Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSuciu Code Compliance DecisionCode Enforcement Decision - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION AND ORDER TO CORRECT FILE NUMBER: FOV#: CODE20-000181 and CODE20-000182 VIOLATION SITE ADDRESS: 1916 and 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 PROPERTY OWNER: Remus Suciu 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Findings of Violation RULING: CODE20-000182 sustained for a total of $750 in fines. CODE20-000181 reversed and no fines due. SUMMARY Mr. Suciu appeals two Findings of Violation issued for his two adjoining properties located at 1916 and 1925 Aberdeen Ave NE. The violations are composed of two instances of parking a commercial vehicle in a residential area, parking more than four vehicles on a lot, storing materials in prohibited areas in a residential lot and storing an unlicensed vehicle on a residential lot. In sum, there are a total of five violations cited for the two properties in the two Findings of Violation. All three of the violations for CODE20-000182 are sustained for a total of $750 in fines. The two violations of CODE20-000182 are reversed with no fines attaching to that finding of violation. This is the third time Mr. Suciu has appealed commercial vehicle violations of the same nature since 2016. Over the last four years he has flagrantly and repeatedly violated the residential character and tranquility of his neighborhood by using his property to park commercial vehicles and materials. There are plenty of locations throughout Puget Sound where Mr. Suciu can both live and park his commercial vehicles. He is free to find a commercial or industrial zone in which to live where his commercial activities would have no impact on the uses around him. Yet he has chosen to live in a residential zone, presumably because he seeks the same quality of life sought by his residential neighbors. Mr. Suciu takes full advantage of the fact that most of his neighbors treat their neighborhood as a place to live, but has no problem in failing to reciprocate with the use of his property for his construction business. Given Mr. Suciu’s past history, he is fortunate that his fines in this latest round of violations only total $750. The City is in a fully defensible position to assess thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in fines by citing multiple days of violation. If Mr. Suciu continues to violate the City’s residential use laws, he should not be surprised if the City starts assessing those types of fines. Code Enforcement Decision - 2 HEARING A virtual hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on June 23, 2020 with the Zoom application, Zoom Meeting ID 837 9542 2706. TESTIMONY [This summary is only provided for the convenience of the reader to provide an understanding of the testimony presented at the hearing. The summary of testimony is not to be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law or as indicating what information was considered significant to the decision. No assurances are made as to accuracy. The City Clerk’s Office can supply a recording of the hearing for those who need an accurate rendition of the testimony presented at the hearing] Kevin Louder, Renton Code Compliance Officer, summarized the alleged violations. The City received an inspection request for inspection on March 6, 2020 for Mr. Suciu’s two properties. After receiving the request he did a few drive by inspections. The semi-truck was straddling Mr. Suciu’s two properties. At time of inspection there was no license plate on the blue pick-up. See Ex. R6D1. The violation for more than four vehicles on a residential lot was based upon the vehicles shown in Ex. R6F1, specifically a red Ford truck, a silver sedan, and a vehicle in front of it that you can see in Ex. R6F2. That’s three along the southern property line, next to the garage. R6F2 shows a third vehicle in front of the silver sedan, you can see its rear window and brake light. In 6G you can see a white Chevy chassis truck, the blue Volvo semi-truck and the tractor trailer. That makes five vehicles on the lot. The next violation, prohibited outdoor storage, Ex. R6D1 and D2 shows items stored along the northern property line on 1916 as well as some truck sideboards stored in the front yard. R6F1 shows more of the truck board sides. Violation 3 is for the blue semi-truck and tractor trailer. It’s depicted in several of the photographs in Ex. 6. The truck was not being actively loaded or unloaded on April 21, 2020 and it wasn’t being used for active construction. No construction activities were actively taking place at the time of construction. The electrical and building permits for the property were issued on August 1, 2019. Photos in Ex. 7 show photos of the truck there before the permit was issued. One of the photos shows the truck with cars loaded on it. The inspection request he received on March 6, 2020 was the eighth request he'd received in the little over two years that he’s been assigned to northern Renton. Commercial and unlicensed vehicles are a common concern he receives in the inspection requests for Mr. Suciu’s properties. Salah Kornas, Mr. Suciu’s attorney, cross-examined Mr. Louder. In