Category Archives: Property rights

Roadside vegetation: Where the Sidewalk Ends

The reference in the title of this blog post is to the book of children’s poetry by the late Shel Silverstein. Our topic of the day is neither children nor poetry but rather the intersection of public and private property and the maintenance thereof.
Screen Shot 2014-06-14 at 12.04.10 PM
Act I: Earlier this week on kitsapsun.com, Ed Friedrich reported on a series of unfortunate events that started with a city of Port Orchard road crew and an overambitious blackberry bush. Workers mowing a Bethel Avenue ditch June 4 sliced a utility pole guy-wire hidden in the brush. What happened next was like a Rube Goldberg machine gone wrong.

The high-tension cable sprang up and smacked a power line, sending a surge to a home on Piperberry Way. The surge blew up the meter box and traveled to the breaker box in a bedroom, starting a fire. No one was injured. The city’s insurance will pay to repair the homes and another nearby that shared the same power source.

Stuff happens. Sometimes it’s news. Sometimes it’s not.

Act II: The story of Jack Jones and his six lost lavender plants may not be front page material or even fit for the inside Code 911 section. But it pertains to Kitsap County’s roadside vegetation maintenance program, a topic I’m guessing will engage property owners far and wide.

In the interest of full disclosure, I know Jack. He’s my Tai Chi instructor. I made a couple of calls to Kitsap County on his behalf, when he couldn’t seem to get a response about six mature lavender plants by his mailbox that had been whacked to the ground on May 28. A couple of plants close to the mailbox were left standing, giving the appearance that the mower operator stopped when he recognized they were ornamentals.
Screen Shot 2014-06-14 at 5.02.49 PM
Jack had already taken the first step and called Kitsap 1, the county’s central operator system, where staff give basic information and direct traffic on questions and complaints (360-337-5777). When he didn’t hear back within the three business days allotted by the county for a response, I agreed to poke around. I’d do the same for a stranger.

But before you start calling me about your problems with Kitsap 1, here’s who you really want to talk to. Public Communication Manager Doug Bear, dbear@co.kitsap.wa.us, is in charge. I’m not saying Kitsap 1 is rife with problems, just here’s what to do if you have one. After all, there are human beings on those phone lines. Stuff happens.

Doug connected me with Jaques Dean, road superintendent for the county’s public works department, who gave me a link to the county’s detailed policy manual on roadside vegetation maintenance. The purpose is to maintain sight distances within the county’s right-of-way, promote drainage off the road, remove vegetation growth that can degrade pavement and remove unsafe overhanging branches. Methods include mowing, use of herbicides and fertilizers, and promotion of native plants over invasive species and noxious weeds.

The document goes into great detail about steps taken to protect the environment and people. You can sign up to be notified when spraying of chemicals is to occur, and you can opt out altogether. You can also opt out of roadside mowing under an “owner will maintain” agreement.

“Our maintenance crews are very cognizant of the sensitivity of this issue,” Jaques wrote in an email to me on June 3. “When we encounter private plantings that need to be cut back for roadway safety reasons, every attempt is made to contact the owner before the work is completed.”

That didn’t happen in Jack’s case.

“In this particular occurrence, the operator simply did not recognize that these were ornamental plants,” Jaques said. “They were planted within the right-of-way immediately adjacent to the asphalt pavement, they were not permitted, the owner had not requested to maintain, and to add to it, the owner was not maintaining the area and surrounding weeds. The plants blended into the high grass, blackberries, maple branches and appeared to be immature Scotch Broom.”
Screen Shot 2014-06-14 at 5.03.10 PM
The operator, who was new to the area, had stopped before the mailbox since it was close to quitting time, intending to return the next day to trim up the rest with smaller tools, Jaques said in a follow up call to me on June 11.

A county road log shows that Chico Beach Drive, where Jack lives, was mowed in August 2009, September 2010 and October 2012. Previous operators left the lavender intact along with plantings of several of his neighbors, Jack said, contributing to confusion over how the county’s policies are implemented.

Jaques explained to me that operators typically work the same area of road in a given part of the county and become familiar with neighborhoods, working around plantings whenever possible even when there is no “owner will maintain” agreement. A few daffodils by the ditch are no problem, he said, but the county can’t guarantee they’ll be left standing. Kitsap County is responsible for 900 miles of roadway, double that considering there are two sides to every road.

“Those people need to be aware the county needs to maintain the roadway and they need to do it efficiently,” Jaques said.

