Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutColee Appeal to HEX Denis Law Mayor City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC July 9, 2019 Jeffrey Colee 10935 SE 182"d St Renton, WA 98055 Re: Appeal to the Hearing Examiner Carport Denial— Reasonable Accommodation Request &Appeal Fee Waiver Dear Mr. Colee: We are in receipt of your Notice of Appeal (dated 7/03/2019) requesting a hearing for the above mentioned matter. This hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. Please note that more than one hearing may be held at this time. If your case is called and you are not present, your appeal may be automatically denied. If for some reason you do not plan to attend, or you have any questions, please contact me in advance of the hearing date at 425-430-6510. Sincerely, Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk Attachments:Appeal to Hearing Examiner cc: Hearing Examiner Chip Vincent, CED Administrator Jennifer Henning, Planning Director Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager Craig Burnell, Building Official Jennifer Cisneros, Planning Technician Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov Denis Law Mayor TR City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC July 9, 2019 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON ) § COUNTY OF KING JASON A. SETH, City Clerk for the City of Renton, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 21 and not a party to nor interested in this matter. That on the 9th day of July, 2019, at the hour of 4:30 p.m. your affiant duly mailed and placed in the United States Post Office at Renton, King County, Washington, by email &first class mail the Appeal to the Hearing Examiner regarding the Colee Carport Denial &Appeal Fee Waiver dated July 3, 2019, to the attached Parties of Record. Jason . Seth, MC i Clerk BSCRI D SWORN TO BEFORE me this 9th day of July, 2019. \‘‘‘`\\\\111I III I c!: :'E:: ) 57922 2 Cynthia R.Notary Public n and for the State of i� � '%,, &2y3'1s'6 _s Washington, residing in Renton ��� �OF„wixe zs My Commission expires: 8/27/2022 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov • CITY OF RENTON Mr)14 Jeffrey Colee JUL 0 3 2019 w,t) 10935 SE 182nd St Renton, Wa 98055 RECEIVED thejc63@q.com CITY CLERKS OFFICE 253 448 0640 I'm appealing the Reasonable Accommodation Request for my Carport Denial dated June 21,2019. The ruling violates the Americans with Disability Act(ADA) by not modifying the 20' setback rule. What part of "I can't park both vehicles in the garage and get my wheelchair in and out and transfer in and out of the vehicles." does the city not understand? This fact fundamentally does not afford me the same enjoyment or USE of my dwelling like if I were able bodied. Even if I could park both vehicles in the garage and get me and the wheelchair in and out I would still be denied access to the electrical panel, water shut off valve and the hot water heater which an able bodied person would have access which denies me the same enjoyment and USE like everyone else, and its a safety issue. The denial sites the carport changes the character of the neighborhood, aka looks?, the neighborhood does not agree, see survey, question 4 and 6. Part of the City's reasoning/evidence comes from Google Earth Street View??? The City says "the intended purpose of your attached garage as originally constructed was to accommodate the parking two vehicles." yes but not the vehicles of the handicapped that is required to have the drivers doors open all the way to be able to get wheelchair in and out of the vehicles. Have you seen a handicapped parking space in a parking lot and how there is a wide striped off no parking space where ones guaranteed to get their door open all the way? The whole shop in the backyard thing is not practical, affordable, or reasonable. How do I get wood to the shop? I'm asking for a waiver of the Appeal Fee. The City is wrong in their ruling. I'm on Social Security Disability and live month to month on $1,134/month. I have already paid the penalty for putting up the carport without a permit by paying double the regular permit fee$626.37. I was also forced to pay$3,970 to have an engineering firm confirm the snow and wind specs the manufacturer of the carport gave in order to apply for a permit. Jeffrey Colee 7/3/2019 Jeff Colee 10935 SE 182nd St Renton, Wa 98055 Carport Reasonable Accommodation Request Denial Code 18 000191 June 24, 2019 Contents: Five Minute Council Speech. Page 2 Garage Drawing Page 3 Garage Drawing Description Page 4 Facts and Opinions I Can't Express in 5 Minutes Page 5, 6 Reasonable Accommodation Denial Page 7-10 Reasonable Accommodation Request and Survey Page 11-14 Reasonable Modification to Setbacks Page 15,16 Inez Petersen Letter to Council (read into record) Page 17,18 Inez Petersen Letter(additional Information) Page 19-31 Page 1 MUMMEMONak Mr Mayor and council members, I am here before you again to plead for my carport. I have gone through the permit process as I was advised by the city attorney after my hearing where he told me the council wants me to go through the permit process. On Friday I received a denial of my permit and reasonable accommodation request. Their ruling is completely flawed. They are not acknowledging the fact that I am unable to get both vehicles in the garage (see attached drawing) and be able to get my wheelchair and self out of the car. I have offered to demonstrate this fact and have offered them use of a wheelchair so they can show me how to do it. They don't seem to understand the necessity of having immediate access to the electrical panel, hot water heater and water shut off valve which is denied me with the vehicles in the garage. Every home owner should have immediate access to these components. They claim that I have chosen to use my garage as a wood shop and storage area instead of a parking area. They say that I can build a wood shop in my back yard. The garage is the only practical place for the wood shop. I can get a sheet of plywood out of my truck and into the garage and to the table saw. I can't get a sheet of plywood all the way to a shop in the back yard. Again I have offered the use of a wheelchair so they can show me how to do it. They claim that it is not necessary to allow the carport to encroach into the setback to afford me the equal opportunity to use and enjoy my dwelling like everyone else in the neighborhood, yet most of the households use their garage for storage and such other than parking space, which they are denying me. The people who use their driveways to park their vehicles can get out and into their homes in bad weather much quicker than I can and they can walk through snow when more than 2" of snow is a problem for me. They claim the carport conflicts with the character of the neighborhood, yet I submitted a survey I took of most every household (22) within a block of my home which everyone replied that the carport is not a detriment to the neighborhood and agree with the reasonable accommodation request. Everyone likes the look of my property. I regularly get compliments on my property by the people who walk the neighborhood and people who drive by. I have paid the penalty for applying for a permit after constructing the carport by paying double, $626.37, I except responsibility for that. I also had to pay an engineering firm$3,970 to confirm with the manufacturer of the carport, Versatube, that it can withstand a 20 psf snow load and a 115 mph wind. The city would not take the word of Versatube. They would not take my permit application without the engineering calculations. I believe the City of Renton is directly responsible for my forced move from 330 Park Ave N in that the city would not issue permits to build the Satori Elementary school with my house still standing insisting the school district must purchase all the properties on that city block. I had to give up my home I spent my whole wheelchair life(26 years) in, and had set up for me to remain independent for the rest of my life, for the good of the community. The city has the ability to grant the carport by means of the reasonable accommodation request. I'm asking the council to grant the permit for the carport and end this horrible experience. They say I can appeal the decision in writing and pay a fee, which I will do if I have to. I would ask the council to wave the fee as the people who made this decision have completely not considered my reasonable accommodation request or believe what I have submitted in that request. They have made their decision without direct knowledge of the situation. I offer to the council to come sit in my spare wheelchair and try to park my vehicles in the garage and get the wheelchair in and out and transfer into the chair, and then try to move a sheet of plywood from the driveway to the back yard using a wheelchair. ,.. t „ • / '-77 r, .,'", , 1 t ' ' ,F.:(-:. .., , ., .. ,. __ „... — „,--- , , , I •trr,- f , — ----- t . I . 1 I - . . • - , t ......_ • -7,tti-:-..----4-- . , • . , ;-, ; •...,. I . ; t , . . .. i t , , . . . . , ..--, , . r r ir /.--- r t -'77.= ....•. .., r . .„----- . . . _ . i . , .• , . , . . .. . , . : IA , • _ . . , ,,. i t t I t ; ; t . r . -------ir',,':_,—. ..i'',tr`Ivt— 11„,',7'"- a• a I , . , , • , . r.... r-t. — --•• , . . h -, '',„ /^/ t.:2••••-- /' ..1.7:-.7t-t-r-2 T „,- r...:: ,- . --- - ---; _-- ,-_-. - - - .-- ; _----- ,.. .-'.' -1 ,;-:.