Ex. 2, p. 3, Mr. Louder confirmed the name of the person complaining about Mr. Suciu’s property is Cruiser Bruiser. He explained that Ex. 2 is of a public forum where people can raise concerns about code violations to the City and those concerns can be raised anonymously. Mr. Louder confirmed he visited the site on March 16, 18 and 23 and he didn’t find any violation – the truck wasn’t there on those dates. Mr. Louder often went by Mr. Suciu’s properties because it’s on a main arterial that is part of his normal travelling routes from City Hall and he drives by there daily. Mr. Suciu pointed out that the City had been reversed on the truck violation on the basis that it’s a boat trailer. Mr. Louder acknowledged he did not issue any warning of violation prior to issuing the finding of violation. For the violation regarding the unlicensed pick up, Mr. Kornas asked if Mr. Code Enforcement Decision - 3 Louder had looked at that vehicle from the front instead of just the back. Mr. Suciu explained that there was no license plate on that Ford, just a temporary permit in the cabin. Mr. Louder stated it’s his understanding that the permit has to be displayed on the back and no permit was visible from the back. Mr. Kornas explained that Mr. Suciu had been getting a temporary permit every 15 days as shown in Ex. 3-6. Mr. Suciu stated that he would not be able to get license plates until 9/3/20, which was the next available appointment with the Department of Licensing. DOL offices have been closed due to the pandemic. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Louder confirmed that he just saw the Ford from the street and he did not see anything from the front of the Ford and he probably wouldn’t have seen a temporary permit if it were placed in the front of the cab. Mr. Louder also confirmed that from an impact to neighbors it didn’t make a difference that the commercial truck straddled two lots as opposed to being located on just one lot. He just wanted to be complete in identifying the violations that attach to each of Mr. Suciu’s properties. He would have no problem with the two violations cited for the truck being combined into one violation. Remus Suciu, Appellant, stated he is doing construction on his property for his carport and backyard. He’s been doing construction since April 21, but the City of Renton has been closed and he hasn’t been able to get inspections done. But he’s been working on the property, like bringing excavators, and equipment and materials. He blue Ford needs an inspection before it can be registered and the DOL offices are closed. He put the temporary permit on the front of his cabin because that would be more visible to police officers driving from the opposite direction. He has put the license on the back of the cabin at the request of the city. He had a ladder and some pallets on his property. He had been transporting those materials to his home as part of his home construction project. The RMC authorizes temporary storage for construction projects. He has since moved those materials. Mr. Suciu emphasized that the City had not given him any warning of violation prior to issuing the findings of violation under appeal. Mr. Suciu will be done with his home construction when he can finally get an inspection from the City. Mr. Suciu identified other violations in his neighborhood. He noted that the boat trailer is legally on his property. He noted that RMC 4-4-085F1 authorizes recreational vehicles within a garage, which is where his trailer is parked. Mr. Suciu noted that the trailer could be used for commercial use, but when it’s parked at his house it’s just a boat trailer. The trailer is on one property and the semi-truck is on another. The trailer can be used to bring in materials and for his boat. The carport needs a 40-foot beam and that can only be brought in with his trailer. He’s been building homes for 40 years and is currently building three homes in Renton, one of them up the street from him, which is his sister’s house. Ex. 7 shows that a trailer that isn’t used for commercial use is a personal vehicle. The trailer is registered as a boat trailer. The City already lost on this issue in 2016. In response to Mr. Louder’s questions, Mr. Suciu confirmed that the truck will be gone once his construction is finished, but his trailer will remain. However Mr. Suciu believes that the RMC authorizes the truck to remain in an enclosed building. Mr. Suciu believes he should be able to use the truck to load and unload his trailer. He still isn’t able to get an inspection from the City for his construction project. In response to Examiner questions, Mr. Suciu stated he’s been getting temporary permits for his truck every fifteen days for several months, ever since he bought the truck in February. Mr. Louder responded that DOL doesn’t have records of the temporary permits and he hasn’t been Code Enforcement Decision - 4 able to determine how long Mr. Suciu has been getting the temporary permits. Mr. Louder noted that as documented in his code activity file, when he spoke to Mr. Suciu on April 30, Mr. Suciu said he needed the vehicle inspection but didn’t mention that he had a temporary permit. Mr. Suciu stated that the last time he had used