HomeMy WebLinkAboutmaytum dec Denis Law Mayor �
�
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
July 18, 2017
Donna Maytum
4321 SE 3rd Street
Renton, WA 98059
Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision
Case No.: CODE-16-000700 (No Building Permit)
Dear Ms. Maytum:
I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated June 17, 2017, in the above referenced
matter.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
� ��
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector
Tim Lawless, Code Compliance Inspector
Robert Shuey,Code Compliance Inspector
Sandra Pedersen, Finance
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF
RENTON
DECISION
FILE NUMBER: FOV#: 16-000700
VIOLATION SITE: 4321 SE 3RD St.
Renton, WA 98059
PROPERTY OWNER: Donna Maytum
4321 se 3RD St.
Renton, WA 98059
REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton
TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation
RESOLUTION $100 Fine suspended for compliance
INTRODUCTION
Donna Maytum has been charged with one count of violating the international building code for
failing to acquire approval of a building permit for the construction of a patio cover. The City
has assessed a $100 fine for the violation. Ms. Maytum was not aware she needed a building
permit and made multiple attempts to acquire the permit, but due to illness, potential disability
and apparent frustration was unable to include all the measurements necessary for submission of
a complete site plan for the patio cover. Upon recommendation of the code enforcement officer,
the $100 fine is suspended pending submission and approval of a building permit application for
the patio cover. Ms. Maytum shall submit a complete building permit application in
conformance with all applicable codes by August 25, 2017 and shall comply with any code based
requests for additional information and corrective actions within reasonable time limits set by
Renton staff. The $100 fine sha(l be waived upon approval of the building permit or removal af
the patio cover.
HEARING
The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on June 13, at 2:00 pm at the Renton
City Hall Counci( Chambers, Renton City Counci( Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,
WA 98057.
TESTIMONY
Code Enforcement Decision- 1
Robert Shuey, Renton Code Compliance Officer, presented the City's case. He noted that he
received a complaint about the violation and went to investigate. Mrs. Maytum has been very
forthcoming and willing to comply. She comes from Texas, where bureaucracy for construction
is less. The only remaining compliance issues are getting site plan issues resolved. Ms. Maytum
was ill and not able to initially get the required site plan done. But it still took too long to
complete the site plan, so he was forced to issue a Finding of Violation to get the project moving.
The only work that needs to be done on the site plan is adding accurate measurements that show
separation from property lines and the like.
Mrs. Maytum stated she submitted a site plan and it was refused. She tried to do another site
plan and that wasn't accepted either. She's not physically able to take some of the
measurements. She's done the best she could do. She called a couple contractors and was told
they don't do site pians. One person said he'd do it for several thousand dollars and she doesn't
have the funds for that. She doesn't understand why her drawing isn't good enough. It's only a
360 square foot patio cover. She built the cover in her first summer at her home in 2013. This is
all because of a neighbor upset about losing a property line dispute (adverse possession) with
her. If Ron had talked to her earlier she could have avoided a $400 permit fee. She's had to pay
fees with a credit card and needs that money for medicine and food. $400 for doing an hour of
computer research is exorbitant. The rules that apply to this situation are too difficult and hard to
find and comprehend for homeowners. So far this code violation issue has cost her $630. She
was being required to add support beams to the patio covers, which would add to the expense of
the code violations. The permit department also practices alarmism. She was told that the patio
cover would have to be taken down, which was alarmist because the cover was very well built.
If she was a young man she would not have been spoken to that way. As to the site plan, no
deadline was ever set for submitting the site plan so she didn't know it had taken too long to put
one together. The permitting department was frequently giving her insufficient information. She
was disappointed there was no appeal process available earlier in the code violation process.
The City should have an advocate representative to help persons like her get through the
permitting process. She didn't know she needed a building permit for the patio cover. She
feels that the absence of a statute of limitations is outrageous. Enforcement by complaint doesn't
work because persons like herself who are unlucky enough to live next to vigilantes will be
unfair(y singled out. Her ability to work with the City was limited because disabilities prevented
her from driving to City Hall and she was also il( at times.
Mr. Shuey noted that he's given Ms. Maytum more time to comply than any other property
owner he has dealt with. He is still wiliing to help Ms. Maytum put together a code compliant
site plan. Ms. Maytum noted that aerial photographs are a good enough substitute for site plans.
She didn't understand why the measurements were necessary.
EXHIBIT5
Ex. l: Appeal
Code Enforcement Decision-2
Ex. 2: Code Comp(iance Narrative
Ex. 3: Property Information
Ex. 4: Warning of Violation
Ex. 5: Second Warning of Violation
Ex. 6: Finding of Violation
Ex. 7: Site Plan and Site Plan Comments from Mona Davis
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Pro�erty. The site is located at 4321 SE 3`d St. Renton. The site in question is a single
family residence owned by Donna Maytum.
2. Patio Cover. Ms. Maytum built a patio cover without a building permit She was not
aware she needed a building permit to construct the patio cover.
3. Code Enforcement Chronolo�v. Ron Shuey, Renton code enforcement officer, first
inspected the patio cover on October 20, 2016. From the adjoining street, Mr. Shuey observed
that a new patio cover extension had been built without a building permit. He issued a Warning
of Violation with a compliance date of November 4, 2016. Mr. Shuey met with Ms. Maytum on
November 3, 2016 and agreed to extend the compliance dead(ine to November 22, 2016 to give
time to Ms. Maytum to determine what she needed to do to acquire a building permit. Ms.