If you’ve got big plans for a rock wall, a fence or a large hedge, the county needs to hear from you before the installation to make sure you don’t obstruct the ROW, he added. These are the types of plantings for which owner-will-maintain are most appropriate.

On June 11, Jack finally heard from road crew superintendent Ron Coppinger, who had not had the correct phone number and who came out to Jack’s house to discuss the plantings. Ron offered to replace the lavender, but Jack’s neighbors had already brought him new plants. Jack and Ron settled on a load of beauty bark as compensation. But more important to Jack was the personal contact from Coppinger from which he took a sense that the road crew is indeed “very cognizant of the sensitivity of this issue” after all.

If anyone has questions about navigating the lines of communication with Kitsap County or other local government entities (including schools), you can email me, chenry@kitsapsun.com.

Comment on proposed cell tower in Manchester by Wednesday

We are running in tomorrow’s Kitsap Sun a short glance item on a proposed cell phone tower.
Note the location: 6398 Hilldale Ave.
And the deadline: Wednesday.
The company is located in Massachusetts, so I don’t know if it has to be by end of business Eastern Standard Time on Wednesday. I have not yet been successful in getting a call back from anyone who can speak to this project. There apparently will be a county-level permitting process with opportunity for more comment. Hopefully we can more information during that process.

Here’s the glance item:
A cellphone company leasing property at 6398 Hilldale Road is soliciting comments through Wednesday on potential significant impacts of a 156-foot tall “monopole telecommunications” tower proposed on the property.
The new tower will be fitted with standard lighting, and the tower facility will include a 50-by-50-foot lease area and associated easements, along with a 30-foot buffer surrounding the lease area.
American Towers LLC seeks comments on potential impacts of the tower on the quality of the human environment, as required under the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 1.1307, including potential impacts to historic or cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Email American Towers LLC on or before Wednesday at enviro.services@americantower.com

Waterfront pathway process complicated by federal regulations

Owners of five Beach Drive properties are alarmed anew at news the Port Orchard City Council has taken the next step toward construction of a public waterfront pathway that could go right through their homes.

The city recently approved a contract that sets in motion steps for possible acquisition of the properties by eminent domain. But other options are being considered, and taking of the properties is far from a done deal, City Engineer Mark Dorsey stressed. The contract includes financial capacity and authority for Universal Field Services to negotiate with the property owners on total acquisition, when and if the city council gives the OK.

The council needs to know the pros and cons of all options, Dorsey said, which is why the contract includes the most extreme scenario. Under other scenarios, the houses could be left standing, but there are liability and public safety issues.

Property owners are miffed that city officials didn’t personally contact each of them before the contract was approved. To explain why, we need to get down into the weeds, so hang with me here.

First, let’s jump back to 2011. The property owners have known for at least two years that eminent domain is a possibility. The issue came up in a properly noticed public meeting in which the council discussed early design of the pathway, causing an uproar from the property owners. According to homeowner Randy Jones, then-Mayor Lary Coppola visited him a day or two after the meeting. Coppola assured Jones that the eminent domain option was at that time hypothetical and the taking of his home was not imminent, Jones recently said.

That’s still the case. It will take the city a long time to jump through the hoops of regulations put into play by a $300,000 federal grant the city accepted under previous Mayor Kim Abel for preliminary design of the pathway.

The grant requires Port Orchard to complete the whole path, one way or another — through the homes or around them — or the city must return the $300,000.

The Bay Street Pedestrian Pathway is seen as a great amenity by most city officials. Two segments are already completed and have been well-used. So it’s unlikely the city will turn back now, but that’s yet another option the council will weigh, according to Dorsey.

The city faces the same use-it-or-lose it issue with the Tremont Street Corridor, where more than $3 million in federal funds were used for design. According to Dorsey, the federal government, dispersing money through the state Department of Transportation, used to spread money around “like peanut butter,” leaving a trail of partially completed public works projects. Since 2009, the feds require assurance grant-supported projects will be completed, making it harder on public officials, but reducing the likelihood that taxpayers’ money will be squandered on nice ideas never executed.

So why didn’t Port Orchard officials recently come knocking at the property owners’ doors? Under one of the federal grant regulations, the city must use an intermediary to contact residents about the potential taking of their properties to avoid the appearance of “collusion,” according to Dorsey. The law requires a clean division of roles. The city, acting on the public’s behalf, could be seen as having a conflict of interest were any staff members or elected officials to discuss the eminent domain issue with property owners outside of a public meeting.

Speaking of which, the council takes public comment during its meetings. The next one is at 7 p.m. Tuesday at city hall, 216, Prospect St.