Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbouttrifts decision � Denis Law Mayor 'A City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC April 12, 2017 Gordon Trifts GT Management, LLC 471145thAv SW Seattle, WA 98116 Re: Hearing Examiner's Order of Dismissal Code Compliance Case FOV#:16-000195 Dear Mr. Trifts: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Order of Dismissal dated April 11, 2017, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, � r Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk Attachment cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Tim Lawless, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector 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 (CODE15-00400) Appellant: Mr. Gordon Trifts GT Management 4711 45rh Avenue SW Seattle, WA 98116 Alleged Violation: No building permit. Location of Violation: 1420 Elma Place NE Renton, WA 98059-4093 Public Hearing: Held on March 14, 2017 at 10:30 am at Renton City HaIL The examiner closed the hearing but left the record open for further documents from the City and appellant. The record remained open until March 28,2017. Decision: Finding of Violation sustained in part. Penalties suspended. SUMMARY OF DECISION The Finding of Violation is sustained in part. The Appellant partially constructed an approved home under a Combined Building Permit. The permit has since expired. The partially completed structure is in violation of the IRC because it does not have an approved building permit. The applicant must either obtain a demolition permit or file for a new building permit within 120 days and complete the authorized work within l80 days. If the appiicant complies,all fines will be suspended. SUMMARY OF HEARING TESTIMONY RMC 1-3-2(J)defines the Hearing Procedures for code violation hearings. It allows the Administrator to hold in- person hearings when necessary. RMC 1-3-2(B)(1) defines Administrator as a City of Renton department administrator or designee. In this instance, the hearing examiner is deemed to be the designated Administrator with respect to the Appeal of the administrative decision. RMC l-3-2(J) lacks a specific hearing procedure for the hearing itself. Therefore, the hearing was conducted pursuant to the appeal hearing procedures of RMC 4-8- 110(E)(9). Appellant Presentation Gordon Trifts began by stating the original Notice of Violation was with respect to high grass, not the existing foundation. He also wanted to state he was not, as alleged by City staff,trying to sell the property and deceiving potential buyers by failing to tell them about the Notice of Violation. No one has come to him asking about the lot; others are doing due diligence and contacting the City directly. He stated he purchased the property with a set of approved plans for the short plat. He stated he built the foundation with an approved permit that was inspected and signed off by the City. He stated his foundation is a legal, non-conforming use. Finally, he noted Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 2 the 50-foot setback from the creek would render his property unusable as his lot is only 40-feet wide. He also notes other,similar properties which have been developed in a similar manner to his existing foundation location. Staff Presentation Donna Locher, Renton Lead Code Compliance Inspector, stated the Appellant's foundation had been poured within a Native Growth Protection Area. She stated the Appellant had been given notice he would need to demolish the existing foundation. A demolition permit is a building permit in the City of Renton and therefore, the Appellant would be required to apply for a building permit to demolish the illegally placed structure. She noted the many times she had visited the site and documented the continued existence of the foundation. She noted there had been an appeal notice for the October 22, 2105 Finding of Violation. Mr. Trifts appealed the Finding, but failed to do so within the appeal period. The examiner dismissed Mr. Trifts appeal as untimely. Ms. Locher noted the original building per►nit for the foundation was issued on January 8, 2008. It expired May 11,2013 but was extended to January 30,2015.The foundation building permit is not expired. Ms.Locher stated the critical areas code the City is enforcing was adopted after the foundation was constructed. She noted the building permit for the foundation was a combination permit for an entire house construction. The foundation portion was constructed and inspected, but because the entire house was never built, the permit was never finalized. EXHIBITS The following exhibits were admitted during the March 14,2017 Hearing: Exhibit 1 Hearing Notice from City, December 9,2016 Exhibit 2 City of Renton Code Compliance Narrative, December 6,2016 E�ibit 3 Attachments for Appeal Attachment 1 Photo of existing footing taken June 30,2015 Attachment 2 Warning of Violation,June 30, 2015 Attachment 3 Letter to Appellant from City, September 10, 2015 Attachment 4 Finding of Violation, October 22,2015 Attachment 5 Appeal to Finding of Violation,November 17, 2015 Attachment 6a Email Correspondence between City and Examiner,November 23, 2015 Attachment 6b Correspondence City to Appellant,November 23, 2015 Attachment 7a Correspondence City to Appellant,December 11,2015 Attachment 7b Email Correspondence between Examiner and City, December 11,2015 Attachment 8a Report and Decision Dismissal of Appeal,January 21, 