The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRABBIT CREEK VIEW & HEIGHTS BLK 1V LT 4ARabbit Creek View &Heights Block 1 V Lot 4A #020-521-16 �o// H��0HE�lUN SYSTEM IS� T�ENCH -� ,r �`'� �~~- -.. ,au� S8IL RHTIN� (SQ FT/UK/= .1000 <IMUM NUM8ER OF 8EDRUOMS = ] REQUlRED Sl�� UF THE SOlL HBSUHPTlON SYSTEM I�� -�-�� .�^�� THE iENGTH QlMENSIUN I�� THE LENG[H,(IN��F�ET) OFTTHENTRENCHUORHDHHlNF1ELD lHE �EPlH UF H3RENCH OR PIl IS THETD�N|�m��F\"`^` ��— =~ HND [HE GOTlOM QF THE EXCHVH �� ' GRUUNylS NU SE|WlDlH FUR TRENCHESTH OF GRHyEL 8ETWEEN THE UUTFHLL P1P� DEPlH IS lHE MlNIMUM D�� 8UTTOM QF THE EXCHVH[lUW (IN N�u / ��_��'�A~ ��`8~ �� U8~� |\ THE -~~~^--------~~~Y BE INSl^LED HT THE PERMITTEE'S OPTlUN � �c�/ ] PLHN|� RM /'� L )LL-WlNG CUNUI|lQNS:I UR II NSF HppR0yE� pLHNT MHY BE INSTHLLEDENHNCE 1�llHEH HUCLHS��HlNTENHNCE� HGREEMENT IS R�QUIRE��ED1FUHEn�»�/\VHE SOIL 2 H CUNllNUuu� n8T K�p\ CUR��ENT YOU MHY BE �EQU1�pRU'ECUr�""~E HGKEEM�N| �� muEM �ND/OR yUO MHY BE SU8JEC� lU � /^"', H8SO�P|lON S��| ��_��___�~�_�__��__ ~V1 M.J r -A W �A F�-" III tic 110 411 :'K Ime I-=-,�� ~~~~ [�� WITHUUT FINHL lN�PECTIUN HND HPPROVHL �Y LI J, OF FRAY n| lO pRUSECUTl8N ��HR|MEN| WlLL 8� SUBJ�[ . lNlMUM DlS1HNCE 8ElWEEN H WLL HNDHNY ON_SlT��USEWHGEEDlSPQSHL SY�TEM l� 00 F��l FUR H pRlVHTE WELL OR 200 FEE|�U� n rNm�^v ,�^�ION DIfiGHHMS HRE [HB� ��QUIREMENTS MAY HPPLY. SPEClFICH|�i9�� NH1LH8LE IU MAKE PHUPER INSJHLLHl1UN �� ^ ��is, �� ]FY THHT WITH THE REQUIREM�NTS �UR ON~SIT� SEWERS HND WEL�S HS !�R�HHMYFHMlLlHRICIpHLlTY OF HN[�ORHGE.NCE WIlH THE C8DES� -u / W�i} '^�S'l'�~L THE SY5T�M IN ACCORD�Sy5TEM M��y REQUIRE ENLH�(�E�ENT ON I E SEWEK �ND��STHND THHT THE �` ~�--� 8E�ROOMS �I U - MURE THHN � � HSlDEN[� IS R�MODELED lD lN /? � SlMAD :. � VIQ - � �� ]L«L�]L �.JL K`�� HND ENVIHU`M�NlHL PF'1�EC|�lUN \ ",`~ .L�^ � DEPHHiMEN| U� ! EHLTH HNCHORHGE HK 995 ] ~^ �� ]L ^�` �� U � �� U�� ~� 7429 NHTHHN DRIVE /~lLOW [ m HVE1 SIZE I/422 SQUHRE FFE[ :H|IUN J1 -01E RH8B1T CREEK ylEW S LOT iHL LUT 4 8L �o// H��0HE�lUN SYSTEM IS� T�ENCH -� ,r �`'� �~~- -.. ,au� S8IL RHTIN� (SQ FT/UK/= .1000 <IMUM NUM8ER OF 8EDRUOMS = ] REQUlRED Sl�� UF THE SOlL HBSUHPTlON SYSTEM I�� -�-�� .�^�� THE iENGTH QlMENSIUN I�� THE LENG[H,(IN��F�ET) OFTTHENTRENCHUORHDHHlNF1ELD lHE �EPlH UF H3RENCH OR PIl IS THETD�N|�m��F\"`^` ��— =~ HND [HE GOTlOM QF THE EXCHVH �� ' GRUUNylS NU SE|WlDlH FUR TRENCHESTH OF GRHyEL 8ETWEEN THE UUTFHLL P1P� DEPlH IS lHE MlNIMUM D�� 8UTTOM QF THE EXCHVH[lUW (IN N�u / ��_��'�A~ ��`8~ �� U8~� |\ THE -~~~^--------~~~Y BE INSl^LED HT THE PERMITTEE'S OPTlUN � �c�/ ] PLHN|� RM /'� L )LL-WlNG CUNUI|lQNS:I UR II NSF HppR0yE� pLHNT MHY BE INSTHLLEDENHNCE 1�llHEH HUCLHS��HlNTENHNCE� HGREEMENT IS R�QUIRE��ED1FUHEn�»�/\VHE SOIL 2 H CUNllNUuu� n8T K�p\ CUR��ENT YOU MHY BE �EQU1�pRU'ECUr�""~E HGKEEM�N| �� muEM �ND/OR yUO MHY BE SU8JEC� lU � /^"', H8SO�P|lON S��| ��_��___�~�_�__��__ ~V1 M.J r -A W �A F�-" III tic 110 411 :'K Ime I-=-,�� ~~~~ [�� WITHUUT FINHL lN�PECTIUN HND HPPROVHL �Y LI J, OF FRAY n| lO pRUSECUTl8N ��HR|MEN| WlLL 8� SUBJ�[ . lNlMUM DlS1HNCE 8ElWEEN H WLL HNDHNY ON_SlT��USEWHGEEDlSPQSHL SY�TEM l� 00 F��l FUR H pRlVHTE WELL OR 200 FEE|�U� n rNm�^v ,�^�ION DIfiGHHMS HRE [HB� ��QUIREMENTS MAY HPPLY. SPEClFICH|�i9�� NH1LH8LE IU MAKE PHUPER INSJHLLHl1UN �� ^ ��is, �� ]FY THHT WITH THE REQUIREM�NTS �UR ON~SIT� SEWERS HND WEL�S HS !�R�HHMYFHMlLlHRICIpHLlTY OF HN[�ORHGE.NCE WIlH THE C8DES� -u / W�i} '^�S'l'�~L THE SY5T�M IN ACCORD�Sy5TEM M��y REQUIRE ENLH�(�E�ENT ON I E SEWEK �ND��STHND THHT THE �` ~�--� 8E�ROOMS �I U - MURE THHN � � HSlDEN[� IS R�MODELED lD lN /? � SlMAD :. � VIQ YM > Cd 40 cc 1 (TJ uj flu- ILI cu IN cp VAJ H —1 X lei X oh (71 r-4 Ic 0) > 4, (VO bQ H 6 Ti A, 1; Id W) Acis -4 "I x I . : n,� T� (al"i Q) Ad P1 �w 4_'. 4-1P 4-44 4-?> "0 (d M H 06 G! & A W �4 A 44 i cc (I CP ut u! tj C!•of Gilt Q Ito ul i i 0 (1-5 Oj A ul QO C).:' CQ: rS vr:, CS (_',j Cj to Q -i Q E-1, P4 El E4 f4 E4 PO F4 b4 F( 14 [9-1 Q1 1 C Cr : C 11. 1 W - 1 0 Ci r{ (\I: -1i =.t Irl "0 QC ---f .A lip. Wf V" Cal lf� [A F" YM 5. L GAL DESCRIPTION 1 9 4& 9 — bh; DATE RECEIVED INSPECTION APPOINTMENTS TIME, TIME TIME NUMBER OF,BEDROOMS (SINGLE FAMILY C --)l A 0 `Ar, DATE DATE DATE &2r Three ❑ Six 7. WATER SUPPLY - - INSPECTOR INSPECTOR INSPECTOR since June 1975. For wells drilled prior to that date, give well ❑ PUBLIC UTILITY depth (attach log if available.) 8. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE DEPT. OF HEALTH & DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTI8%VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 825 L Street - Anchorage, Alaska 99501 • july 8 ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION DIVISION Telephone 264.4720 RECEIVED REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF INDIVIDUAL WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES DIRECTIONS: Complete all parts on page 1. Incomplete requests will not be processed. Please allow ten (10) days for processing. 1. PROPERTYOWNE L6 PHONE vy) MAILING AD ESS 16n '-I-37-/-i PROPERTY RESIDENT (If different from above) PHONE 2. BUYER PHONE MAILING ADDRESS _ f ( f'• r� - 3.2' •3 3. LENDING INSTITUTION - y'�' PHONE MAILING ADDRESS - -- 4. REALTOR/AGENT,'-' 'HONE MAI LING ADDRESS `^•_yr'f 5. L GAL DESCRIPTION 1 9 4& 9 — bh; s 12 view STR T LOCATION am a 6. TYPE OF RESIDENCE NUMBER OF,BEDROOMS (SINGLE FAMILY ❑ One ❑ Four ❑ Other ❑ Two ❑ Five ❑ MULTIPLE FAMILY &2r Three ❑ Six 7. WATER SUPPLY - - 6d INDIVIDUAL* * ATTACH WELL LOG. A well log is required for all wells drilled ❑ COMMUNITY since June 1975. For wells drilled prior to that date, give well ❑ PUBLIC UTILITY depth (attach log if available.) 8. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FW"INDIVIDUAL/ON-SITE** YEAR ON-SITE SYSTEM WAS INSTALLED. ❑ PUBLIC UTILITY lroN ' NOTE: THE INSPECTION FEE MUST ACCOMPANY EACH REQUEST BEFORE PROCESSING CAN BE INITIATED. %s 72-010(Rev 6/79) r 9-vI '��A. f:�.��-t >- F 'In. mx��-3 "q—��D� Department of Health & Environmental Protection 06/�8/�1 SEWER & WELL �ERP1lT lSSUANCE LO� SUPPLEMENT 77O807 APPLlCAN T PAT PARKER MAILlN� ADDRESS 7429 NATHAN DRIVE LOCATION JAMIE AVE LEGIAL LOT 4 BL 1 RA88IT CREEK VIEW S TYPE U INSPECTICIN DATE 8Y DRILLER ** SEWER 1 O ** WELL l O PAGE SIM", c qea -•J TOf NOWLES. An OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY February 1, 1983 Bruce and Michelle Lamm Star Route A, Box 437-H Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Re:Block 1, Loth View Subdivision Dear Mr. and Mrs.,Lamm: t of Health v The Municipal Departmen of Law obtain an againstion requested that the Department noted above. the owners of the property inst Forest and Helen The case was originally filed aga Parker for violation of municipal law regarding the sewer and ems on the lot. You were sent the atta well sysched letter in t June 1981. The Municipality has recently learned that the property is no longer occupied and is therefore willing to dismiss its claim you have been named a party to against the owners. As both oL Y 4ular1 1982for be necessary for this action, by order of the court dated October Dismissal 4, , it will you to sign the enclosed Stip the without PrejudiceUpon. return of the signed dismissal, Municipality will file it with the court. It should be noted however, that the Municipality has reserved ro erty becomes ro riate steps being taken to correct the the right to reinitiate this action if the p occupied without the aPP partment has been advised todflag to atheir violations. The Health Dep future use ny file on the violations for future reack ontoference with regard tune use structures which arePut bw.11 resultinapfiling of a petition of the sewer/well systems for an injunction and civil damages. February 11 ly Page 2 _J ; If you desire to use the property for structures (or house trailers) at any time in the future, it would be encumbent upon you to speak to the Municipal Department of Health and Environmental Protection to determine the appropriate steps to insure compliance with municipal law. Cordially,` 7 I � f, may, Scott T. Fleming��"!'