--J,..,:-:,-- '' . „/;--.);,---.',-;..._-: - - - . - . --. Garage Drawing Description Both vehicles must have drivers door open to the center of the garage. One vehicle pulled in front way and the other backed in. To try parking with drivers door opening to the wall side of the garage would trap me on the side unable to get out around the big garage door. Due to the slope of the 5' ramp(3/20 slope, public code for ramps is 1/11) I require room to get a run at the ramp to get up to the landing. There is not enough room on the sides of the landing. There must be a landing at the garage/house door to allow me to open the door and it must be big enough for me to safely turn around. With both vehicles parked in the garage I am denied access to the electric panel, hot water heater and water shut off valve which does not afford me the same use and access as able body persons. Having immediate access to these three critical components is a right of every homeowner and a safety issue. With both vehicles park in the garage I can't access shelves on both sides of the garage like able body people can. I can't get to the refrigerator. This doesn't provide me equal opportunity to use and enjoy my dwelling. Truck measurements are from passenger side mirror to drivers side door, width, and from bumper to bumper, length. The truck door is 46" long and requires 39" to open all the way. The Falcon measurements are the length of the bumper, width, and from bumper to bumper, length. The Falcon door is 48" long and opens at 42" all the way. Allowing 12" between the vehicles and the side of the garage door opening is reasonable and safe. The distance between the vehicles is 30". There is not enough room to get the doors open all the way as is required for me to get in and out of the vehicles and be able to take apart and assemble the wheelchair. After thinking about it, I got my drawing a little wrong. The truck should be pulled in front ways on the right hand side of the garage so that the tailgate could be accessed and I could unload my box of groceries. The Falcon would have to be backed in on the left side. It doesn't change any dimensions. Facts and Opinions that I can't express in five minutes. Money; I receive just over$1,100 Social Security a month income to live on. I qualify for the Senior Citizen and Disabled Low Income Property Tax Exempt Program which is designed to help us afford to stay in our homes where the quality of life is greatest. The program takes the assessed value of your property the year you apply and freezes it for as long as you qualify and live in the home. It takes that value and either takes 60% or$60,000 off, which ever is greater. At 330 Park Ave N my assessed value was$75,500 - $60,000= $15,500 taxable. Because I was forced to move for the good of the community I lost that value, it is not transferable to a new property. At 10935 SE 182nd St my assessed value when I bought the home was$285,000 - 60% ($171,000) = $114,000 taxable. This is a 735% increase I have to suffer the rest of my life. What did I do to deserve this financial punishment. Thank You Renton!!! The expense to build a wood shop in the back yard is far greater than building a carport and using the garage as a wood shop. My garage at Park Ave was my wood shop. The Renton School District did not give me any money to build a wood shop in my back yard, nor any money for the carport that I had or the one I built. Again it's not practical or reasonable to have a wood shop in the back yard, how do I get a sheet of plywood from the driveway to a shop in the back yard using a wheelchair? The money that I used to build and now having to spend to defend my carport is coming out of the money the school district settled on for me to remodel my kitchen to make it more accessible and replace the G%#$%@* F&*%+?# carpet with hard wood flooring. Carpet and the wheelchair don't get along at all. I am now going to have to save money for a couple of years to afford to remodel and will have to do the work myself. This sets me back now five years at least get back to where I was because of the forced move for the good of the Renton community. Character of the Neighborhood; What is the character of the neighborhood? No one in the neighborhood has complained about the carport. Every single person that regularly walks the neighborhood has stopped and talked to me. They all praise me for what I have done and compliment me on how my place looks. Some people have said I have the best looking house in the neighborhood. My survey was answered unanimously that the carport is not a detriment to the neighborhood. No one feels it lowers anyones property values. All but one likes the look of the carport. One resident answered N/A saying his opinion on the looks of the carport was irrelevant. EVERYONE thinks it would be a reasonable accommodation for the City of Renton to allow the carport for the handicapped to access his vehicles during inclement weather. I have 100% support of my neighborhood. The carport has been up now for two years with no complaints and has not interfered with the function of the City of Renton in any way, shape or form. The carport has not effected any utilities, fire department or police. My mail box is just inside the carport by the road so the mail man doesn't have to come all the way to my front door to deliver the mail. I get home delivery due to my community box is on the top row where I can't reach it. Everything I have done at 10935 SE 182nd St, from turning the inaccessible 1 and 3/4 bathrooms into one accessible bathroom laid out exactly the way the 330 Park Ave N bathroom was, to installing hardwood floors, to widening doors, to making the yard accessible with sidewalks and making raised garden beds so I can play in the dirt, to planting the same plants that i had before. I'm trying to get back to where I was before my house of 29 years, 26 in a wheelchair, was taken from me. It took a long time for me to get the Park Ave house set up for me to remain independent. I found what works for me and am just trying to get back there. I feel like I'm being treated like a criminal. Remember my home was taken from me for the good of the community. The community in return should allow me to get back what I had. How is that not fair? If this happened to you or your family member how would you feel? Putting up a carport that harms no one or anything. It doesn't detract from the character of the neighborhood, the neighborhood has spoken in favor of the carport. The people who have passed judgement on me seem to have no concept of what it is like to be in a wheelchair. I have offered a wheelchair for them to use to show me how to get my vehicles in the garage and wood to the back yard, no takers. They lack knowledge and compassion. Never once has anyone in the compliance department offered to help me find a way to keep the carport. i Denis Law Mayor , k'NTO' Community&Economic Development C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator June 21, 2019 Jeffrey Colee 10935 SE 182"d St Renton, WA 98055 VIA Email: thejc53@o.corn` SUBJECT: Reasonable Use Accommodation Request for Carport at 10935 SE 182"d St,Renton WA,98055 Dear Mr.Colee: The Department of Community& Economic Development(CED) received your Residential Alteration Building Permit application for the construction of a carport at 10935 SE 182"d St (B19001801)on April 5, 2019. This letter serves as an official response to the Reasonable Accommodation request enclosed with your application. The subject carport was constructed without a permit in the fall of 2017. On April 18, 2018,a Warning of Violation(NOV)was issued for failing to obtain a building permit for the structure(CODE18-000191). A second Notice of Violation was issued on May 10, 2018. On June 12, 2018,a Finding of Violation (FOV) was issued due to the continued lack of compliance with the original NOV.After the FOV was issued, Current Planning staff performed a site visit in attempt to determine whether or not the structure was in compliance with the development standards in RMC 4-2-110.A.The subject property is located in the R- 8 zone and is therefore subject to a 20 foot front yard setback. During the site visit, staff estimated that the unpermitted carport encroached approximately 15 feet into the front yard setback zone and was constructed less than five feet from the right-of-way. On June 27, 2018,you filed an appeal of the FOV dated June 27,2018 and on December 11, 2018 the appeal hearing was held with the Hearing Examiner. On January 11, 2019,the Hearing Examiner issued an Order to Correct which included the requirement for you to either submit a building permit for the unpermitted carport structure or completely remove the structure. In response to the Order to Correct, you submitted a building permit application for the carport and included the request for a reasonable use accommodation. The reasonable use accommodation seeks to allow the carport to remain in its current state of encroachment into the setback. According to the documentation you submitted for your accommodation request,you state that due to being a wheelchair user,the carport is necessary in ensuring that you can enter and exit your vehicle June 21,2019 Page 2 of 3 while out of the elements.You also state that maneuverability in your attached,two-car garage is limited when both cars are parked in the garage and that you cannot access systems such