HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoldt Letter & Order �
Denis Law Mayor
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
April 4, 2017
Gregory Boldt
9654 7th Avenue NE
Seattle, WA 98115
Re: Hearing Examiner's Order of Dismissal
Code Compliance Case FOV#:16-000195
Dear Mr. Boldt:
I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Order of Dismissal dated April 4, 2017, in the above
referenced matter.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
�G%!�'
Jason A. Seth, CMC
City Clerk
Attachment
cc: Hearing Examiner
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector
Tim Lawless, Code Compliance Inspector
Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g BEFORE TAE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
9
Code Enforcement
10
Gregory Boldt
11
12
CODE16-000195 ORDER OF DISMISSAL
13
SUMMARY
14
Mr. Boldt requests the opportunity to appeal three Findings of Violation ("FOV") for which appeal
I S deadlines have long expired. Since the FOVs were properly served, Mr. Boldt's request is denied. Mr.
16 Boldt is still free to try to work out some settlement with code enforcement officers, but the examiner
legally cannot consider the merits of his appeal because Mr. Boldt failed to file an appeal within appeal
1� deadlines.
18 EXHIBITS
19 The documents considered in this order are as follows:
20
1. Boldt Warning of Violation dated March 30, 2016
2� 2. Boldt FOV No. 1 dated October 1, 2016 along with proof of service
3. Boldt FOV No. 2 dated November 23,2016 along with proof of service
22 4. Boldt FOV No. 3 dated December 28, 2016 along with proof of service
5. January 31, 2016 from Boldt to Code Enforcement Locher and City Clerk Seth requesting
23 appeal of FOVs
24 6. February 3, 2017 email order from examiner to parties for argument and documentation on
untimely request for appeal.
25 7. February 6, 2017 email response from City
8. February 20, 2017 response from Boldt
26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
1
1
FINDINGS OF FACT
2
l. Mailin�of FOVs. The City of Renton mailed Mr. Boldt a Warning of Violation, FOV No l, FOV
3 No. 2 and FOV No. 3 on March 30, 2016, October 17, 2016, November 23, 2016 and December 28,
2016 respectively. The mailing of the three FOVs is established by USPS tracking documents and
4 certified mail receipts filled out by the City. Service of all three FOVs included service by certified
5 mail, return receipt requested. See Ex. 2-4. In his response letter; Mr. Boldt admits to receiving the
Warning of Violation. See Ex. 8.
6
2. Violation. The three FOVs and the Warning of Violation are all based upon the same violation,
� improper storage of the same two vehicles in violation of RMC 6-1-3. The penalties for the violation
g total $600.
9 3. Appeal. Mr. Boldt never filed an appeal to any of the FOVs. The first documentation of any
indication that he wished to appeal were two emails he sent to the City Clerk and City Code Enforcement
10 Officer on January 31, 2016 where he stated he was unable to file a timely appeal because he was not
living at his home where the FOVs were mailed. Ex. 5. He was at the time of FOV mailing living with
1� his brother in order to take care of his brother's medical needs. Id. In his argument to waive the appeal
12 deadline, Mr. Boldt stated he hadn't change his mailing address because he still owned his residence
and he didn't know how long his brother would need his help. See Ex. 8.
13
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
14
1. FOVs Propertv Served. RMC 1-3-2(C)(4)authorizes service of a FOV by the methods authorized
15 by RMCW 1-3-2(B)(8). RMC 1-3-2(B)(8)defines "service"to include service by certified mail, return
16 receipt requested. As determined in FOF No. 1, all three FOVs were served in the manner required by
the"service" definition.
17
2. FOVs not Timely Appealed. The Examiner has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the three FOVs
18 because Mr.Boldt did not file any timely appeal. RMC 1-3-2(E)(2)(a)requires appeals to be filed within
15 calendar days of the issuance of an FOV. Mr. Boldt filed no formal appeal and his first indication to
19 the City that he wished to appeal was by email dated January 31, 2017, well past the 15-calendar day
20 appeal deadline applicable to the last FOV, dated and mailed December 28, 2016. See FOF No. 1 and
3. Mr. Boldt doesn't dispute that he missed the deadlines, but instead requests that the deadlines be
21 waived because he was not at home to receive the letters due to medical care he was providing to his
brother. Unfortunately, the courts do not allow the waiver of appeal deadlines for these types of
22 circumstances. Absent a defect in service, untimely appeals are legally required to be dismissed. Courts
strictly enforce the appeal deadlines of land use cases, which includes code enforcement. See RCW
23 36.70C.020(1)(c). As noted in one Washington State Supreme Court case involving the failure of a
24 property owner to timely file a building permit approval for which he received no notice (since notice
wasn't required in that case):
25
... While this result may seem harsh and unfair, to grant relief on these facts would be
26 contrary to the statutory scheme enacted by the legislature as well as our prior
holdings. Indeed, we have acknowledged a strong public policy supporting
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
2
1
administrative deadlines and have further explained that "[IJeaving land use decisions
2 open to reconsideration long after the decisions are finalized places property owners
in a precarious position and undermines the Legislature's intent to provide expedited
3 appeal procedures in a consistent,predictable and timely manner. " Chelan County v.
Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 933, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). This court has faced numerous
4 challenges to statutory time limits for appealing land use decisions and has repeatedly
5 concluded that the rules must provide certainty, predictability, and finality for land
owners and the government. Petitioners offer us no mechanism that would permit them
( to assert their claim under LUPA's[Land Use Petition ActJ statutory framework....
7
g Durland v. San Juan Counry, 182 Wn.2d 55, 59 (2014).
9 DECISION
10 Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is determined that any appeal of
FOV No. 1-3 would at this point be untimely and should be dismissed.
11
12 Decision issued April 4, 2017.
_ _-._�
13 �Y � r'
�-�c�.�--��,.�.�
14 �'h����hts
15 Hearing Examiner
16
1� APPEAL
1 g Appeal of this decision is subject to the Washington State Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C
of the Revised Code of Washington. Appeals must be filed with superior court within 21 days of
19 the issuance of this decision as regulated by Chapter 36.70C RCW.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
3