1989, 12-13 Public Works Patio Addition Ltrs
5P0NANE COUNTY COUNT NOOSE
December 13, 1989
MRS. CAROL MCLEAN
East 9504 7th
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mrs. McLean:
WO
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
DENNIS M. SCOTT, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
(509) 456-3600
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON STREET
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0180
I am in receipt of your correspondence of November 30, 1989 and
offer the following comments and observations in hopes of clarifying
some of the issues surrounding this matter.
Initially, I would like to note that it is the Building and Safety
Department's (Department) responsibility to assure that a structure
is built in conformance with applicable codes. In many instances
this involves inspection of projects based on conventional
construction requirements found in the codes themselves. In other
instances it involves inspection of a structure or installation
based on a recommended method of installation from the manufacturer
or an approved testing/evaluation agency. Frequently these
recommendations come in the form of "Evaluation Reports," which are
a series of reports on new construction products and systems. These
reports enable local building officials to accept products which are
not specifically addressed in the code itself without the need for
additional review as the products have been previously tested by
various agencies for compliance with the requirements of the codes.
Evaluation and/or research reports are subsequently issued based on
the test results and are provided to local jurisdiction for their
use.
With the above information in mind, I can now address your patio
addition.
Subsequent to the Department's inspection on May 4, 1989,
construction plans of the structure were requested by Mr. Aman.
The plans submitted reflected that the structure was a "packaged
product" subject to "Evaluation Report 1968P" (Report) rather than
conventional code requirements. Inspection of the structure was
required to be based on this Report, and Mr. Ericksons "contentions"
were based accordingly. This Report was valid and applicable at the
time the permit was issued.
The Report clearly states that "...1) This enclosure system is
limited to recreation and outdoor living purposes and is not to be
used as a carport, garage storage, or habitable room."
Additionally, the general notes in the Report state that "...7)
These enclosures are required to be left open per Section 4901 the
open* area of the longer wall and one additional wall shall be a
minimum of 65 percent of the area below a minimum of 6 feet 8 inches
of each wall, measured from the floor (* open is defined as insect
screening and/or readily removable transparent or translucent
plastic not more than 1/8 of an inch in thickness)"and "8) Each
enclosure system shall have, permanently affixed, identification tag
giving the name and address of the manufacturer, design loads, and
evaluation report number."
It is based on these notes that Mr. Erickson raised the issues you
noted in section #XIII and, in part, section #XV of your
correspondence.
With regards to the issues surrounding the heat supplied to the
structure, the permit issued March 23, 1988, and the application on
which the permit is based clearly states "covered patio not to be
heated". Discussions with staff indicate that this is due to the
fact the contractors agent opted to advise the department that the
addition would not be heated. (If it was a heated structure,
conformance with applicable energy codes would be difficult to
achieve in light of the substantial amount of glazing.) I have
enclosed a copy of the permit/application for your information.
With regards to some of the other issues raised:
1) It is my understanding that the "missing files" were a
result of the initial inspector searching for the file under
the wrong address and, on behalf of the department I would like
to extend my apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
2) The "Dear Sirs letter" referenced is a follow up letter to
one addressed David Kindred, September 6, 1989. Mr. Kindred is
listed on the permit as the contact person and the
correspondence was addressed accordingly.
The infractions noted by Mr. Arran would be applicable to
conventional construction projects however, in this instance the
decision is up to the manufacturer.
As previously discussed, the structure is regulated by Evaluation
Report 1968P and any modifications to the product, such as the
addition of a vapor barrier, would need to be sanctioned through the
manufacturer.
Mr. Erickson had been working with the manufacturer's attorney in an
effort to resolve this entire issue. This action was a result of
the September 19, 1989 "Dear Sirs" letter referenced in your
correspondence. A 30 day extension was granted to the time frames
established in that letter at the request of Mr. Demars and his
attorney who apparently had been making some headway with C-thru.
Subsequent to expiration of the 30 day extension conversations with
Mr. Demars attorney indicate that any progress being made had
stalled and accordingly Building and Safety is referring this matter
to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office our statutory legal council for
review and appropriate action.
I have every confidence in the Building and Safety Department and
can assure you that they will continue to work towards bringing the
structure into compliance with applicable regulations.
I hope this letter addresses certain of your questions and concerns
However, if it doesn't or should you wish to further discuss any
areas please feel free to contact Jim Manson, Director of Building
and Safety. He may be reached at 456-3675.