the semi-truck for his home construction project was the day before to take away an excavator that he had brought to his house a week earlier. He has used the truck 7 or 8 times in the past two months to bring trusses for his home project. The longest the truck has sat there is a week at a time. He’s building a garage so that he can keep the semi-truck in an enclosed building as authorized by the RMC. Mr. Suciu has used the semi-truck 20-30 times for his home construction project since getting his construction permits in August 2019. He avoids delivery fees by using his truck to bring in trusses and other materials. In closing, Mr. Louder noted that he’s not contesting that the semi-truck is being used for Mr. Suciu’s home construction. But the exemption only applies when the semi-truck is used exclusively for the home construction. The trailer was empty on the date of the citation. The code specifically states tractor trailers are not allowed on residential properties. He pointed out that Ex. 7 is a printout from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the personal conveyance definition in that document identifies a personal conveyance as a commercial vehicle used off-duty. The exhibit is used to classify time as nonworking for purposes of federal limits on the amount of time that commercial drivers can drive per day. The FMCSA does not regulate parking of commercial vehicles in Renton. EXHIBITS Renton Exhibits The following exhibits were entered not the record during the hearing. R1-9 City Exhibit List R10 Suciu Motion to Dismiss R11 City Response to Motion to Dismiss R12 Order on Motion to Dismiss R13 Emails between parties Suciu Exhibits S1 Building Permit B19003259 (1916 Aberdeen) S2 Electrical Permit E19003260 (1916 Aberdeen) S3 DOL Record (Insurance or wrecker destroyed) S4 DOL Record (Insurance or wrecker destroyed) S5 6/30/20 Temporary Plate S6 6/12/20 Temporary Plate S7 “Personal Conveyance” from US gov site. Code Enforcement Decision - 5 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Violation Site/Appellant. The violation site is 1924 (CODE20-000181) and 1916 (CODE20-000182) Aberdeen Ave NE, Renton, WA 98056. The lots are contiguous and owned by the Appellant, Remus Suciu. 2. Findings of Violation. This appeal decision addresses two Findings of Violation, FOV#: CODE20-000181 and CODE20-000182. The violations are composed of two instances of parking a commercial vehicle in a residential area, parking more than four vehicles on a lot, storing materials in prohibited areas in a residential lot and storing an unlicensed vehicle on a residential lot. In sum, there are a total of five violations cited for the two properties in the two Findings of Violation. 3. Commercial Vehicle at least Partially Located on 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. Ex. 6A, 6C and 6E are photographs that establish that a blue semi-cab was at least partially located on 1916 Aberdeen NE on April 21, 2020. The photographs, date stamped April 21, 2020, show the semi- cab partially located within a carport of recent construction upon 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. Exhibit S1 shows the building permit issued for the carport, which identifies 1916 Aberdeen Avenue as the address. From the photographs it is also ascertained that more likely than not the truck cab is over 9 feet in height and/or over 10,000 pounds in weight. 4. Semi-Cab Not Used Exclusively for Home Construction. More likely than not Mr. Suciu’s semi-cab and tractor trailer were not used exclusively for his home construction. As shown in Exhibit 1, Mr. Suciu was issued a building permit on August 1, 2019 to construct a carport on his property. Mr. Suciu testified that he uses the semi-cab and trailer to haul materials such as trusses and equipment such as an excavator to build the carport and retaining wall. He testified that he has been using the truck a couple times a week since getting his building permit. At the same time he testified that he has not been able to move forward on the carport construction because the City is not available for building inspections due to the pandemic. It is somewhat difficult to reconcile Mr. Suciu’s assertion that he has been continuously working on the carport while at the same time saying he’s unable to work on the carport due to unavailable City inspectors. Although Mr. Suciu has made it clear that he has been using the truck for his carport, at no point did he testify he was using the truck and trailer exclusively for his carport. Instead, he noted that he has other construction sites in the City of Renton and Ex 7 shows the cab and trailer on or adjacent to his properties at 1916 and 1924 Aberdeen Ave. well before he was issued his building permit on August 1, 2019. The same or similar tractor trailer was also the subject of a code enforcement action at 1924 Aberdeen Ave in 2016. The City has certainly not established beyond a reasonable doubt that the semi-truck and trailer was not used exclusively for construction of the carport on April 21, 2020. However, the preponderance of evidence standard is easily met. A person of reasonable intelligence apprised of the circumstances would likely conclude that more likely than not on