Overview
This documents the ongoing dispute regarding an unauthorized retaining wall and shed constructed on my property by my neighbor at 3311 S 2nd Way, and the City of Ridgefield's failure to address the violations despite having issued permits without proper engineering review.
Critical Timeline: The shed was not framed or visible until on or about August 17, 2025, when the structure became visible over the fence. Upon immediate contact with the City of Ridgefield on August 18th, the city closed my complaint with NO ACTION despite clear violations of setback requirements and property encroachment.
Case Summary Presentation
Comprehensive visual documentation of all violations, evidence, and timeline
Animated slideshow presentation showing all documented violations and evidence
Primary Violations:
- Unlawful Trespass and Property Encroachment: Unpermitted structure constructed on and over complainant's real property in direct violation of property boundaries and legal easements
- Tortious Destruction of Real Property: Unauthorized excavation, grading, and removal of soil from complainant's parcel, resulting in material alteration of topography, destabilization of slope gradient, and permanent damage to the land's structural integrity
- Violation of Municipal Setback Ordinances: Structure placed in violation of 10-foot minimum rear yard setback requirement as prescribed by applicable zoning regulations (5-foot exception inapplicable)
- Failure to Obtain Required Engineering Review: Retaining wall supporting surcharge load (accessory structure and stored contents) constructed without structural engineering analysis by Washington State registered professional engineer as mandated by Clark County building code
- Violation of Critical Area Ordinances: Construction within designated habitat conservation area, wetland buffer zone, hydric soil area, and steep slope area without required environmental impact assessment or special use permits
- Negligent and Willful Property Damage: Ongoing erosion, slope failure, and land degradation resulting from unpermitted excavation and construction activities constitute continuing trespass and nuisance
⚠️ Why This Type of Construction Without Proper Plans and Inspections is Dangerous
The Risk of Permit Approval Without Engineering Review:
When cities approve permits for retaining walls and structures without requiring proper engineering plans and thorough inspections, they create life-threatening situations. This case demonstrates exactly why engineering requirements exist:
- Structural Collapse Risk: A retaining wall supporting thousands of pounds (shed + contents) without engineering analysis can fail catastrophically, burying people, vehicles, or buildings in soil and debris.
- Progressive Failure: The wall is already showing signs of failure with active erosion on east and west sides. Without engineering, these warning signs go unaddressed until catastrophic collapse.
- Property Destabilization: Unauthorized excavation into my property has destabilized the soil structure, creating landslide and erosion risks that endanger both properties.
- Environmental Damage: Construction in habitat areas, wetlands, steep slopes, and hydric soils without environmental review causes irreversible ecological damage and violates species protection laws.
- Liability and Public Safety: When walls fail, they don't just damage property—they kill. Cities have a duty to protect public safety by enforcing engineering requirements, not rubber-stamping permits.
- Due Process Failure: Approving permits in 4 days (March 28 to April 1) without proper review violates neighbors' property rights and due process. Adjacent property owners have the right to be notified and object when construction will impact their land.
The Bottom Line: This isn't just about code violations—it's about preventing injury and death. Engineering requirements for retaining walls with surcharges exist because people DIE when walls collapse. The City of Ridgefield's failure to require engineering review and proper inspections before issuing this permit has created a dangerous situation that threatens lives and property.
The city must act NOW before someone gets hurt or killed.
Key Facts:
- Primary Issue: Neighbor constructed shed on my leased property, nearly touching fence with roof overhanging
- Secondary Issue: Retaining wall built with surcharge (shed) without required engineering
- Third Issue: Neighbor dug into my leased property and installed a retaining wall carving into my yard and destabilizing it.
- Fourth Issue: There is active erosion on the east and west sides of the propoerty and the wall has already begun to fail.
