[WSBARP] Set Back Issue

Wed Apr 1 16:44:24 PDT 2015

Seems to me the house was originally constructed with a proper set back,
but global warming increased the high tides, bringing the house to a
violation status.  So, the real question is whether the poor homeowner can
be in violation when he wasn't before and mother earth is increasing her
own high tide line and eating up his formerly proper set back!

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:55 PM, <ron at housh.org> wrote:

> I believe the construction may not have been consistent with approval – in
> other words structure was likely built encroaching
>
>
>
>
>
> *I AM TYPICALLY IN THE SEATTLE OFFICE ON TUESDAY AND THURSDAY AND IN THE
> MOUNT VERNON OFFICE ON MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY *
>
>
>
> *Ronald G. Housh, P.S.*
>
> *Attorney at Law*
>
>
>
> *Seattle Office:*
>
> *1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000*
>
> *Seattle, WA 98101-2393*
>
> *Phone:   206-381-1341 <206-381-1341>*
>
> *Fax:        206-464-0461 <206-464-0461>*
>
> *Email:    **ron at housh.org* <ron at housh.org>
>
>
>
> *Mount Vernon Office:*
>
> *21411 Bluejay Place*
>
> *Mount Vernon, WA 98274*
>
> *Phone:  206-235-2459 <206-235-2459>*
>
> *Email:   **ron at housh.org <ron at housh.org>*
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:
> wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Rob Wilson-Hoss
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:39 PM
> *To:* 'scott scottgthomaslaw.com'; 'WSBA Real Property Listserv'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Set Back Issue
>
>
>
> Question seems to be whether construction was consistent with approval. If
> approval was for siting that did not encroach on the setback, and structure
> was built encroaching, that is a different problem, is it not?
>
>
>
>
>
> Robert D. Wilson-Hoss
> Hoss & Wilson-Hoss, LLP
> 236 West Birch Street
> Shelton, WA 98584
> 360 426-2999
>
> www.hossandwilson-hoss.com <http://www.hossandwilsonhoss.com>
> rob at hctc.com
>
>
>
> *This message is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the addressee, you are
> hereby notified that any use, distribution, or copying of this message is
> strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify
> us by reply e-mail or by telephone (call us collect at the number listed
> above) and immediately delete this message and any and all of its
> attachments.  Thank you.*
>
>
>
> *This office does debt collection and this e-mail may be an attempt to
> collect a debt, Any information obtained will be used for that purpose.  *To
> the extent the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. §
> 1692) applies this firm is acting as a debt collector for the
> condominium/homeowners' association named above to collect a debt owed to
> it. Any information obtained will be used for collection purposes. You have
> the right to seek advice of legal counsel.
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [
> mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com
> <wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com>] *On Behalf Of *scott
> scottgthomaslaw.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 01, 2015 1:20 PM
> *To:* WSBA Real Property Listserv
> *Subject:* Re: [WSBARP] Set Back Issue
>
>
>
> Probably.  LUPA should bar subsequent enforcement (retraction) of a
> validly issued permit.  See Chelan County v. Nykreim, 146 Wn.2d 904, 52
> P.3d 1,  (2002).  One question to resolve is whether LUPA, enacted in 1995,
> would apply to a previously-issued permit.
>
>
>
> On April 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM Ron Housh <ron at housh.org> wrote:
>
> Land use related question:
>
>
>
> Waterfront home.  Plat designates setback requirement off of high tide
> line.  House was built in 1993 and a portion of the house encroaches a few
> feet into the setback area.
>
>
>
> I assume if the setback was ever to have been enforced it would have been
> by the City/County.  Does the passage of over 20 years in any way bar
> enforcement?  In other words is there a statute of limitations that would
> bar a governmental agency from enforcing set back requirements?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *FOR PLANNING:  I WILL BE OUT OF THE OFFICE WEDNESDAY APRIL 8 THOUGH
> WEDNESDAY APRIL 15.*
>
>
>
> *I AM TYPICALLY IN THE SEATTLE OFFICE ON TUESDAY AND THURSDAY AND IN THE
> MOUNT VERNON OFFICE ON MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY *
>
>
>
> *Ronald G. Housh, P.S.*
>
> *Attorney at Law*
>
>
>
> *Seattle Office:*
>
> *1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000*
>
> *Seattle, WA 98101-2393*
>
> *Phone:   206-381-1341 <206-381-1341>*
>
> *Fax:        206-464-0461 <206-464-0461>*
>
> *Email:    ron at housh.org <ron at housh.org>*
>
>
>
> *Mount Vernon Office:*
>
> *21411 Bluejay Place*
>
> *Mount Vernon, WA 98274*
>
> *Phone:  206-235-2459 <206-235-2459>*
>
> *Email:   ron at housh.org <ron at housh.org>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
>
> Scott G. Thomas
> Law Office of Scott G. Thomas
> 1204 Cleveland Avenue
> Mount Vernon, WA 98273
> (360) 503-1042
> www.scottgthomaslaw.com
>
> Because this is a communication from a lawyer, it necessarily contains
> warnings such as this. I am a lawyer, but unless we have entered into an
> agreement for legal services, I am not your lawyer. And, if this message
> was intended for someone else but you have inadvertently received it, I ask
> that you delete the message and let me know you received it so that I can
> take steps to make sure you do not receive messages in the future. Thank
> you.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>

-- 
Mark T. Higgins
Mark T. Higgins, P.C.
P.O. Box 57
Darrington, WA 98241
206-491-2420
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150401/fe8b17cf/attachment.html>