Sincerely,
Dennis Scott, P.E.
Director Spokane County Public Works
cc: Jim Manson
enclosures
November 30, 1989
Dennis M. Scott, Director
Public Works Department
N. 811 Jefferson St.
Spokane, Wa. 99260
Dear Mr. Scott,
I am requesting your intervention in helping resolve a problem
with the Department of Building and Safety. The attached
chronology documents the issue involved, the unsubstantiated
excuses, offered by the Contractor to avoid compliance, and the
nebulous tactic,/ employed by the Inspection Supervisor in his
attempt to settle the dilemma. While I realize that the wheels of
justice grind slowly, the inordinate amount of time taken by the
Department's Arthur Erickson to bring Four Seasons Greenhouse into
compliance with the terms of the contract is ridiculous.
Should you be unable to get that Department back on track and
encourage it to render a decision consistent with the facts, my
only alternative is to seek legal council.
Isn't it absurd that an individual should even have to consider
such action in order to force an agency to discharge its mandated
responsibilities? After reviewing the course of events, I'm sure
you will concur and take internal measures to avoid public
embarrasment to that office.
May I hear from you at your earliest convenience?
CC:
Steve Hasson
James L. Manson
Arthur Erickson
Morris Aman
Registered Mail
ough)y,,rus,ated,
CarolMcLean
E. 9504 7th
Spokane, Wa. 99206
(509) 924-9818
To: Dennis Scott, Director, Public Works Department
From: Carol McLean
Subject: Contract violation by Ted Demars DBA Four Seasons
Greenhouse and Remodeling Center
Following is a chronology of salient events pertaining to the
contras;, its ultimate violations, and steps taken by the Department
of Buil^ ng and Safety to bring Mr. Demars into compliance.
I. Purchase Agreement finalized February 17, 1988--nearly 20
months ago. Among other amenities, it provides that two
(2) 2500 watt wall heaters and dual glass windows are to
be installed and that the wall panels, floor, ceiling,
and wail on the side of the unit to which the addition is
attached, are to be insulated.
These features clearly indicate that I desired, and Four
Seasons Greenhouses agreed to construct, a room which was
heatable and usable or recreational purposes.
II. Between the date the Purchase Agreement was signed and
the date condensation was initially observed on the
ceiling, several incidents occured which reflect on the
credibility of the Contractor. These, coupled with his
actions to date, illustrate his lack of business accumen
and questionable operating tactics.
1. Purchase Agreement states, "The terms and
conditions on the reverse hereof constitute a part
of this agreement." It does not. The back of the
agreement is completely blank.
2. Flooring and roof framing materials delivered by
Four Seasons was stacked on the bare ground and
saturated by rain for a period of three weeks
before construction commenced. My request that the
warped boards be replaced was denied on the basis
that quality of workmanship would not be adversely
affected. Time will tell!
3. Parts to be assembled and installed were provided
by C-Thru Industies, Inc.. Delivery included two
broken dual pane windows, each 43" wide and 54 "
high, a 20' rain gutter twisted out of shape, a
broken wall panel 2' high and 4' long and a twisted
steel frame housing a window and wall panel. Mr
Demars had no record of the component parts
comprising the shipment thereby experiencing delay
in ordering replacements.
IV.
V.
VI.
4. None of the completion dates promised by Mr. Jerry
Kannberg, construction foreman, were fulfilled.
5. The services of my attorney were required to
accelerate work on the project which should have
been completed within fourteen (14) days after
delivery of materials. The elapsed time was
approximately 100 days.
0n July 19, 1988 Mess,'rs. Demars and Kannberg made an
on -site inspection of the room. Before making final
payment, I requested that six (6) ceiling tiles with hand
prints be replaced. Four Seasons had previously touched
up the marks with paint which did not match the color of
the ceiling tile. I also pointed out that two (2) 1500
watt heaters had been substituted for the two (2) 2500
watt units. Mr. Demars responded, in effect, that he did
not have the ceiling tile in inventory and that the
smaller heaters were ample. In disgust, I paid off the
balance outstanding hoping that I would never have to
deal with them again. (After what had transpired to date
I should have known better.)
0n November 8, 1988 I wrote Four Seasons and informed Mr.
Demars that water spots were fming on the ceiling
tiles. (All 37 tiles, whichAae Qor2' wide and 4' long,
eventually showed water damage.) Mr. Kannberg came out
and removed all styrofoam plugs around the outside
perimiter of the roof in an attempt to improve air
circulation in the ceiling. He said to give him a call
if the problem still persisted.