as the electric panel and water heater. Due to your inability to use the garage as both a shop and parking area for your vehicles,you claim that the carport is necessary in order to afford you the same enjoyment or use as No% /9ni " UAr others. Fv2- PH�KI t&Z RS,W4 After careful consideration,staff has determined that your request to allow the carport to encroach into (p j— `7f9O F the setback is not necessary to afford you the equal opportunity to use and enjoy your dwelling and therefore the setback accommodation does not constitute a valid reasonable use accommodation request. This determination was made for the following reasons: 1.The required front yard setback for the R-8 zone,where your property is located, is 20 feet.The carport currently encroaches approximately fifteen (15') feet into the front yard setback. The majority of single-family homes near your property were constructed in the late 1970s and all twelve other homes on your block are in conformance with the current front yard setback requirement. In addition, no structures within 300 feet of your property encroach more than five(5')feet into the setback. The � I significant encroachment of your proposed carport fundamentally conflicts with the character of the1.14 6l6/ifi neighborhood and is not consistent with the zoning development pattern that has been established IV lei along 182" St and in the surrounding area. y i•� 2.The purpose of a reasonable use accommodation is to allow for the alteration of certain development standards to ensure persons with a disability are afforded equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. in the request for accommodation submitted with the building permit,you state that the carport is `EO: necessary in order to allow you to access your vehicle out of the elements. However,the existing two- NC)/ car attached garage on the property already allows for this and affords you the same right as your neighbor's w�Tio also have attached two-car garages. Recent Google Street View photography taken after construction of the carport shows that you have essentially repurposed your garage into a woodshop and storage area,which has created the need for vehicle parking in the driveway rather than the garage (Exhibit 1). Like most garages,the intended purpose of your attacked arage as originally constructed_or- was to accommodate the parking of two vehicles.The lack of space to park your vehicles is entirely a $oi 'j 1peOPZ result of your decision to use the garage for a shop instead of its intended and more common purpose. NU l -- Under Renton municipal code, alternative accessory structures and storage options would allow for additional storage that would comply with the City's ordinances and allow for your excess materials to be legally stored elsewhere.Accessory structures would be consistent with the neighborhood and development pattern in the surrounding area and the R-8 zone. Based on the materials submitted to the Community& Economic Development Department for review of building permit B19001801,the above facts and circumstances,as well as the legal requirements under the Renton Municipal Code and state and federal law,the City is denying your application. If you wish to appeal this decision, please submit a written request for appeal and the associated fee to the ¶21'' c,. .},, +. h�6 N't June 21,2019 Page 3 of 3 City Clerk's office within 14 days from the date of this decision. Please contact Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner at (425)430-7219 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, i Orr Jennifer T. Henning,AICP Planning Director cc Chip Vincent,CED Administrator Vanessa Dolbee,Current Planning Manager Brianne Bannwarth,Development Engineering Manager Alex Morganroth,Associate Planner Attached: Exhibit 1 NTOt?.•' x.170. F a w. J.+S R .y 'rt `=rev,a3 ri'p" - �i ' • '} S `l ,auk'-. ..,1 :^ x R K• A Ty-. , v� � cam=-•=� :� t - �t k a r� MORN : • a+.'N` a@' 1053"s a,.. 44111111%1 i.,.. m a °ll...........7 **.**'''':".',. .,.. ,114.• f,,, ••70.0\ L r � �� . xv f `.... +� • 1 f / '�.,. . kii!I allidll .410 A-,' ' -Neir..., ...____ ,10Br, , _ .. t 4, a'a t .r 1 ..,. ,„,,,,, ...... 1 Exhibit 1 REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION I live alone and am responsible for the care of this property. I need this carport to assure immediate access to my vehicles. Snow is a major obstacle for me in my wheelchair. My heels and foot rest start plowing snow at only a couple of inches thick. I can push very little snow before my back wheels just start spinning. In order to get to the vehicles door I would have to shovel the snow. It is extremely difficult to hold a shovel full of snow and move a wheelchair with two hands on a sloped driveway. The other problem is getting the snow off the windshield of the vehicles. When I try to scrape the snow off it ends up on my lap and I still can't reach enough of it to free up the windshield wipers. I would also have to shovel my way to the passenger side to attempt to clear the snow off the other side of the vehicle. It is near impossible for me to scrape ice off the windshield. If I'm away from home and it snows more than three inches, when I get home and get my wheelchair out, put together and get in it I am stuck right there unable to move cause my foot rest and heels can't move the snow and the back wheels just spin. I'm stuck and will freeze to death and will be forced to sue the City of Renton. As of February 9, 2019 I have 8" of snow and I have immediate access to my vehicles without having to shovel snow. I have explained the situation of getting wetter than able bodied people when getting me and my wheelchair in and out of my vehicles which seems to garner no sympathy from any career employees of the City of Renton. The City Council, which is elected and allowed to have feelings, seems to empathize with my situation. When I go grocery shopping I bring in each bag one at a time on my lap, holding the bag with my teeth so it doesn't fall off, making more trips in the weather thus getting wetter than an able bodied person. It has been suggested that I can park my vehicles in the garage to avoid the weather. I am unable to park both vehicles in the garage and get my wheelchair out and put together then transfer into the chair, the doors can't open enough. With both vehicles in the garage there is no access for me to the electrical panel, hot water heater or water shut-off valve all of which should be an absolute must for every home owner to get to fast. It has also been suggested that I can build a shed in my back yard to put my wood shop in. The arrangement I have now makes it so I can go to the hardware store and get a sheet of plywood, unload it from my truck, slide it over to the table saw and rip it into strips. I would have great trouble trying to get a sheet of plywood to a shop in the back yard. I have a spare wheelchair that you can sit in and show me how to do it. I also offer you the opportunity to get in the wheelchair and try to get both of my vehicles in the garage and get the wheelchair in and out of the vehicles, show me how it is done. The carport is not a fire hazard as it is metal. There is no police issue as they can easily see inside and all around the carport, there is no place for anyone to hide other than around the vehicles that are there any way. The carport has already survived a couple of good wind storms without anything getting blown off and hurting anyone in the neighborhood. We have just had a major snow event that the carport handled the snow load just fine. The carport is sound and poses no threat to the community or the function of the City of Renton. Before there was a carport, the garage had two gutter down spouts that ran out on to the driveway and then ran to the street and storm drains. The carport has gutters with the water coming off the garage routed into them. The down spouts on the carport are located closest to the street. All the water that falls on the garage and carport ends up in the same storm drain as before the carport was built. There are no wires over the carport. The incoming water is off to the east side of the carport. The outgoing sewer is far off to the west of the carport. The natural gas line does go diagonally under the carport but is no concern of the City of Renton. The power line is also buried under the driveway and carport but is no concern of the City of Renton. If either the gas or power lines need to be replaced they can be routed in front of and to the east of the carport. I have conducted a survey of the neighborhood regarding the carport. I went to every house within one block of my house, one block east, west and north. I took my grandson to knock on doors as I couldn't get to the doors myself. One man wouldn't come talk to me, one house hold has a Vietnamese couple that doesn't speak english, one house is being renovated and three residents weren't home. All the rest answered my survey. I also got three ladies that walk and live in the neighborhood to answer the survey. I asked six questions, trying to address some of the concerns of the City of Renton; 1. Safety Hazard: Do you feel the carport is a safety hazard to you or the neighborhood? All answered "No". 2. Obstructs View: Do you feel the carport blocks or obstructs your view in any way? All answered "No". 3. Property Value: Do you feel the carport lowers the value of your property in any way? All answered "No". 