Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 - Snyder Decision Denis Law Mayor City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC May 1, 2018 Mr. Frank Snyder 10128 SE 188th Street Renton, WA 98055 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Code Case No: CODE-16-000264 Dear Mr. Snyder: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated May 1, 2018, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jas n A. Seth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector Alex Tuttle, Assistant City Attorney Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Angie Mathias, Long Range Planning Manager Sandra Pedersen, Finance 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: FOV#: CODE16-000264 VIOLATION SITE ADDRESS: 10128 SE 188th St Renton, WA 98055 PROPERTY OWNER: Frank Snyder 10128 SE 188th Renton, WA 98055-6300 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Finding of Violation RULING: Finding of Violation for Violations No. 1 and 2 sustained and No. 3 reversed. $200 in fines suspended for three months pending abatement of Violations No. 1 and 2. SUMMARY Violation No. 1 (overgrown vegetation ) and 2 (inoperable vehicle) of the January 2, 2018 Finding of Violation are sustained. Violation No. 3 (bulky waste) is reversed as the camper and boat on Mr. Snyder's property do not qualify as bulky waste. The $200 fines imposed for Violation No. 1 and 2 are suspended for three months and shall be waived if Mr. Snyder fully abates Violation No. 1 and 2 by August 3, 2018. As outlined in the Conclusions of Law of this decision, the fines are suspended in order to provide what may be legally required "reasonable accommodation" for Mr. Snyder's disability. The camper and boat do not qualify as bulky waste because they both can still be used by Mr. Snyder and he does not consider them to be junk. HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on March 20, 2018 at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Officer, summarized the alleged violations. She noted that over the course of code compliance history, since the property was first inspected in April, Code Enforcement Decision- 1 2016, the boat and camper have not been moved. She recognizes that Mr. Snyder has health issues that have made it difficult for him to comply. She noted that neighbors have been willing to mow Mr. Snyder lawn but he has refused them access to his property. In response to Examiner questions, Ms. Locher noted that she considers the camper to be bulky waste because its roof is separating on top and it has mold. Mr. Snyder had admitted to her that the camper was not in good shape. The boat has been sitting in the same place for a long time and is covered in vines. Mr. Snyder stated that his neighbors have not offered to help him mow his lawn. He had one neighbor who assisted him once on his yard. That neighbor has also unilaterally cut a strip on his lawn along the sidewalk to show him that his lawn could be shorter. Mr. Snyder asked him to stop doing that. Mr. Snyder cannot mow his grass on a regular basis due to arthritis and heart problems. The grass sometimes grows higher than City standards when he's away from his home for extended periods due to health problems such as pneumonia and cardiac fibrillation. He sometimes can't engage in physical exertion for more than 15 minutes. Mr. Snyder noted that the photographs of the record show that he has removed a lot of berry bushes and that he has reduced the height of his lawn since the violation date. He also asserted that his first violation notice was not sent by certified mail. Mr. Snyder presented photographs he had taken the day of hearing and the day before. He noted that the photos show that he has removed blackberry bushes from his property. He noted that there's two acres of blackberry bushes right behind his property and there are also blackberry bushes on other properties extending onto sidewalks. Mr. Snyder identified other properties that had code violations. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Snyder responded that the boat is seaworthy. He also noted that when there are power outages he sleeps in the camper, which has power and heat. He's slept in the camper several times. The last time he stayed in the camper was the last extended power outage, which was a year or two ago. The last time he's used the boat was a long time ago. He hasn't been able to afford to register the boat and so he hasn't used it in a while. He's just not using the boat at the present time. Ms. Locher inquired about an email from May, 2017 in which Mr. Snyder acknowledged the camper is nonserviceable and he would try to have it salvaged. Mr. Snyder acknowledged that the camper isn't usable as a camper, but he uses it for other purposes such as for power outages. When he had roofers working on his home,he had a porta-potty in the camper available to them. He also uses the camper to store garden tools. The camper still has utility. Ms. Locher noted that the City uses a complaint-based enforcement system. She noted that all vehicles on the property need to be licensed and operable. She noted that Mr. Snyder had admitted that the camper couldn't be used as a camper. The berry vines at issue are those visible from the street,the ones on the boat and fence. Mr. Snyder acknowledged that his blackberry bushes are in violation, but he's been trying to get this property cleaned up and he's making progress. Code Enforcement Decision-2 EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-10 identified in the City's exhibit list were entered into the record during the hearing. 