0n January 4, 1988 I called Mr. Kannberg and informed him
that the water problem still existed. He noted, in an
on -site inspection, that C-Thru Industries had failed to
include a ceiling vapor barrier which prevents warm air
from condensing on the metal roof above the insulation.
He also stated that his construction crew should have
noticed that the barrier was missing and notified him of
that fact. He said he would contact C-Thru and attempt
to have a representative from that company inspect the
room. He also said that Four Seasons and C-Thru would
negotiate as to which company would foot the bill. In
other words, it was clearly implied that the work would
be performed at no cost to me.
0n March 16, 1989 I called Mr. Kannberg to check on his
progress in negotiating with C-Thru concerning the
condensation barrier. He responded that C-Thru was not
willing to send a representative nor pay for the barrier.
He also stated that Four Seasons would not pay for the
cost of the barrier but would be willing to install it at
no cost to me. (What a deal!)
VII.
0n May 3, 1989 I called Marty Robinson, Department of
Buil�Jng and Safety, to inquire whether Four Seasons had
requested a final inspection of the addition. He replied
that the company had not done so and that Mr. Morris Aman
would be out the following day.
VIII. 0n May 4, 1989 Mr. Aman inspected the room and concluded
that the condensation problem needed to be corrected in
order to bring the addition up to code. He informed me
that he would advise Four Seasons of his findings and the
work required to bring the addition up to building code
requirements.
IX. 0n June 20, 1989 Mr. Aman corresponded with Mr. Demars
ieoutlining applicable portions of the 1985 Uniform
OtBuilding code and the Washington State Energy Code, 1986
.,,ert),Edition, which must be satisfied in order to solve
•.1 ie problem. He concluded that, "The condensation problem in
�y°t `� this addition needs to be taken care of properly.
Demars was given ten (10) days to respond.
0n July 5, 1989 I contacted Mr. Aman to inquire if he had
heard from Mr. Demars. He had not and said that he would
follow up with another letter.
0n July 7, 1989 Mr. Aman informed Mr. Demars that he had
not made arrangements to correct the problem and, unless
arrangements were made, the matter would be turned over
to the Prosecuting Attorney's office.
X.
XII. 0n or about July 25, 1989 I received a letter from the
Prosecuting Attorneys office stating, in essence, that I
was in violation of the Building Code and would be levied
certain penalities if I failed to bring the addition up
to code. I returned the letter to Mr. Aman pointing out
that it should have been sent to Mr. Demars. Mr. Amans
was appalled, agreed that the letter went to the wrong
party, and would request the Prosecuting Attorney's office
to redirect the correspondence to Mr. Demars and provide
me a copy of the transmitted!. For some unknown reason, I
was never appraised by either the Department of Building
and Safety nor the Prosecuting Attorney's office of what
transpired.
XIII. 0n August 25, 1989 Messrs,Erickson and Aman came out to
inspect the addition and review papers pertaining
thereto. During the review, we discussed the following
points of contention made my Mr. Demars in an apparent
attempt to convince Mr. Erickson that he was an innocent
party to the violation and, therefore, should be absolved
of any contingent liabilities.
1. He contends that Four Seasons only provided labor for
the project and had nothing to do with ordering the
parts from C-Thru.
FACT
a. Delivery receipt of April 11, 1988 shows that said
materials from C-Thru were consigned to Ted M. Demars
and Associates, Inc.. DBA Four Seasons Greenhouses, the
Design and Remodeling Center, E. 1422 Sprague, Spokane
Wa. 99216
b. Mr. Demars reordered parts damaged in the original
shipment.
2. He contends that Dave Kindred, a salesman for Four
Seasons, handled all of my payments totaling $11,965.68
and, therefore he should be liable for any building
deficiencies.
FACT
a. Cancelled check for $3,500.00 dated February 18,
1988 made payable to Four Seasons as downpayment on
the project was endorsed by Ted Demars and
deposited at Seattle First National Bank February
22, 1988.
b. Cancelled check for $5,982.00 dated April 11, 1988
made payable to Four Seasons for payment of
materials was endorsed by Ted Demars and deposited
at Seattle First National Bank April 12, 1988.
c. Cancelled check for $1,795.00 dated June 18, 1988
made payable to Four Seasons upon completion of a
substantial portion of the work was endorsed by Ted
Demars and Deposited at Seattle First National Bank
June 20, 1988.
d. Cancelled check for $688.68 dated July 13, 1988
made payable to Four Seasons as final payment was
endorsed by Ted Demars and deposited at Seattle
First National Bank July 19, 1988.