4. Detriment To Neighborhood: Do you feel the carport impacts the neighborhood negatively? All answered "No". 5. Reasonable Accommodation: Is it a reasonable accommodation for the City of Renton to allow the carport for the handicapped to access his vehicles during inclement weather? All answered "Yes". 6. Appearance: Do you feel the carport looks good? One answered "N/A", the rest answered "Yes". Most of my neighbors made comments to the effect of "Why is the City of Renton harassing you for your carport when you are making your place look so nice. Shouldn't they be going after the houses that are garbage dumps?" I seem to have 100% support from the neighborhood. • ` • g 1 cam ...- z iiv vov) m € J Ai 1 a 3 . sca m CD ' o. m m 54 � .< m O 'P , �L4 — al S DZmma 77 1ilobk ` 00 o a R S ,a ile a 3m � 1 C2 m I1 mg " ooa- 0 - 'v oo c < m O m i asmim Z m ma m ,Cl — C,` (i g- .- el----1 m a m Tk c $ 0 LAI\ ( . 0 mmg .. * a Z, r ‘,,,, • ' n'N 21 g.). 3- * .°4' 0 n7 f m m -� . mom f ' S, Ilis VN) � ( CO Jr 03 _ m CD 1 .S3:\ -g--- ..4__ PA r 17 , _,,,) 2' .-J , �-S- CO�- S = XiZ ... r-1 SafetyHazard ` f- - Z . Z- Obstructs View I m _ p � 7 Z. G ?Property Value Z r ' �- 'G 1? Detriment To Neighborhood Z --Z.._ ' c \ "r .- 4 X' Reasonable Accommodation � '!r Appearance 1 { F r , 1 �"" Z ap 91P" w Nj J €. CL O m e y -v CD , so co t0 ( ti �• -- fa ig 0302 .< I i CT mosoSm o � _ � . o m Ci !1 a o 1 T '\)-.J --..., , tri''N 1 ,--, cm m : a mJ c rv, _ ap m 7 o r �- fir. r- O s m K N. T jfli ! L 0r`- A''ems W ,r.. \V I .( q Li'�i s� , N 1 Si, a y _... 4. C; r; C i r - Hazard {r v _ Safety 13 �' cs' ... r . 7 Obstructs View m .Y Z a ue v ., property 0 c Z rs..-- �` Detriment To Neighborhood Z 1 R, f-:_ TT ,. " Reasonable Accommodatioii f' ,/' k‘I':‘"'CTCt f ter, f `r - - _r :. \ ,E+ ,,V 1 `'r . -,--AppAppearanceU., Ili ' N V_ ,r, Issue: Local Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations Common Problem: City governments may fail to consider reasonable modifications in local laws, ordinances, and regulations that would avoid discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Result: Laws, ordinances, and regulations that appear to be neutral often adversely impact individuals with disabilities. For example, where a municipal zoning ordinance requires a set-back of 12 feet from the curb in the central business district, installing a ramp to ensure access for people who use wheelchairs may be impermissible without a variance from the city. People with disabilities are therefore unable to gain access to businesses in the city. .i potf s.. :—.172- 1� a tiw a,, _ `"a ss *"' , ek,,,,p 1 n' +�,. '-''s -'" ,'",""ir5 4,,, .',„, - fir ic,T any, '.,r _ >w �v r�,_3 r, , . 3 ; ' xf r ` --,, ,,t 4 '"s„04,,c a+e ,.s x...': '«. ',� .. „ti p' .f City zoning policies were changed to permit this business to install a ramp at its entrance. Requirement: City governments are required to make reasonable modifii t policies, practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination cat onons the o basis av� of disability. Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws, ordinances, and regulations that adversely impact people with disabilities. For example, it may be a reasonable modification to grant a variance for zoning requirements and setbacks. In addition, city governments may consider granting exceptions to the enforcement of certain laws as a form of reasonable modification. For example, a municipal ordinance banning animals from city health clinics may need to be modified to allow a blind individual who uses a service animal to bring the animal to a mental health counseling session. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) St f bI Inez PETERSEN,J.D.,WSBA#46213 1166 Edel Ct,Enumclaw,WA 98022-2137 Telno 425-255-5543;206-339-8210 InezPetersenJD@gmail.corn June 23, 2019 Dear Council members: I am asking that this letter be read into the record at tomorrow's council meeting AFTER Jeff Colee speaks to you. Please read it as if I were in attendance which I would have been except I'm in Minnesota helping my granddaughter with her new baby(husband overseas). The "cat crap chapter" I recall coming to the Council many years ago,prior to 2015,about Jeffs fence which the City's code compliance officer wanted torn down. This female code compliance officer is the same one hassling Jeff about his carport today. He had a reasonable need for an accommo- dation under the ADA covering an 8-foot fence;and it went something like this: Neighborhood cats were pooping in the grass in Jeffs yard. Gardening on his elevated beds was his main pastime.But he had to motivate over the grass to do the gardening. When the cat crap got on the wheels of his wheelchair,then it also got on his hands. And he had an impossible time trying to clean the wheels, being that he is paralyzed from the chest down. The 8-foot cyclone fence he had installed took care of the problem by keeping the cats out. But he and I had to attend a council meeting and beg for an accommodation under the ADA. That should never have been necessary. The "eminent domain chapter" In 2015,the next hurdle was the home that had been configured to accommodate his disability and the home in which he expected to live out his days was taken by eminent domain to make way for the new Sartori Elementary School. The interim superintendant replied to an email to his real estate agent which inadvertently listed Jeff as a CC,and it showed how little compassion the school district leaders had for Jeffs situation. Jeff could not afford to sue the school district and had to take what the school district offered for his home . . .and that is where we are now. Jeff is trying to configure the new property as best he can to provide somewhat the same accommodations he had at his prior home. Is the City of Renton trying to help by making reasonable accommodations as the ADA requires? Well, not yet. That is why Jeff attended the council meeting tonight and why I'm writing you this letter. The "City makes no accornrrrodation chapter" 2 Jeffs disability is still the same;and his needs are still the same. He outlined those quite clearly in his comments this evening. To make it easy for you to reference the various hurdles he has encountered with the City's code compliance department and his willingness to cooperate,I've enclosed a copy of his notes. The neighbors do not have a problem with Jeffs carport. But the City says his carport is out of character for the neighborhood. This is an ordinary residential neighborhood. This is an ordinary residential carport. I ask you to listen to his comments(and refer to his notes which are enclosed)and make a list of what the City has done to accommodate his special needs under the ADA. I think you will find no accommodations whatsoever have been made. In fact,he has been subjected to expensive requirements with which he complied and still the City denies him the reasonable accommodation for his carport. Read his reasoning to justify ADA accommodation. The "$4,000 unnecessary expense chapter" The City forced Jeff to spend his meager savings to prove something the manufacturer's specs should have covered. I refer you to this paragraph: I have paid the penalty for applying for a permit after constructing the carport by paying /.. double.$626.37.I except responsibility for that. I also had to pay an engineering firm $3,970 '''; to confirm with the manufacturer,Versatube,of the carport that it can withstand a 20 pat snow R< load and a 115 mph wind. The city would not take the word of Versatubee. Would you have forced Jeff to spend this much money from his fixed disability income? I would hope not. The ADA even covers agencies not levying undue financial burdens on the disabled,and this leads me to the last chapter in Jeffs story. But it is not just Jeffs story now--it is the story for all the disabled in Renton. The "it is time for an ADA policy at city hall chapter" I ask the Council members to vote tonight on two matters: first,how to approve Jeff s carport accommodation under the ADA without any further cost to him,and second,to require the staff to create a policy covering how code compliance will implement both the letter and spirit of the ADA. If there is a current policy,it is ineffective. Jeff s history with the code compliance should be an embarrassment to the City.Please put an end to the tyranny to which Jeff Colee has been subjected.I know Renton can do better for Jeff. . .and for all the disabled residents of the city. Respectfully, igtOj 19A• 142,,,,, WSBA#46213 Starfish Law PLLC 1166 Edel Ct,Enumclaw,WA 98022 Cell 425-255-5543; FAX 888-253-1074 Enclosure pG'�V, tt. Inez PETERSEN,J.D_,WSBA#46213 1166 Ede!Ct, Enumclaw, WA 98022-2137 Telno 425-255-5543; 206-339-8210 —InezPetersenJD@gmail.com lot June 28, 2019 Addendum to my letter of June 23rd Dear Council Members: I wanted to provide some additional information regarding my letter of Sunday,June 23, 2019. The focus is a new and better policy covering exceptions to city ordinances required to comply with the FHAA and the ADA. My emphasis is,of course,the disabled, and in this instance,Jeff Colee. I have enclosed a sample document to show what one county did to address compliance with the FHAA and the ADA. Renton which prides itself on excelling has failed to excel in this particular area. From reading the sequence of events regarding Jeff Colee's carport, I see this as the problem: Zoning laws that are "facially neutral" (that is,they apply to all persons, not just those with disabilities)will violate federal law if they have a disparate impact or discriminatory effect on people with disabilities. A plaintiff can establish a disparate impact claim by showing (1)the occurrence of certain outwardly neutral practices, and (2)a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on persons of a particular type produced by the defendant's facially neutral acts or practices. If the plaintiff succeeds in establishing a prima facie case,the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action and that no less discriminatory alternatives were available. The Code Compliance Department has been putting Jeff through a series of accommodation steps which are facially neutral. But the result has been a disparate and discriminatory impact on Jeff. He should never have been "mainstreamed" and subjected to financial impacts such as the $4,000 engineering study to confirm the strength of his carport when administrators had no reasonable basis for disallowing the manufacturer's specs. 