April 21, 2020 the semi- cab was not being used exclusively for construction of Mr. Suciu’s carport. Given the historical use of the cab for other projects, the fact it or a similar cab has been parked for years at the home prior to issuance of building permits for the carport, the fact that the building permit has been outstanding on April 21, 2020 for nine months and that no building inspectors have been available to authorize any work to move forward -- it overall is too unlikely that on April 21, Code Enforcement Decision - 6 2020 the truck was actually being used for carport construction. It is recognized that on multiple days prior to April 21, 2020 Mr. Louder didn’t see the truck parked at Mr. Suciu’s property. The absence of the truck can be easily attributable to its day use at one of Mr. Suciu’s other proj ects. The fact that Mr. Louder didn’t see the truck while he was out making rounds during the day doesn’t mean the truck hadn’t been parked at the site overnight. 5. Unlicensed Vehicle. The City has not established by a preponderance of evidence that the Ford F-150 pick-up identified in Finding of Violation No. CODE20-000181 was unlicensed on April 21, 2020 when it was parked at 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE. Mr. Suciu testified that the Ford F-150 had a temporary license plate on April 21, 2020. He stated that the temporary license plate was not visible to Mr. Louder because the temporary license plate was affixed to the front window of the F-150 cab, which was facing his garage. Mr. Suciu noted that the Washington Department of Licensing offices have been closed due to the pandemic so he has had to acquire 14-day temporary licenses until he can go personally to the DOL office to acquire a permanent license. Ex. 3 and 4 are DOL records showing that in June 2020, the earliest DOL appointment Mr. Suciu could acquire was for September 2020. Mr. Suciu also showed pictures of temporary licenses affixed to the back of the F-150 cab. One picture showed a license expiring June 14, 2020, the second June 30, 2020. Mr. Louder acknowledged that if the temporary license was in fact affixed to the front window of the cab he may not have seen it. Mr. Louder also stated that the Washington State Department of Licensing records available to him on-line do not include temporary vehicle license permits. Mr. Louder claimed that Mr. Suciu was required to affix the temporary license to the rear window of the vehicle, not the front. This is incorrect. WAC 308-56A-140(3) only suggests, but does not mandate, that the license be affixed to the rear window. WAC 308-56A-140(1) requires that the temporary license be visible from the outside of the vehicle. However, affixing the license plate to front windshield could violate RCW 46.37.410, which prohibits the placement of any items on car windows that obstruct driving visibility. In any event, the fact that legally it may have been preferable to place the temporary permit on the rear as opposed to front window of the truck cab does not significantly undermine the credibility of Mr. Suciu’s claim that the permit was affixed to the front window on April 21, 2020. Overall, it cannot be reasonably concluded that more likely than the F-150 truck did not have a temporary license on April 21, 2020. It is understood that all the evidence Mr. Suciu presented was for temporary licenses he acquired after he was issued the Finding of Violation. Mr. Suciu presented no evidence of any temporary permits he acquired prior to the finding of violation. This is somewhat dubious since there presumably1 would be some kind of fee for acquiring the temporary license on-line that would be recorded on Mr. Suciu’s financial records. When Mr. Louder spoke to Mr. Suciu about the pickup truck on April 30, 2020, Mr. Suciu didn’t mention he had a temporary license and instead focused upon the fact that he couldn’t get an appointment with the Department of Licensing. However, it is entirely plausible that Mr. Suciu had acquired temporary licenses if he was in fact driving the truck prior to issuance of the Finding of Violation. Mr. Suciu likely would not want to take the substantial risk of being ticketed for something as obvious as driving a vehicle without a vehicle license. Further, Mr. Suciu likely did not know that the City did not have access to temporary permit records. Mr. Suciu was testifying under oath, which is subject to criminal prosecution for lying. Mr. Suciu would likely not subject himself to criminal prosecution for lying about getting temporary vehicle permits just to get out of a $250 fine. For all these reasons, it cannot be concluded that more likely the Ford F-150 pick up was unlicensed on April 21, 2020. 6. Excess Vehicles. Photographic evidence establishes that on April 21, 2020, there were five vehicles parked at 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. Ex. R6F1 and 6F2 showed three vehicles parked on the south 1 Despite extensive research, the examiner was unable to find any regulation, statute or Governor’s proclamation that authorizes the issuance of 14-day temporary vehicle licenses. Staff may want to confirm with the Department of Licensing that such a permit in fact is available and is applicable to Mr. Suciu’s situation. Code Enforcement Decision - 7 property line. Ex. R6G showed a white Chevy and a blue semi-cab parked along the east side of the property. 