5 pages of photographs submitted by Mr. Snyder were admitted as Exhibit 11. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Violation Site. The violation site is located at 10128 SE 188th St. The site in question is owned by Frank Snyder,who resides at the site. 2. Code Compliance History. The City has been in contact with Mr. Snyder over the code violations of this appeal since May 2, 2016, when Mr. Snyder was issued a warning of violation regarding the violations. Emails ensued between City staff and Mr. Snyder over the compliance issue. The City sent a letter on July 18, 2016 requesting compliance. More emails were exchanged. A Finding of Violation was issued on April 19, 2017 for the violations of this appeal. The April 19, 2017 Finding of Violation was not appealed. A second Finding of Violation for the same set of violations was issued on January 2, 2018. That Finding of Violation is the subject of this appeal. Mr. Snyder has made some progress in abating overgrown vegetation violations on his property, but he has not completely abated any of the violations first brought to his attention by the Warning of Violation issued on May 2, 2016. 3. January 2, 2018 Finding of Violation. The January 2, 2018 Finding of Violation ("FOV") alleges three code violations that were found on the property on December 27, 2018: (1) overgrown vegetation; (2) storage of junk/inoperable vehicle; and (3) bulky waste. Mr. Snyder appealed this Finding of Violation on January 6, 2018. 4. Overgrown Vegetation. The FOV asserts the existence of blackberry vines over 12" in height on the violation site. Photographs taken on December 27, 2017, Ex 9, confirm this observation and Mr. Snyder doesn't contest this fact. It is determined that there were blackberry vines over 12" in height on the violation site on December 27, 2017. 5. Inoperable Vehicle. A Chevrolet Silverado with a license that expired in March, 2013 was located on the property on December 27, 2017. According to uncontested assertions in the FOV, the Chevrolet had not been moved at the time of the December 27, 2017 observation, although it is unclear from the record how long the Chevrolet had been kept at the same location. 6. Bulky Waste. The FOV asserts that a camper and a boat stored on the property qualify as bulky waste. A portion of the roof of the camper is separating from the frame. Both the camper and boat are covered in blackberry vines. Mr. Snyder admits that he can't use the camper any longer for a camper, but he does use it to sleep in during power outages, he uses it for storage of garden tools and he put a porta- potty in it for roofers that were working on his home. Similarly, Mr. Snyder stated that the boat is still seaworthy and is just missing its outboard motor,although he hasn't able to afford to register it for several years. 7. Mitigating Circumstances. Mr. Snyder suffers from severe cardiac health issues that make it difficult for him to maintain his property. Further, his surrounding neighborhood contains numerous violations similar to that on his property,most notably overgrown blackberry bushes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Code Enforcement Decision- 3 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-3-2. 2. Code Violation: The code violations identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.4 as amended by RMC 4-5- 130(B)(161: Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of twelve inches in height on development property or twenty-four inches (24') in height on vacant land. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs; provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. 3. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the violation site contained blackberry vines exceeding 12 inches in height on December 27, 2017. It is concluded that as owner of the violation site, Mr. Snyder was in violation of RMC 4-5-130(B)(16)on December 27, 2017. Junk Vehicle or Vehicle Hulks on Private Property Regulated (RMC 6-1-3(B)): The storage, maintenance or retention of junk, wrecked, dismantled or an apparently inoperable vehicle, vehicle hulk, or any parts thereof on private real property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and subject to abatement in accordance with this Chapter and RMC 1-3- 3, as now worded or hereafter amended. 4. Mr. Snyder's Chevrolet Silverado qualifies as an inoperable vehicle because its license is expired. