The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About17729 TOPPER CRT_983141_2026 INSPECTION REPORT Permit No.W-f>1 Lot # � Address T � Contractor Owner Date APPROVAL ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ VIOLATION ❑ CORRECTION REQUESTED ❑ Corrections listed below MUST BE MADE before work can be approved. ❑ Please contact inspector. ❑ Was not able to perform inspection. ❑ CALL 435-0724 FOR RE-INSPECTION - 24 hour notice required. Inspect Date_ 3—/F" 155 TYPE OF INSPECTION REQUESTED ❑ Under-floor ❑ Framing ❑ Gas Piping ❑ Footing ❑ Drywall, Nailing ❑ Consultation ❑ Foundation ❑ Shear Nailing ❑ Groundwork ❑ Mechanical ❑ Grid ❑ Struct. Slab ❑ Wood Stove ❑ Rough-in --,CT Final ❑ Masonry ❑ Drainage ❑ Insulation ❑ Other i C=TY O V AR L=NOTON CONS 3-FRUCT=ON F CIaR X-F Owner: JDH CONSTRUCTION 20604 BROWN RD, MONROE 98272 Value of Work: $101,226.00 Tax ID: HVE 71 Rhone: 360-794-5235 Describe Work: NEW CONSTRUCTION Proposed Use: SFR Legal Description: Job Address: 17729 TOPPER CT. Contractor's Name Type Address License# SFR JDH CONSTRUCTION G 20604 BROWN RD. JDHCO**070JL JAYCO HEATING INC. M 17461 147TH ST. SE JAYCOHI04559 WHITE COAST PLUMBING P 403 MAPLE AVE. STE WHITECP*1778 P E R M I T F E E S Equipment and Fixtures Number Fee Total Charge PLUMBING FIXTURES ~---- -14� $7.00 $98 00 FURNACE/UNIT HEATER 1 $13.15 $13.15 RANGE 1 $9.50 $9.50 VENTILATION FANS 5 $6.50 $32.50 DRYER 1 $9.50 $9.50 METAL FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY 1 $9.50 $9.50 WATER HEATER 1 $9.50 $9.50 GAS PIPING 1-5 OUTLETS 1 $5.00 $5.00 S U 8 T O T A L...... $186.65 TOTALS Fee Equipment $88.65 Fixture $98.00 Mech Permit $22.00 Permit Fee $809.50 Plan Fee $526.18 Plumb Permit $15.00 State fee $4.50 School Mitigation $941.00 SIGNATURE: 9'1L TOTAL FEE...... .... . . . . . . . $2,504-83 I HEREBY C` TFY THAT I HAVE RE D AND EXAM THIS APPLICATIO A O PAYMENTS... . . . ... . . . . .. .. . $410.48 KNOW THE "AME TO BE TRUE AND C - RECT ALL. PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND TOTAL DUE.. . . .... . . ... .. . . $2,094.35 ORDINANCES GOVERNIN THIS YPE OF WORK WILL. 8' CO "O H WHETHER SPECIFIED R c/ ri TE n RECEIPT # U 10 PL14AI LOT 71 , �11b&Ga#D L),rw 5 i 0,r 1772q -WP-ce Gu,e- CON SJ M N 46 I. 30 ppweviAl 10 aoo � � RECEIVED JUN 0 3 1998 CITY OF ARLINGTON 99 - 3l q 1 June 27, 2000 Mike Brumfield 17725 Topper Court Arlington, WA 98223 Re: Yard setback located at 17729 Topper Court. Dear Mr. Brumfield, This letter is in response to your concerns in regards to the side yard setback at 17729 Topper Court; lot 71 Highland View Estates. As stated in a previous discussion an administrative variance is approved for the reduction of the side yard setback on lot 71 Based on an error in measuring the wrong corner pin during the construction of the project. The interpretation in the Uniform Building Code setback requirements for fire protection from property lines and/or adjoining buildings, the minimum distance for protection is 3 feet. (Table 5A) The interpretation is that protection of life, safety can be achieved with the current condition of the setback. Therefore the concern for life safety requirements can be achieved with the existing conditions. If you have additional concerns please give me a call at 360 403-3432. Sincerely, David W. Anderson Building Official City of Arlington f Attorney-Client Privileged Communication Not for Public Disclosure MEMORANDUM Date: June 19, 2000 From: Steve Peiffle, City Attorney To: Dave Anderson Subject: Side setback issue We recently discussed the situation in which the city approved an administrative variance which permitted a reduction of a side yard setback below the five foot minimum, due to an error in measuring from the wrong corner pin. As you requested, I investigated the liability issues relating to the same. Building code inspections are generally considered to be a traditional discretionary act of local governments, because they are not conducted like part of a business venture. As such, they are subject to the public duty doctrine, which holds there is no duty of care by local governments conducting building inspections to individuals. Taylor v. Stevens County, I I I Wash.2d 159, 759 P.2d 447 (1988); Moore v. Way an, 85 Wash. App. 710, 714 (1997). The public duty doctrine is premised upon the policy that "legislative enactments for the public welfare should not be discouraged by subjecting a governmental entity to unlimited liability." Atherton Condominium v. Blume Development COm.. 115 Wn.2d 506, 529 (1990). There are exceptions to the public duty doctrine, however. One exception is the so-called special relationship exception. A special relationship is created when(1)there is privity or direct contact between the public official and the injured plaintiff, (2)the public official gives express assurances; and(3)the plaintiff justifiably relies on those assurances. Bailey v. Forks, 108 Wash.2d 262, 268, 737 P.2d 1257 (1987). A second exception to the public duty doctrine is the so-called "failure to enforce" exception. This