sewer Inspection - 25-448-02 Commerci•il TIF Fees _ 25-448-04 Industrial TIF Fees _ 25- 448-06 Institutional TIF Fees 25-448-03 Office TIF Fees - 25-448-01 Residential Traffic Fees 25-448-05 Mass Transit TIF Fees 52-449 00 Parks System Dev Charge (PDC) 31-450 00 Storm Drainage Syst Dev Chrg (SSDC) - ----- - ------ 2.4-445-01 Water Quality (Fee in lieu of) 24-445-02 Water Qcdntity (Fee in lieu of) TOTAL nm/35871).Will Permit No: �• `\ Address: _-_------__--- h O '^ • = Issued b Date: -_FOR OFFICI= USE ONLY STATEMENT: INFORMATION NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIBILITIES � Note: Oregon Law, OPS 101.055(41 , requires residential construction permit applicants who are not registered with the Construction Contractors Board to sign the following statement before the building permit ,;an be issued. This staie ment is required for resia2ntial building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits. Licensed Architect and Engineer applicants, exempt from registration under ORS 701.010(7), need riot submit this statement. This statement will be filed with the permit. Fill in the applicable blanks, and initial boxes 1 and 2, and either box 3A or 313: 1 . I own, reside in, or will reside in the completed stria^ture. 2. 1�-- 1 understand that I must register as a construction contractor if the structure is sold or offered for sale before or upon completion. 3. A. I My general contractor is Contractor registration number -_ I will instruct my general contractor that all subcontractors who work on the struc- ture must be registered with the Construction Contractors Board. OR 3 B. I will be my own general contractor. If I hire subcontractors, I will hire only subcontractors registered -ith the Construc- tion Contractors Board. If I change my mind and do hire a general contractor, I will contract with a contractor who is registered with the Construction Contractors Board and I will immediately notify the office issuing this building permit of the name of the contractor. I hereby certify that the above informati in is correct and that I have read and understand the Information Notice to Property Owners about Construction Responsibilities on the reverse side of this form. 4 ' Signature of Permit Applicant ;-1)7 gate CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS BOARD 0244J 8191 VJHITE COPY TO ISSUING AGENCY PERMIT FILE PINK COPY TO APPLICANT INFORMATION NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION RESPONSIIFILITIES NOTE This Information Notice to Property Owners Abr,ut ConstrUction Resv)nsrbrlities i was dE,veloped by the Construction Contractors Board in accordance with OFS 701.055(5), passea by the 1989 Oregon Le)islature. If you are acting as your own contracts, h construct a new home or make a substantial improvement to an existing structure, you can prevent many problems by being aware of the following responsibilities and wew, of concern. EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITIES: If y(.,j hire persons riot registers 3 with the Construction Contractors Board to do labor it constructing or assisting in the construction or improvement of a residential structure, you will, in most instances, be ruled to be an "employer" and tee people you hire will be "employees". As the employer, you must comply with'the following. Oregon's Withholding T.Ax Law. As an employer, you must withhold incorne taxaLc from employee wages at the time employs Ers are paid. You will be liable for the tax payments even if you don't actually withhold the tax from your emplr,ces For more information, call the Oregon Department of Revenue at 378-3390. Unemployment Insurance Tax As an employer, you are required to pay a tax for unempluymer,' insurance purposes on the wages of all employees. For more information, call the Oregon Employment Division DH at 378- 224. Workers' Compensation Insurance- As an employer, you are subject to the Oregon Workers' Compensation Law, and mast obtain workers' compensation insurance for your employees If yon fail to obtain workers compensation insurance, yol l ntay be subject to penalties and will be liable for all claim costs if one of your employees is injured on the job For morN information, call the Workers' Compensation Uivision DIF at 373-7434. U.S,. Internal Revenue Service. As an employer, you must withhold federal income tax from employees' wages. Yc,u rviflI— liableIor�the _ payment even if you didn't actually withhold the tax. For more information, call the Internal Revenue Service at 221-3960. OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES AND AREAS OF CONCERN: ( c),Io Compliance: As the permit holder for this project, you are responsible for resolving any failure to meet , (Oo requirements that may be brought to your attention through inspections. I..,�ihi'ity .ind PrnpF!rty nam8ge Insurance Contact your insurance agent tc 3ee if YOU have adequate insurance coverage for .:ac:eidents and ;missions sus;, as falling tools, paint overspray, wr~ter damage from pipe punc- tures. fire, or work that must be re-done. Time to Supervise E-liployees Make sure you have sufficient time to supervise your employees. E.xpertisP: Make sure you have the expertise to act as your own general contractor. to coordinate the work Of rough-in and finish trades, and to notify building officials at the appropriate times so they can perform the required inspections. If you have additional questions, write to: ConstrOction Contractors Board 700 Summer St. NE, Suite 300 Salem, C)R 97310-0151 Phone 503-378-4621 0244J 10/24/89 SEWER PERMIT 34575 Uniflod9"*ragaApaney of Washington County CITY OF Tigard GATE 10-23-87 OWNER, John-rennan PHONE , ;,39-5792 OWNERS ADDRESS , T 140S SW Gre-nhU-, Rd 07223 TYPE OF INSTALLATION, ❑ OUILDiNG SEWER ❑ LTNE TAP AND BUILDING SEWER ❑ LINE TAP GYVE OF OCCUPANCY, ❑ wE'N ❑ EXISTING �❑ SINGLE :A"iTLY ❑ rrv.'CRCI ;L ❑ " 1LT . �: 5 . ❑ 5 7 1 FIXTURE UNITS — DwELLING UNITS 1 A3CRESS OF STRUCTURE , 11495 SW Greenburg Rd . 