2 Can you imagine the bite that$4,000 took out of Jeffs disability income! The FHAA and the ADA are about not "mainstreaming" the disabled, but that is what has happened to Jeff. I implore you to look at Jeffs situation with a "clean slate" and move forward in a new direction that is not based on the theory that "If we make an exception in Jeffs case,it opens the door to more exceptions." But that is exactly what Renton's policy must do for those disabled residents covered by the FHAA and ADA--it must open the door. The City's decision as it stands now will force Jeff to move yet again in an effort to find a property which already has in place the accessibility he requires to accommodate his disability. Jeff should not be required to move anymore than he should have been required to pay for a $4,000 engineering study--not when his request is so simple and of no concern to this neighbors . . . and solves the unique obstacles his comments describe (see attachment to my June 23rd letter). Please direct the Code Compliance Department to test that what they expect Jeff to do can actually be done at his residence. If it cannot be done,then direct that his carport be approved. Also please direct that the mayor's staff develop a policy for handling code compliance for the disabled which meets the letter and spirit of the FHAA and the ADA with the hope that Jeff is the last disabled Renton resident to experience such resistance from the City staff. Respectfully, WSBA#46213 Starfish Law PLLC 1166 Edel Ct, Enumclaw, WA 98022 Cell 425-255-5543; FAX 888-253-1074 Enclosures Two documents regarding what Renton must do One sample policy at the county lelvel i of Renton Recognizing Conflicts March 182014 Looks like G tY „ is playing "catchup Between Your Zoning Ordinance and the Americans With Disabilities Act Last month, your community's Zoning Board of Appeals considered an application for a variance to allow a wheelchair ramp to extend into a front setback area. The ramp was necessary for the applicant to enter their home, which had a door threshold several feet above grade, requiring a long ramp with a turn to maintain the necessary slope. The ZBA, while sympathetic, found that the application did not meet the standards for a variance—the request was not the result of any unique condition of the property, but rather exactly the circumstances of the applicant. In today's mail you received a notification from the United States Department of Justice, indicating that it was initiating an investigation for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act("ADA") and Federal Fair Housing Act ("FFHA"), and threatening possible fines, restitution, injunction, mandatory training, and ongoing compliance monitoring. Many years ago, your municipality audited its buildings and facilities and programs to make sure they were accessible to persons with disabilities. What had been missed? Part II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against disabled persons, or denial of the benefits, services and programs of local government on the basis of disability. (In essence, the requirements of the FFHA are the same as the ADA requirements). According to the regulations implementing the ADA: "A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." These "policies, practices and procedures" include local zoning ordinances. According to the Title ll Technical Assistance Manual published by the Department of Justice includes the following commentary: "11-306000. Reasonable modifications. II-3.6100 General. A public entity must reasonably modify its policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination. If the public entity can demonstrate, however, that the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of its service, program, or activity, it is not required to make the modification. ILLUSTRATION 1: A municipal zoning ordinance requires a set-back of 12 feet from the curb in the central business district. In order to install a ramp to the front entrance of a pharmacy, the owner must encroach on the set-back by three feet. Granting a variance in the zoning requirement may be a reasonable modification of town policy." An example of court cases in which municipalities were found to have violated the ADA by not waiving general ordinance requirements is a situation in which a disabled homeowner sought to build a paved parking space in front of their home. Another example involved an ordinance which prohibited front or side driveways. The fact that there might be other alternatives which comply with the zoning ordinance is not sufficient; the focus is on whether the modification would afford people with disabilities the same opportunities those without disabilities. Thus,for example, a request to expand a garage to accommodate an indoor wheelchair ramp to an internal door could not be denied merely because an outdoor wheelchair ramp to the front door could be constructed in compliance with the zoning ordinance. The ability to have indoor access from a vehicle, especially during winter months, may be necessary to allow a person with a disability the same enjoyment of their home as other persons. In order to qualify for a reasonable modification of the zoning ordinance under the ADA, an applicant need not meet the requirements for a variance. Rather, the applicable test is: • Whether the person to be accommodated has a disability. • Whether the modification requested is reasonably necessary to accommodate that disability. • Whether the modification would fundamentally and unreasonably alter the nature or purposes of the zoning ordinance. The burden is on the municipality to prove this would occur. Few zoning ordinances include procedures for evaluating a request for accommodation under the ADA or FFHA. This leaves zoning administrators and zoning bodies in a quandary between following the requirements of federal law, or the provisions of their own zoning ordinance. A simple step to cover many situations would be to amend the zoning ordinance to permit the extension of wheelchair ramps and lifts into setback areas. A more comprehensive ordinance could include a procedure for making application for an accommodation under the ADA, assignment of the decision to a zoning official or body such as the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the standards for decision. An ordinance may, in some cases, provide that the accommodation is not transferrable to a new owner, and must be removed if no longer necessary. It is important that your zoning officials recognize that the ADA and FFHA can here here net,, require modification of the zoning ordinance, under standards different than those which apply to a request for a variance. In addition, we recommend that you consider amending your zoning ordinance to provide a procedure to consider requests for accommodation under the ADA and FFHA. .. ' x ® 0 z y. u3 U co N U t _ 2 «S O 0 N El 4 "0 cd = ca a' .v3 Cri c, is S -,r Z 7 u, 0v N I--'1 Qj •� v. -Lbv O .1 ci, _ v Q� O U N •- G N N N i.4. N /\ z i., ►1i�l- 0 7. c Gv a.)cn W U ". 7 -" • U 'd ^ 1:4 C.' ' bl, O ~ ((_ Q� �I C is ''. r w _ $.a .� If1 v o y- O 3...1 V r y//, r� . y ^N - r• 9. O 4a. i•a F��il -T. N v �1.• : r I U O 00 N U O a� O c y— n, ¢a O d y-+ .-�-1 N ✓ 0 H — O cC • w `n `nat .', s -r- , ct V 03 Ue cn2 7. - F ° -� O OoU G u v a _ O w ,v O L �_ - '" Gl Rf cats) aa. `'d a • y '?� s.. cn cti -`) as as m cu O 0 p O =, , " 6 ?' r ` M-0"- l l ye, { 1 ._" bl, v V nt O , .= Yi i rJ �y�a1 •w1 �I fry am ;t y „v. r N c V•r cu _0 N y.a ..a 0 r _ r_ a, 1 :, hj ti G y bA �.+ to 7-: 6i a, i' 1::21 x -" y $.a t„1" p, '� rr N v bo y O ctai � a y y a:Y . " -. ▪ U v. at 'CI▪ kc3 O U o ^ 4a 'Lj.a cssa v,ai 'o ` i U O ..r ri �a ft U I J ,-- ..0N o a' U a • See Variance row setback cf for raitw to provi.ile access to, f7i.C� Chapter 32 The Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act 32-100 Introduction `hide i1 of the \mericans with I)isahiliries \cl !" 1I):1 provides: \bo qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, he c:;:luded from participation in or he denied the benefits Of the services, programs. or :ICtiViiies of a mobile entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such, rnrire;. 42 ( „I.C,, ii 1 21>2. 11uiilli'enlrlics IIwiude counties, cities and iowns. 