HomeMy WebLinkAboutInex Petersen email recap 8/6/2019Alex,
I am confirming the stay of proceedings re Jeff Colee's carport.
I wanted to add another consideration about the carport. A buyer who is disabled or who has a disabled member of the family should not be compelled to remove the carport. Such a sale
should be grandfathered in because that disabled person will encounter the same obstacles Jeff has.
As you confirmed earlier today, the Administration didn't want to let Jeff have his carport because the City might have to let others have similar carports. That is contrary to both
the letter and spirit of the ADA. Disabled persons need the umbrella provided by the ADA to protect them from the crap that rains down upon them when city, county or state entities
take such a position. I am very glad that you support Renton's compliance with the ADA. That attitude I hope is contagious.
About the "retaining wall," Alex Morganroth, City Planning Dept, 425-430-7219, told Jeff Colee his raised garden was on his property, not the City's. This was during construction.
Then Donna Locher came by and questioned whether it was on city property. Hence the "hunch" theory--she has nothing but a hunch and it is causing unnecessary (I think) work for others--and
the need for a survey. Nip this one in bud, why don't you?
Also, what is the City's code on raised garden beds? Jeff does not have a retaining wall.
Sincerely,
Inez
On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 3:36 PM Alex Tuttle <ATuttle@rentonwa.gov> wrote:
Thank you Ms. Petersen.
If it wouldn’t be too much trouble, would you please respond to my email and include Ms. Moya (of our City Clerk’s office) to let her know you agree to the stay of the upcoming hearing?
I would normally forward this email (below), but I wanted to clarify a couple of things before sending it to a third party.
Although it is commonly the City’s practice not to fine residential property owners daily for violations, and I do not believe the City in Mr. Colee’s case has fined him beyond the
original citation, I did not represent that the City will agree to withhold fines (or return fines collected) in our conversation today; I am assuming that you are merely stating your
position on behalf of Mr. Colee that the fines be waived for purposes of these settlement discussions. Which is duly noted.
Secondly, as for the fines/fees/costs already incurred by your client, I have no independent knowledge of those amounts and I cannot confirm those are actual expenses incurred by Mr.
Colee. No doubt he certainly has incurred some expenses, and I take your representations of those at face value.
Finally, to be clear on your “hunch” issue, the City of Renton (COR) Maps <http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps> can be found using the attached link. Although
the maps are not 100% accurate, that is why the City requires a survey to be conducted when it comes to matters directly adjoining the right of way. It’s hard to say for sure, but it
certainly appears that the structures we discussed today would be close to, if not encroaching into the right of way. If there is another way to ascertain the exact property lines, I
am open to hearing your suggestions.
In the meantime, as discussed, I will take your comments and concerns to my client(s) and respond accordingly once they have had a chance to digest this new information.
Sincerely,
Alex Tuttle | Assistant City Attorney
1055 S. Grady Way | Renton WA 98057
ATuttle@RentonWA.gov <mailto:ATuttle@RentonWA.gov> | (425) 430-6492
From: Inez "Ine" Petersen <inezpetersenjd@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 2:23 PM
To: Alex Tuttle <ATuttle@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Quick RECAP of our telephone conversation this afternoon re Jeff Colee's carport
Dear Alex,
It was great speaking with you this afternoon. Here's a RECAP of our conversation (at least from my perspective). I look forward to hearing from you.
1. Jeff Colee's carport OK is to be removed when property is sold; Jeff had already agreed to this. This requirement would be incorporated into the deed or as a Lis Pendens, whatever
format the City prefers. If the former, a covenant will be recorded, the deed revised to integrate the covenant, and re-recorded. If the latter, the Lis Pendens will contain the terms
of the agreement and also be recorded. The Lis Pendens looks like the simplest to me.
2. All hearings and fines related to Jeff's property will be put into abeyance while further coordination to resolve the conflict occurs. Fines to be cancelled upon resolution of
carport.
3. If neighbors should want a carport which violates code, and they are not disabled, then the City can justifiably say NO to that neighbor. If the person is disabled, then the ADA
requires the City to make accommodation no matter how many disabled neighbors might be requesting accommodation.
4. Jeff already paid the extra $600 for filing for a permit late.
5. Jeff was required to pay $4,000 for an engineering report to verify the snow load and wind capacity of his carport.
$4,000 was an extreme financial hardship on Jeff considering his monthly income WHEN the manufacturer's specs could have sufficed.***
6. Retaining wall - alleged encroachment raises these questions:
How much is the encroachment?
Was the prior wall encroaching too?
Is the wall part of Jeff Colee's raised beds?
Is there a reason related to Jeff's disability that requires the encroachment?
Is the encroachment negatively affecting anyone or anything now?
Has it negatively affected anyone or anything in the past?
7. A survey is required to determine extent of encroachment.
If a survey is required to find out particulars, then the code enforcement officer just has a "hunch" that the wall encroaches. Based on the "hunch" theory, the City could just as
well forget the matter as continue to press it.
Because Jeff paid $4,000 to provide proof to the City that his carport was sturdy and it is, I am asking that the City considering paying for the cost of the survey.
***I also do not think the ADA requires the disabled person to pay costs incurred by the public entity in providing the accommodation that the ADA requires.
The "hunch" theory also raises the question as to whether the code enforcement officer is targeting Jeff because he has been fighting for his rights under the ADA. Being blind to ADA
requirements makes the code enforcement officer look bad. (I didn't bring this matter up during our phone conversation, but it is not a far fetched perspective.)
Inez