(% Assistant MunicipAl Attorney Enclosure cc: Stan Brust, DHEP E, r IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ANCHORAGE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, VS. HELEN E. PARKER, BRUCE LAMM, and MICHELLE LAMM, Defendants. No. 3AN-82-00827 Civ. STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of record, that the above -entitled action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees, on the ground and for the reason that plaintiff has recently learned that the property in question is no longer occupied and as such the violations alleged in plaintiff's complaint have ceased. Plaintiff reserves the right to reinitiate this action, if, at a future date, it is determined that the property becomes occupied without the appropriate steps being taken to correct the violations of the Anchorage Environmental Protection Code. i.t icip a I it y ®f January 14, 1983 POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502-0650 (907) 264-4545 TONY KNOWLES. MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY Robert A. Rehbock Attorney at Law 308 G Street, Suite 220 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Anchorage v. Parker and Lamm #3AN-82-00827 Dear Bob: In November the Legal Department requested that the Health Depart- ment go to the site previously owned by Mr. and Mrs. Parker. At that time the inspectors for the Health Department determined that the house trailer previously on the premises was no longer there. It was also noted that the sewage system and the well used prior to the tenant vacating the premises, were still present and unaltered. Given the status of the property as unoccupied, the Municipality has decided to dismiss this action, without prejudice. I should point out however, that the issue of the responsible party for past violations has not been resolved, and therefore, questions of responsibility for any future violations may still have to be resolved by reference to your clients. I have informed the Health Department to flag their file on the violations for future reference with regard to any structures which are put back onto the property. It is under these circumstances that we agree to dismiss the case. I have enclosed a Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice for your signature. Please return it to me at your earliest convenience in order that I might contact the Lamms for their signatures. Very truly yours, ../Scott T. Flemin Assistant Municpal Attorney STF/gjc Attachment y cc: Stan Burst `wnicipality of nc `bra e • MEMORANDUM DATE: January 12, 1983 To: Scott Fleming, Assistant Municipal Attorney FROM: Bob Pratt, Acting Program Manager, Department of Health and Environmental Protection SUBJECT: Anchorage V. Parker/Lamm Legal Dept. #2441.502-81 Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Sub. A recent inspection by this department revealed the trailer has been moved and there is no longer a potential health hazard.` This department considers the case closed. The subdivision file has been tagged in order to inform anyone of the potential problem on this lot. This department requests the building department to tag their files so that a building permit is not issued without our approval Bob Pratt Acting Program Manager, D.H.E.P. RCP/mag cc: Building Department 91-010 (5/78) ' t 1Vi'r' icipality ®f Anch®rage MEMORANDUM I� DATE: January 10, 1983 TO: Stan Brust, Manager, Environmental Health Division FROM: Scott T. Fleming, Assistant Municipal Attorn SUBJECT: Anchorage v. Parker/Lamm Legal Department #2441.502-81 This is a case that was originally brought against the Parkers, Mr. Forest M. Parker and Mrs. Helen E. Parker as defendants for violations of Anchorage Municipal Code § 15.65.040. Specifically, we alleged that their sewage system was seeping from ground water to the surface of the ground at a property located in the Rabbit Creek View Subdivision. We also alleged that the septic tank in that area was too close to the defendants' water well. The defendants, Forest Parker and Helen Parker, had by then transferred the property to new owners by way of an alleged oral contract. We then amended our complaint for the injunction to include the new owners, specifically Bruce Lamm and Michelle Lamm. In November of 1982, our office requested that your inspectors do a follow up inspection to see if the new owners had corrected the problem. That inspection was performed on November 15th by Bob Pratt of your office. I spoke on the phone on January 7, 1983 to Bob. He indicated to me that the well is still in place and as far as he could see at that time the sewer system also remained in place. Because of the snow that had fallen on the lot, it was difficult to tell if a hook up to that sewer system could be made again. Mr. Pratt indicated to me that the structure which had been on the lot, a house trailer, had been moved from the lot. There was no further evidence of continued pollution. Mr. Pratt also indicated that in order for the owners to place structures back on the lot they would be required to obtain a permit from the Municipality. It was Mr. Pratt's understanding that a structure cannot be put back on the lot without obtaining a permit to do so, which permit would be subject to your approval or disapproval in the Health Department. Under the circumstances this case does not appear to warrant con- tinued efforts on the part of your department and ours. I would recommend that the case be dismissed and that your office be alert to any future efforts to rehook the same sewer system. If that occurs we will immediately file the papers which have already been drafted to put an i-njunction in place. Please let me know one way or the other, as to your desires with regard to this case. STF/gjc cc: Bob Pratt Les Buchholtz 91-010 (5/78) ijaicipality of Anchoi age MEMORANDUM MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE 77 DATE: (ENVIE......: a . d TO: Ile L , r, .nc FROM: Kelly Fisher, Assistant Municipal Attorney 264-4545 RECEIVED SUBJECT: The following action has been taken regarding the above referenced referral: Received in this office Dated: Response date: Holding: Awaiting information or 'document requested from 1:3client. Date(s) Filed in court: Dated: �T ; Hearing Set: Type Date: Witnesses needed: Mclient reqested not to pursue = Documents needed: Dated: In Person 0 By Telephone Returned to client: Other: For Code Enforcement =By client request Not enforceable as presented mitigation request not submitted �- L Mitigation Request improperly completed =Closed: Date: fettled without litigation i by client request Msettled € judgement obtained ` Client conference (Summary) In Person By Telephone Mu Of Pltoomos icfi61PR�1�Of HF PRD EGi�ON Conference with Defendant: Via (Summary) L-JIn Person O -By Telephone t'd 91-010(4/76) Municipality ®S �� Anchorage: - POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99502 (907) 264-4545 GEORGE M. SULLIVAN, MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY December 15, 1981 Ms. Helen Parker 7429 Nathan Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Re: Lot 4, Block I, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision On -Site Sewer Violation Dear Ms. Parker: To reiterate our telephone conversation of December 14, 1981, 1 informed you that we had received an engineering report on the subject property and that the only solution to the on-site sewer problem appears to be raising the level of the ground in the area. This procedure is estimated to cost between $14,000.00 and $18,000.00. I also advised you that regardless of what you chose to do, the existing on-site sewer system could not be used any longer in the future. However, because of your continuing cooperation in this matter, I said I would not institute legal action against you and the occupants of the trailer on the land until at least January 4, 1982. Legal action would only be maintained if people continue to live on the land and use the on-site sewer system. What I forgot to mention to you was the possibility that if the land is found to be dangerously contaminated after break-up in the spring of 1982, we will , request and then obligate you to implement proper sanitizing procedures. I am sorry that this matter does not have a more favorable resolution for you. I want to thank you very much for your cooperation. DEPARTMENT OF LAW By. 7`✓ �� Kelly C. F' er Assistant Municipal Attorney KF/kjw cc: Jim Roberts Maggie DeStephano �l �kV ALASKA