Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-14-2021 - Order of Dismissal -- Untimely -- Snyder Order of Dismissal PAGE 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF RENTON IN RE: Frank Snyder Finding of Violation Appeal Code No. 19-000584 ORDER UPON RECONSIDERATION GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Summary The City’s motion to deny Mr. Snyder’s motion is granted upon reconsideration. The May 12, 2021 order denying the City’s motion for dismissal was based upon the erroneous understanding that Mr. Snyder’s appeal was mailed as opposed to emailed. Since Mr. Snyder’s appeal was emailed, the deadline for receipt by the City was April 2, 2021. The City only received the appeal on April4, 2021. Since Mr. Snyder’s appeal was untimely, it must be dismissed. Evidence Relied Upon 1. Email string from Cynthia Moya to Phil Olbrechts dated April 5, 2021 2. Email string from Phil Olbrechts to Frank Snyder dated April 12, 2021 3. Email from Frank Snyder to Phil Olbrechts dated April 14, 2021 4. Email from Phil Olbrechts to Frank Snyder and Donna Locher dated April 28, 2021 5. Email from Donna Locher dated April 28, 2021 Order of Dismissal PAGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 6. Email from Frank Snyder dated April 29, 2021 7. Order Denying Motion to Dismiss dated May 12, 2021 8. Email string from Frank Snyder dated May 13, 2021 Findings of Fact 1. Mr. Snyder was mailed a Finding of Violation Second Notice (FOV) on March 15, 2021. See Ex. 4 attachments (FOV and Certified Mail Receipt). 2. Mr. Snyder emailed his appeal on April 2, 2021 (See Ex. 3 attachment). Ms. Locher wrote in an email that the appeal was received by the City on April 4, 2021. See Ex. 1. Ms. Locher sent an email to the examiner on April 5, 2021 requesting dismissal of the appeal as untimely. See Ex. 1. The motion was denied by order dated May 12, 2021. See Ex. 7. Dismissal was based upon the finding that the appeal filing deadline for Mr. Snyder was April 2, 2021 and that his appeal must have been postmarked by that date. Id. 3. Ms. Locher requested reconsideration of the order denying her motion to dismiss. See Ex. 8. Mr. Locher identified that Mr. Snyder did not send his appeal by mail, so it was not postmarked on the day the appeal was dated, April 2, 2021. She clarified that the appeal was emailed instead of mailed and that the email was received on April 4, 2021. Id. Mr. Snyder acknowledged that the email had not been sent from his computer until April 4, 2021. He explained that he had attempted to send the email on April 2, 2021 and thought that he had done so. He subsequently learned that the email wasn’t sent until two days later due to technical problems with his computer or disruptions in internet service. Id. Conclusions of Law 1. Renton Municipal Code (“RMC”) Section 1-3-2E2b requires an appellant to file and serve an appeal of a finding of violation “within fifteen (15) days of the date of the Finding of Violation” and RMC 1-3-2E2a requires the filing of the appeal within 15 days of the date of “issuance” of the Finding of Valuation, and Construing the “issuance” date from RMC 1-3-2E2b as three days after mailing as set by Superior Court Civil Rule 6e for deadlines based upon mailed documents, the filing deadline for the Finding of Violation mailed on March 15, 2021 was April 2, 2021. Mr. Snyder attempted to email his appeal to the City on April 2, 2021, but it was not received by the City until April 4, 2021 due to technical problems with Mr. Order of Dismissal PAGE 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Snyder’s computer or his internet service provider. Unlike mailing a document, the date of receipt for an email is the appropriate date for assessing compliance with service deadlines since emails are typically received almost instantaneously from the time sent. The technical problems incurred by Mr. Snyder do not excuse the late service. There does not appear to be any case law that directly applies to the timeliness of meeting administrative appeal deadlines for local code enforcement actions. The most directly applicable case law addresses the judicial filing deadlines for actions governed by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW (LUPA). LUPA governs judicial appeals of local code enforcement actions. See RCW 36.70C.020(2)(c). Washington courts recognize that they require parties to strictly adhere to the statutory procedures provided under LUPA for filing and serving land use petitions. See Conom v. Snohomish County, 155 Wn. 2d 154, 159 (2005). The courts find strict adherence to statutory time limits to be consistent with the strong public policy supporting administrative finality in land use decisions. Id. One of the more instructive cases on timeliness of service in a LUPA appeal is San Juan Fidalgo v. Skagit County, 87 Wn. App. 703 (1997). In that case, the court dismissed a lawsuit because it was served on the County Auditor’s Office 20 minutes after the service deadline set by LUPA statutes. RCW 36.70C.040(5) authorizes service upon a County by serving a deputy auditor during normal business hours if served within 21 days of issuance of the final local land use decision. The petitioner in San Juan served a deputy auditor 20 minutes after the Auditor’s Office was closed on the 21st day. Given the strict implementation of time limits for LUPA appeals, it appears likely that a court would expect the same for administrative code enforcement appeals. If a code enforcement appellant waits until the last day of the appeals period to file an appeal, that appellant bears the risk of something going wrong along that will prevent him or her from filing on time. That is what occurred in this instance. Code enforcement appeals cost Renton taxpayers a substantial amount of money in relation to the relatively small amount of fines at issue. The City needs an expeditious, predictable and economical enforcement code enforcement process to effectively serve the public interest. Creating exceptions to filing deadlines subverts all of these objectives. Upon reconsideration, the May 12, 2021 order denying the City’s motion for dismissal was based upon the erroneous understanding that Mr. Snyder mailed his appeal. With the proper understanding that his appeal was emailed instead, Mr. Snyder’s appeal must be construed as untimely since it was received on April 4, 2021 and the deadline for receipt by the City was April 2, 2021. Order Order of Dismissal PAGE 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Mr. Snyder’s appeal was untimely. The May 12, 2021 order denying the City’s motion to dismiss is reversed. Mr. Snyder’s appeal is dismissed. ORDERED this 14th day of May 2021. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right This order is a final decision on Mr. Snyder’s appeal and is appealable to superior court within 21 days of the issuance of this order as governed by the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.