Opinion ID: 2514603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did Griffin Comply with All Requirements of the Code?

Text: ¶ 19 The County argues that six components of Griffin's OSS permit application failed to meet requirements of the Code: one under the water table measurements provision, [4] one under the design flow provision, [5] and four under the minimum horizontal separations (setback) provisions. [6] The Board concluded [t]hat the Griffins did what the Department required of them to obtain the waivers and modified setback required. AR at 3. Thus, the Board concluded that the Department properly allowed all of the waivers and setback modifications that Griffin received. ¶ 20 The remaining question is whether each of the six contested components of Griffin's OSS fell within the requirements of the Code. This is a legal question, which we may properly answer. ¶ 21 Water Table Measurements. The water table measurements provision states that a health officer [m]ay require winter water table measurements and [m]ay require other soil and site information. TCSC art. IV, §§ 11.4.1, .2. On its face, section 11.4 does not contain requirements. It demands nothing as essential to satisfying the provision, and its sections become requirements only if the health officer exercises her or his discretion to invoke the provisions. [7] Because the existence of the requirement depends solely on health officer discretion, if the health officer makes it known that she or he will not require certain tests or showings, those requirements do not exist. ¶ 22 Griffin submitted a waiver form, [8] stating that he wished not to perform a winter water study but that he would provide additional information. AR at 18. The health officer granted the request. Griffin did not fail to meet the water table measurements requirement because when the hearing officer decided not to request the measurement, the potential requirement ceased to exist. To the extent that the health officer required other information, substantial evidence shows that Griffin fulfilled that requirement by entering a report from Pacific Rim Soil & Water, Inc., and submitting to an on-site evaluation. ¶ 23 Design Flow. TCSC article IV, section 12.2.3.1 provides that the design flow ... shall be ... a minimum of 240 gallons per day, unless technical justification is provided to support calculations using a lower design flow. The clause beginning with unless provided a specific alternative means of complying with the provision, thus the requirement was either 240 gallons of flow or technical justification for reduced flow. Griffin proposed a system that had only 120 gallons of flow per day, and he provided technical justification for the reduced flow. He met the requirement. [9] ¶ 24 Setbacks. Griffin's proposed OSS had two components within the purview of footnote 6 to article IV, section 10.1, table I. Table I requires that a building foundation be 10 feet from an OSS disposal component and that a property line be 5 feet from a disposal component. Footnote 6 provides that a health officer may grant a setback of not less than 2 feet if the property line or building foundation is up-gradient from an OSS component. These requirements call for 10- and 5-foot setbacks or approval from a health officer based on up-gradient location. The health officer approved the reduced setbacks because the foundation and property line were up-gradient. Griffin met the requirements. ¶ 25 Griffin's proposal also included a 75-foot setback from the surface water of Puget Sound. Table I requires a 100-foot setback, and TCSC article IV, section 10.3 allows the health officer to approve a reduced setback if the applicant demonstrates that the OSS has enhanced treatment performance. TCSC art. IV, § 10. 1, tbl. I; § 10.3.2. The requirement consists of the 100-foot setback or approval of a reduced setback based on enhanced performance. The health officer approved the reduced setback based on Griffin's showing of enhanced performance in the OSS. Griffin met the requirement. ¶ 26 The sixth component of Griffin's application is problematic. TCSC, article IV, section 10.1, table I requires that a septic tank have a 10-foot setback from a pressurized water supply line. Griffin's septic system had a setback of only 5 feet. Griffin submitted a Request for Waiver [10] form to the County, asking for a 5-foot setback instead of a 10-foot setback for his tank to his pressured water supply line. AR at 21. ¶ 27 At oral argument, Griffin asserted that TCSC article IV, section 10.1, table I, footnote 4 applies to add an alternative to the 10-foot measurement and that the Department treated his septic tank as a sewer line and approved his request under footnote 4. Footnote 4 is the only alternative means of compliance with the pressurized water supply line setback. TCSC art. IV, § 10. 1, tbl. I. Footnote 4 provides that: The health officer may approve a sewer transport line within 10 feet of a water supply line if the sewer line is constructed in accordance with section 2.4 of [WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CRITERIA FOR SEWAGE WORKS DESIGN (hereinafter DOE Criteria) (No. 78-5) (rev. Oct. 1985, reprinted 1992)], as thereafter updated, or equivalent. TCSC art. IV, § 10.1, tbl. I n. 4. ¶ 28 Footnote 4 does not apply to septic tanks. It plainly refers to sewer transport lines, not septic tanks. [11] Additionally, it requires the OSS proposal to meet the DOE Criteria, section 2.4, [12] and this section does not discuss septic tanks. Section 2.4 references the Required Separation Between Water Lines and Sanitary Sewers. DOE Criteria § 2.41 (No. 78-5) (rev. Oct.1985, reprinted 1992). These requirements consistently refer to sewer pipes only and do not mention tanks of any kind. See generally DOE CRITERIA § C1-9 (No. 98-37 WQ) (Dec.1998). ¶ 29 The record does not support a finding that Griffin's request met footnote 4. Nothing in the testimony or on the form indicates that the County compared Griffin's system to the DOE Criteria. The portions of the record cited by Griffin at oral argument indicate that the County granted Griffin what it called a Class-A Waiver for the tank. [13] A Class-A waiver is a waiver for which review criteria and mitigation measures have been pre-approved by the Washington State Department of Health [(DOH)]. AR at 234, 340. A county official testified that the County used DOH standards, not the DOE Criteria. Id. Because the DOE Criteria are the linchpin of the footnote requirement, we can say confidently that the County did not grant Griffin's setback request under TCSC article IV, section 10.1, table I, footnote 4. Footnote 4 provides the only alternative means of satisfying the requirement, thus Griffin did not meet the requirement.