2016 Attachment 9a Second Finding of Violation, October 20, 2016 Attachment 9b Billing Invoice to Appellant, October 20, 2016 Attachment 9c Title Report, October 19,2009 Attachment l0a Appeal Hearing Notification,November 17, 2016 Attachment l Ob Appeal to Finding of Violation,November 7, 2016 Attachment l la City Internal Email Correspondence,November 23, 2016 Attachment 11 b City of Renton Map Attachment 1 lc Cottages at Honey Creek Plat Map Attachment 12a Combination Building Permit CP07237,January 8,2008 Attachment 12b Building Permit Extension, Incorrectly post-dated Attachment 12c Building Permit Expiration Notice, Undated Attachment 13 Unpaid Billing Invoices, August 23,2016 and October 20, 2016 Attachment 14 Photos taken December 6, 2016 Attachment 15 Building Permit(CP07237)Inspection Report Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 3 The examiner closed the hearing but left the record open for further documents from the City and Appellant. The following exhibits were admitted to the record after the hearing. The record remained open until March 28,2017. Exhibit 4 Building Permit(CP07237)Cover Sheet,June 14,2007 Exhibit 5 Reissued Building(CP07237)Permit Cover Sheet, October 8, 2010 Exhibit 6 Revised Building Per►nit(RCP07237),July 19,2012 Exhibit 7 Original Plot Plan for 1420 Elma and CP07237 Exhibit 8 Letter to Examiner from Appellant, March 24, 2017 Exhibit 9 RMC 4-i-045 Exhibit 10 City Internal Email Correspondence,March 17, 2107,with attachment FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Gordon Trifts is the property owner for 1420 Elma Place NE. 2. The property is zoned Residentiai 10(R-10). 3. A Finding of Violation(Ex.3,Att. 4)was mailed to Mr. Trifts on or about October 22, 2015. The City received an appeal of the Finding of Violation on November 17, 2015 (Ex. 3, Att. 5). The Examiner dismissed the appeal as untimely on January 21, 2016(Ex. 3, Att. 8a). 4. A second Finding of Violation was issued to Mr. Trifts on October 20,2016(Ex. 3,Att. 9a). The City received an appeal of the Finding of Violation on November 7, 2016 (Ex. 3, Att. l Ob). 5. Neither Findings of Violation listed a specific violation but instead stated the following code text, "Code Text: No Buiiding Permit: The City of Renton Municipal Code requires building permits to be issued for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, remove, convert or demolish, use, occupy or maintain any building or structure in the city." This text appears to be paraphrasing RMC 4-5-060(E)(1). However, the Warning of Violation (Ex. 3, Att. 2) stated the violation occurred to RMC 4-5-050(B) (IBC) and RMC 4-5-055(B) (IRC) and the corrective action was to obtain a demolition permit to remove the existing foundation that was incorrectly poured within the native growth protection area on this lot. 6. The Plat of the Cottages at Honey Creek(Ex. 3, Att. 11 c) shows the OHWM of Honey Creek as well as the 50-foot buffer line.The 50-foot buffer line does extend partia(ly into the subject lot.No additional building setback line from the buffer is shown. Between Honey Creek and the subject lot is an Open Space Tract(Tract D). 7. The present Examiner requested,but did not receive,a copy of the October 5, 2006 Hearing Examiner Decision regarding the Major Revision to the plat. However, the City's submittal (Ex. 10) included internal correspondence between Mona Davis and Clark Close in which Ms. Davis states, "Page 7 of the HEX decision indicates that the stream buffer was avera�ed and in some cases reduced from the Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 4 50-foot required buffer."(Emphasis original author.)No testimony refuted this claim. Another portion of the same document has a hand-written,unattributed staff note that states development had previously been allowed in the native growth protection area over portions of lots without an additional 15-foot setback and that averaging of the stream [buffer] was allowed so long as no portion was less than 25- wide [from the OHMW]. 8. The City issued a New Single Family Residence Combined Permit on January 8,2008(Ex.3,Att. 12a). The permit was reissued in October 2010(Ex. 5)The foundation was poured on October 13,2010(Ex. 3,Att. 12a). Revised plans were approved July 19,2012(Ex. 6). The initial footing was inspected and approved on April 30,2013 (Ex. 3,Att. 15). 9. The building permit was extended to May 11,2013(Ex.3,Att. 12b)and appears to have been extended again to 2015. The City sent an undated letter to the Appellant stating the permit would expire January 30, 2015 (Ex. 3, Att. lZc). The building permit is now expired. As the construction activity on the project ceased for more than 180 days,the permit is also expired pursuant to IBC R105.5. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The subject property is zoned Residential 10(R-10);however,when the building permit was issued the zoning was Center Neighborhood(Ex. 10). 2. RMC 1-3-2(A)(1)defines code violations as violations of, in part,RMC 4-2 Zoning Districts Uses and Standards, RMC 4-5 Building and Fire Prevention Standards, RMC 4-9 Permits—Specific, and RMC 4-10 Legal Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Uses and Lots. 3. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Finding of Violation as a designee of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development. See RMC 1-3-2(B)(1) and RMC 1-3-2(G). 