47 1 c (,. /2,/3/(A1:. Va nin?,uu`alii es a5 :;public in.!,e/il/l.i Or.cen'io'and the enforcement of ZUntrlQ ordinance constitutes an ai'lii (t of a locality within the meaning of Title I1. ,'I F-lc'/rirl Fland. Count!, 513 1'.3d 33(1 `4' C ir. 2(1(18); sr, rl'io.S l' 1R7, Ir:, I Flaiii/iinr C wlit;,295 I. Stipp. 2d 569 '1). Md. 2(03) '.the administration of zonin!, laws is a "service, program, or activit ' within the meaning of the \D.1;;. \ be:din" is required to reasonably aceonmiodate disabled persons by nlodrtcing its zoning policies, practice and procedures and may not intentionally discriminate against disabled persons. "ilki IIhnmetic,2(i9 F.3(3 831 " Car. 2((1(1). 28 C i .R. >- 35,131(1h):;: i stares: A public entity shall make reasonavl; nrollitiid111in,1i in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications arc nere.cscln'to avoid discriminaticnl on the basis of disability, unless the public entire can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. Although the federal government has stared that the lair 1-lousing Act 1,"11 1.1 does not preempt local zo nnig laws, the Act nonetheless can preempt the way is locality's zoning regulations are administered. lLneler the PI f:\. it is unhr\ytiii re; discriminate in the sale 'it rental, err to otherwise make unaraiiablc' or deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of it h:uulicap of a person residing in or intending to reside in tll:ri dwelling. .42 C S.C. ji 3604(1)(1)(l',i. l)isirirninetioli under the Ill.A includes "a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afhird such person equal opportunity to use and enjol a dwelling,." 12 I ...!C '7 3604(/i )rl,; La lee late under the 11-1.1 is the same as a disaai,o under the :\meric:ins with Disabilities \ee. I)altldk. }ii H i .Sr, i '/ !7l!<i C!.1 1 5 1.5-1?, lllli/-11tii.Sil/i 0 1/s ecoc/.e N'1/l�til ir'lf,lll//e:�"tri lip i//ix' ,UO111//Forlri//O/,C. The I:11.\, the :\l):\,and the Rehabilitation \et are -separate but interrelated federal laws that protect persons with disabilities from discrimination." Ii i ewisirl C.,nimlinilj .Serricusi, 111,: , C h' .lti/miuker, 405 1:.3d -, 740 Cir. 2(l06). 32-200 The ADA protects qualified individuals with a disability Lacier the .11)_\, a person is a l/Jlaliiic'd Indivi;iu/ai Drill,a disability if he or she has: (1) a mental or physical impairment that substinn:illy limits :1 tnlijot life ietiyit`,', '2,.i it record of such :In imp:tin-11 'rat; o 3., is re<g::it d d"is �(2 `.. ., Il9Cirle.,*$lIC}1 317 impairment.42 1�.1 �,. ? 12!(!:._);Sec also I 11�411/d Cl/!!i� 1 >�i-�/b.1:1. l he term Nona/ortr/n'.ile?!/ i///faiirme/l:may include conditions such as blindness, "learitig`impairment, m ihlirt\` impairment, 1111' infection, mental retardation, alcoholism,drug addiction, chronic fatigue, learning disabilit, head injury,and mental illness. The term /l/atnr/it gimlet may include serene in icing,ci ill:rrnr., breathing, perterrming manual risks, caring, for one's self, ieal'nliit_,, speakltig,or working. '/,ii .Sle7li/l/CU/0/ /fii 1)e/,rirt/7/C11/cii j//slli'i' /L//I/R I)ilhill/1/"Ii'of an l /iirlli 1)0'loon e121(III C;rru t) f lam s. l_ili;Jl baud I se. urli//„. I air f Io cril:y lr.', dated r1ugust 18, 1999. An undiv idual Mae. he rcgarner men as baring an impairment, regardless of whether or not he in tact has it substantialle limiting impairment. .-1 I�r'Ipirit hand r. Baltimor'Cnrlrntj, 515 1 .3d 356 (4''' Cir. 2008) (can appeal from trial court granting a Rule 50 motion in favor of the clinic on this issue,holding that the clients of a methadone clinic could nor be regarded as significantly impaired in a major life activity where they were regarded as criminals and undesirables,but Were not necessarily regarded as significantly impaired in their ability to work,learn, care for themselves, or interact \vith others);.Cif"Clint r. lr ul-.11ar7,S//orc•.c, Iu.. 144 [.3d 294 (4'' Cir. 199S. The term clma/)f)ciiudiridnaiu'ilt,a di.iabiiitt does not include persons who; pose ":a significant risk ro the health or safety of others by virtue of the disability that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation." i)or r. I;mi"rcitt'ref .Ilan'/war_1I<rirurl.S't.rtemr C.iuporatiom, 51t F.3d 1261 (4 Cir. 1995). It also does not include current users of illegal controlled substances, persons convicted for the illegal manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance,sex offenders, and juvenile catfchaders. .Scr/oin/.Statameat, supra. Fxamples of disabilities front zoning eases in which the \D \ may be at issue include drug and alcohol rehabilitation facilities, mental health facilities, and physical disabilities that prohibit the reasonable use of a dwelling. ,Sec sotto r 32-2 0 for a discussion of f(ri'eases curl tldc'1'!Ih/!rt'.et'di,cah,h'n',, 32-210 A locality must reasonably accommodate a qualified individual with a disability in the administration of its zoning regulations ;\ locality is required to reasonably accommodate disabled persons by moditving, its zoning policies,practices and procedures and may not intentionally discriminate against disabled persons. 1)adiam r. i rl/cr r of li"umettc, 26!i 1=.3d 831 " Cir. 21.0l). 28 C i .R. . 35.1311(b)(7) states: \ public entity shall make na.ro,anie mod;1n'ltiolr.r in policies,practices,or procedures when the modifications are nee-aster!'in avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program,or activity. The United States Department oil explains this requirement as follows: FLocalitiesj arc required in make reasonable modifications to policies,practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability. Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws,ordinances,and regulations that adversely impact people with disabilities. For example, it may he a reasonable modification to grant a variance for zoning requirements and setbacks. In addition, llocalitiesj may consider granting.exceptions to the enforcement of certain laws as a form of reasonable modification. 1'or example, a municipal ordinance banning animals from city health clinics may need to be modified to allow a blind individual who uses a service animal to bring the animal to a mental health counseling session. The,-11).-1 and Citt Gorernmeut.;:Common Prob/ems, l',S. Department of justice, Civil Rights Divisiota, Disability Rights Sect-jolt. Whether a requested accommodation is n'asomabl' is highly fact-specific and determined on a case-b -case basis by balancing the cost to the locality and the benefit to the disabled person. I)adac. supra.Whether a requested accommodation is necessary requires a showing that the desired accommodation will affirmatively enhance a disabled person's quality of life by ameliorating the effects of the disability. Radian, supra.The locus is on whether the accommodation in the case at hand would be so at odds with the purposes behind the rule that it would lr, a fundamental and unreasonable change. 1)adialr, .supra (allowing front driveway access to elderly landowners' home, one of whom suffered front osteoporosis and had difficulty walking,was not so at odds with village'sgeneral prohibition against such driveways and would nut cause an unreasonable change to the ordinance because the plaintiffs were nor requesting a change ro the ordinance itself, but application of the hardship exception in their case). 2S C::I,R. iP 35.1306)l171. 3,-' Reasonable accommodation is not mandated when zoning laws are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. Gr/ Bark Up, Inc. r. 0. o/Dr/n,it, 2015 \V'L 1089662 at 4 (G'`' Cir. 2015) (where zoning regulations required conditional use permit for substance abuse facility in i .isine.ss zoning district, facial challenge to the zoning ordinance failed because the ordinance did ncit allow any materially similar use to operate fir right in the zoning district and. therefore,the ordinance did not discriminate against the disabled). i'or example, the Department of justice has explained to a complainant‘vhy a city's denial of a rezoning that wtould have allowed an office use in a predominantly single family neighborhood did not violate the .\ The complainant was the owner of a consulting firm that emplot-cd 5 people, two of wimp had disabilities (one recovering from alcoholism; the other having chronic depression), who sought the rczonirut to relocate his business in the neighborhood. The letter explains: The evidence shows that the ( ity's decision to deny the rezoning application for your property has the same effect on your employees without disahilities as it does on vtnir employees with disabilities. Further, the evidence shows that the (.City- Iras an established policy of maintaining file area where your property is located as a predominantly single family area, and that this policy has the same effect on people without disabilities as it dues on people with disabilities.The evidence shows that the Citn's decision to deny your rezoning application was made for reasons that are not discriminatory under the :\D,\. Therefore,we have determined that no violation of title II occurred. 1.1°//rr ria/ed,March 14. 1904. Coordination and Review Section of the Civil Rights Division of the I nited States Department of justice. 32-220 Examples of typical zoning cases in which the ADA is in issue Following are some examples of the types of cases that appear to dominate the zoning case law in which the \I)\ is in issue: • 1.)w aril nhabllih ion piziertims: The anti-discrimination provision of the .AI').A prohibits zoning,decisions by a locality that discriminate against drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, the clients of which are ' qualified individuals with a disability." .1 .