holds that a general duty of care owed to the public can be owed to an individual where (1) governmental agents responsible for enforcing statutory requirements (2)possess actual knowledge of a statutory violation, fail to take corrective action despite a statutory duty to do so, and (3)the plaintiff is within the class the statute intended to protect. This exception, however, must be narrowly construed. Atherton, supra, 115 Wn.2d at 531. In this case, the public duty doctrine clearly applies unless one of these two exceptions applies. The special duty doctrine has generally been applied as a result of negligent misrepresentations Attorney-Client Privileged Communication Not for Public Disclosure by a government official, such as when providing specific zoning information about a particular parcel in response to a citizen inquiry. See, Rogers v. Toppenish, 23 Wash.App. 554, 596 P.2d 1096, review denied, 92 Wash.2d 1030 (1979). In my opinion, this exception would not apply here, where you have given no assurances to the neighboring property owner and he has not reasonably relied on any assurances you have given him. So long as you do not provide him any assurances (i.e., promises)that there will never be a problem with the setback variance, you should not fall within that exception. Likewise, the failure to enforce exception does not apply here. There is no code violation since you have granted an exception to the code by allowing a variance. Likewise, it is not clear to me that the neighboring property owner is a party within the class of people that the building code provision is intended to protect. Conceivably, the code is intended to protect homeowners themselves (although I concede that a secondary purpose of the setback requirement is probably to avoid fire from traveling from house to house). I hope this analysis helps somewhat. Please let me know if I can explain this further. CITY OF ARLINGTON CONSTRUCTION PERMIT -- ❑ COMBINATION ❑ BUILDING ❑ MECHANICAL ❑ PLUMBING ❑ SIGN PERMIT NO. J1 y f l OWNER / MAIL ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE .� 17(� CoNSi,2UGriOU 2OW Q,eol vie left. ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER MAIL ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE LICENSE M �� Con�S�Puc,—rol/ 3-DHCO��o7ys[_ MLCIIANICAL CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE LICENSE II � uCo WF.,lr Iu -.:rgZ il4l ig7tA gY2-74 (360)7K-51660 PLUMOING CONTRACTOR MAIL ADDRESS CITY ZIP PHONE LICENSE III N W t4tr; (`VA5,— &'UaIA� 403 MAac-Ads Ciao 33Cu-1 3 CLASS UT WORK 0�1LW ❑ADDITION ❑ALTERATION ❑REPAIR ❑DEMOLI LION ❑BUILDING RELOCATION Q VALUATION OF WORK W DESCRIBE WORK 3 uj m PRUPOSI U USE OF BUILDING m I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICA- TION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT ALL PROVI- Z LLLAL DISCRIP11ON OT PROPLRTY(SHOWN BELOW OR ATTACH FOUR COPIES) SIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVE"ING THIS TYPE OF WORK J LUI-:Zt—BLOCK OF J��7-,4-jr,2 WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HERIN OR NOT.THE a GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITYTO FW VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR J TAX ID NUMBER FROM PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OFTHE PERFORMANCE OF a CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT EXPIRES 1 YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE. SIGNATURE O NTRACTOR OR AUTHORIZED AGENT DATE VIOB AUURI SS t 7 729 T 'PP — x 6 � $ (OFFICE USE ONLY) PLUMBING W41CAL NO. TYPE OF PIXTURE FEE x's FIXTURES rvo. TYPE OF EQUIPMENT FEE i s FIXTURES WATER CLASEr fOILUT IR COND.UNITS-H.P. FA. tip.list" ATHTUB ZEFRIGERATION UNTTS-H.P.EA u .list«" VATORY(WASH BASIN) 3OILERS-H.P.EA. jqtip.list*" IIOWER AS FIRED A.C.UNITS-TONNAGE EA. Igtip.list- J TCHEN SINK dt DISPOSAL ORCED AIR SYSTEMS-B.T.U. MEA TSHWASHER ALL HEATERS-B.T.U. M UNDRY TRAY JNIT HEATERS-B.T.U. M. i LOTHES WASHER "' APORATIVECOOLERS WATER HEATER LOTHES DRYERS RINAL VENTILATION FAN RINKING FOUNTAIN PLANGE HOOD COMMERCIAL LOOR DRAIN IR HANDLING UNIT- CPM (/ VACUUM BREAKERS TOVE OOF DRAINS-RAINLEADERS 4ETAL FIREPLACE:CHIMNEY INK SERVICE-BAR,ETC. ATER HEATER AS PIPING *(up to 5 e$3.00..ddnl.=$35 ui ment list must be provided SUB TOTAL SUB TOTAL PERMIT PERMIT TOTAL FEE r^= - r't TOTAL FEE S16L YARD SE I CK STRLLI SLTBACK REAR YARD SE ACK PLAN CHECK FEE 5O 3 `99 D ) FEE �� f f � RECEIPT NO l}tom I I USF/ONE LOT AREA I VACANT SITE 1 L XU 41t r�D � 0-YES d FEE VALUATION FEE L TYPL OF CONSV OCCUPA Y Gt �ROUP NO.OF DWEL�ING UNITS PLAN CHECKING VG v , 3,` I BU'LDING f d SILL OF BLDG. NO.Of STORILS MAX.OCC.LOAD ( 7 PLUMBING FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED ❑YES MECHANICAL COMMENTS STATE BLDG.CODE ENERGY CODE SURCHARGE PENALTY U.B.C. SEC,303(a) WATER/SEWER FEES RECEIVED TOTAL PERMITJUN U 3 1998 WHEN PROPERVALIDALY I WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE)THIS IS YOUR PERMIT&RECEIPT PAID CRk BY cc:ASSESSOR.APPLICANT.TREASURER. BLDG DEPT BUILDING OFFICIAL DATE RECORDS COPY