- Violating Property: 3311 S 2nd Way, Ridgefield
- My Property: 3313 S 2nd Street (Adjacent Property: 213808012)
- Setback Violation: Shed must be 10 feet from property line (backyard) - currently on my leased property, nearly touching fence
- Habitat Violation: Both lots marked for habitat and species restrictions
- Engineering Violation: Retaining wall with surcharge requires engineering - not provided
- Engineering Violation: My yard has been destabilized by the owner of 3311 digging into my leased property.
- Safety Concern: Shed weight (thousands of pounds) creates dangerous surcharge on wall
- First Complaint: March 22, 2025 - Initial complaint filed
- Discovery: Shed visible over fence on or about August 17, 2025
- Second Complaint: August 18, 2025 - Complaint regarding visible shed encroachment
- Third Complaint: November 2025 - Formal complaint regarding ongoing violations
- City Response: Closed complaints with NO action - refused to enforce building codes
- Current Status: Multiple formal complaints filed - city continues to refuse corrective action or communicate a plan of action
Timeline of Events
First Complaint Filed
Initial complaint to City of Ridgefield: First complaint filed on March 22, 2025, documenting initial concerns and violations regarding the construction activities at 3311 S 2nd Way.
Permit Application Submitted
Neighbor at 3311 S 2nd Way submitted permit application to City of Ridgefield for retaining wall and/or shed construction.
Permits Issued by City of Ridgefield
City of Ridgefield issued building permits (4 days after submission). Questions remain about whether proper engineering was required or provided for retaining wall with surcharge, and whether habitat area restrictions were properly reviewed in such a short timeframe.
Retaining Wall Constructed
Neighbor at 3311 S 2nd Way constructed retaining wall following permit issuance.
Shed Built on Retaining Wall
After building the retaining wall, neighbor constructed a shed that creates a dangerous surcharge on the wall. The shed was built nearly touching my fence with the roof overhanging onto my property, violating the 10-foot backyard setback requirement (5 feet minimum only under special circumstances).
Permit Officially Closed
City of Ridgefield closed the permit. Despite the shed being on my property and violating setback requirements, the permit was approved and closed. No engineering documentation appears to have been required for the retaining wall with surcharge.
Shed Structure Becomes Visible
Shed was not framed or visible until on or about August 17th when the structure became visible over the fence. Prior to this date, the shed was not observable from my property. Upon discovery, immediately contacted City of Ridgefield.
Second Complaint Filed
Second complaint to City of Ridgefield: "3311 S 2nd Way is building a shed that almost touches my fence, and the roof hangs over. I was under the impression that buildings such as sheds have to be 3 feet from the property line. I need this looked at and the shed moved as it is on my property. The neighbor said the city permitted him to build a retaining wall and the shed, I find it hard to imagine this was approved."
Note: Further research revealed backyard setback requirement is actually 10 feet (5 feet only under certain special circumstances).
City Closes Complaint - NO ACTION TAKEN
Critical Issue: City of Ridgefield closed the August 18th complaint with NO action. Despite clear evidence of setback violations and shed encroachment on my property, the city failed to enforce building codes or require corrections.
Extensive Research on Building Code Violations
Conducted extensive research on multiple building code frameworks including:
- Clark County Building Codes - Retaining wall engineering requirements, shed permits, and surcharge regulations
- City of Ridgefield Building Code - Local ordinances and enforcement procedures
- Washington State Code - State-level building and safety requirements
- International Building Code (IBC) - Industry standards for structural safety
Discovered multiple code violations including lack of engineering for retaining wall with surcharge, setback violations, and habitat area permit requirements across all jurisdictional levels.
Third Formal Complaint Filed
Submitted third formal complaint to City of Ridgefield with detailed documentation of violations. Researched city duties and code enforcement obligations under the 14th Amendment. All images and documents submitted to Code Enforcement and City Manager.
Public Permit Documentation Obtained
Downloaded public permit records from City of Ridgefield portal to verify whether proper permits were issued and if engineering requirements were met.
Aerial Documentation Completed
Conducted comprehensive aerial drone photography to document the shed location, retaining wall, property boundaries, and encroachment. 18 high-resolution images captured showing violations. All images sent to the City Manager.