3. He contends that the room addition was not meant to be
habitable. (Presumably, there would be no condensation
problems if it's not lived in.)
FACT
a. In a visual on -site inspection, I pointed out to
Messrs. Aman and Erickson that the floor, wall
panels, ceiling and the enclosed outside wall of
the unit to which the room is attached, are
insulated. In addition, they observed that all
windows have dual panes and that two heaters have
been installed as a permanent part of the addition.
(Even a layman would conclude that the presence of
these features imply that the addition was designed
to provide all season comfort for recreational
purposes and to be heated when dictated by outside
elements, even if not lived in.)
b. Mr. Demars informed me that his company has
errected two comparable additions in this region.
He installed heaters and vapor barriers in both.
This is primafacie evidence he was aware that
condensation could be a problem unless appropriate
preventive measures were taken.
c. Even granting the contractor his premise, why did
he proceed to insulate and install ceiling tile
knowing that natural changes in outside temperature
would cause condensation thereby ruining the
appearance of the ceiling? Such action is
inconsistent with established building priniples,
as any reputable contractor will attest to.
d. In order for heat to be absent in this or in any
other room, the inside and outside temperature must
be equalized. The only way this can be achieved is
to leave the door and windows open at all times.
This would be an impossibility since seven (7) of
the ten (10) windows are encased in steel framing
and, hence cannot be opened. And, even if they
could, doing so would permit rain, snow, and wind
to enter which would defeat their intended purpose.
Even when the heaters are off, condensation forms
due to heat escaping from my bedroom and living
room upon entering and egressing the addition.
Thus, the implication of his assumption is
falacious.
In closing our discussion, Mr. Erickson said that he
needed additional time to review the case. Mr. Aman said
he would endeavor to contact mr. Kindred in an attempt to
obtain additional input bearing on the problem.
XIV. 0n September 8, 1989 I phoned Mr. Aman and.inquired about
the status of the letter being sent to Mr. Kindred. He
responded that a letter was being prepared by Mr.
Erickson and that I should receive a copy that day.
XV.
0n September 21, 1989 I called Mr. Aman at 8:05 A.M. to
appraise him that I was still waiting for a copy of the
letter that Mr. Erickson supposedly sent to Mr. Kindred.
He did not know if it had been sent. If so,he was not
aware of any follow-up action taken by the Department's
inspection or compliance personnel.
That afternoon, I received a copy of a letter sent by Mr. Erickson
to Four Seasons Greenhouses. Its contents were simply appalling.
It did not recognize nor address the issue and, to compound the
problem, is inconsistent with the evidence on hand in the following
respects:
1. Mr. Erickson begins his letter with "Dear Sirs" which
means that no specific individual at Four Seasons is
responsible for taking action. Certainly Mr. Erickson
knows by now who^ .responsible party is.
2. Mr. Ericksojsaid that Dear Sirs obtained a permit on
h 23,
2
3.
Even a cursory review of that document
will r- • - - that thek05-- ect date was one year prior to
that --March 23, 1988
He states that, "Thies —permit also notes that the addition
was not to be heated. IT DOES NOT SO NOTE.
4. He maintains that, "The addition is a C-Thru brand which
is approved as unheatable unhabitable space to be used
for recreational purposes."
a. The evaluation report on which Mr. Erickson bases
this statement does not include the term
"unheatable."
b.
Mr. Erickson apparently failed to observe
his on -site inspection with Mr. Aman
addition is being used for recreation
The presence of an organ, television
informal furniture for entertaining are
indicative of this usage.
during
that the
purposes.
set, and
certainly
c. Mr. Erickson states that required openings were not
installed. (Although he provided no reason for
making this statement, I assume he meant that so
doing would improve ventilation and help dissapate
ceiling heat.) Had he inspected the outside of the
addition he would have observed that forty-five
(45) pieces of styro-foam originally inserted
between the ridges of the thirty-three (33) foot
long metal roof had been removed. Mr. Kannberg.
removed these on November 8, 1988 and, during an
on -site inspection on January 4, 1989, confirmed
that their removal only accentuated the
condensation problem. Hence, Mr. Ericksons
recommendation has already proven to be infeasible.