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the Silverado was stored at the violation site on December 27, 2017. Since Mr. Snyder owns the violation site, he is in violation of RCW 6-1-3(B), which as quoted above provides that such vehicles are nuisances subject to abatement. RMC 6-1-2 defines an inoperable vehicle to include vehicles that cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads. Since Mr. Snyder's Silverado is unlicensed, it cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads and qualifies as an inoperable vehicle. Unlawful Stora2e of Bulky Waste(RMC 8-1-4(E): RMC 8-1-4(E): Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of bulky waste. RMC 8-1-2(Definitions): BULKY WASTE: Large items of solid waste, including but not limited to items such as furniture; large household appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, ovens, ranges, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines, or clothes dryers; junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or any parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-2, as now worded or hereafter amended; and any other oversized solid wastes which would typically not fit into or be permitted for collection as garbage in garbage cans. 5. The camper and boat do not qualify as solid waste because they can still be used for Code Enforcement Decision-4 varying purposes as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6. Since they don't qualify as solid waste, they don't qualify as bulky waste under the definition quoted above. It is concluded that there was no violation of RMC 8-1-2 as asserted in the FOV. 6. Mitigating Circumstances. RMC 1-3-2E(3)(f) grants the examiner discretion on the amount of fines imposed by a Finding of Violation. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 7, Mr. Snyder suffers from what appears to be a disability that limits his ability to abate the IPMC (overgrown vegetation) violation on his property. Arguably, the American With Disabilities Act requires the City to reasonably accommodate this disability for the vegetation violation. Mr. Snyder has been given two years to abate the violation, which probably already qualifies as a reasonable accommodation. Further, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Snyder's disability limited his ability to abate the inoperable vehicle violation. In an abundance of caution to comply with the American With Disabilities Act, the fines will be mitigated to further reasonably accommodate Mr. Snyder's disability. The $200 in fines assessed by the FOV for the inoperable vehicle and overgrown vegetation violations will be suspended for three months. If Mr. Snyder fully abates those two violations, the fines will be waived. If Mr. Snyder fails to abate those violations within three months, the fines will be immediately due and owing once the three months have expired. The waiver of the inoperable vehicle fine should be construed as an accommodation to Mr. Snyder's disability, since he can use that money to pay someone to remove the vines if he is physically unable to do it himself. 7. Unequal Enforcement. During the hearing Mr. Snyder also asserted that the City has failed to enforce numerous other violations in his neighborhood and this should excuse his noncompliance. The alleged favorable treatment of other neighbors does not serve as grounds for reversing the FOV. Mr. Snyder was essentially making an equal protection argument, asserting that he was being treated differently than other similarly situated neighbors. Since Mr. Snyder is not asserting discrimination based upon any protected class, such as race or religion, his challenge is subject to the "rational basis review," which requires City action to be wholly arbitrary to overcome its strong presumption of constitutionality. See, Rhoades v. City of Battle Ground, 115 Wn. App. 752 (2002). There is no compelling evidence of arbitrary action in this case. The City asserted that it received complaints about Mr. Snyder's violations. As with many other jurisdictions, Renton prioritizes its limited code enforcement resources on issues that generate public concern and complaints, i.e. its enforcement process is complaint-based. Such an approach is rational given the need to prioritize limited resources and it is not found to be arbitrary. Further, it is also unlikely that the hearing examiner has any jurisdiction to consider constitutional equal protection claims in the resolution of a code enforcement appeal. See, LeJeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992), (absent an express code provision, County Commissioners have no authority to reconsider their quasi-judicial decisions); Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984), (hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute); Exendine v. City of Sammamish 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005), (hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). DECISION Violation No. 1 and 2 of the January 2, 2018 Finding of Violation are sustained. Violation No. 3 Code Enforcement Decision- 5 is reversed as the camper and boat on Mr. Snyder's property do not qualify as bulky waste. The $200 fines imposed for Violation No. 1 and 2 are suspended for three months and shall be waived if Mr. Snyder fully abates Violation No. 1 and 2 by August 3, 2018. Decision issued May 1, 2018. Ph► A.Olbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Code Enforcement Decision-6