No Response from City of Ridgefield
Current Status: Despite three formal complaints filed (March 22, August 18, and November 2025), extensive documentation provided, and clear evidence of code violations and safety hazards, the City of Ridgefield has provided NO substantive response and taken NO corrective action.
Duration of Inaction: 261 days since first complaint with no resolution.
Outstanding Issues:
- Shed remains on my property in violation of 10-foot setback
- No engineering review conducted for retaining wall with surcharge
- Active erosion and wall failure progressing unchecked
- Environmental violations in habitat/wetland areas unaddressed
- Property destabilization from unauthorized excavation continues
City continues to refuse enforcement of building codes and property rights protection.
Cease and Desist Notice Issued
Formal Legal Action: Issued cease and desist notice demanding immediate halt to all violations and unauthorized activities on complainant's property.
Key Demands:
- Immediate cessation of trespass and encroachment on property
- Removal of shed structure violating setback requirements
- Restoration of excavated soil and land to original condition
- City enforcement of building codes and critical area protections
- Compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations
Documentation: View Cease and Desist Notice (PDF)
Formal notice put violating party and City of Ridgefield on legal notice of violations and potential liability.
Building Code Violations
1. Shed Setback Violation
Violation: Shed built nearly touching fence with roof overhanging onto my property
Zoning Classification: Property is classified as RLD-04 (Residential Low Density - 4 units/acre)
Applicable Setback Requirements (RLD-4):
- Min. Front Yard Setback: 15 feet
- Min. Rear Yard Setback: 10 feet
- Min. Side Yard Setback: 5 feet
- Min. Street Side Yard Setback: 15 feet
Required Compliance: Under RLD-4 zoning, rear yard setback is 10 feet from property line - NO EXCEPTIONS
Current Status: Shed is ON my property, nearly touching fence - violates mandatory 10-foot rear setback completely
Severity: Structure is not merely non-compliant with setback—it is located entirely on adjacent property (trespass)
📊 RLD-4 Zoning Standards Reference
| Standard | RLD-4 |
|---|---|
| Min. Lot Width | 50 ft |
| Min. Lot Area | 10,890 sq ft |
| Max. Lot Area | 16,355 sq ft |
| Min. Front Yard Setback | 15 ft |
| Min. Rear Yard Setback | 10 ft ⚠️ VIOLATED |
| Min. Side Yard Setback | 5 ft |
| Max. Height | 30 ft (35 ft with pitched roof) |
| Max. Impervious Surface | 60% |
Source: City of Ridgefield Zoning Code - RLD-4 Residential Low Density Standards
Property Line Evidence:
Property Line: 1.54 feet from neighbor's house
Measurement shows minimal distance to property line
Aerial View: Property Line Location
Satellite imagery showing property boundaries
Fence Angle & Property Line
Visual documentation of boundary markers
Note: Neighbor's house is only 1.54 feet from the property line. Shed placement violates setback requirements and encroaches onto my property.
2. Retaining Wall Engineering Requirement
Clark County Code: "A permit is required for retaining walls over four feet in height, when measured from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, and/or for walls that support a load (i.e. slope, driveway, footings)."
Engineering Required: "Engineering by a Washington State registered engineer is required for all retaining walls requiring a permit."
Violation: Retaining wall carries surcharge (shed with stored items = thousands of pounds) - no engineering provided
Safety Risk: Wall not designed for surcharge can fail suddenly and catastrophically
3. Habitat Area Permit Violation
Clark County Code: "Any shed located within a wetland, habitat, or shoreline area may require additional permits."
Both Properties: Lots marked for habitat and species restrictions
Violation: Shed built in habitat area - unclear if additional permits obtained
Environmental Constraints on Property (Clark County GIS Data):
Steep Slope Area
Hydric Soil
Priority Habitats & Species
Wetland Area
Riparian Habitat
Stream/Watershed Features
Source: Clark County MapsOnline - Environmental layer data showing multiple critical area designations where retaining wall and shed were constructed.