C( IROWNAL COUROL engineerinq & 6nuironmental Studies MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGF DEPT. OF HEALTH & ENVIRONMcNTAL PROTfCTION SeRuicCs, 'nC• OCT 6 1981 RECEIVLD September 30, 1981 Mr. Jim Roberts Anchorage Department of Health and Environmental Protection 825 L. Street Anchorage, Ak. 99501 Dear Mr. Roberts: At your request on August 18, 1981 and in your presence I visited the trailor located on Lot 4, Blk 1 Rabbit Creek View Subdivision. This lot is located approximately 80 feet south-west of the intersection of Heights Road and Jamie Avenue. The following information was obtained from the files on the Municipal Health Department. The distance from the well to the drainfield is 65 feet and the distance from the trench to the drainage ditch is 41 feet. The system appears to be a septic tank and trench with the trench running parallel to the trailer. There is no record in the Health Department of the size and no record of an inspection being made during the installation. My observations taken on August 18, 1981 are as follows. To the immediate south of the trailer at a distance of approximatey 15 to 20 feet there is a large rectangular excavation. There was water in the excavation. The depth from the top of the original ground surface to the water appeared to be less than 4 feet. The area to the east of the trailer in the vicinity of the septic tank and drainfield area was very wet. The grass was quite high. Pools of water were noted near the septic tank. At the extreme eastern side of the drainfield, water was standing over the drainfield. The ditch to the north of the house is apparently a manmade drainage ditch along side of the road. It contained flowing water on the 18th of August. This subdivision is characterized by land forms sloping to the west. Numerous streams or rivulets transect this subdivision. The vegetation is scrub spruce, birch and willow, with tundra type of vegetation and is indicative of extremely wet area. I believe it is extremely difficult or impossible to install a on-site sewer system at the present location and still maintain the required distance of Oft, above groundwater as required by the State of Alaska ,and Municipality Regulations. It would be impossible to verify the depth to the water table without doing additional soils tests on the lot. This should M r� be somewhere in the vicinity of the system but far enough away in insure that the water from the on-site system is not affecting the results. I would recommend in this case that the soils test be done in the vicinity of the existing drive way or behind the mobile home. It is conceivable that a percolation test will show that on this lot it may not be possible to install a septic tank drain field which complies with State and Local regulations. If a good percolation test were obtained, it might be possible to build a mound that would be 4 ft, above the existing ground water level. The liquid coming out of the septic tank could be lifted into a mound such as this. In addition to the 4 ft. of sand fill to raise the mound above the water table, one foot of rock will be required and then an equivalent of 4 ft. of dirt placed on top prevent freezing. This could be a combination insulation and earth. I would estimate that the total height of the system would be approximately 7 ft, A design for a 3 bedroom system for this trailer using the height of 7 ft. and 1 vertical to 3 horizontal slope would require an area 68 by 94 ft. The criteria would be estimated at 300 sq, ft. per bedroom as set forth by a letter by Bomhoff and Associates dated August 30, 1977. This letter indicated that a percolation test should be applied to the lot before any system be installed. The existing septic tank should be moved to comply with the 100 foot separation regulations between the tank and well. At 5 ft. beyond the septic tank a lift station would be installed and or insulated line run underground to the center of the mound for a pressure distribution system in the mound. It is recommended that this mound be located to the south of the trailer and a distance of 100 ft. from the well to comply with state regulations. There is a stream to the southwest of this lot which would need to be charted in order to determine whether or not this lot has usable land which is 100 ft, from the stream. I would estimate the system to cost in the neighborhood of 14-18 thousand dollars. If you have any other questions please let me know. Sincerely, Leroy C. Reid J J PhD. PE President IABORATORIlS CHEMICAL & GEOLOGICAL LABORATORIES OF ALASKA, INC. P.O. BOX 4-1276 TELEPHONE (907)-279-4014 ANCHORAGE INDUSTRIAL CENTER Anchorage, Alaska 99509 274-3364 5633 B Street August 17, 1981 FECAL COLIFORM ANALYSIS VMS PERFORMED ON FOUR SAMPLES SUBMI= BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE LABELED PARKER LAB RABBIT CK VIEW SUB 7-14-81 [1 r:l (10 DAYMvSHERBA MICROBfOLOGIST �Aof. A '` hweoo e i 825 "Lr, STREET ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 (907) 264-4111 GEORGE M. SULLIVAN, MAYOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION June 24, 1981 Bruce Lamm Star Route A Box 437-H Anchorage, Alaska 99507 Subject: Lot 4 Block 1 Rabbit Creek View Subdivision Our records indicate an on-site sewer and well permit, #77807, was issued to Pat Parker, Lot 4 Block 1 Rabbit Creek View Subdivision on September 12, 1977. On August 30, 1977 and September 19, 1977 letters were sent out regarding the sewer system from Bomhoff Associates advising of the water in the trench and the unsuitability of the trench for percolation. The trench was closed without approval from this department, making the on-site sewer_ system illegal. The well was illegally installed less than 100 foot radius to the on-site sewer system. This case has been referred to the Municipal Department of Law and the on-site sewer and water facilities cannot be approved under these circumstances. The property owner and the excavator are accountable for the violations of the Municipality of Anchorage Ordinances. Once the matter of criminal violation is resolved or processed, the possibility of a holding tank with a maintenance contract may be explored. If there are any further questions, please call this office at 264-4720. Sincerely, James S. Roberts Environmental Specialist JSR/ljw A._'.i Sf ){i. i. SA k,'.0J, VA. ..� ti 0) %%'sf 11heE)Lit2 ni'l! :1111)(lli til)!.l{f �2)talCililf N,.� .! G V Y`')",i 1, tl'i('(l�'ir)1)i 1', r'S).>i_>) P. 0. Box 8001 ldt)'.ler, Alaska ��J�9964 G iKl-ph:)).. 19n1 715-4201 September 19, 19/7 W 1)d S- Parker F?1. _.. (-Ei P?Z%CCI. EnCa'T3° iP<<� r 7424 Nathan Circle rltic:horage, Alaska 919502 Re: Lot'. 45 Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subd"1-5.isloi. Dear Mr. Parker: On Saturday, SE`-7C.CCber 17th, at the request of the T`i1nicipa.lity. Of. Ancho,age I visited Lot: 4, Block 1, 12.:3bbit Creek Kew Subdivision. I 1-^'i.'nd the ex{.OvatIOn COmp.lete for the leeching t:re:'nuh. There had been ._ heavy rainfall Friday and rain continued Saturday TiIoroing, Consequently the trench was full Of water. Bruce Patterson, zaot-her l'upineer o2: our firm, visited the site Friday and not:.'c Later in the trench. He accompanied me on S t)lyday Said noted a free: deal of water in the trench. This is every indication to me that tau' C ench wil]: ant percolate and act successfully for you. in my Jotter of August 30th 1 stated the high porport1C)2.ate d'i t'nt Of iineb 1-n the maternal made the material Very s"scQptable to K09909, _3t that Lime: i_ strongly advised 1 percolation rest prior 10 any C{i C;S t: L2)C t':1C-i2. The recent rainfall has Voted as a percolation sst „) norLs ,o and . � ;,:,..td the -.afore indicate that ibis system should not he Wr al led. Sincerely, Bomhoff & Assoctatas, Inc. .Polus I. Felton n Project FQq ne'-r'1_ i 0: c. dKir. Municipality .3f. L''; t<elL'Tat'. C'. 1. I Vt )AH Rh I. & ASS111)(pp DJAJ %WQ InIt'ni.Hrunti Airloirt 1010 ?')O12 F. 0. box 800 Palmer, Ain&3 9960 Au -g= 30, 191-� Mr. Pat Parker Par&3 lNeavating 424 Nathan AnchovagvAHOW 99502 WIh4y> " , . " 7, sj- 5-4M Re: SOU Test of Lot 4, Block 1, WHO Creek Vlaw Subdivjg:oo Dear W. Parker-, I have Dunt completed an analysis of the soij, taken from Lho test holes nn the Have referenced property, It m-i,,y dation that the minimum allotment per becircom for a s -ii ahsorbri.;i systmo be 300 square feet per bedroom. 