9722.3 Permit Conditions: The applicant agrees to COM ly with all rules and regulations of the Unified Sewerage agency. wen calling for an inspection, please refer to the Permit Nurber. 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/cr other charge) will be forfeited if the permit ,p,res. f The Agency does not ;ca-nntee the accurr.cy of the lou tion of side sewer laterals. :f the se or is not located al, the neasureine,rt given the installer shall prospect three feet in all gir.Ct•or; from the distance given. If not so located, the installer shall purchase a 'Tap and aloe Serer' Permit at the current charge and the Agency will install a lateral. FEES, XXXXXX1dXH.VXconvcrting single family dwelling to duplex CZNNEZTIGN CHARGE 1 , 100 . 00 - LI':E 7AP INSTALL-7I„—:, _ i 551Eu SY�� 0THE-1 1 , 135 .0. TCTAL s DACE OF 15SUANLT APPLICANT DATE OF EXPIRATION SEWER PERMIT TAX 'SAP 1S 135CD, IBX0LIART E _ -- A„ LOT -- SECTION - LOT BLOCK OF BCR _ 10-23-87 - aP°ROVEC 9Y �,aTE ISSUED BY Oa T c, 7 F i 5,7Ua'�C 2 • u • c ._...1----- RE•'AR :.•a" mins ewer 11r,i. .-,,q1 . 9r 6815 BULLiVANT}MOUSER BAILEY _ PENDERGRASS & HOFFMAN 300 Pioneer Tower Fax(503)295.0915 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATtUN A88 S.W.Fifth Avenue Cable Address Portiaw ATTORNEYS AT LAW Portland,OR 97204.2089 0031228-6351 PAUL D. MIGCHELBRINH Direct Dial(603)4994474 March 20, 1996 VIA FACSIZ_TLE AND REGULAR MAIL Mr. L. Britton Eadie Attorney -at Law 5695 Hood Street Wes: Linn, OR 97068 i Re : John Drennan v. Thomas D. Hastzng, et ai 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, End make more def4_nite and certain has been scheduled for April 3 , 1996 . Mr. Reel has scheduled the arbitration hearing on the merits for April 2.8 , 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 . Pleas : contact your clients and let me know as soon as poss-ible which of these dates ;you prefer. In addition, please c>dvise 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, Paul D. Migchelbrink PDM: CC : John Drenna . David Scott/ Paul Elsner I ORT L A N h • 4 ,A C R A M E N T O • SEAT TLE • VANCOUVEP 5695 Hood Street t lY&V12, SjQd-e�,' West Linn, Oregon 97068 Attorney at Law Telephone(5G3)650-2998 Facsimile(503)650-3665 March 18, 1996 Mr. Paul D. Migchelbrink Bulli.vant, 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 lit . Migchelbrink: I have your letter of March I.8 , 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 inr'icate that the meeting was ca'.led by Mr. Scott on behalf of the Cit ' 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. Scotr opened the meeting with a renditirn of his "facts" regarding the location of buildings and alleged connections on the three properties. We discovered very quickly that his "facts" werF: 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 cotrmercial development property consisting of two (2) separate buildings Qncompassing four (4) units, whereas the Lewis and Hasting ----operties are single family residential properties. In addition, 7 r. 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. Lewi;. 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 intens. to attempt to intimidate or coerce my clients into an Mr. Paul D. Migchelbrink March 18, 1996 Page ?. 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 a l l three (11) of the property owners to use the private sewer line ana maintain it for as long as it is connected to a public sewer. Mr. Drennan's tactics wr- .i't work. He may try to work it out with my client's, if he wants, but his time is running out. In 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 ;geld accountable for such damage. Those costs could be substantial. Apparently the City has studied the problem for some considerable period of time. Because it rices 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 ly, r ' on Eadie LBE: lbe CC: Clients VlMr. David Scott Mr. Paul Elsner 5695 Hood Street __� j/'tICO�Z- L7C7Q( west Linn. Oregon 1 '068 Attomey at Law lelephone (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 & Leuis 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 meecing 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 t.he participants. In that regard, I rec-riled 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 wi*h counsel for the parties to the dispute concerning the eventual impact of Court decisions on the dispute: In the words cf Mr. Scott, "a _er 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 wili disconnect the private sewer line from the public sewer lane on Lewis Lane and will thereafter require each property owner connecting to said private ewer line to remove any connections thereto. Th? -City realizes the disconnection from the public sewer will deprive two properties [on Lewis Lane] and the four commercial development units [not on Lewis Dane] from connecting to the public sewer on 