4. The alleged violation of RMC 4-5-055(B)(IRC)does not apply. RMC 4-5-055(B)provides exceptions for temporary growing structures.No temporary growing structure is at issue. 5. The citation for RMC 4-5-050(B)(IBC)is incorrect.The IBC does not apply to single family dwellings. The correct reference is the IRC. 6. The subject property does not appear to have been within a designated Native Growth Protection Area at the time of platting or permit issuance. While the original plat did specifically identify the statutory buffer for the creek, no mention of a native growth protection area on the subject lot was specifically mentioned on the original plat(Ex. 3,Att. l lc),nor was it called out on the individual plat plan far the building footprint (Ex. 7) presented at the time the combined building permit was issued, reissued or revised (Ex. 3, Att. 12a). Though the City had multiple opportunities to review both the plat and all subsequent permits,no issue related to the presence of a native growth protection area was raised until fully two years after the foundation was poured and inspected.Given that the hearing examiner decision on the revised plat stated there had been buffer averaging (Ex. 10) and the City's testimony also acknowledges buffer averaging (Ex. 10), the examiner finds there was likely no native growth protection area applicable to this lot at the time of building permit issuance. 7. The City's critical areas codes presently define both stream and wetland buffers. Though staff mentioned wetland buffers,no evidence of the presence of wetlands or wetland buffers was presented. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 5 Staff provided evidence of only the 50-foot regulatory buffer for Honey Creek which as previously mentioned was clearly shown on the Cottages at Honey Creek plat. The City of Rentods COR maps do show wetlands associated with Honey Creek in the vicinity of the subject lot. The City's current critical areas buffer for a Type Ns stream is 50 feet plus a 15-foot structure setback beyond the buffer. Wetlands buffers are based on the Category and Habitat Function of the buffer and range from no buffer to 175 feet. Wetland buffers, if applicable, also have a 15-foot structure setback from the edge of the buffer(RMC 4-3-050(G)(2)). Each of the critical areas and their associated buffers must be protected within a native growth protection area(RMC 4-3-050(G)(3)).The City code allows reduction of stream buffers to 25-feet with buffer averaging. Wetland buffers widths may be reduced by up to 25% of the required buffer(RMC 4-3-050(I)(1)). The subject is in excess of 25-feet from the OWHM. It is unclear what type of wetland is adjacent to the creek and which associated buffer applies,if any. The Examiner has insufficient evidence to conclude if the project is within a current critical areas buffer. 8. The applicant noted his permit was approved and inspected. He therefore argues the foundation is a vested feature not subject to new codes (Ex. 3, Att. 5). If the application had been for a foundation permit only, that argument would succeed. However, the application was for a Combined Building Permit of which the foundation was only a portion.The intent of the Combined Building Permit was to result in a habitable structure. Given that only a portion of the structure was constructed, no certificate of occupancy was ever given, and the permit is expired,the foundation does not have a vested permit. The foundation is therefore in violation of the IRC requirements mandating a building permit. The Appellant must either demolish the structure (with a permit) or obtain approval of a new building permit. 9. Mr. Trifts seems legitimately confused as to why the foundation is not vested and as to which codes he has violated. The City provided incorrect code references and failed to explain the difference between a completed and incomplete permit approval.Therefore,the examiner will suspend all fines if Mr.Trifts files a completed demolition permit within 120 days and completes the authorized work within 180 days of approval or if he obtains an approved building permit within 120 days. DECISION The Findings of Violation (Ex. 3, Att. 4 and 9a) are sustained, in part. The Appellant must have an approved building permit(IRC 105.5). If the Appellant meets one of the following conditions,the examiner will suspend all charges. The Appellant may either: 1. File a complete demolition permit within 120 days and complete the authorized work within 180 days of permit approval;or 2. Obtain approval for a new building permit. DATED this 11"'day of April, 2017. c� ��---- �`""'_\ 1�...Q.l,t.2•�-� Emily Terrell,AICP City of Renton Hearing Examiner Pro Tem Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 6 Appeal Rights RMC 1-3-2(B)(1) defines Administrator as a City of Renton department administrator or designee. In this instance the hearing examiner is deemed to be the designated Administrator. RMC 1-3-2(0) provides appeals of the Administrator's decision in non-land use cases must be directed to Superior Court with an appropriate petition or motion.Any appeal of the Administrator's decision must be filed and served within twenty-one(21)calendar days of the issuance of the decision. The scope of any appeal is (imited to the conditions of the property at the time the violation was found. Relitigation of previously imposed costs and/or penaities is prohibited. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City Hall —7`h floor, (425)430- 6510.