7. Outdoor Storage. On April 21, 2020 there were materials composed of pallets, truck sideboards and other large items stored in the front and side yard of 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE as depicted in Ex. 6RD1 and D2 and R6E. 8. Mitigating Circumstances. There are absolutely no mitigating circumstances to justify any reduction in fines given Mr. Suciu’s repeated violations of the City’s commercial vehicle laws. Mr. Suciu is fortunate he was only cited for one day of violation. The City could have easily cited him for several days of violation for a total amount that could total thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars in fines. Mr. Suciu is put on notice that if he continues to park commercial vehicles at his properties in violation of City code, the fines could be much higher than anything he has seen so far. Given his history of noncompliance, he will likely have a very difficult time having such fines reduced on appeal. Mr. Suciu’s commercial vehicle violations have resulted in at least two prior code enforcement actions. In addition, Mr. Suciu has a long history of repeatedly parking his blue semi-cab and/or other commercial vehicles at his properties. The first code enforcement action was a Finding of Violation that was reversed by examiner decision dated September 23, 2016, FOV No. 15-000562. The Finding of Violation was reversed on the basis of a technicality, specifically that the City had not issued a proper Warning of Violation prior to the Finding of Violation as required by City code. Absent that technicality, the finding of violation likely would have been sustained. The City code has since been amended to eliminate the requirement for a Warning of Violation prior to issuance of a Finding of Violation. The second code enforcement was an impound of Mr. Suciu’s commercial vehicle. The impound was found valid by an examiner decision dated January 19, 2018, Impound No. 17-11852, because, as is Mr. Suciu’s longstanding practice, he had illegally parked a commercial vehicle in a residential zone. The January 19, 2018 decision referenced the fact that at the time of impound Mr. Suciu had received ample notice of the illegality of his actions, because he had been cited for parking a commercial vehicle in a residential zone in March 2017. As testified by Mr. Louder, in the two years that he has been assigned to Mr. Suciu’s area for code enforcement, he has received neighborhood complaints eight times and the majority of those complaints have been based upon the parking of commercial vehicles in a residential neighborhood. Ex. 7 shows Mr. Suciu’s blue semi-cab parked at his property on January 9, 2019, January 18, 2019 and April 25, 2019. The April 25, 2019 photographs shows the blue cab hitched to a trailer loaded with six automobiles. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-3-2. 2. Code Violation: The code violations identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 1 – Commercial Vehicle RMC 4-4-085E. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES: No more than one commercial vehicle shall park or otherwise be stored on any lot in any residential zone except as allowed through an additional Code Enforcement Decision - 8 vehicles permit; provided, that no semi-trucks, semi-cabs, or tractor trailers shall be permitted. The following vehicles shall be exempt from this subsection: 1. A vehicle that is being actively loaded or unloaded; or 2. A vehicle that is being used for the exclusive purpose of providing active and permitted construction or other hired services with the permission of the owner of the property at that location including, but not limited to, construction, carpentry, plumbing, landscaping, and moving services. RMC 4-4-085C1 Commercial Vehicle: Any motor vehicle that does not meet the definition of “recreational vehicle,” as defined herein, and (a) exceeds nine feet (9') in height measured from the ground to the highest part of the vehicle or frame-mounted cargo attachment, (b) has a cargo area, truck bed, or frame that extends more than nine feet (9') behind the vehicle’s passenger cab or seating area, (c) has a curb weight of more than ten thousand (10,000) pounds, or (d) can accommodate eight (8) or more persons not including the driver. … RMC 4-4-085C4 Recreational Vehicle: A vehicle, with or without motive power, capable of human habitation or camping purposes and/or used for sporting, recreation, or social activities including but not limited to trailers, motor coaches, motor homes, fifth-wheels, campers, camper shells, camper trailers, snowmobiles and snowmobile trailers, boats and boat trailers, all-terrain vehicles and all-terrain vehicle trailers, and utility trailers. Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Tractor Trailer: a large truck with a long trailer attached to the back of it. Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Semitruck: semitrailer sense 2. Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Semi: Entry 2: Semitrailer Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Semitrailer: 1: a freight trailer that when attached is supported at its forward end by the fifth wheel device of the truck tractor; 2: a trucking rig made up of a tractor and a semitrailer Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Tractor, entry 1c = Truck, entry 1b: an automotive vehicle with a short chassis equipped with a swivel for attaching a trailer and used especially for the highway hauling of freight 3. Violation Reversed. As testified by staff, the blue semi-cab that serves as the basis of Violation No. 1 for CODE20-000182is the same semi-cab that serves as the basis of Violation No. 3 of CODE20-000182. The cab simply straddles the property line between 1916 and 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE. Staff acknowledged at hearing that the fact that the cab straddled two property lines didn’t make the adverse impacts of the semi-cab any more severe than it would have created if located within the boundaries of just one parcel. Consequently, the fact that the cab just happens to straddle a property line does not serve as proper justification for citing the violation twice as opposed to once for the same violation. The truck appears to be mostly located within 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. For this reason, only the commercial vehicle violation for 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE will be sustained and the violation for 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE will be reversed. Code Enforcement Decision - 9 CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 2 -- Unlicensed Vehicle Junk Vehicle or Vehicle Hulks on Private Property Regulated (RMC 6-1-3(B)): The storage, maintenance or retention of junk, wrecked, dismantled or an apparently inoperable vehicle, vehicle hulk, or any parts thereof, on private real property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and subject to abatement in accordance with this Chapter and RMC 1-3- 3, as now worded or hereafter amended. 6-1-2 DEFINITIONS: Inoperable: A vehicle that is apparently not functioning or is inoperative or cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads or highways. 4. Violation reversed. The City asserts that Mr. Suciu parked an inoperable vehicle at 1924 Aberdeen Ave NE in violation of RMC 6-1-3(B) on April 21, 2020. The City asserts that the vehicle qualifies as inoperable under RMC 6-1-3B because the vehicle wasn’t licensed on that date. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the City was not able to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the vehicle wasn’t licensed on April 21, 2020. For that reason, the violation is not established and is reversed. CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 1 – Excess Vehicles RMC 4-4-085D4: Maximum Number of Vehicles per Lot: A maximum of four (4) vehicles, not including motorcycle or mopeds, may be parked on a lot unless vehicles in excess of the allowed number are kept within an enclosed building. Additional vehicles may be allowed if: a. More than four( 4) licensed drivers reside at the same address, an additional motor vehicle for each licensed driver over four( 4) may be parked at that particular address, provided that each licensed driver and said vehicle are registered to the same address; or b. An Additional Vehicles Permit is obtained (see RMC 4- 9- 105). 4. Violation sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, on April 21, 2020 there were five vehicles parked at 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. Mr. Suciu, as owner of the property, violated RCW 4- 4-085 on that date. CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 2 – Outdoor Storage RMC 4-5-130(B)(4): Section 308 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 308 Residential Outdoor Storage, which shall read as follows: 308 Residential Outdoor Storage: 308.1 Purpose: The purpose of this section is to define and regulate the outdoor storage of materials on residential property while maintaining the character and use intended for single family residential neighborhoods. For purposes of this section, residentially zoned property is any property zoned RC, R1, R4 or R8. Code Enforcement Decision - 10 308.2 Allowed residential outdoor storage: For RC and R1 zoned properties, a maximum of 400 square feet of area may be used for outdoor storage. For R4 and R8 zoned properties, a maximum of two hundred (200) square feet of area may be used for outdoor storage. 308.3 Prohibited areas for outdoor storage: Outdoor storage is prohibited on residentially zoned property in the following areas: Front yards Side yards Slopes greater than 15% Designated open spaces or restricted areas Critical areas, including wetland, streams and associated buffer areas 308.4 Emergency access: Outdoor storage areas shall not prevent emergency access to the residential structure or any other building. 308.5 Business related storage: Materials stored outdoors on residentially zoned properties shall not be owned by or used in any business or industry including a home occupation business. 