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 thA 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 discuss use of the private sewer line, as is presently connected to the public ser line along Lewis Lane. This invitation ends th �rLy (30) days fzom todays date and will not be renewed without good cause. We will expect the City of Tigard to comply with its decision in this matter, as stated herein, without further r�ourse. sii�c'erely; - — L. B it ton Eadie LBE: lbe CC: Mr. . and Yrs. Hastings Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Mr. David Scott (for the City of Tigard) I Mr. Paul Elsinore Mr. Pa- i; Micghelbrink (for Mr. Drennan) One Lincoln Center,Suite 240 10300 SW Greenburg Road sd Portland,Oregon 972;.3 Attorney at la Telephone(503)452-6068 June 12, 1995 Facsimile(503)452-6168 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 95ti, Avenue in Tigard. Mr. Drennan is one of several owners of - multifamily commercial residential property located on Greenburg Road which is parallel to Lewis Lane, also in the Cit,r 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 Greenburg A"%cad for ccnnecticr, with nis mui•.:ifamily units on Greenbltrg 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 th.I.s matter. My clients do not wish to be bothered with and will not tcl' - -ate City inspectors attempting to come onto their property to eni-,- a some nonpublic and �iebulous purported private propt=.ty right. J 7 LBE: lbe r r, a le �� Enclosure CC: Mr. and Mrs. Hastings One Lincoln Center,Suite 240 10300 SW Greenburg Road �•� .FO�?i�� Portland,Oregon 9x223 Telephone(503)452.6068 Attorney at Law June 12 , 1995 Facaimile(503)452-6168 Mr. Kimball H. Ferris Bullivanr-, Hrttser, Bailey, Pendergrass & Hoffman, P.C. Attorneys a* Law 300 Pionef.r Tower 888 SW Fifth Avenue Portland . Oregon 97204-2089 RE: Tom & Sharon Hastings/John Drennan Dear r'.r. 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 m ei age you with ter onyour s secretary. ry.. you u returned my call apps oximat y an hour 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 se erJon e easementse of acrossathe 1Hasti g I sewer property; through a purported and (4) Mr. Drennan' s right to use the sewer or purported ea:ement 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 '".D. Hasting 9555 SW Lewis Lane Tigard, OR 97223 Re : Nen-Permitted/Inspected Connection to Public Sanita.T 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 sever system via an existing private sewer line located in a privEte sanitary sewer easement on your property. Our records indicate that no permits for this connection were obtained and n-) inspections were performed. Also, your dwelling is one of three connected to the public system via this - -ivate line . The isoue at hand is not the status of that pipe enc., 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 pot 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 °_s in violation of several provisions . In fact , '.f you were to request a permit to connect to the sewer system in the way you are currently connected, we could riot grant such a permit because cf Secticl 0 . 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 . Bot•.h 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 :o 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 day, from the date of this letter, 1 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\hascings.ss c : L. Britton Eadie Paul Mickel.brink File i One Lincoln Center,Suite 240 10300 SW Greenberg 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 rev'._wed a copy of your letter of August 7 , 1995 to "T.D. Hasting, 9: '1SW 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 let'.'�_-er to T. D. Hasting, referen.:ed above, are not factually correct. Mr. and Mrs. Hastings have not connected the dwelling located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane to the public sanitary secrer 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. Heisting, 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 ` n1' -'full : �cccar Mrs. '•:cstings i!?t0 2t�511:^-1 4 1(g responsibility for the acts of others that affect their property or into performingacts inconsistent with their property rights. My clients request a meeting with the appropriate City department offic'--als or the City Council, as necessary, to discuss vour letter to T. D. Hasting and the implications contained :herein. 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 requirement-.s in taese 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 fo-ward to your cooperation in reaching a reasonable, effective and meaningful resolution of this matter in an e:-:peditious manner. Please address all future correspondence relating to Mr. and Mrs. Hastings and their property located at 9555 SW Lewis Lane in the,-C-� of Tigard to my office address above. jri ton Eadie LBE: lbe CC: Mr. and Mrs. Hastings One Lincoln Center. Suite 240 n 10300 SW Greenburg Road f 2,-I&on vale Portland.Oregon 9223 Attorney at Law Telephone(5103)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 exclusilre 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 througr. Mr . Drennan' s attorneys, specifically Paul D. tilgchelb►lnk. we be i e,.e th,p 3i 1 egatlons 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. Miqchelbrink. How is the City of Tigard associated with Mr. Miqchelbrink or of ise involved with Mr. Drennan in this matter? nce on Eadie LBE: lbe CC: Clients