5. Mr. Erickson states that, "Also, the panels did not have
the required identification tags per the evaluation
report." Talk about grasping at straws!! The
observation is not even germane to the issue since
compliance would not help solve the condensation problem.
6. Mr. Erickson completely ignored the code infractions
previously documented by Mr. Aman.
7. To top it off, the evaluation report Mr. Erickson is
hanging his hat on is passe. It was prepared June 1986
to be used in conjuction with Job No. K-122 wherein the
enclosure system was to be installed under an existing
cover constructed by another party. Since Mr. Demars
installed the cover as part of a total package, he is
soley responsible for omitting the vapor barrier.
XVI. The above letter from Mr. Erickson, in conjunction with
the events of October 25, 1989, were the straws that
broke the camels back.
On that date, I called Mr. Arran to inquire wheter Mr.
Demars had responded to Mr. Erickson's letter. Mr. Arran
responded that he did not know but would talk to Mr.
Erickson and call me back.
Upon returning my call, Mr. Aman informed me that Mr.
Erickson had given Mr. Demars an extension of time and
that the files on this case were missing.
Why Mr. Erickson failed to inform me of the extension is
incomprehensible, is another indication of his lack of
interest in my concern over this case, and suggests that
he has again bent over backwords to give Four Seasons and
the Department another opportunity to wash their hands of
the whole affair.
I wasn't surprised to learn that the files were missing.
It was simply a continuation of a series of adverse
events which have plagued this project since its
inception. Incidently, the files were located after I
asked Mr. Aman the names of individuals responsible for
making and carrying out various administrative decisions.
Coincidence?
In summary, Ted Demars, DBA Four Seasons Greenhouses, installed an
addition which did not include the necessary accessories as.
required by the Purchase Agreement. As a consequence, hi's
negligence resulted in a violation of Section 3205 (c) of the 1985
Uniform Building Code, regarding ventilation, and of the Washington
State Energy Code, 1986 Edition, with respect to moisture'control.
Mr. Aman's observed the condensation problem on May 4, 1989 during
his first on -site inspection, informed Mr. Demars of the above
infractions, and in a letter dated June 20, 1989, apprised him that
the problem needed to be properly taken care of.
Progress on pursuing compliance came to a screeching halt at a most
critical juncture following the issuance of that letter. Mr.
Erickson assumed complete control and the situation deterior4ted
rapidly thereafter.
Mr. Erickson could have acquired such an autonomous position only
by over-riding Mr. Aman's findings and recommendations and by
seeing to it that compliance personnel and the Prosecuting
Attorneys office were no longer involved. Such actions by a
supervisor create poor in-house moral among employees and are not
conducive to good public relations. No wonder the public
often -complains of being ripped off by government officals who
forget that their role is to serve rather than dictate.
Mr. Demars was apprised of the condensation problem over a year
ago, refuses to purchase and install a vapor barrier to correct the
problem, and overtly and covertly has received the blessings of the
'Department's Mr. Erickson for not doing so.
The Department of Building and Safety was apprised of the problem
over six (6) months ago and has failed to enforce, or even
encourage, Mr. Demars to comply with those portions of the codes
applicable to solving the flagrant violation. His pleas for
forgiveness have apparently fallen on sympathetic ears at the
Department.
Since my attempts to get Messrs.Demars and Erickson off dead -center
have beedfruitless, I am requesting Mr. Dennis Scott to intervene
on my behalf. Should he be unable to resolve the issue to my
satisfaction, the problem may no longer be an in-house issue.
