Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSnyder Code Compliance DecisionCode Enforcement Decision - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: FOV#: CODE20-000052 VIOLATION SITE ADDRESS: 10128 SE 188th St Renton, WA 98055 PROPERTY OWNER: Frank Snyder 10128 SE 188th Renton, WA 98055-6300 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Finding of Violation. RULING: Finding of Violation for Violation No. 1 (overgrown weeds) sustained with $100 fine increased to $250 and Violations No. 2 and 3 reversed. The $250 fine is suspended, to be fully waived if Mr. Snyder abates Violation No. 1by October 1, 2020. SUMMARY Frank Snyder appeals a Finding of Violation issued on February 14, 2020 asserting three code violations and imposing $100 in fines for each violation. Violation No. 1 is for overgrown weeds, Violation No. 2 is for unprotected surfaces and Violation No. 3 is for prohibited parking of an apparently inoperable vehicle. Violation No. 1 is sustained as there clearly are overgrown weeds overtaking Mr. Snyder’s yard. Violations No. 2 and 3 are reversed because there is no evidence in the record to establish that the surface of Mr. Snyder’s fence is inadequately protected from the elements and Mr. Snyder’s boat doesn’t qualify as an inoperable vehicle. The fines for Violations No. 2 and 3 are dropped since Mr. Snyder didn’t commit those violations. Given Mr. Snyder’s on- going history of code violations and the extensive efforts of the City to work with him, the fine for Violation No. 1 is increased from the $100 set by the Finding of Violation to $250. To accommodate Mr. Snyder’s disability, the $250 fine will be waived if Mr. Snyder abates the overgrown weed violation by October 1, 2020. Although Mr. Snyder technically does not have to fix the fence on his property, it is advised that he do so because his collapsed fence is likely in violation of City code, just not the code provision cited in the Finding of Violation. The Finding of Violation asserts that Mr. Snyder’s fence violates IPMC 304.2. IPMC 304.2 requires fences to have an adequate protective coating to protect fence surfaces from the elements. The City has presented no evidence that the surface of the wood Code Enforcement Decision - 2 comprising the fence is inadequately protected from the elements. The City’s concern is clearly not over the coating of the fence, but rather that the fence has collapsed. The structural integrity of the fence is not covered by IPMC 304.2, but rather IPMC 302.7, which requires “accessory structures, including …fences…shall be maintained structurally sound and in good repair.” If Mr. Snyder chooses to not fix his fence, the City can still issue another Finding of Violation asserting a violation of IPMC 302.7. Mr. Snyder would likely have a difficult time establishing his collapsed fence is “structurally sound” and in “good repair” if charged with a violation of IPMC 302.7. This is the second time the City has attempted to have Mr. Snyder remove his boat. In 2018 the boat was ordered removed as qualifying as bulky waste in CODE16-000264. That charge in CODE16-000264 was reversed because the City could not prove that the boat was not seaworthy and operable. In this case Mr. Snyder is charged with violating RMC 6-1-3(B), which prohibits the storage of inoperable vehicles. As with the bulky waste charge, the City is not able to prove that the boat is inoperable so the charge must be reversed. The fact that the City is unable to find a code violation for Mr. Snyder’s boat is no accident or unintentional omission from the City’s municipal code. The City Council simply hasn’t elected to prohibit ugly and/or old looking boats, nor is the Council expected to do so anytime in the future. The City may be able to cite Mr. Snyder for overgrown weeds around his boat, but the fact that most people would find Mr. Snyder’s boat to be an eyesore that needs a new coat of paint would be a difficult issue to regulate. As in CODE16-000264, Mr. Snyder potentially has some disabilities that may require accommodation in this code enforcement action. For that reason, he is being given another chance to abate in lieu of paying fines, by having his $250 in fines waived if he abates the weed violation by October 1, 2020. There is no easy solution to Mr. Snyder’s inability to take adequate care of his premises. Overall, under the law despite his potential disability Mr. Snyder is still required to pay thousands of dollars in property taxes every year to own his home and to take other measures to ensure he is a good neighbor. In this context, having to spend a few hundred dollars per year to maintain his property, if he’s unable to do that himself, should be considered reasonable, given that Mr. Snyder’s failure to do so adversely affects the qualify of life and the property values of his neighbors. As a final matter, at least one neighbor tried to submit written comment on Mr. Snyder’s appeal. Those comments are not admissible and were not considered. The only parties authorized to participate in a code enforcement hearing are the appellant and City. Neighbors can participate as witnesses if called by