Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unpermitted Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and county say sheds and unpermitted structures violate code; magistrate closes hearing, compliance period to follow
Summary
In Case 25‑011952, county staff alleged unpermitted improvements including two sheds and a semi‑trailer; respondent David K. Griffiths said some uses were agricultural and grandfathered, while neighbors described long‑running nuisances; county said structures lacked permits and showed evidence of electrical and possible habitation; magistrate concluded the hearing and will issue a decision.
Get email alerts on the Unpermitted Structures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff presented Case 25‑011952 alleging multiple violations at 12502 NE 199th Street, Waldo (parcel 18397001000), including improvements prior to issuance of building permits—specifically two sheds and a semi‑trailer placed on the property. The county reported the complaint was received Nov. 7 and that the last inspection was Jan. 6; county staff said photographs and postings were in the case file and recommended 30 days to comply or $100/day fines if uncorrected.
Respondent David K. Griffiths disputed key allegations, described long‑standing agricultural uses on his parcel and asserted some structures were grandfathered. Griffiths also disputed the characterization of living in sheds and said certain items, including a motor home used historically for livestock, were not habitable dwellings. The county said the sheds had electrical connections, porch lights and air conditioning units and that the department had concerns about unpermitted septic or other service connections.
A neighbor, Michael Wiesen, testified about persistent neighborhood impacts including alleged unpermitted septic systems, noise, and public‑safety concerns. The magistrate closed the hearing at 10:29 a.m. and indicated he would rule after reviewing the record; county staff said photographs and postings were in evidence and reiterated the recommendation that the respondent be required to come into compliance within the stated period or face fines.
