Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutColee Ltr & Decision Denis Law Mayor City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC January 11, 2019 Mr.Jeffrey Colee 10935 SE 182"d St Renton, WA 98055 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Code Case No: CODE-18-000191 Dear Mr. Colee: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated January 11, 2019 in the above- referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, f:6 Jason A. Seth City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Tim Lawless, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector Sandra Pedersen, Finance 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION—APPEAL OF FINDING OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT (CODE18-000191) Appellant: Jeffrey Colee 10935 SE 162nd St. Renton, WA 98065 Alleged Violation: No building permit. Location of Violation: 10935 SE 162nd St. Renton, WA 98065 Public Hearing: December 11, 2018 Decision: Finding of Violation sustained; $250 fine imposed and will be waived if corrective action timely completed. Corrective action: File timely building and/or variance applications and/or remove carport within deadlines set at the end of this decision. SUMMARY OF DECISION This decision constitutes a final decision on the appeal of a Finding of Violation as well as an Order to Correct as defined in RMC 1-3-2(B)(6). The Appellant has been charged with being in control of property that has been improved with a carport without a building permit as required by RMC 4-5-060. The violation is sustained. As corrective action, the Appellant is required to file complete application(s) for a building and/or variance permit by April 8, 2019 or in the alternative to remove the carport by that date. If the Appellant elects to apply for permits instead of removing the carport by April 8,2019,the Appellant shall submit all necessary additional permit applications and provide required information within time limits reasonably set by staff. If necessary permits are denied or the Appellant fails to file permit applications within required deadlines,the Appellant shall remove the carport within 60 days of denial or expired deadline. The Appellant admits to constructing a carport on his property without a building permit. He does not believe he should have to get a permit,or at least the permit fees should be waived,because he was forced out of his prior home to accommodate the construction of the new Sartori Elementary School. The Appellant is disabled and it took him many years and considerable expense to modify his prior home to accommodate his disability. He now has to go through the entire effort again to modify his new home. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 2 He asserts that the carport is necessary to accommodate his disability so that he can access his home from his vehicle without exposure to the elements. There is no question that the Appellant's loss of his prior home has made his life much more difficult. The difficulties this loss has caused can be taken into consideration for the corrective action required of the Appellant.However,beyond this consideration the adequacy of whatever compensation the Appellant received from having to leave his prior home is beyond the jurisdiction of this appeal. The Appellant's past difficulties have no relevance to the issue of whether a building permit is required for his carport. Complying with the City's building permit requirement is a public safety issue. The carport must comply with the City's building standards to protect the public (including emergency personnel, subsequent purchasers, guests) and Appellant from harm due to faulty construction and/or fire hazards. These safety issues cannot be ignored or minimized because of the Appellant's past difficulties. The Appellant is clearly in violation of the City's building code and he must either acquire a building permit for the carport or remove it. As previously noted,the Appellant's past difficulties can be taken into account in addressing compliance. The American with Disabilities Act requires cities to reasonably accommodate disabilities in their enforcement programs and the examiner is also authorized to exercise reasonable discretion in the setting of penalties and compliance deadlines. The Appellant was first warned about the need for a building permit on April 11,2018,almost eight months ago. Eight months is certainly a significant amount of time to acquire a building permit for a structure as simple as a carport. However, consideration must also be taken of the fact that for the carport to remain in its current location it likely needs a variance as the carport is located within the front yard setback of the Appellant's home. Email records, Ex. 8, show that the Appellant made some effort to work with City staff on acquiring a variance in May, 2018. The Appellant has also apparently approached the City Council about waving his permit application fees due to his experience of losing his prior home. Given the difficulties faced by the Appellant, his efforts at working with the City and the modest risk of public harm associated with the unpermitted carport,the compliance deadlines set by this decision are fairly lenient and the fines will be waived if the deadlines are met. SUMMARY OF HEARING TESTIMONY Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Officer, spoke on behalf of the city. She described the incident in question as initiating because she was conducting an inspection on South 182nd St. when she noticed a new carport at Mr. Colee's property. Upon further inspection Ms. Locher discovered that there was no building permit for the carport. The carport, Ms. Locher described, attaches to the front of the house, having been built in the front-yard setback. Essentially,the carport reaches to the sidewalk. Ms. Locher mentioned that anytime someone builds this type of a structure, it requires a permit. Ms. Locher identified that she had sent Mr. Colee a warning of violation on April 12, 2018. Following this, on the 16th of the same month, Mr. Colee spoke with Ms. Locher as well as a police captain who was present with her at the time. Ms. Locher stated that, according to her emails, Mr. Colee was displeased because he had been forced to move from his prior residence in order to accommodate the construction of the new Sartori Elementary School. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 3 Ms. Locher recounted that Mr. Colee had told her that the carport was built to keep him dry while using a wheelchair. Ms. Locher expressed that, at the time, Mr. Colee had mentioned he felt the city and school district owed him because he never really wanted to sell his former house. According to Ms. Locher, Mr. Colee apparently talked to a planner who told him that a variance would cost him $1,300. As Mr. Colee had yet to act on May 2, 2018, Ms. Locher sent him a second warning for construction without a building permit. On June 11, 2018 there was still not a permit on record for the carport. Therefore, on June 12, 2018, Ms. Locher issued the first violation fee of$250 to Mr. Colee. On June 27th, Mr. Colee filed his appeal. Mr. Colee had been communicating with city staff; therefore, Ms. Locher contacted Mr. Colee asking him if he wanted to put the appeal on hold until they could get variance application resolved. Mr. Colee was receptive to this. On November 7, 2018 Ms. Locher contacted Mr. Colee letting him know they would be scheduling the appeal hearing because Mr. Colee had failed to apply for a variance or building permit application. Ms. Locher stated that this case strictly pertains to construction without a permit. Moreover, she believes that Mr. Colee understands that he needs permits to do this type of work. Ms. Locher expressed that she understands that Mr. Colee may not be happy about having to sell his house to the school district but, regardless, he still needs to follow city permit standards for construction. To date, there is no permit on file and the carport remains. Ms. Locher mentioned that she believed that Mr. Colee was aware he needed a permit, because for his prior house he had told Ms. Locher that he knew he needed a permit to install an elevator. Mr. Colee asserted that the City of Renton bears responsibility for forcing him to move. He asserted that he had been unaware he needed a building permit to construct the carport. He noted that he still hasn't gotten a permit because he's been waiting for a response from the City Council on his request to waive his permit fees. He cannot afford the permit fees. Mr. Colee discussed his prior home,where he lived for 29-years, and his former living conditions. Mr. Colee mentioned living in a wheelchair for 26-years. Mr. Colee mentioned it took him 25-years to set up his property so that he could live there for the rest of his life. He mentioned he had a carport at this previous house that allowed him to get in-and-out of his vehicles without having to navigate the weather. At his current home, the carport exists for similar reasons, Mr. Colee feels the need to get to his vehicles without being impacted by the weather. He said that in the snow he is unable to access his vehicles if they have to remain outside. Mr. Colee expressed the remorse he felt having to sell his house for a new school to be built and the struggles of moving locations. He expressed that his house was given up for the sake of the community, now he believes the community is abusing him and owes him back for his alleged sacrifices. Mr. Colee iterated that his neighbors support his carport being there,that it is not a threat a nuisance to the City of Renton, and that he takes good care of his property and should not be under such scrutiny. From past experience with Ms. Locher, he believes that she is biased against him. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 4 Mr. Colee expressed that Ms. Locher mentioned that the rules existed in case of a fire; however, he mentioned the carport is made of metal and will not burn. He further suggested that there is no police- related issue involving the carport's presence on his property. Mr. Colee suggested there was no issue with right-of-way and does not interfere with the home's utilities. Mr. Colee further expressed the frustration he felt having to move and discussed the difficulties of living with a disability. Mr. Colee expressed that there are two options regarding the situation. First, the city could drop the enforcement action. He stated the second option is that he can tear down the carport when he's able,which he said will probably never happen. Ms. Locher clarified that it did not take long for Mr. Colee to understand that he needed to have a permit. Even if he did not know at the onset of the first warning, he became aware shortly after and has not taken adequate action since the first incident. Ms. Locher identified that Mr. Colee's carport takes up the majority of his front yard setback so that approval of a variance to that setback is unlikely. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-9 as identified in the City's exhibit list were admitted into the record during the December 11, 2018 hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant. Jeffrey Colee owns the property subject to the appeal and is the Appellant. 2. Property. The subject property is located at 10935 SE 162nd St. Renton, WA 98065 3. Finding of Violation. A Finding of Violation("FOV")was issued to Mr. Colee on June 12, 2018. The FOV asserts that a carport was constructed on the subject property without a building permit as required by RMC 4-5-060. 