\'(:raze:. fir. r. C,:.; o C.ariiru<ir;, 20 1 .3d 326, 345 (6'i- Cir. 291)2' (agreeing with the trial court's finding that "the blanker prohibition of all methadone clinics from the entire city is discrimiiiatury on its face.''); hrJ, :-lnti it/did/on lCst'anl, am 1 natil/ri/I. fir(. 1'. Cu; l�! iiiy,c�+, 17t: I`.del 25 `' Cit. 1999) (holding that the _\I).:\ applied to zoning ordinance barring methadone clinics within 50o feet of residential areas;; Iurzoora/io'I-Ical/h St'sicros, ist'. r. Gilt r, li 7tih Plains, 11- 1.3d '2�' Cir. 1997: (holding that the \I).\ applies to zoning decisions involyiii a drug and alcohol rehabilitatit in center); 1-lar/i' l inn ),enirni. Irr. (,h Lrui.', 235 I'. Supp. 2d 28 !1).\lass. 2002;. (no slitowing, that tin placement of methadone clinics in zones business r ): - 515 I`.3(1 356 -i Cit.industrialla) obusinesslneCbusinessan t'ti poses ata ' significant risk); 1-ft//>Y/1('1 Itll!!r.. IiCl/.�(/J/OY`�.Olflii l', 201)8 , • ;hernial health je'rri/i/ire. Tlic anti-diFerinlinarion provision of tile AI)\ applies to mental health: facilities. Paihra s Psi'rbo/u ical r. Tozrrz.'4 teorurrdion%r, 133 T. Supp. 2d -72 (D.Md. 2001 . • 1 'ariarur rrzm riga/a/ions io aliaar reasonable asc(./'ironic:The anti-discrimination provision of the .\1)1 prohibits zoning decisions by a locality that fail to reasonably accommodate persons with a disability to allow them the same housing opportunities without a disability. In 1-rtma/r, Cu; of-:llarlches/:'r, 992 F'.Supp. 493 (D.\.I I. :a mother and daughter who both had muscular dystrophy were denied a variance that would allow them to build a paved parking space in the front of their home.'[he court found that the denial of the paved narking space adversely affected the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their home, and that their request was reasonable. In Dalian r. i 'llia.<4t'of 11 /mtNr, 269 F.3d 831 ;'' Cir. 2001),an elderly couple, one of whom suffered from osteoporosis and had difficulty walking, sought a hardship exception from the village's prohibition agues- front driveway accesses.The court toured that in denying the permit,tree village failed to provide a reasonable accommodation from its regulations. • 1 en7arret (min setback for ramp to provide access to building. If a zoning ordinance requires a certain setback between a business entrance and a curb,but the business must encroach into the setback to ramp its entrance, the zoning authority may be required to issue a variance as a reasonable modification to the setback regulations. 10. 1 Best Practices Tool Kit for.Ciak and I Jowl Government,.(last updated September 14,2009) {granting a variance to allow a ramp to be built in a setback is a reasonable modification of a locality's rules and policies to avoid discrimination against people with disabilities).Thus,the zoning procedures must allow for some process whereby requests for exemptions or special permits for such purposes may be considered.These requests must be granted where reasonable. inczi , I ..v h C Pli a.Ce 9'. ' , r. Fret, tt)V �,....4 The .I)`\ \t"1ynlit7ii°pis Act f7: 200 .5 \)) :\ G Cf'Iata`jed ti.s' Pll.irs .i to 1m7oi tn.J1, ziita' O hilt+. 11 3x)l .ei IS)'_ disabilir:. As amended by the AD-AAA,"lain individual meets the requirement of`being regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity."42 t S.C_. 12102(3)(.A). CRC Ilratth Grant, Inc. t•. 7-own of IV-art-en,20'14 WI, 2444435 at 10 (D. Mc, 2014) (partial grant of summary judgment for methadone treatment facility on;;*round that moratorium on facilities was intentional facial discrrinainaticin under tEne ftcthit1 made requisite threshold showing that its prospective clients were disabled for purposes of the ADr\): amiparr RI IJ<llainalCenter,grit. r. (,it} of DnBois, 564 F.App'x 660 (3,.i C;ir. 2014) (under the t.nder the "regarded as'- test, methadone treatment fitcilir failed to Shores' that the cit' regarded the dime's potential patients its suffering under;it impairment that "sltbstaniaall'. Limits one or more major life tictivit(\ This section has provided only a brief overview of the application of the :\Dry to local zoning regulations. Zoning issues arising under the : .1).\ may also trigger the application of the Fair Housing '\ct. 32-300 The FHA prohibits discriminatory housing practices The Ft IA operates to invalidate "ant law of as State, a political subdivision,or i ither such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice. . . " 42 t.'..S C ti 361_>. '[he loin/S/aterrregi of Mc f.)tpari heir/of In.ctrer and go Deixzrtmeill niTIozising awl['rdau I)crelo/meet or GM* I-lotmi, 1—in'al Lille/ ( 7Z,and the Iarir Iloi,smi alti,dated August 18, 1999, explains that the FHA prohibits localities from: • Using land use policies or actions that treat groups of persons with disabilities less favorably than groups of non-disabled persons. An example of this situation would be an ordinance prohibiting housing for persons with disabilities or a specific type of disability, such as mental illness, from locating in a particular area, while allowing other groups of unrelated individuals to live together in that area;. • Taking action against,or denying a permit, for a home because of the disability of individuals who live or would live there. An example of this situation would be a decision that denied ;t building permit for a home because it was intended to provide housing for persons with mental retardation. • Refusing to make reasonable accommodations in land use and zoning policies and procedures where such. accommodations may be necessary to afford persons or groups of persons with disabilities an equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing, A locality will most often face a challenge to its zoning laws when they are applied against handicapped persons in such a way that: (1) handicapped persons are prevented from using and enjoying their home in the same manner as non-handicapped persons,i)anrar,t. 1 iliac of 11 ihnetl:, 269 1 .3d 831 (7h Cir. 2001) or (2) the locality defines ia,nlilr in a wilt so that persons with handicaps are disqualified from living in single family residential neighborhoods. I)r. (,erlrruit . 1. Barlx°rCaner, Irrc r. Peten•'Ir-unchitr,2'3 F. Supp. 2d 643 (\V".D.Ihi. 2003). 32--I 32-310 The use and enjoyment of the home The I:H \ prohibits zoning regulations and decisions that- tail to reasonably accommodate laersuns with a handicap to allow them the same housing opportunities with(WI a handicap. In Trrrr;rlo r. (7.ih, o/t:AIanrbr'slrr, 992 I . Supp. 493 O.A.11. 1997), a mother and daughter cvhu both had muscular dystrophy were denied a variance that would have alloyed them to build a paved parking space in the front of their home. The court found that the denial of the paved parking space aciverselt affected the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their home, and that their request was reasonable. In 1)ndiarn i i/k, or II" , 269 l'..id 831 „ Cir. 2IIl11 , an coded\ couple, Inc of whom suffered from osteoporosis and had difficulty walking, sought a hardship exception from the village's prohibition against front driveway accesses. The court found that in denying the hermit, the village tailed to provide ct reasonable accommodation from its rei ulatit ns. These cases are also discussed in the context of the :\1I\ in section 32-2211. 32-320 Allowing persons with disabilities to live in facilities within single family residential neighborhoods ( < rapt,css intended for •l e I] l \ to apoit tI zonittt'. ct,dfrt tie and other taws it tat would restrict u,t: placement 47toetlt At:,. I00 I I, a. 24 i1988 . rdprinted In 1988 I`.S.( 2185 l8_ tsLltttat� l;1.1' CH:' amCndrnents ".autd r apply to state or local land use and health and safer:lays, regulations. practices or , r decisions t U s U'tl l;'11 discriminate '1gatntii individuals with tlitne tC Hit 1.:nited States Supreme Court has instructed that zoning regulations describing who or hoe many people may compose a family unit so as to include any number of people related by blood, marriage or adoption but no more than a limited number of unrelated people living together as a household unit, are subject to review under the 1'FiA. C lr'of I (1inondr r. 0..xxior•rl hlrur.re, 514 L.S. 725, 115 S. Ca. 1776 '1995);set-1 2 ( _.S.C., ii 3607 7Ji)( ), csetnptintL,. from 1•l i:\ scrutiny reasonable It cal, state,or federal restrictions regarding the maxlmum number of occupants permitted to occupy a dwelling, and removing from the I:I1_\'s scope only total occupancy limits, i.e., numerical ceilings that serve to prevent oyercr<twding in living quarters. In multiple cases, the courts have found a violation of the 1'1 I:\ where localities attempted to prevent or restrict persons with disabilities from living in the single family-zoned homes of their choice, even when the occupancy did not meet the localin's definition of a Icrmil, undo the applicable zoning ordinances. ,VCc. ,.;�., C),rorx%Iluu,rr:, Irrt. r. 7nrrn t,i linirtr'nri, 819 Ft. Supp. l 17) (L.l).\.\'. 1993) (violation of the 1H11:\ even though the occupancy did not meet the town's definition of hmii/Ti and was not the "functional and factual equivalent of a natural family" as provided under the zonings ordinance); iJor,sr r. Ion nil ila u;(:Ic ni I Lill, 799 I . Supp. -1 0 (1).A.). 