4. Unauthorized Excavation and Property Alteration
Violation: Neighbor removed dirt from my yard, creating a carve-out of my backyard for his shed placement
Property Rights Violation: Unauthorized excavation and alteration of my property without permission or legal right
Impact: Physical modification of my property's grade and topography to accommodate neighbor's structure
Legal Issue: Trespass and property damage - removed soil belongs to my property
5. Understanding "Surcharge" - The Safety Issue
What is a surcharge? A surcharge is any additional load applied to the soil behind a retaining wall besides just the soil itself.
Examples of surcharges:
- A building, shed, or structure built close to the wall
- Stored materials (lumber, pallets, soil stockpiles)
- A driveway, road, or parking area near the wall
- Sloped backfill
Why this matters: A shed with items stored in it can weigh thousands of pounds. This weight was NOT accounted for when the wall was built.
5. Safety Risks of Unengineered Surcharge
If a surcharge isn't accounted for in the design, the wall can fail suddenly and dangerously:
1. Structural Failure of the Wall
- Extra loads create much higher lateral earth pressures
- Wall can crack, lean, bulge outward, or topple completely
2. Collapse Risk to People and Property
- Soil and debris can fall onto people, vehicles, or buildings
- Even a low wall (3-4 feet) can cause serious injury or death
3. Damage to Nearby Structures
- Soil mass can shift, causing cracks in foundations
- Settlement of buildings or pavement nearby
4. Drainage and Hydrostatic Pressure
- Shed roof drainage + surcharge adds dangerous water load
- Can create hydrostatic pressure leading to sudden blowouts
5. Progressive/Hidden Failures
- Wall slowly tilts over years
- Soil erodes or washes out
- One heavy rain or additional load triggers catastrophic failure
BOTTOM LINE: A retaining wall MUST be engineered if there's ANY surcharge. Even a short wall can be dangerous if it has a structure above it. That's why codes don't exempt "low" walls when surcharges are involved.
Summary of Required Actions
- Immediate: Remove shed from my property and relocate to meet 10-foot backyard setback requirement
- Property Restoration: Restore excavated dirt and return my yard to original grade and condition
- Engineering Review: Require neighbor to obtain structural engineering analysis for retaining wall with surcharge
- Permit Verification: Verify all required permits for habitat area construction were obtained
- Safety Inspection: Inspect retaining wall for signs of stress, movement, or failure risk
- Code Enforcement: City must enforce building codes and property rights
- Trespass Remediation: Address unauthorized excavation and property alteration
Photo Evidence
Comprehensive aerial drone photography showing the shed encroachment, retaining wall location, property boundaries, and code violations. All photos taken November 21, 2025.
Aerial View 1 - Nov 21, 2025 13:18
Aerial View 2 - Nov 21, 2025 13:19
Aerial View 3 - Nov 21, 2025 13:19
Aerial View 4 - Nov 21, 2025 13:19
Aerial View 5 - Nov 21, 2025 13:19
Aerial View 6 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 7 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 8 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 9 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 10 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 11 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 12 - Nov 21, 2025 13:20
Aerial View 13 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Aerial View 14 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Aerial View 15 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Aerial View 16 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Aerial View 17 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Aerial View 18 - Nov 21, 2025 13:21
Note: All 18 aerial photographs were captured via drone on November 21, 2025, between 1:18 PM and 1:21 PM. Images are timestamped in filenames and contain EXIF metadata for verification purposes.
Email Communications
Documentation of all email correspondence with the City of Ridgefield and the neighbor.
First complaint filed on March 22, 2025, documenting initial violations and concerns regarding construction at neighboring property.
Second complaint filed on August 18, 2025, documenting the shed that almost touches the fence with roof overhanging onto my property, violating setback requirements.
View August 18th Complaint (DOCX)Third formal complaint submitted to City of Ridgefield in November 2025 regarding unauthorized retaining wall construction on property at 3311 S 2nd Street. Multiple versions filed documenting the ongoing violation.