7%13i soil has ao uxtrempiv higi parcentage of flues, Wbile these fines are nut organic in warurc Cil-ir suOunXibility to clogging In very high. 1 would predict that the noraAl cnp-cred useable life for a system would be between NVO Owl savor yeirn. 1 YOU N asiongly advise thac a percolation WSL a9 presurlbeC n 7,510 Onaith Manual 526 be performed prior to the constr"ation of iry if wu c be of W service in running thin test or in juv nkhei this Project please feal free co contact me nz a"V zimu. y( -I Wn V"-VfY%'f' jr, n Oq civil npyjrco l P. 0. Box 800 Palmer, Alaska 99545 September 19, 1977 TrLrsli4:m:. (90 N5-4201 r� i". 'at Parker r fib. r'a-rke- Excavating � r 474 K Wa'n Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Re: Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivis n; Rear Mr. Parker: nn Saturday, September 17th, at the request of the Municipality of Anchorage I visited Lot_ 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdlvl;ion. Pound L Pound the ekcrvation complete for the leeching trenca. Thera hod been a heavy rainfall Friday and rain continued Saturnav morning, consequently the trench was full of water. Bruce Patterson, nnothci on„_i.neer of our firm, visited the site Friday and notuc- .tater in tilt^ trench. He accompanied me on Saturday and noted a gr deal or unite-, in the trench. This is every indication to me that th trench ON not percolate and act succ-essfully for you. Tu my letter of August 30th I stated the high porporti.onate ai:;oun'r of fines in the material made the material , susceptabio to clogging„ at that time T strongly advised a percwll ion test ;triol to any construction. The recent rainfall has acted as a percolation east of sorLs and would therefore indicate_ that this System shoni-cl "Pr be .i.nsta-Ked , Sincerely, Bomhoff & Associal-cs, Ira F �7. tz--,.: John T. Felton Project Engirne of Anchorage ❑ DISAPPROVED 72-010 (Rev. 6/79) , 1977 Mr. Pat Parker Parker Excavating 7424 Nathan Circle Anchorage, Alaska 99502 Re: Soils absorbtion system design for Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision. Dear Mr. Parker: Enclosed please find a sketch of the design for a soil absorbtion system for your proposed single family residence. No lot or actual separation dimensions are shown since I have notreceiveda plat plan or layout drawing. Please note the minimum dimensions shown. The design was accomplished using 300 square feet of absorbtion area per bedroom, this design is meant for a two bedroom home. If you have any questions or we can be of any service please feel free to contact us at any time. Sincerely, Bomhoff & Associates, Inc. r John T. Felton Civil Engineer JTF:vjs Enclosure highways • airports . draina.Qe 6 olannina ..chnnnincy rant,,a A020 V, r 1 )01 I', Anchora43(' 0 8 0 0 1� . . �<99_„)') Palmer, ialask,j 996/ 5 August 30, 1977 Parker Excavating 714244 Nathan Anch,-ra Alaska 99502 Re: Soil Test of Lot 4, Block i, Rabbit Creek Vf.ew Dear mr. Parker: T have just completed an analysis of the sol', t;jkr.j; fj-4.)m t1l, test hGJ'Os 011 the above referenced property. Tidation that my L"e minimum allotment per bodrr)au, square feet per bedroom. 7A�111 Pf-rcenta This s,) extl-(_ ge of fines. While these fines are net organi(, in to Clogging is very high. I wmild pr(�(:j! ti,«r the life for a system would bo betweei, 117OU "O?lg!y v4se that a Pc'rcolatioll al I7 arUal 526 be Performed prior to the in'l any b) c L 'JeaSP fi-el free to (' I MCI Boi,rfiot f O'l (Vonsiruchon gest oC al 'ONE TEST IS WORTH A THOUSAND OPINIONS" 2204 CLEVELAND AVENUE 0 ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503 • 277.0231 August 26, 1977 Bomhoff & Associates 1020 W. Intl Airport Rd. Anchorage, AK 99502 RE: Parker Excavating Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith are the results of the sieve analyses performed on samples as delivered to our laboratory from the referenced project. Both samples are classified as Gravelly Silty Sand, (SM). If you have any questions, please contact our office. very truly yours, CONSTRUCTION TEST LAB David Paul Laboratory Manager DP/ja Enc. :tk ► r- 9 C) w ID v n o 0 0 o po o m m �n o N m m 2 s r o � 0 m v ti _ o 0 ~ N NJ QJ � 2 m � r Q � o a a - J n m Z � m � a _ Q � z n - o r e. r m m N N 6 a j 2 /.9 .05 05 04 OJ S 02 D O Of — iJ0 � 09 "yA O7 05 D 05 04 r �z I Ion in N N 6 a j 2 /.9 .05 05 04 OJ S 02 D O Of — iJ0 � 09 "yA O7 05 D 05 04 r �z I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ANCHORAGE, ) a municipal corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) I . ) vs, ) FOREST M. PARKER and HELEN E. ) BARKER, ) Defendants ) Case No. 3AN-82- ij COMPLAINT Comes now Anchorage, a municipal corporation, hereinafter I referred to as plaintiff, for and on behalf of the people of Anchorage, by and through its attorney Kelly C. Fisher, complaining of Forest M. Parker and Helen E. Parker, hereinafter I referred to as defendants, and for its complaint alleges as ii follows: ii f +� I I. H Plaintiff s. -authorized to -bring thi-s sttd t on -,-behalf of the people of Anchorage under the Anchorage Environmental Protection Code, codified as Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15, This suit is brought for injunctive relief and the recovery of civil penalties against defendants for violations of Anchorage Municipal Code §§ 15.65,040(A)(C);15.40,010 and 15,65,060(A), : I, Defendants Forest M. Parker and Helen E. Parker, are owners ;f of the real property located at Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision, hereinafter referred to as the premises. Defendants may be served at 7429 Nathan Drive, Anchorage, Alaska. i MUNICIPALITY On June 22, 1981 and on such other dates as may be Shown at OF ACI, qf!R3E trial, defendants caused or permitted septic -tank effluent OFFICE OF THE 141NICIPAL ATTORNEY - - POUCH 6AK 99502 ANCHORAGE. AK sewage or other wastewater discharges to be discharged upon the 264-4545 i MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE MUNIMPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE. AN 99502 264-4545 ground surface and into ground water of the premises so as to create a nuisance or health hazard. IV, On or about September 1977, defendants caused or per- mitted a well to be illegally installed and maintained within a radiusof 100 feet from an on-site sewer system. V. On or about August 30, 1977, defendants caused or permitted a leeching trench to be closed without approval from the Department of Health and Environmental Protection causing the on- site sewer system to be illegal. �j VI, The Anchorage Environmental Protection Code, codified as j Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15, at S 15,65o020(C) prohibits the discharge of effluent from an on-site sewer system upon the surface of the ground: C, Hazardous discharges.o No person shall cause or permit any human excreta, kitchen wastes, laundry water, sink water, toilet wastes, septic tank effluent, sewage or other wastes to be discharged or flow upon the surface of the ground or into any ditch, gutter, street, roadway, stream, lake, underground water source or public place, nor onto any private property so as to create a nuisance or health hazard. i VII, The Anchorage Environmental Protection Code, codified as Anchorage Muncipal Code Title 15, at 915.65.040(A) prohibits the discharge of effluent from an on-site sewer system in ground water. A. No person shall construct or install any septic tank, treatment plant, drain field or seepage pit within the municipality that does not comply with the requirements of this chapter and the specif- cations of the department and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, No person shall construct, sell or install any septic tank, seepage pit or drain field without first obtaining a permit from the department. - VIII. The Anchorage Encironmental Protection Code, codified as Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15, at § 15,40,010 prohibits sewage or other wastes to be discharged into or disposed of in such a manner that access will be gained to any waters of the il !I State of Alaska. 