2007, 07-11 Permit 07001263 Letter to Legal, SetbacksJuly 11, 2007
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave.
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
RE: Project #07001263
Site Address: 520 S. Fancher Rd. Unit #1
Parcel Number: 35231.1111
s
•11' r
RECEIVED
JUL 11 2007
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Connelly:
I am writing to you as I was informed that the matter involving the above Subject Project has been turned
over to you from the City's Planning Department by Mr. Greg McCormick. Mr. McCormick called me on
7/3/07 and told me that you were requesting some sort of documentation as to the condition of the
existing walls. Attached to this letter you will find some photos showing extensive dry rot that was
discovered upon removal of the wall coverings. However, this seems unnecessary as the building permit
that I was issued stated that I could not use the existing 2 x 4 framing and that it would be need to be
changed to 2 x 6. Despite all this, what follows is my account of the events that have brought me to write
you
In September of 2006, I purchased a 1.87 acre parcel located at 520 S. Fancher. The
property came with four pre-existing dwelling units comprised of a duplex and two single
family dwellings. Records of the Spokane County assessor indicate that the structures
were built in 1946 and 1956. This single parcel containing 4 dwelling units apparently became a
"nonconforming use" upon the City's adoption of the current municipal zoning code, which only allows one
dwelling unit per parcel. The structures were all in a state of serious disrepair. Therefore, I decided to
demolish one dwelling unit and remodel the other. I also decided to demolish part of the duplex and
remodel it into a single-family residence.
On April 3, 2007, Larson's Demolition obtained on my behalf demolition permit #07000970. The duplex
was partially demolished in early April. This eliminated 763 square feet from the original
1,424 square foot floor area.
On April 19, 2007, Elcon Construction obtained building permit #07001263. The plans
provide for remodeling the duplex into a single family structure using the original
footings and foundations, adding back a small portion of the demolished foundation, and
bumping out the southwest wall with a new foundation. The reconfigured floor plan has a
total finished floor area of 1352 square feet. The site plan assumed a 5-foot setback
from the northern property line.
Footing forms were excavated and put in place during the first week of May. Spokane
Valley inspector Bob Bebout approved the footings on May 9. Footings were subsequently
poured the same day. On May 10, Mr. Bebout phoned a verbal stop work order to Elcon's
superintendent on grounds that the footings appeared to be less than 5 feet from the
northern property line.
On May 14, Elcon's project manager and I met with Marina Sukup at her office in the
Spokane Valley planning department. Ms. Sukup reviewed the demolition and remodel plans
and permits, as well as photographs of the pre-existing and partially demolished
structure. Ms. Sukup initially gave us two options: Do a survey to prove the property
line is 5 feet from the footings, or move the footings. We specifically inquired whether
the project could proceed under code section 14.508.040. Ms. Sukup reviewed section 14.508.040 and
assured us that the project could proceed as a legal nonconforming use. She verbally rescinded the stop
work order. Mr. Bebout verified the rescission by a phone call placed to Elcon's project manager less
than one hour after our meeting with Ms. Sukup.
In reliance upon the assurances of Spokane Valley representatives Sukup and Bebout, Elcon
proceeded to pour concrete foundation walls and complete the floor framing and sheeting.
New interior and exterior walls were framed and the existing 2x4 walls were replaced
with 2x6 framing as required by the building permit (see attached copy of the permit). As of June 14, all
walls were in
place and ready for the roof.
On June 14, Spokane Valley code enforcement officer Chris Berg posted a written stop work
order. Upon calling to discover the grounds for the stop work order, I was told to speak with Mr.
McCormick as he was responsible for the stop work order. Mr. McCormick told me there had to be a 5-
foot side yard setback and that I would have to either purchase some property from the adjoining property
owner or move the building in order to gain the 5-foot setback. I tried to explain that his superior, Ms.
Sukup, already approved the nonconforming setback. He told me Ms. Sukup was incorrect and that the
replacement of existing 2 x 4 walls with "new" 2 x 6 walls (as required by the building permit) caused him
to view this as "new" construction and therefore the building would have to be moved. His interpretation of
"new" construction is not supported by the 2006 IBC or the municipal code. When I pointed out the
language of code section 14.508.040, Mr. McCormick tried to tell me that it did not apply to this project.