View Complaint #1 (DOCX) View Complaint #3 (DOCX)Detailed documentation and request for code enforcement action regarding the property violation. Includes research on city duties and legal obligations under the 14th Amendment.
View Code Enforcement Document (DOCX) View City Duties (PDF)Complete email correspondence thread regarding the building and code violations. Includes initial contact forms, responses from city officials, and follow-up communications.
Online Form Submittal RE: Form Submittal FW: Form SubmittalAdditional email correspondence regarding building and code violations with Clark County and City of Ridgefield officials.
Re: Building Violation 1 Re: Building Violation 2 Re: Building Violation 3 RE: Clark County RE: Code Violation 1 RE: Code Violation 2Contact information and correspondence with city officials.
View Ryan Davis Document (PDF)Permits & Official Documents
Official documents including permits, surveys, legal correspondence, and city records.
Building Permit
Public permit records from City of Ridgefield portal (Downloaded Nov 19, 2025)
View Permit PDF View Portal RecordFormal Complaints
Official complaints filed with the City of Ridgefield
View Complaint PDF View Complaint DOCXRidgefield Code of Ordinances
Complete City of Ridgefield Code of Ordinances for reference
View Code (Primary) View Code (Alternate)Contact Information
For questions or additional information regarding this matter:
My Property: 3313 S 2nd Street, Ridgefield
Violating Property: 3311 S 2nd Way, Ridgefield (neighbor)
City of Ridgefield - City Manager:
Email: steve.stuart@ridgefieldwa.us
Code and Laws Used to Evaluate This Complaint
The City of Ridgefield's failure to enforce building codes and address this complaint violates multiple state and federal laws:
1. Violation of Washington's Growth Management Act (GMA)
Cities must adopt and enforce critical-area regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 and use best available science per RCW 36.70A.172.
Application: The City failed to enforce critical area protections for steep slopes, wetlands, hydric soils, and priority habitats when approving construction without environmental review.
2. Violation of City Manager Duties (RCW 35A.13.080)
A City Manager must ensure that laws and ordinances are faithfully executed. Ignoring city code can violate RCW 35A.13.080.
Application: The City Manager has a statutory duty to enforce Ridgefield's building codes and setback requirements. Failure to act on documented violations breaches this duty.
3. Arbitrary and Capricious Administrative Action
Failing to follow adopted ordinances can constitute arbitrary and capricious action under Washington administrative law, subject to judicial review.
Application: Approving a permit in 4 days without engineering review, then closing complaints without investigation, demonstrates arbitrary and capricious decision-making.
4. Equal Protection / Selective Enforcement (14th Amendment)
Unequal application of local code may violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Application: If the City enforces setback and engineering requirements for some property owners but not others, it violates Equal Protection.
5. Negligent Failure to Enforce Safety-Related Ordinances
The Public Duty Doctrine "failure to enforce" exception may apply when the City fails to enforce regulations intended to protect public safety.
Application: Engineering requirements for retaining walls with surcharges exist to prevent catastrophic failures and deaths. The City's failure to enforce these safety regulations creates liability when someone is injured or killed.
6. Ultra Vires Municipal Action
City officials act beyond legal authority when they disregard ordinances approved by the City Council.
Application: By ignoring adopted building codes and critical area ordinances, city staff acted outside their legal authority (ultra vires), making their permit approval void.
7. Misconduct of Public Officers (RCW 42.20)
Willful neglect of duty by public officers may fall under RCW 42.20 if intentional or repeated.
Application: 112 days of documented inaction despite clear code violations and safety hazards may constitute willful neglect of duty by city officials.
Legal Citations
- RCW 36.70A.060 – Growth Management Act: Critical Areas
- RCW 36.70A.172 – Best Available Science
- RCW 35A.13.080 – City Manager Duties
- RCW 42.20 – Misconduct of Public Officers