INFORMATION WORKSHEET
PARCEL NUMBER: 0 - 1 / 6 4
STREET ADDRESS: Z4-57- 5-0
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
SUBDIVISION:
1p)/a- Ni £.. / �i�- • ?.ZO �o
BLOCK: 2- LOT: .4 ZONE:
LOT AREA: F/A: WIDTH: (
# OF BUILDINGS: # OF DWELLINGS:
OWNER:
MAILING ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE/ZIP:
CONTACT:
5 ,
LA \/ \uJQ-
DISTRICT:
DEPTH: R/W:
WATER DISTRICT:
PHONE:
c)ooKi=vw } GJ 4
QS �2A 2�t� s o.�J
get a-o 6,
PHONE:
SETBACKS: - FRONT: LEFT: RIGHT:
PERMIT USE: A-6S / ei90 i- i PA-
-
REAR:
off- /Mo Ffa-t 6040
******************************************************************************
3
t
D-2
CONTRACTOR LICENSE NUMBER:
BUILDING INFORMATION
CONTRACTOR :" i- S F} S o L S -S (G/t.f OR,
MAILING ADDRESS: 2-, C'' 2- Z-Z--
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER: ,64 V�
MAILING ADDRESS:
S Z i flocs
PHONE:
PHONE:
ec1 - '?7 - C/�o
NEW: REMODEL: ADDITION:
DWELL UNITS: OCCUPANT LOAD:
BUILDING DIMENSIONS:
REQUIRED PARKING:
CHANGE OF USE:
c
BUILDING HGT: 0 STORIES:
1
gLfL X e (WIDTH X DEPTH) SQ. FT.: oZ %c2-
# HANDICAP: SEWER (Y/N): Al HYDRANT:
RP.VI GPC1 1 /RR
PLUMBING INFORMATION"
CONTRACTOR LIC#: AJ/4_
CONTRACTOR:
MAILING ADDRESS:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx***xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:xxxxx
CONTRACTOR LIC#:
CONTRACTOR:
MECHANICAL INFORMATION
MAILING ADDRESS:
ELECTRIC: GAS: OIL: CCAL: WOOD: SOLAR: HEAT PUMP
ENERGY CODE: WSEC: NWEC: UTILITY: SGC:
APPROACH: PRESCRIPTIVE: POINT: COMPONENT: SYSTEMS:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MECHANICAL FEES PLUMBING FEES
ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF . ITEM DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF
PROCESSING FEE YES OR NO PROCESSING FEE YES OR NO
DUCTWORK SYSTEM 'TOILETS
WOODSTOVE/INSERT SINKS
GAS WATER HEATER SHOWERS
GAS HTG EQUIP(100,000)BTU BATH TUBS
GAS HTG EQUIP +100,000 KITCHEN SINKS
GAS PIPING - # OF UNITS DISHWASHERS
HEATPUMP 1-100 BTU GARBAGE DISPOSAL
HEATPUMP 101-500 BTU CLOTHES WASHER
HEATPUMP 501-1000 BTU UTILITY SINKS
HEATPUMP 1001-1750 BTU ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS
HEATPUMP +1751 BTU FLOOR DRAINS
REFRIG 1-100 BTU FLOOR SINKS
REFRIG 101-500 BTU BAR SINKS
REFRIG 501-100 BTU ROOF DRAINS
REFRIG 101-1750 BTU LAWN SPRINKLER
REFRIG +1750 BTU SEWAGE EJECTOR
AIR CONDITIONER 0-3 HP WATER SOFTENER
AIR CONDITIONER 3-15 HP URINAL
AIR CONDITIONER 15-30 HP DRINKING FOUNTAIN
AIR CONDITIONER 30-50 HP
AIR CONDITIONER +50 HP
VENTILATING FANS
EVAPORATIVE COOLERS
HOODS
CLOTHES DRYER
RANGE
GAS LOG
UNLISTED GAS APPLIANCE
AIR HANDLER 1-10000 CFM
AIR HANDLER 10000 CFM
er. arS. s'kiLr•MY r
S IC.) K. \ N F= 'R' V ,�rsotyti } • C C7 L 1 N T Y
OFFICE of Coven COMMISSIONERS
JOHN R. MCBRIDE, 1ST DISTRICT • STEVEN H.ASSON, 2ND DISTRICT • PATRICIA A. MUMMEY, 3RD DISTRICT
January 3, 1990
Mrs. Carol McLean
East 9504 - 7th Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
Dear Mrs. McLean:
I am in receipt of your correspondence to Dennis Scott, Public
Works Director, dated November 30 regarding the addition to your
house. I note in that letter, the various sequence of events that
have transpired in your efforts to secure an adequate remedy - I
note the time delays and frustrations that have ensued in this
process. Mr. Scott states that our Building and Safety Department
has referred this matter to our Prosecuting Attorney's office for
ppropriate action.
I did not know what will be the final conclusion - I can assume
th ugh what ever the recourse - that action is sometimes in the
fu re. If I may be of assistance to you as events unfold, please
do of hes'ate to call me at 456-2265.
Very
Ail"
St- e Hasson,
County Commissioner
yours,
nnv
c: Dennis Scott
Jim Emacio
Jim Manson
WEST 1116 BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260-0100 • (509) 456-2265