15,40,010 Water Pollution Prohibited, No person shall cause or permit any sewage or other wastes to be discharged into or disposed of in such a manner that access will be gained to any waters of the State of Alaska, unless such sewage or wastes are first treated in a manner approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Alaska Department of Health and Environmental Protection. i+ i VIX, The Anchorage Environmental Protection Code, codified as iI Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15, at 5 15.65,050(C) prohibits the covering of a septic tank, treatment plant, drain field, or j�. seepage pit, without inspection by the department, i C. No septic tank, treatment plant, drain field or It seepage pit shall be backfilled without the per- mission of the department. All persons shall con- tact the despartment _giving as much notice as ' possible" prior to cov`eririg or back llli g any sep- tic tank, drain field seepage I:Pit or cesspool. li X. The Anchorage Environmental Protection Code, codified as i' Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15, at S 15.65.060 A I; ( ) prohibits i the intallation of a well within 100 feet of any sewer system I' j installed on the property. t A. Location of well. Minimum distance requirements i as reflected in other provisions of this title f shall be strictly adhered to. Wells shall be j placed on lots so that the required well distance can be met upon development of the lot. Where a sewer system has been installed on property prior to the application for a ground water well on that property, the permit applicant shall not drill a well less than 100 feet from all existing sewer systems... XI. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Anchorage Municipal Code § 15.05.120 allows plaintiff to OFFICE OF THE - MUNICIPAL hY POUCH 5-550-650 Seek injunctive relief to enjoin violations of the Anchorage ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 ' 264-4545 Environmental Protection Code and to seek civil penalties for -3- _ . each date of violation: A. In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by this title, any person who violates any provision of this title or any rule, regulation, or permit issued Pursuant to this title shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $1,000 for each offense or injunctive relief to restrain the person from continuing the violation or threat of violation, or both injunctive relief and a civil penalty. Upon appli- cation for injunctive relief and the finding that a per- ' son is violating or threatening to violate any provision of this title, the superior court shall grant injunctive relief to restrain the violations. C. Each day of violation of any provision of this title shall constitute a separate offense. ii Pursuant to § 15.05.120, the court can and should permanently enjoin defendant from causing or allowing sewage discharges upon the ground from his on-site sewer system, enjoin defendant to Pump the existing on-site sewer system and take other actions necessary to prevent future surface sewage discharges, enjoin defendant from causing or allowing the operation or maintenance !i of the on-site sewer and water well system on the premises except as otherwise allowed in writing by plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection, and enjoin defendant to install an on-sq,te sewer system,,,meeting the des.ign.,, installation, and operational requirements of plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection. i .XII. The people of Anchorage, Alaska have an interest in the enforcement of the Anchorage Code, which was written to establish a means for the control and elimination of hazardous wastewater i discharges in Anchorage.' Unless the permanent injunction prayed ; for is granted, the defendant will continue to cause or allow 1 hazardous wastewater discharges to the detriment of public health I. and safety of the people of Anchorage in general, and the people of the area in particular. XIII. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Wherefore, premises considered plaintiff prays that the OFFICE THE - - " ""'P"`ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 defendant be cited to appear herein in accordance with the provi'- ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 - 2fi0-A5C5 I -4- I sions of law and with the rules of court, and that on trial hereof the court, pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code S 15.05.120, permanently enjoin defendant from causing, permitting or allowing sewage discharges into ground water from his on-site sewer system, enjoin defendant to pump the existing on-site sewer i, system and take other actions necessary to prevent future sur- iface sewage discharges, enjoin defendant from causing or allowing the operation or maintenance of the on-site sewer system on the premises except as otherwise allowed in writing by plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection, and enjoin defendant to install an on-site sewer system meeting the design, installation, and operational requirements of plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection. Additionally, the court should permanently enjoin defendants from causing, or permitting the water well to remain within 100 feet of the on-site sewer system. Plaintiff prays further that for each day of violation of the Anchorage Municipal Code sections as stated above and as alleged and may be shown at trial, the defendants be ordered to i� Pay, a civil fine: in .an amount,_not less= then= $50-w<nor more than . $1,000 per day for each day of each violation. Plaintiff prays further that it recover of and from defen- dants all costs in this cause, including attorney's fees, and that it be granted all other and further relief, either general or special, both in law and equity, to which it may show itself Ir to be justly entitled. i Dated this ��- day of 1982, at !; ------7v�--------' Anchorage, Alaska. i - KELLY C.ff'I6HER- Assistant Municipal Attorney MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THC _ZCIPAL AT EOfl y - POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 264.4545 -5- IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ANCHORAGE, ) a municipal corporation, ) !i ) Plaintiff, ) i VS. ) FOREST M. PARKER and HELEN E. ) PARKER, ) Defendants Case No. 3AN-82- MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Comes now plaintiff Anchorage and moves, pursuant to Anchorage Municipal Code § 15.05.120(A), for a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from violating plaintiff's Environmental Protection Code for the reasons contained in the t memorandum and affidavit submitted herewith. is Dated this _� day of div 1982, at Anchorage, Alaskan KELLs L, 1SHER -- Assistant Municipal Attorney MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE WUNiGFPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6.650 4NCHORAGE. AK 99502 264-4565 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ANCHORAGE, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, vs. FOREST M. PARKER and HELEN E. PARKER, Defendants Case No. 3AN-82- MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Anchorage Municipal Code S 15.05.120 specifically authorizes injunctive relief to enjoin violations of the Anchorage.,Municipal Code: tute right B. In addition to any other remedy or penalty provided by this. title, any person who violates any provision of this title or any rule, regulation, permit, variance or order issued pursuant to this title shall be subject to -a civil penalty of not less than $50.00 nore more than $1`,000.00 for each ofkense or-4njunctivew r -:elite. :: to restrain the person from continuing the violation or threat of violation or both the civil penalty and inunctive relief. Upon application for injunctive relief and a finding that a person is violating or threatening to violate any provision of this title or any rule, regulation, permit, variance, or order issued pursuant to this title, the Superior Court shall grant injunctive relief to restrain the violation. It is a rule of law that when conduct is prohibited by sta or ordinance and when such legislation also includes the of injunctive relief against the --unlawful conduct. an injunction enforcing the law follows as a matter of law once it is shown that the statute is being violated. 