5. Violation Sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 7, on April 21, 2020, materials were stored in the front and side yards of the property located at 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE, which is zoned R8, contrary to Section 308.3 as quoted above. CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 3 – Commercial Vehicle See CODE20-000182 – Violation No. 1, above, for quotation of applicable code provisions. 6. Violation Sustained. The City has established that on April 21, 2020, Mr. Suciu stored a prohibited commercial vehicle on 1916 Aberdeen Ave NE. The blue truck depicted in Ex. R6 photographs under Mr. Suciu’s carport qualifies as a “truck trailer” if it is connected to the trailer behind it or a “semi-cab” if it is not. RMC 4-4-085E prohibits the parking of both types of vehicles on Mr. Suciu’s property. As outlined in RMC 4-4-085C1 above, semi-trucks, semi-cabs, or tractor trailers are prohibited from being parked in residential zones. The property is zoned R8. The vehicle the City asserts to be in violation is the blue semi-cab depicted in the Ex. 6 photographs. It’s unclear from the photographs whether the cab is hooked up to the trailer behind it. In either circumstance, the parking of the truck is in violation of RMC 4-4-085C1. If it’s hooked up to the trailer, it qualifies as a “tractor trailer.” If it’s not hooked to the trailer, it qualifies as a “semi-cab.” “Tractor trailer” is not defined in the RMC, but the Miriam Webster definition quoted above provides that a tractor trailer is a large truck with a long trailer attached to it. The blue truck depicted under Mr. Suciu’s carport in the Ex. 6 photographs clearly meets this definition if it’s hooked to the trailer behind it. If the blue truck under the carport is not hooked to its trailer, the application of RMC 4-4-085C1 is a little more challenging. “Semi-cab” is not defined in the RMC, Miriam Webster or any readily identifiable commercial trucking glossaries. It appears to be a term that was manufactured just for RMC 4-4-085C1. From its constituent parts, it’s logical to conclude that “semi-cab” is the cab of a “semi.” “Semi,” as defined by Webster’s above, can refer to the truck/trailer combination or just the trailer component. Consequently, “semi -cab” can Code Enforcement Decision - 11 appropriately be the cab portion of a truck/trailer combination, which would be the blue truck under Mr. Suciu’s carport if it is separated from the trailer behind it. The exemptions of RMC 4-4-085E do not apply to the vehicle. For RMC 4-4-085E1, Mr. Suciu does not assert that the vehicle was being actively loaded or unloaded on April 21, 2020 and Mr. Louder did not testify as to observing any such loading activity when he took his photographs on that date. For RMC 4-4-085E2, as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, more likely than not the truck cab was not being exclusively used for permitted construction on April 21, 2020. Mr. Suciu claims that a prior examiner decision had found that the unattached trailer in his carport did not qualify as a commercial vehicle because a prior hearing examiner decision had found it qualified as a recreational vehicle. As identified in the commercial vehicle definition above, recreational vehicles do not qualify as commercial vehicles. The City Clerk’s Office did not find any prior examiner decision concluding that Mr. Suciu’s semi-cab or its trailer was a recreational vehicle. It appears instead that Mr. Suciu is referring to the decision addressing Code File No. 15 - 000562. In that decision, a Finding of Violation asserting that a trailer on Mr. Suciu’s violated RMC 4-4-085E was dismissed because Mr. Suciu was not given a prior Warning of Violation for the specific trailer subject to the Finding of Violation. There was no finding made in that decision that the trailer qualified as a recreational vehicle exempt from RMC 4-4-085E. The trailer was referenced as a “boat trailer” to distinguish it from a second trailer that was the subject of the Warning of Violation. If the “boat trailer” was usually used for commercial as opposed to recreational purposes, it very likely would not qualify as a recreational vehicle exempt form RMC 4-4-085E. 7. Mitigating Circumstances. RMC 1-3-2E(3)(f) grants the examiner discretion on the amount of fines imposed by a Finding of Violation. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 8, there are no mitigating circumstances that justify reduction of the fines assessed against Mr. Suciu. DECISION The two violations alleged in FOV No. CODE20-000181 are reversed and no fine is due. The three violations alleged in CODE20-000182 are sustained and $750 are Mr. Suciu is ordered to pay that amount within 30 days of the issuance of this decision. ORDER TO CORRECT Mr. Suciu is ordered to correct the sustained violations as identified in the two Findings of Violation that are the subject of this Decision. Failure to correct as ordered shall subject the Appellant to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-3-2(F)(2). Failure to comply with an Order to Correct can be prosecuted a s a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties for a misdemeanor are 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines. Decision issued July 14, 2020. Code Enforcement Decision - 12 Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.