However, section 14.508.040 does support my position because I am remodeling and rebuilding a
legal nonconforming use without creating any new nonconforming use, or any "expansion" of any
preexisting nonconforming use. Instead, this project will reduce the size of the structure from a floor area
of 1424 to 1352 square feet. The project actually reduces the overall extent of any previous
nonconforming use by roughly 50% as the number of dwelling units is reduced from 4 to 2 and the linear
extent of setback nonconformity is reduced from 90 feet to approximately 50 feet, while maintaining the
existing wall height and bringing the structure into compliance with the building code.
In any event, the City cannot now deny that section 14.508.040 supports my position after I have acted
in reliance upon the City's express assurances to proceed under that section. The City had a duty to
provide accurate information in response to direct inquiry and is therefore bound by those assurances.
See Meaney v. Dodd, 111 Wn.2d 174 (1988).
In closing, I would appreciate your prompt response as to the City's official legal interpretation of the
language of code section 14. 508.040. This project has been stalled now for more than a month, no
formal notice of violation has been issued and my damages are mounting.
Sincerely,
Richard Ellingwood
7 7 I E. 3ttyt:.np
Os-
J4 ttey , �A lc(&I 1_
Nib
rolhoogoiroftir7
- a- maaaaariar....
-""''....nf•MIWId•gp••••
4U-
•
mo....66....602111111011•111111111i111111411111110111r ;111/1111iwitemeleasee —
--.."."11.1111111.111"galli
..••••••••.
AREA
SPOKANE VALLEY
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
S10
PROJECT NO NO 07 eV
OWNER
CONTRACTOR jc 7 /- e2 8G - /661.6.
INSPECTION TYPE:/
STATUS OF WORK LISTED ABOVE:
PPROVEII CORRECTIONS
11 NEEDED
NOTES-_ 5-4'1 /x4ces
BY:
QUESTIONS? CALL OUR OFFICE:
BUILDING DIVISION
(509) 688-0036
OFFICE INSPECTION LINE (509) 688-0054
CALLED IN:
Spokane
DATE
TIME
AREA
SPOKANE VALLEY
NOTICE OF INSPECTION
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
.S-?O S h4.vc/u. j-
PROJECT NO 0760/.26$
OWNER
CONTRACTOR &If . - 4 46
INSPECTION TYPE:
(,JAI/S
OF WORK LISTED ABOVE:
CORRECTIONS
NEEDED
NOTES:
BY: 7�
INSPECTOR
S -/6- 7
DATE
QUESTIONS? CALL OUR OFFICE:
BUILDING DIVISION
OFFICE INSPECOTION LINE (509) 688-0054
CALLED IN:
Sikan�"'
jMalley
o
DATE
TIME
s5 Nab A\\ -'
k6Qvvic' e/ (o8Sl)
Sel:o<
w5 Exe..A-
o a L e_ -L vJ
e.
N1101.3.1 — Attic insulation certification required as to
R — value or coverage. Markers, attached to trusses or
rafters, required for every 300 sf of attic space with 1
inch high numbers for installed thickness of insulation.
TYtp fi�_.....?oi"- K.A. -1)_t�ia PLAt4
$ 1.fl STg1►a6i -
THIGet.4 rtSLb(
1•i1�Vc/ 40 afc�
W�ti 4yii✓T,� :i��
-41 {rQ2 F OVEZZHANI
t..x4-.0 1
- .7-x10 RkE-to--F -0 a
1, vL G-dcto PDf.- 30
LADbLAlet e_
s Cued-�. e_,✓ w�
Tct. -?._k 6 .
No?
lAiirtmeN
12
140
•-, If' •
J
1Z
1�1 E.Vt.! ZKI�
`�7 r, � ' � t✓ k � PLY
tiew
�-�-
t�xr-�Ht�.FL 1r.1 c.1.-
21
L
II
Vic.. X 4. '- ! 4. °i ce