Maytum did not file a building permit application by the extended deadline so a second Warning
of Violation was sent on November 23, 2016. The second warning set a compliance date of
December 9, 2016. On December 9, 2016 Mr. Shuey called Ms. Maytum to inquire why she
hadn't yet acquired a buitding permit. Ms. Maytum asked to speak to Mr. Shuey's supervisor.
Ms. Maytum submitted a check and building permit application to Mr. Shuey on December 19,
2016. In response to comments from the building department, Ms. Maytum submitted a more
complete building permit application on February 13, 2017. On March 1, 2017 Mr. Shuey
determined that the building plans were approved with comments that measurements had to be
added to the site plan. On March 15, 2017 Mr. Shuey emailed Ms. Maytum and inquired as to
when she planned on submitting a corrected site pian. Ms. Maytum responded on March 17,
2017 that "ILL REPLY LATER." Ms. Maytum did not subsequently provide any additional
reply so Mr. Shuey issued a Finding of Violation on March 23, 2017.
4. Site plan. As part of Ms. Maytum's bui(ding permit application, Ms. Maytum submitted
a hand-drawn site plan that identifies the size and general location of structures on Ms.
Maytum's lot. See Ex. 6. The site plan also identifies the lot coverage of the structures, but
doesn't identify separation from lot lines. Mona Davis from the City's building department
issued "Plan Review Comments," Ex. 7, to Ms. Maytum requiring that the site plan be drawn to
scale "...and accurately depict lot dimensions and st�-uctural setbacks from the property lines."
The comments also required that the lot coverage ca(culations be based upon the size of the lot
and that Ms. Maytum clarify whether a shed on the lot is partial(y under the patio of the lot as
depicted in aerial photographs of the site.
5. Finding of Violation. The Finding of Vio(ation issued March 23, 2017 alleges that Ms.
Maytum constructed a patio cover extension without approval of a building permit as required by
Code Enforcement Decision- 3
Section 105.1 of the International Residential Code ("IRC"). The Finding of Violation imposes a
$100 fine.
6. A eal. Ms. Maytum filed an appeal of the March 23, 2017 Finding of Violation on
April 3, 2017.
7. Disabilitv. Ms. Maytum asserts that she is unable to do some of the measurements
required for her building permit site plan due to disability. Ms. Maytum did not provide any
evidence or specific information on her disability and no inquiries were made on that subject in
order to protect Ms. Maytum's privacy. No determination has been made in this proceeding as to
whether Ms. Maytum has a disability protected by the American with Disabilities Act and none
was requested by Ms. Maytum.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Authoritv of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to
review code violation as provided in RMC 1-3-2.
2. Code Violation: The Finding of Violation of this case is based upon violation of 1RC
105.1. The IRC is adopted by the City of Renton by Section 4-5-060(6)(b) of the Renton
Municipal Code ("RMC"). Applicable IRC provisions are quoted below in bold and italics with
accompanying Conclusions of Law that apply those criteria to the Findings of Fact made above.
Count 1.
IRC 1051: Reqarired. Any owner or authorizecl agent tivho intends to construct, enlarge, alter,
repair, move, demolish or change the occatpancy of a bzrilding or strzrcta�re, or to erect, install,
enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electNical, gas, �nechanical or plumbing
system, the installation of which is regulated by this code, or to caatse nny si�ch work to be done,
shall first make applicativn to the building official and obtain the required permit.
IRC 106.2: The consh-uctiorr docatments sarbmitted with the application for permit shall be
accompanied by a site plart showing the size and locatiorr of new construction and existing
structures on the srte and distances,f�om lot lines. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall
show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing striictztres and
construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The bzcilding official is authorized to waive or
mod�the reqicirement for a site plan where the applicntion for perrnit is for alteration or repair
or where otherwise warranted.
3. Count 1 is affirmed. It is concluded that Ms. Maytum failed to acquire a building permit
as required by IRC 105.1 for her construction of her patio cover at 4321 SE 3rd St. Renton, WA
98059. It is further determined that IRC 106.2 requires the information requested by the City in
Ex. 6 for approval of the bui(ding permit.
4. Reasonable Accommodation. Title II of the American with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
requires local government to make reasonable accommodations to its policies, practices and
Code Enforcement Decision-4
procedures to accommodate persons with disabilities. Since the record of this appeal proceeding
was not prepared for a reasonab(e accommodation claim, the examiner has not investigated the
applicability of the ADA to the circumstances of the Appellant. Staff shouid be aware that the
ADA may require the City to waive site plan requirements as authorized by IRC 106.2 to the
extent that the requested information isn't necessary to assess compliance with applicable City
development standards if the Appellant's disability makes it difficult for her to provide that
information. Since the Appellant can hire out the preparation of the site plan as opposed to doing
it herself, it is questionable whether the ADA excuses conformance to any building permit
application requirements that apply to the general population. It is recommended that City staff
consult with the City Attorney's Office on this issue if staff hasn't dealt with this type of
situation before. °
DECISION
The Finding of Violation is affirmed. The $100 fine imposed by the Finding of Violation is
suspended and will be waived upon successful completion of ali of the following contingencies:
l. Submission of a complete building permit application in conformance with the "Plan
Review Comments," Ex. 7, by August 25, 2017.
2. Submission of all additional information and completion of all corrective action required
by staff within reasonable timelines imposed by staff.
3. Approval of the building permit application or removal of the patio cover.
Decision issued July 17, 2017.
_
` ( `����--- -�--� --_-___
�n���,rt —
City of Renton 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. �
Code Enforcement Decision- 5