the City or Appellant. Neither party presented the neighbors as witnesses and neither party submitted their email(s) as exhibits. Further, the hearing was closed when the emails were submitted and wouldn’t be admissible for that reason in any event. HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on June 23, 2020 virtually using the Zoom app, Meeting ID No. 883 0088 8253. TESTIMONY Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Officer, summarized the exhibits. She noted that the Code Enforcement Decision - 3 Warning of Violation, Ex. 3, had photographs attached taken on the day she issued the Warning of Violation. She showed a picture of the boat with vegetation on and around it. The photographs showed vegetation coming over the fence from the backyard. The vegetation is extremely high and is pushing the fence out in September 2019. Ex. 4 are emails between Mr. Snyder and Ms. Locher where Ms. Locher gives Mr. Snyder additional time to comply. The Finding of Violation was ultimately not issued until February 2020. Ex. 5 is the Finding of Violation. The photographs taken for the Finding of Violation show that the fence has now completely collapsed. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Locher confirmed that the vegetation depicted as overgrown and overpowering the fence are blackberry bushes and not landscaping vegetation. She noted that the blackberry bushes are beginning to grow up the side of the house. Ms. Locher also responded that the boat hasn’t moved since Mr. Snyder’s last hearing a year or two ago. She said the boat has been there “forever” and on that basis she believes that it’s inoperable and unlicensed. Mr. Snyder wanted to know who lodged a complaint against him. He noted that there were numerous other violations in his neighborhood and he was being picked on. Mr. Snyder was given the option of having the hearing continued so he could make a records request for the complaint lodged against him. Mr. Snyder chose to proceed with the hearing as scheduled. Mr. Snyder was advised to send a records request to Cindy Moya for the complaint if he wanted to see it after the hearing. Mr. Snyder stated there’s no vegetation growing through the boat. The boat is operable, but it is unlicensed. He noted that in the last hearing the boat was determined to be operable because it has a working auxiliary motor. Just because he hasn’t used it doesn’t mean that it’s junk. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Snyder responded that if he took the boat out in the water he would be able to use it now. The main engine needs some work but he has a 9.9 hp auxiliary motor that he used the last time he used the boat. In response to questions from Ms. Locher, Mr. Snyder responded that the last time he used the boat was 1996. Ms. Locher clarified that the City is not calling the boat junk but rather inoperable and unlicensed. The rest of the violations are just the failing fence and overgrown vegetation. Mr. Snyder explained that health issues have prevented from maintaining his yard. Ms. Locher noted that she understands Mr. Snyder’s health limitations, but that neighborhood kids and the like can be hired at low cost to take care of the yard issues. Ms. Locher added that the City is not picking on Mr. Snyder. It’s just responding to complaints. Mr. Snyder lives in a cul-de-sac of some nice homes and she can understand why the neighbors are upset with him. Mr. Snyder explained he’s had major health issues. He’s had a back problem that limits how long he can work. In 2019 he also injured both his shoulders and his groin, which prevented him from doing anything except cutting the grass and doing that took two or three days working in fifteen-minute sessions. Since September he’s had problems with acute congestive heart failure where his body was retaining fluid and his heart was beating shallower and he had no stamina whatsoever. He saw his cardiologist in December and was told everything was ok, but right after Code Enforcement Decision - 4 that his heart went into afib, probably from the acute congestive heart failure. He couldn’t walk 50 yards without becoming nauseas and disoriented and woozy. He had a cardioversion on June 1 that put his heart back into normal sinus rhythm. He will be seeing his cardiologist on the 9th of July and he will be considering his recovery plans to see what kind of activity he will be able to do. He believes he will need at least a couple months to get his heart muscle back to working condition. He’s very vulnerable to catastrophic heart failure. He just needs additional time to get the work done. He’s gotten estimates on getting the yard work done and it’s prohibitively expensive for him. He’s hoping that he can rent a field brush mower to take down the bulk of the vegetation in his backyard, including alder saplings that are beginning to crowd out the blackberries in his backyard. Mr. Snyder showed pictures of the property as of yesterday. He said that a neighbor has offered to share their yard maintenance service but Mr. Snyder can’t afford $100 per month for something like that. He can try and do it himself. Once he’s able to walk behind a heavy-duty brush mover he’ll do that and then he’ll take care of the fence. The upright portions of the fence are still very usable and just need some added planking once the vegetation is removed. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Locher stated that if the weeds are all behind the fence the City will not have a violation issue. Ms. Locher stated that the blackberry bushes hidden behind fencing can still cause violations by causing fences to collapse. Blackberry bushes also become a problem when they invade neighbor yards. Mr. Snyder stated it wasn’t the blackberry bushes that were causing the fence damage, but rather another climbing bush. He also noted that the blackberry bushes in his yard are the result of such bushes overgrowing in the adjoining two- acre parcel that is overgrown with blackberry bushes. Those bushes have been invading his yard ever since he’s lived in his home. Ms. Locher stated she’s open to suspended fines, but this is at least the second time that the City has had to hold an appeal hearing over these violations. However, she would much rather see Mr. Snyder spend his money on someone to take care of his yard instead of paying fines. Mr. Snyder said he needs input from his cardiologist before knowing how much time he needs to correct the violations. When he goes into afib he stays in afib and that’s a very dangerous condition. He has to avoid stressing his heart to prevent that from happening and he needs time for his heart to heal from his last afib incident. Mr. Snyder noted that his fences are much better than three years ago. There has been improvement. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-6 identified in the City’s exhibit list were entered into the record during the hearing. Three photographs of Mr. Snyder’s yard presented by Mr. Snyder were admitted as Exhibit 7. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Violation Site. The violation site is located at 10128 SE 188th St. The site in question is owned by Frank Snyder, who resides at the site. Code Enforcement Decision - 5 2. February 14, 2020 Finding of Violation. The February 14, 2020 Finding of Violation (“FOV”) alleges three code violations that were found by staff on Mr. Snyder’s property: (1) overgrown vegetation; (2) inadequately protected fence surface, and (3) inoperable vehicle. Mr. Snyder filed an appeal of this Finding of Violation on February 28, 2020. 3. Overgrown Vegetation. The FOV asserts the existence of blackberry vines over 12” in height on the violation site. Photographs taken on February 13, 2020, Ex 5, confirm this observation and Mr. Snyder doesn’t contest this fact. It is determined that there were blackberry vines over 12” in height on the violation site on February 13, 2020. 4. Fence. February 13, 2020 Ex. 5 photographs show Mr. Snyder’s fencing with one section fallen over and individual planks pushed out and at least one other section leaning over. The fencing is heavily overgrown with vegetation and the vegetation appears to be the cause of the fencing structural problems. Beyond the fence structural problems, there is no evidence indicating any problem with the coating of the fence or the condition of its exterior surface. 5. Boat. The boat depicted in the Ex. 5 photographs according to Mr. Snyder hasn’t been used since 1996. According to staff, the boat hasn’t been moved from its current location for at least two years, as the boat is in the same location it was in 2018 when Mr. Snyder was last cited for the boat. Mr. Snyder admits that the boat isn’t currently licensed. He maintains that the boat can be operated by an auxiliary motor. The Ex. 5 photographs show the boat as run over with blackberry bushes in a dilapidated condition, but not so dilapidated that it necessarily is no longer seaworthy. Mr. Snyder has been very honest throughout his testimony, including admitting to facts that are not in his interest. For this reason, his testimony that the boat can be operated with an auxiliary motor are taken as true. 6. Mitigating Circumstances. Mr. Snyder suffers from congestive heart failure and other medical problems that limit his ability to maintain his premises. He also states he doesn’t have the resources to pay for yard maintenance and needs to do it himself. However, it must also be recognized that Mr. Snyder was cited and found to have violated similar violations just two years ago in CODE16-000264 for a Finding of Violation issued on January 2, 2018. Mr. Snyder was served a Warning of Violation on September 19, 2019 for the violations subject to this appeal. As documented in Ex. 4, City staff have spent months working with Mr. Snyder to try to get him to abate the violations on his property. 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. Violation No. 1: International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.4 as amended by RMC 4-5- 130(B)(16): Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of twelve inches in height on development property or twenty- four inches (24") in height on vacant land. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs; provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. Code Enforcement Decision - 6 3. Violation Found. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the violation site contained blackberry and other weeds exceeding 12 inches in height on February 13, 2020. It is concluded that as owner of the violation site, Mr. Snyder was in violation of RMC 4-5-130(B)(16) on February 13, 2020. Violation No. 2: International Property Maintenance Code Section 304.2 as adopted by RMC 4-5- 130A: Exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences, shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. Peeling, flaking and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted. Siding and masonry joints, as well as those between building envelope and the perimeter of windows, doors and skylights, shall be maintained weather resistant and water tight. Metal surfaces subject to rust or corrosion shall be stabilized and coated to inhibit future rust and corrosion. Oxidation stains shall be removed from exterior surfaces. Surfaces designed for stabilization by oxidation are exempt from this requirement. 4. No Violation Found. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the surface of Mr. Snyder’s fencing is in violation of IPMC 304.2. As quoted above, IPMC 304.2 requires the surface of structures such as fences to be adequately protected from the elements so that there is no chipping of paint for wood surfaces, no rust or corrosion for metal surfaces and surfaces prone to leaking are required to be watertight. As far as can be ascertained from the Ex. 5 photographs, the surface of Mr. Snyder’s fence is not suffering from any paint chipping or weather induced damage or dilapidation. The structure of the fence is obviously compromised and damaged, but Section 304.2 only address the surface of the fence , not its structural integrity. 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. 5. No Violation Found. At hearing the City testified that as to the boat the City is only asserting it is an inoperable vehicle, not a junk vehicle. Limited to an allegation of inoperable vehicle, there is no violation. The boat is unlicensed, but as identified in RMC 6-1-2 quoted above, a vehicle is only deemed inoperable by virtue of not having a license if it cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads or highways. The “lawfully operated” portion of the RMC 6-1-2 clearly only applies to vehicles that can be driven on roads, since boats (excluding amphibious vehicles) can never be lawfully operated on public roads. Mr. Snyder’s boat can only qualify as inoperable under the 6-1-2 definition if it is apparently not functioning or is inoperative in fact. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, Mr. Snyder’s boat is still operable. The boat is dilapidated and overgrown with weeds, but that condition does not qualify it as an inoperable vehicle under RCW 6-1-3B. Code Enforcement Decision - 7 6. 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. 7, Mr. Snyder suffers from what appears to be a disability that limits his ability to abate the violations on his property. This is the same issue that confronted Mr. Snyder and the City in the code enforcement action against him in 2018. As in 2018, City staff have spent months working with Mr. Snyder trying to achieve compliance. For the reasons identified in the Summary section of this Decision, the responsibilities of Mr. Snyder as a homeowner dictates that he spend a few hundred dollars a year maintaining his home if he can’t take care of it himself. Given the repeated and on-going nature of the overgrown weed offense, the City’s extensive efforts to work with Mr. Snyder and the fact that the total fines imposed by the Finding of Violation are $300, the fine for the overgrown weed violation, Violation No. 1, is increased from that imposed by the Finding of Violation to the maximum allowed of $250. To reasonably accommodate Mr. Snyder’s potential disability, Mr. Snyder is given a choice by this decision to either pay suspended fines or pay someone to fix his fence and weed problem. That should be an easy choice to make, since if Mr. Snyder chooses to pay the fines instead, the City will have the option to levy more fines until Mr. Snyder finally takes care of the problem on his property. 7. Unequal Enforcement. During the hearing, as in his 2018 hearing, Mr. Snyder also asserted that the City has failed to enforce numerous other violations in his neighborhood and this should excuse his noncompliance. The alleged favorable treatment of other neighbors does not serve as grounds for reversing the FOV for the reasons identified in CODE16-000264. DECISION Violation No. 1 of the February 14, 2020 Finding of Violation is sustained. Violation No. 2 and 3 are reversed as there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the surface of the fence is not adequately protected from the elements and Mr. Snyder’s boat doesn’t qualify as an apparently inoperable vehicle. The $250 fine imposed for Violation No. 1 is suspended and shall be waived if Mr. Snyder fully abates Violation No. 1 by October 1, 2020. Decision issued July 21, 2020. 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.