4. Appeal. Mr. Colee filed an appeal of the FOV on June 27, 2018. 5. Tenant Improvements. It is determined that Mr. Colee constructed a carport on the subject property without a building permit. Mr. Colee doesn't deny that he never acquired a permit and staff verified from City records that the City of Renton has not issued a building permit for the carport. 6. Compliance History. Mr. Colee was first apprised of the carport violation by a Warning of Violation issued on April 12, 2018 and a second Warning of Violation on May 10, 2018. As of June 12, 2018, Mr. Colee had still not abated the violations alleged in the Warnings of Violation so the City issued the Finding of Violation that is the subject of this appeal. Between the first Warning of Violation and the subject Finding of Violation Mr. Colee made some limited effort to resolve the situation. He asked the City Council to waive his permit fees for the garage. Mr.Colee asserts he has not yet received a response to his request. Mr. Colee also made some inquiries with Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 5 Renton planning staff about what it would take to acquire a variance for his carport. The carport is allegedly located within his front yard setback. If that is correct, Mr. Colee would need a variance to the front yard setback approved in order to acquire approval of a building permit for the carport. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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 violation identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is quoted below and applied to this appeal via a corresponding conclusion of law. RMC 4-5-060(E1(111: 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by the Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 3. Appellant in Violation. The Appellant has violated RCW 4-5-060(E)(1). As determined in Finding of Fact No.5,Mr.Colee constructed a carport on the subject property without a building permit. As noted in the FOV,RMC 4-5-060 Section 101.2 identifies the International Residential Code("IRC") as comprising part of the City's "Construction Codes." The IRC requires a building permit for the carport and Mr. Colee does not contest this fact. Consequently, since the Appellant failed to acquire a "required permit" under Section 105.1 as quoted above, his is in violation of RMC 4-5-060(E)(1). Although a permit is clearly required by the IRC, the FOV incorrectly identifies the International Building Code ("IBC") as requiring the building permit. This error is not fatal to the City's case, however,since both the IBC and IRC require a permit for the type of structure constructed by Mr.Colee with similar exemptions for structure size and the like. As provided in RMC 4-5-060(A)(6)(b),the IRC applies to the construction of single-family homes and their accessory structures. As provided in RMC 4-5-060(A)(6)(a), single-family homes and their accessory structures are not subject to the IBC. The subject property is developed with a single-family home and the carport is an accessory structure to that home. The IRC, not the IBC, regulates the construction of the carport. Yet the FOV quotes from the applicability section of the IBC to identify the code authority for requiring a permit. Despite this error, Section 105.1 in the FOV identifies that permits required by both the IRC and IBC must be acquired. Further, Mr. Colee did not contest the necessity for a permit and the structural threshold for permit review under both the IBC and the IRC (i.e. applicable exemptions and the like) are very similar and make no difference as they relate to the carport. For these reasons,the inaccurate citation to the IBC in the FOV is not found to have materially misled the Appellant or to have compromised his ability to defend is appeal. For this reason,the IBC error is not found to serve as grounds for sustaining the appeal or requiring an amendment or rehearing. 4. Waiver of Fines. RMC 1-3-2(E)(3)(f) authorizes the hearing examiner to modify fines Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 6 considering factors such as the nature of the offense, the impact on the neighbors, neighborhood, or community and the need to discourage such conduct, inactivity or neglect. For the reasons identified in the Summary of Decision and Finding of Fact No. 6,the $250 fine imposed by the FOV will be waived if the Appellant meets the compliance deadlines set by this decision. DECISION The Finding of Violation (CODE18-000191) is sustained, and the appeal is denied. The full $250 in fines, as authorized by RMC 1-3-2(F)(1), is sustained provided that if the Appellant remedies the code violation by the deadlines imposed by the Order to Correct below,the fine shall be waived. ORDER TO CORRECT The Appellant is required to file complete application(s) for a building and/or variance permit for the carport by April 8, 2019 or in the alternative to remove the carport by that date. If the Appellant elects to apply for permit(s) instead of removing the carport by April 8, 2019, the Appellant shall submit necessary additional permit applications (as determined by staff) and provide required information within time limits reasonably set by staff. If necessary permits are denied or applications are not filed within deadlines,the Appellant shall remove the carport within 60 days of denial or expired deadlines. Failure to correct as ordered shall subject the Appellant to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-3-2(F)(2). Failure to comply with an Order to Correct can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties for a misdemeanor are 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines. DATED this 11 th day of January, 2019. Phi A.Olbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 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.