1992) (7proot of permanent and stability not required for related occupants,hut required for nonrelated occupants, was held to be discrimitaatory); (h,iinzi poorest 1 i Ut ter-II 1'. City a%Pimeritid, 769 1'. Supp. 1329 (17.ti.1. 19911 (occup ancy limitations t �., , ` ( 2 '' n were discriminatory); [:nacn.S,strs.. I Deem of(a;�rl r_ _ -., _ i I�:.I�.A.C; _U1 f 1; ern denyn�a� town s motion nt dismiss on ripeness grounds, the court held that the town may have constructively denied ( )xford House's reasonable accommodation request either by granting an accommodation in the Corm of a zoning text amendment that left the proposed use as still being in violation of the zoning ordinance or be tailing to act on subsequent requests for reasonable accommodation 1. The purpose of the FNF i.•V's requirement for reasonable accommodation is to facilitate the intemation of persons with disabilities into all conumunities. I)r: Gernfri 1. lid Ce'nlr'r, In:: r. Iactrrr Tomiisl'r//n 273 F . Supp. 2d 643 (\\ .U. 13a. 2(10 3). Thus, the i Il:\ "prohibits the enforcement of zoning ordinances and local housing policies in a manner" that denies people with disabilities access ter housing on par with that of those who arc not disabled.' Okouamotror t esidei!ia/Pr'o.r'iimi, .Inn r. ( u`l ri/ 11i/11'rrr(Xtti, 3(41 l'.Jd 775, 783 7,1; Cit. 2t)t!2;. 31-3 • Note that Virginia Code 15.2-22)I imposes a limitation on a locality's zoning huger by requiring that a zoning ordinance consider a residential facility in which no more than eight mentally ill, mentally retarded, or developmentally disabled persons reside, with one or more resident counselors or other staff persons. as residential occupancy by a single family. A re'.sidcrntiol/a(il/r means any group home or other residential facility for which the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services is the licensing authority. I 'ii,:jn/a Code 15.2 229 . A zoning ordinance may not impose conditions more restrictive than those imposed on residences occupied by persons related by blood, marriage,Or adoption. 17i hill Code t 1 i?- 291r IJ \ group home serving eight unrelated adults who do not meet these criteria does not qualify under Virginia Code 'j. 15.2.2291 \? for treatment as a single-family residence insofar as zoning is concerned. 1995 I 'u. Op. . lm. Gcr,. 286. 32-330 Examples provided by the Department of justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development The,/oi/i/.S/a/r!1/o/t o;t.!ar I)pal/lima of Jla/ice and tio i)r1act/meut of I Iona!,! and( r/uri I)lrciopmel't oil Gtulip I hernia 1_ou Land ( roe. and the Fair!lousing let, dared August 1?i, 199O,provides several useful examples as to how the FHA applies to zoning regulations: • Kl /ria/ion.s must Ina/pn;i .c r/nlrrcla/edpersons eg/lall)': Local zoning and land use laws that treat groups of unrelated persons with disabilities less favorably than similar groups of unrelated persons without disabilities violate the FHA. For example,assume that a city's zoning ordinance defines a/:unity tea include up to six unrelated persons living together as:-a household unit,and gives such it group of unrelated persons the right to live in any zoning district without special permission. If that ordinance also disallows a group home for six or fewer people with disabilities in a certain district or requires the home to seek a use permit, the ordinance's requirements would conflict with the l'l i:\ because it treats persons with disabilities differently than persons without disabilities. • IZI`ti/!%rltlon. //1C')'gi'lli'1'tJl/)'!/!I!1/the/1!!!Illri'/"/i1 TI111Y'i(ltt'e:,h"r:rpll.i 1J'h/i 1op1h['1;12 a.flilla/l/f accommodation may be 125711172'. .\ locality may generally restrict the ability"of groups of unrelated persons to live together as long as the restrictions are imposed on all such groups.Thus, in the case where a family is defined to include up to six unrelated people,an ordinance would not, on its face, violate: the FHA if a grscap home for seven people with disabilities was not allowed to locate in a single family zoned neighborhood, because a group of seven unrelated people without disabilities would also he disallowed. Hoxeever, as discussed below, because persons with disabilities arc also entitled to request reasonable accommodations in rules and policies, the group home for seven persons with disabilities would have ID he given the opportunit to seek an exception or waiver. If the criteria for reasonable accommodation arc met, the permit would have to be given in that instance, but the ordinance would nor be invalid in all circumstances. • R(./!/a1/Iir1,c i/1a) impose on gimp homes the,ran/C>;'S/17d/(Ii/,i c/S(N:'(VAT f'17111p.i 6J 111111'/6l/C d Je/ar//i.c reasonable aawmmolla/iorn may Je,required: Even though a zoning ordinance imposes on,group homes the same' restrictions it imposes on other groups of unrelated people, a localin-may he required, in individual cases and when requested ro do so, to t rant a reasonable accommodation to a group borne for persons with disabilities. I'or example, it thin" be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that a payed path of travel can be provided to residents who have mobility impairments. A similar waiver might not be required for a different type of group borne where residents do not have difficulty negotiating- steps and do not need it setback in order to have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. d Not all requested modifications of rules or policies are • I\1"il.fl)IlilUti�did'U111/1/fJ!/el/1/l!!'let('1%1/!)Jc'1!on case-ll;-cd.it' basis:.N reasonable. \\'hether a particular accommodation dation is reasonable depends on the facts,and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. A\ bat is reasonable in one circumstance may not be reasonable in another. For example, assume that a locality does not allow groups of four or more unrelated people to live together in a single-family neighborhood. \ group home for four adults with mental retardation would very likely be able to show that it will have no more impact on parking, traffic, noise, utility use, and other typical concerns of zoning than an ordinary family." In this circumstance, there would he no undue burden or expense for the locality nor would the single-family character of the neighborhood be fundamentally altered. Granting an exception or waiver to 32-6 the group home in this circumstance would not invalidate the ordinance.The locality would still be able to keep groups of unrelated persons without disabilities from litane in single-family neighborhoods. • 1<a/..ftiliabic ei C(///i//0Clllllc/11111 PI Yp:11 C'a„i .c/,/1i/iu//1/bunk/i on lb( O/'it//I/Id///Cillal chin;,,('lf,/(/lI 1/C7zl7U01'l/0(/ci A 50-1 . nursing home would not ordinarily be considered an appropriate use in a single-family neighborhood, for obvious reasons having nothing to do wish the disabilities of its residents. Such it t:icility might or might not impose significant burdens and expense on the community, but a would likely create a fundamental change in the single-family character of the neighborhood. ()n the rather hand, a nursing home might not create a "fundamental change"in a neighborhood zoned for multi-family housing. The scope and magnitude of the modification requested,and die features of the surrounding neighborhood arc iunong the factors that would be taken into account in determining whether a requested accommodation is reasonable • / 1 /1 1 1/(11F///(//i'1/5/)];!i J(lll'.f//(11't OJ%�llllf// /10//i('f: The Department Of Ir./Ay/AT./�,//<>r'r, ru,t,i�and r1_f_inl'r I//(�'d 11(7�rfrhnlirou(t ral/r�/1r(, ustice and I Il_'I) take the position, and most courts that hace addressed the- issue agree, that density restrictions :arc generally inconsistent with the i;I-i;\. I loweyer, it a neighborhood c:une to be composed largely of group homes, that count adversely, affect individuals with disabilities and would be inconsistent with the objective of integrating rating persons with disabilities into the community. Fape(1ifl • in the licensing and re;gulitton-process,it is appropriate to be concerned about the setting for a group home. .1 consideration of over-concentration could be considered in this contest. This objective does not, hr ,never,justify requiring separations which have the effect of foreclosing group homes front locating in entire neighborhoods. 3� - **************************************** DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE CITY OF RENTON 1055 S GRADY WAY RENTON, WA 98057 425-430-6850 **********: ***************** ****.******* Reg# #/Rcpt#: 001-00153923 [ DH Accounting Date: Wed, Jul 3, 2019 Date/Time: Wed, Jul 3, 2019 1 :47 PM ******** ****************************: ** REF #: APPEAL TO HEARING EXAMINER 000.000000.011 .345.81 .00.000 TC:7010 FEE AMOUNT: $ 500.00 RECEIPT TOTAL $ 500.00 **************************** *********** Payment Data Pmt# :1 Payer :JEFFREY COLEE METHOD :CC $ 500.00 ******4********************************* RECEIPT SUMMARY **************************************** TOTAL TENDERED $ 500.00 RECEIPT TOTAL $ 500.00 ------------------ CHANGE DUE $ 0.00 ******'*4***********************-********* HAVE A NICE DAY! **-************************************** DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE v:1.0.5238