HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWG98-0563 - SWG Letters / Memos - 4/14/1999 4
Pam Denton
Steve Shineman
Mason County P.O. Box 1838
Dept. of Health Services APR 16 1999 Shelton, WA 98584
426 W. Cedar
P.O. Box HEALTH SERVICES April 14, 1999
Shelton, WAA 98584
RE. Terrance Shaw, SWG 98-0563 l
Dear Pam, /
Two days ago, 1 contacted you regarding the septic construction on property adjoining
mine, Parcel # 321354300130, SWG 98-0563, owner Terrance Shaw. I wanted to thank
you for your prompt a� ttention to this matter and summarize the situation should we have
to revisit it.
I first contacted your department because:
1. The septic drainfield as staked out on the site is closer than 100 feet from an existing
water well on an adjoining property now under title by my mother, Parcel 321354300100.
Absent a waiver, this is a violation of your department's environmental health regulations.
The purpose of this setback is to prevent well water contamination. I was concerned that
such a violation posed illegal and undue risk to the well and ongoing development of
Shineman property there.
2. I am thoroughly familiar with Terrance Shaw's parcel. Before he purchased it in late
1998, my mother and I had it in escrow to purchase with the previous owner. I personally
supervised as my neighbor dug perc holes for me there with his backhoe in late 1997. I
submitted a septic application for that parcel in December 1997. It was inspected by your
department a few weeks later, and I received the approved application(inspected and
signed by Diane Holcroft if my memory is correct) for it in early 1998. [You told me you
have no computer record of this. If it is important to you, I believe I can dig up my copy
somewhere in my files.]
3. In casual conversation at Mr. Shaw's parcel months ago, heavy equipment workmen
told me they would be installing his septic system and had no idea of the existing well on
adjoining Shineman property.
4. On another occasion weeks later, Mr. Shaw contacted me and bluntly told me that he
would put his dramfield less than 100 feet from our well if he felt like it. He said point-
blank that he was not restricted by your department's environmental health setbacks and
that his property could not be "encumbered" by a well that was not his.
5. On another occasion weeks later, a septic workman(the Case 650 bulldozer operator)
told me that the reason the location of the drainfield had to be moved from the other end
of the parcel (at the same location, he pointed, where I had originally dug the perc holes)
was because previous septic approval had subsequently been "condemned" by your
department. According to this intelligent workman in his 50's, Mr. Shaw was being
compelled to move the site of his drainfield close to our well because he was having
difficulty finding a percable site that would meet your department's new, more stringent
standards.
6. On the late afternoon of Monday, April 13, the sound of heavy equipment drew my
attention to Mr. Shaw's parcel. Construction workers were excavating and shooting
transit for a building foundation close to where the perc holes were dug for my 1998
septic approval for that parcel.
With some twenty minutes before closing business, I quickly tried to convey the situation
to you over the counter at the department office. As we talked, I glanced at the map in
your file by Mr. Shaw's septic designer. The drawing showed the proposed septic tank
and drainfield roughly where I had gotten my approval for that parcel in 1998. But this
was a far different location on the parcel than where it was staked to be built on the site
today. And the map did not show the nearby Shineman well less than the required setback
away.
You said that you would have someone from your department inspect the site and offered
to call me with the findings.
The next morning, you left a long message on my answering machine. In thorough detail,
you explained that inspector Debbie Riley from your department had just visited the site
and measured the area staked for the drainfield within 90 feet of the Shineman well. You
said that the septic designer-installer assured you that the drainfield would actually be built
110 feet from the well; that you had red-flagged the file on the computer and on the
paperwork for follow-up to see that the required setback was observed at construction;
that the installer was warned that infringement of the setback would not be tolerated by
your department. You left the phone extension numbers for yourself and Ms. Riley if I
had any further concerns.
Obviously, I was delighted that your inspection was so prompt, it confirmed the drainfield
area encroachment as I had said, and that you were committed to enforcing the
environmental setback. But it did not address the apparent re-location of the drainfield
from one end of the 1.6 acre parcel to the other and the obvious misrepresentation 1 saw
on the designer's map. My concern was that the septic approval by your department might
be the result of inspecting different soil strata in a critically different location than where
the installer was going to be building the drainfield now. Based on the designer's map, it
looked to me as if the applicant may have taken the septic approval I had obtained for that
2
parcel in 1998 and tried to use that as license to put in his drainfield elsewhere--just as I
had been told he would.
That afternoon, I stopped by the department office and spoke to you over the counter.
When I tried to explain this concern, you told me that there was nothing more to be done
and were a bit less patient with me than the day before. You mentioned that perhaps the
drainfield may have been pushed back a bit on the site, but from an soil inspection
standpoint you did not seem to see this as too important.
When Ms. Riley was called to join us at the counter, it was obvious that she not only had
been to the site but had made a thorough inspection. After listening to her and looking at
the application file closely, two things seemed clear to me: First, Terrance Shaw had
made another, separate septic application than the one I had made for the parcel about a
year earlier. His approval seemed to have nothing to do with the previous approval I had
received for that parcel in 1998 and a separate perc inspection had indeed been conducted
for the current proposed drainfield. Second, even the high-quality inspection
Ms. Riley made in the field that day was somewhat misoriented by the poor out-of-scale
map submitted by the septic designer.
The errors in this map explain some of the complaint and concern I expressed to you:
1. The map locates the drainfield up to the toe of a slope, and at the same elevation as the
proposed house. The proposed drainfield on-site is not located at the same level as the
house they have started to build, setting ten feet higher on top of that bank, not down
below. (Since the approval, Mr. Shaw has brought in truckloads of fill to even out the
elevations, and there is now only a five-foot slope difference).
2. The slope indicated on the map, rising from the north to the south never existed. The
slope on the site has always risen from dead west due east.
3. By scale measurement of the map, the closest drainfield lateral is about 140 feet from
the Shineman well. As Ms. Riley found, the stake out for it was 90 feet at the site. This is
a 56 percent scale error.
4. According to professional survey maps, the North compass heading on the designer's
map is off by 40 degrees. In error, it points to the Northwest instead. The rhombus shape
of the parcel and false illusion that Highway 3 runs parallel to Oakland Bay next to the
parcel make it even more difficult to get a proper bearing at the site without a compass.
I explain these things to you now because I want to clarify any possible misunderstandings
from our conversations and because it has been hinted that my motives for pursuing this
matter with your department may not have been all I represented. I don't know where or
how such stories got started, but I assure you that they are untrue and I have been nothing
but genuine in our contacts.
3
I don't know why you asked the question about the building process we have ongoing on
the adjoining parcel, but you did not really get a direct answer in the flow of our
conversation. I live on an eight-acre parcel next to Mr. Shaw s parcel. I purchased a one
acre waterfront parcel (where the well is) for my mother next to me and put the deed in
her name; it is designated for her retirement house once she moves from Tacoma. The
homesite clearing, excavation, well and approved septic design there existed as it does
today before Terrance Shaw bought the adjoining parcel he is now building on. Our own
house construction plans got put off because of the severe rains last Autumn, and the
building process is presently on bold as ongoing testing and assessment is made about
what to do about my mother's brain tumor.
For your purposes, please contact me about future details in this matter. Mother's health
is not good, she doesn't need any more stress, and because of her condition I have
unconditional power-of-attorney to conduct all her affairs. Meanwhile, I am confident
that you will see to it that Terrance Shaw's drainfield is built with at least the minimum
100-foot environmental setback.
Best regar
STEVEN L. SHINEMAN
4