42 Am. 'Jur. 2d Injunctions 9 8, at 735, § 35, at 776 (1969)." Superior courts in this state have consistently so held in more than two dozen cases since 1976. Anchorage v. Mangol, Civ. MUNICIPALITY No. 3AN-79-8928 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1980); Anchorage v. Thomas, OF Civ. No. 3AN-79-8927 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1980;Anchorage v. Jones, ANCHORAGE OFFICE OP THE Civ. No. 3AN-80-1369 (Alaska Super. Ct. 'UNIQFvAL AT FORNE7 P -1980) Anchorage v. POUCH 6650 ; NCHORAGE- AK 99502 - 264-4545 Townsend, Civ. No. 3AN-79-8895 .(Alaska Super. Ct. 1980) ; Hess V. Anchorage, Civ. No. 3AN-78-3073 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v. Carl, Civ. No. 3AN-79-4223 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v_ Guyer, Civ. No. 3AN-79-6168 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v. Cox, Civ. No. 3AN-79-3394 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v_ Davis, Civ. No. 3AN-79-2108 (Alaska i Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v. Freeman, Civ. No. 3AN-79-1704 (Alaska Super. Ct.1979); Anchorage v_ Snider, Civ. No, 3AN-79-1489 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1979); Anchorage v. Arent, Civ. No. 3AN-78-7005 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978); Anchorage v. Webster,' Civ. No. 3AN-78-6198 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978); Anchorage V. i Walker, Civ. No. 3AN-78-6197 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978); Anchorage V. Rhine, Civ. No. 3AN-78-5737 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978) - Anchorage v. Morales, Civ. No. 3AN-78-5736 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978); Anchorage r` V. Alaska Peat, Inc., Civ. No. 3AN-78-1868 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978); Anchorage v. Pistol -Ammunition -Rifle Club of Alaska, Civ. No. 3AN-78-810 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1978);. Anchorage v. Alaskan Village, Civ. No. 77-8902 (Alaska Super. Ct. I 1978); Anchorage v. Beavers, Civ. No. 77-7504 (Alaska Super. Ct.' 1978); Anchorage v. Morrison, Civ, No, 77-7743 (Alaska Super. Ct. u 1978) ; Anchorage- w, ii.adad, Civ -;----No. 77--735 - -(Alaska Super. Ct.. i� — 1977); Anchorage v. Anchorage Sportsmen's Association, Inc., Civ, No. 77-5969 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1977); Anchorage v. Ferrel, Civ. No. 77-5743 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1977); Anchorage v. Lockhart, Civ. No. 77-5742 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1977); Anchorage v, Alaska Cement Corp., Civ. No. 77-5208 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1977); Anchorage v, Barclay, Civ. No. 77-3546 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1977); and Anchorage v. New Alaska Dev. Corp. , Civ. No. 76-2929 (Alaska Super. Ct. 1976) . Unlike other injunction cases where the court sits as a tra_' ditional court of equity, evidence concerning the balance of equities or the degree of harm caused by the conduct is irrele- vant in a suit for statutorily -authorized injunctive relief. If a statute or ordinance provides injunctive relief against pro- scribed conduct, a showing of irreparable injury or inadequacy of a remedy at law is not required before obtaining an injunction MUNICIPALITY OF unless the legislation itself imposes certain limitations upon ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE NVNIC IPH(_gTTOgNEY the injunctive relief sought. United States v. City- and County POUCH tiAK 99502 4NCHORAGE. AK 264-6545 of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 30-31 (1940); Lathan v. Volpe, 455 1 i -2- F.2d 1111, 1116-17 (8th Cir. 1971); United States v. Haves Intl Corp., 415 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1969); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Rhodes Pharmacal -Co., 191 F.2d 744 (7th Cir. 1951): Securities & Exch. Comm'n V. Torr, 87 F.2d 446 _(2d Cir. 1937); Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe _' Ry. Co. v_ Callaway, 382 F. Supp. 610, 623 — (D.D.C. 1974); Securities Exchange Comm'n_v. Globus Int'1, Ltd., 320 F. Supp. 158 (S.D.N.Y 1970); Territory v. House No. 24, 7 Alaska Rep. 611 (D. Alaska 1927); Conway v. Mississippi State Bd. of Health, 173 So. 2d 412 (Miss. 1965); Montana Milk Control Bd. vT Rehberg, 376 P.2d 508 (Mont. 1962); Nevada Real Estate Comm'n v_ Ressel, 294 P.2d 115 (Nev. 1956); Hoffman v. Garden State — Farms, Inc., 76 N.J. Super. 189, 184 A. 4 (N.J. Super Ct. i. 1962); State v_ O.K. Transfer Co., 330 P.2d 510 (Ore.1958); Bowles v. Barde Steel Co., 164 P.2d 692 (Ore. 1945); 42 Am. Jur.* is 2d Injunctions §§ 8, 38, 39, 48, 159, at 735, 776, 779'; 788, 920 (1969); Lowe, Injunctions and Other Extraordinary Proceedings, gS i} 114, 115, at 160 162-632d Ed. ( 1973). See Keith v. Volpe, 352' F. Supp. 1324, 1349 (S.D. Cal. 1972), aff'd 506 F.2d 6976 (9th Cir. 1974); Northside Tenant's Rights_ Coalition v. Volpe, 346 F. Supp. 244, 249 (S.D. ,a. 1972) ,,,,,,Tradition y notions have � I a L�.e.0, a _„4 ;i no bearing upon whether or not a statutorily -authorized injunc-. tion should issue, or upon the nature of the injunction.' It has been said time and time again that there are no i equities in favor of one violating the law, and that the com- plainant does not have to show irreparable harm, or, as some' II courts have said, reaching the same result, a violation of the law constitutes irreparable harm in and of itself. United States I, v_ Hayes Int'1 Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 104.5 (5th Cir. 1969);: Langford v_ Kraft, 498 S.W.2d (Tex. Civ. App. --Beaumont 1973, writ dism'd w.o.j.); Gulf Holding Corp. V. Brazoria County, 497 S.W.2d 614 (Tex. Civ. App. --Houston, 14th Dist. 1973, writ is filed); Houston Compressed Steel v. _State, 456 S.W.2d 786 (Tex' Civ. App. --Houston, lst Dist. 1970, no writ); Ralph Williams Gulfgate Chrysler -Plymouth v. State, 451 S.W. 267 -- (Tex. Civ. MUNICIPALITY OF App. --Houston, 1st Dist. 1970, writ re'd n.r.e.). In Hayes' ANCHORAGE International, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held that in OFFICE OF THENer POUCH 6-650A99502 ANCHORAGE ANC. AK a statutory injunction case, irreparable injury 264-4545 is presumed when' the statute is violated: I i -3- R �1\ (Tex. Civ. App. --Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ). The court said: In an injunction case wherein the very acts sought to be enjoined are acts which prima facie constitute the violation of expressed law, the status quo to be preserved could 'never' --be a condi"tion of affairs"where the respondent would be permitted to continue the acts constituting that violation. In such instances, the status quo to be preserved by temporary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy, and when it is deter- mined that the law is being violated, it is the province and the duty of the court to restrain it. 456 S.W.2d at 773. The court thus made it abundantly clear that a court has a duty to restrain violations of the law. And in Hayes International, the 5th Circuit held that it is reversible error for the lower court to refuse to issue a preliminary injunction. 415 F.2d at 1038. In an injunction brought under a territorial statute authorizing injunctive relief against the operation of houses, an Alaska Court wrote: In my view, the intention of the legislature MUNICOF IPALITY of the territory of Alaska, as disclosed by ANCHORAGE the act in question, was to suppress houses of OFFICE OF THE lewdness and prostitution, and to prevent per- " -650 Y sons from maintaining or conducting such POUCH 5-650 4NCHORAGE.5 99502 houses, either at the place where It was being 26aGE.A -4- bawdy i Where, as here an injunction is authorized by statute and the statutory con- ditions are satisfied as in the facts pre- sented here the usual prerequisite of irreparable injury need not be established and the agency to whom the enforcement of the right has been entrusted is not required to show irreparable injury before obtaining an injunction .... We take the position that in such a case, the irreparable injury should be presumed from the very fact that the statute has been violated. United States v. Hayes Intl Corp., 415 F.2d 1038, 1045 (5th Cir.' 1969). The rule of law regarding statutorily -authorized injunctions has been expressly stated in a case construing the Texas Clean Air Act. In Houston Compressed Steel Corp., the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendant from the outdoor burning of railroad box- cars, as prohibited by regulations adopted under the Texas Clean Air Act. Houston Compressed Steel Corp. v, State, 456-S.W.2d 768 (Tex. Civ. App. --Houston [1st Dist.] 1970, no writ). The court said: In an injunction case wherein the very acts sought to be enjoined are acts which prima facie constitute the violation of expressed law, the status quo to be preserved could 'never' --be a condi"tion of affairs"where the respondent would be permitted to continue the acts constituting that violation. In such instances, the status quo to be preserved by temporary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, noncontested status which preceded the pending controversy, and when it is deter- mined that the law is being violated, it is the province and the duty of the court to restrain it. 456 S.W.2d at 773. The court thus made it abundantly clear that a court has a duty to restrain violations of the law. And in Hayes International, the 5th Circuit held that it is reversible error for the lower court to refuse to issue a preliminary injunction. 415 F.2d at 1038. In an injunction brought under a territorial statute authorizing injunctive relief against the operation of houses, an Alaska Court wrote: In my view, the intention of the legislature MUNICOF IPALITY of the territory of Alaska, as disclosed by ANCHORAGE the act in question, was to suppress houses of OFFICE OF THE lewdness and prostitution, and to prevent per- " -650 Y sons from maintaining or conducting such POUCH 5-650 4NCHORAGE.5 99502 houses, either at the place where It was being 26aGE.A -4- bawdy i maintained or at any other place throughout the judicial division; also to abate the nuisance then existing, by closing up the same for the period of one year. This was within the power of the Legislature, and, the evi- dence being clear that the house described was maintained by the defendant Dolly Arthur as a nuisance, there is no discretion in the court under thestatute but to sue tFie i'- t on njun as prayer or an also to o— rbc er ea aattement of the nuisance.— Territory u sance. Territory v. House No. 24 7 Alaska Re 611 — �� P• (D. Alaska 1927) (emphasis added). This is a statutory injunction case rather than a Civil Rule 65 injunction case. Because A.J. Industries is governed by Civil' i Rule 65 and does not involve a statutory enforcement action, the, grounds for injunctive relief articulated in that case do not apply to cases such as this one. Compare A.J. Indus., Inc., v. Alaska Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 470 P.2d 537 (Alaska 1970), and Alaska' Pub, Utilities Comm'n V. Greater Anchorage Area Borough, 534 P.2d 198 (Alaska 1975), with United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16 (1940); United States V. Hayes Int'lI Corp., 415 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir. 1969); and Territory v. House No. 24, 7 Alaska Rep. 611 (D. Alaska 1927). — All the plaintihas to "show in this ff kind of action is' violation of the law and threat of continuing violation, follow-' ing which the injunction should issue ordering cessation of the violation. The law has to be this way, for otherwise, there i' could be no effective enforcement of the Anchorage Municipal Code or other laws specifically authorizing injunctive relief. If thosewho violate the Anchorage Municipal Code can come into court and say that they have equitable reasons to justify con-, tinuing these illagal acts, no one would know what they are is required to do until they have tried a lawsuit, Such a situation is contrary to all notions of law enforce- ment. Law enforcement requires at its outset that people know ;i what they are supposed to do or not do. This is what the rules ii are for. They tell people what is forbidden in simple, clear, and concise terms. If people are violating these terms, they are MUNICIPALITYOF O ANCHORAGE breaking the law. Plaintiff Anchorage cannot conceivably bog O OFFICE GWALATT H pfEy ATTORNEY down the Courts and its own lawyers in trying its code enforce - POUCH POUCH 6-650 %NCHORAGE. AN 99502 264-4545 ment cases on a case-by-case_ basis under equity theories. , _5_ � MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 4NCHORAGE. AN 99502 264-4545 Under the weight of the authority cited, the injunction should be granted. Dated this Z�-> day of !a2 1982, at Anchorage, Alaska. -6- KELLY C.�FISHER Assistant Municipal Attorney IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA . THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ANCHORAGE, ) a municipal corporation, j .i Plaintiff, j vs. ) FOREST M. PARKER and HELEN E. ) PARKER, ) Defendants j Case No. 3AN-82- i! PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants having due notice of plaintiff's motion for pre- liminary injunction, and the court having considered the evidence, plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff's motion for prelimi- ` nary injunction together with the affidavits and memorandum in support thereof, and having ordered a subsequent fact investigation, the court hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On the date of September, 1977, the defendants caused, jt permitted or allowed a water well to be illegally installed and maintained within a radius of 100 feet from an on-site sewer system. l i 2. On the date of August 30, 1977, defendants caused per- mitted or allowed a leeching trench to be closed without appro- I! val from the Department of Health and Environmental Protection agency causing the on-site sewer system to be illegal. 3. On the dates of June 22, 1981 and to the present date, the defendants have caused, permitted or allowed the discharge i of sewage from his on-site sewer system onto the ground at pro- i ;i perty commonly known as Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision. [hereinafter called the premises]. MUNICIPALITY 4. Plaintiff has previously requested defendants to correct OF ANCHORAGE the continuing and recurring discharges from his on-site sewer OFFICE OF THE MVIJ,CPAI A 110FNEY system. - POUCH 6-650 ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 - 264-4545 1 5. Plaintiff has previously requested defendants to correct the distance between the water well and the on-site sewer system. 6. Defendants have failed to prevent the recurring sewage discharges by installing a on-site sewer system which conforms i with the Anchorage Municipal Code Title 15. 7. The frequency of surface discharges requires the up- grading or replacement of the existing on-site sewer system in order for defendants' on-site sewer system to meet the require- ments of Anchorage Municipal Code S 15.65.020(A). 8. The defendants' failure to correct the sewage overflows, the continued operation of the existing on-site sewer system, and the continued operation of the illegally installed on-site water well and the resulting frequency of sewage discharge upon the ground and into ground water constitute a continuing threat of violation of Anchorage Municipal Code § 15.65.040 and a con- tinuing threat to public health. 9. The defendants' failure to increase the distance bet- ween the on-site sewage system and on-site water well constitu- tes a continuing threat of violation of Anchorage Municipal Code 515.65.050 and a continuing threat to public health. i; CONCLUSIONS OF LAW !� 1. Defendants' acts in causing or permitting the discharge ; 1: II of sewage and other waste material upon the ground and into i it ground water violate Anchorage Municipal Code 5 15.65.040. ! 2. When defendants' on-site sewer system has failed to the extent found in the foregoing findings of fact, Anchorage Muni- cipal Code 5 15.65.020 requires defendant to either upgrade his existing sewage system or install a new sewage system in order to .i comply with standards of said ordinance. i� 3. Defendants' acts in causing or permitting a well to be illegally installed anbd maintained within a radius of 100 feet from an on-site sewer system is .in violation of Anchorage ` MUNICIPALITY OF Municipal Code 915.65.060(A). ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE UUNICIPAL ATTORNEY 4. Defendants' acts in causing or permitting a leeching - NNc ORAGE.AK99502 264-4545 trench to be filled in before final inspection is in violation i' -2- I i of Anchorage Municipal Code §15,65.040(C). 5, Anchorage Municipal Code § 15.05.120 authorizes plain- tiff to seek injunctive relief to enjoin violations of the Anchorage Environmental Protection Code. 6. When conduct is prohibited by statute or a home rule i municipal ordinance that expressly provides the right of injunc- tive relief against the unlawful conduct upon a showing that the statue or ordinance is being violated, injunctive relief shall issue upon the showing that the statute or ordinance is being violated, ii ORDER Therefore, good cause appearing, defendants, its Officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and. those persons in active concert or participation with those who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, are hereby il ordered pendete lite as follows: 1. The defendants are enjoined. from causing, allowing or permitting, in any manner, the discharge of sewage effluent and , j other waste mater ial" "'u on the vim," M` P ground surface and into ground water from the sewage system located at the premises at Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision. 2. The defendants shall clean, remove and disinfect all i I !I sewage effluent and other waste materials discharged from the i septic system located at the premises unto the ground and into 'i the around water at, near, or adjacent to said property, in a manner approved by plaintiff's Department of Health and I Environmental Protection. 3. As a temporary measure only defendants shall pump the septic tank on the premises at least once a week and as often as necessary to prevent sewage from flowing onto the ground at any time, and shall furnish plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection.with proof of such pumping within three days after each such future overflow occurs prior to hearing on MUNICOF IPALITY plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THF AUNIGIPA� ATTORNEY - 4. The defendants shall, after a percolation test, cause;, _ POUCH 6650 %NCHORAGE. AK 99502 26+-4545 7, the distance between the on-site sewer system and water well to -3- �! I ' be in compliance with all regulations regarding those distances and not at any time to be less than 100 feet apart, 5. If by , 1982 defendants have failed to or has been unable to correct its on-site sewer system as required by plaintiff's Department of Health and Environmental Protection, j! then from and after 1982 neither defendants nor any .i tenant, agent, servant or employee of defendants shall operate, I; maintain or otherwise use the existing on-site sewage system located on the premises at Lot 4, Block 1, Rabbit Creek View Subdivision, except as otherwise expressly permitted in writing ` by the Anchorage Department of Health and Environmental .I Protection. Notice of such written permission shall be filed` with this court if such permission is granted prior to trial. 5. Upon application to this court by any person and a find- ing by this court that a person is violating any term of this ' preliminary injunction, the defendants or other person responsible for such violation and having notice of the term of this injunc- tion shall pay to Anchorage for each and every violation of this ' it I injunction so shown a civil penalty of not less than $100.00. Dated this day of 1982, at Anchorage, Alaska, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT i I ;i MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE POUCH 6-650 - WCHORAGE. AK 99502 i 264-4545 - -4 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE aUmc PAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 iNCHORAGE. AK 99502 264-4545 x IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE ANCHORAGE, ) a municipal corporation, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) FOREST M. PARKER and HELEN E. ) ARKER, Defendants j it Case No. 3AN-82- (! ! AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES S. ROBERTS STATE OF ALASKA ) ' f ss. ; it THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) ; i' James S. Roberts, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and says: I! 1. I am an Associate,Environmental Specialist for the li Anchorage Department of Health and Environmental Protection. I 2. On June 22, 1981, I inspected property owned by Forest �! M: -"Parker and Helen E' -Parker, heated at L ``4, Irlock 1, Rabbit ,I Creek View Subdivision. I observed the presence of sewage effluent seeping from the ground water to the surface of the li ground at the above described property. That condition is a health hazard, a violation of Anchorage Municipal Code S ; �i 15.65.040, and should be corrected immediately whenever it I! occurs. 3. On June 24, 1981 I issued a written notice of i violation. 4. On July 15, 1981, I again Jinspected defendants' property, observed sewage effluent seeping from the ground ; water onto the ground. �I 5. As of this date, I have reason to believe the overflow- ing sewage is still on the ground, and that no corrective action has been taken. 6. In my opinion, protection of the public health requires that defendants pump the septic tank within twenty-four hours' and furnish proof of same to our department, clean up the sewage li 1 I MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE OFFICE OF THE .-IICIPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6.650 WCHORAGE, AK 99502 264-4545 effluent on the ground, and disinfect the entire area by either spreading lime or applying a disinfectant such as HTH on the contaminated area as an interim means of protection against Public health hazards until the sewer system is replaced. The defendant should cease operating the existing system and install. a new on-site sewer system. No one should occupy the trailer presently served by this deficient on-site sewer system unless the sewer system is upgraded. 7. Laboratory tests taken show positive for fecal coli con- . ;; •, firming the effluent to be sewage. 1 3&mes S. Roberts j Associate Environmental Specialist' Subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of aa-r�uay198,,►`, at Anchorage, Alaska. 1 -2- Notary Public in azxd for Alaska My commission expires '14961 i IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ANCHORAGE, a municipal cor t` oration, � p MU41407y 07y OF ANC P l a i n t i f f s ) ENVIt3D PT. OF 8,4LTH eORAG1 'VLH=NTAL PROTECTION V8. ) F5L7 HELEN E. PARKER, BRUCE LAMM, ) 1 1963 and MICHELLE LAMM, ) Defendants. ) RECEIVED ) No. 3AN-82-00827 Civ. STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed by and between the parties hereto, by and through their respective attorneys of record, that the above -entitled action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs and 'i attorneys' fees, on the ground and for the reason that plaintiff has recently learned that the property in question is no longer occupied and as such the violations alleged in plaintiff's complaint have ceased. Plaintiff reserves the right to reinitiate this action, ' if, at a future date, it is determined that the property becomes occupied without the appropriate steps being taken to correct the violations of the Anchorage Environmental Protection Code. 1 i 2 , DATED: /y/�J FE I Scott T. Fleming Assistant Munici 1 Attorney Attorney for Pl intiff Z-- ifDATED: / Robert A. Rehboc Attorney for Defenda.t Parker DATED: "� � � �, � _� Bruce Lamm Defendant MUNICIPALITY DATED: r; -/G de 21 z ✓-v�'%t��7L--% OF i'chelle Lamm ANCHORAGE Defendant OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 i ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 I 264-4545 i Ii �1 I I II .. a MUNICIPALITY GE ANCHORAGE is OFFICE OF THE I V MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY POUCH 6-650 - ANCHORAGE. AK 99502 264-4545 IV I II A1,71DAVIT Or AIAULIZO State of Alaska i Thhd Judicial ;✓iNtrfcf i v this pieadWg' to - on the Subscribed and {s v0�d Lefore me ib3s��- clay of 19 C Notary Public in a• d for Mj6�& My colinnissiOn