Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2916 S. Peabody St - Nuisance (2)October 10, 2003 Mr. Jay Pressley 2920 So. Peabody Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: City v. Cur Dear Mr. Pressley: As you know, this file was handed to me to handle on behalf of the City of Port Angeles. I have reviewed the file, and made two visits to your property to check out the situation, and to talk with you My involvement is or was limited to a criminal action against the Curtos. That would entail taking this matter before a jury, and having it unanimously determined beyond a reasonable doubt that the Curtos would be found guilty of willful violation of a proper ordinance. After review the situation, your complaints, and the cutting that has taken place, I have made the decision to dismiss this case. I do not feel it merits the time and expense it would take to prosecute this case, especially given that I do not feel a jury would convict them. In other words, it would be a waste of time, and be a pronounced victory for the Curtos, which may entrench them should this same matter be brought up in the future. One reason for the dismissal is that because of the pressure they got from the city, they did, as you mentioned, do some substantial cutting, so this has not been for naught. Next, in your message to me, as when 1 spoke with you, your focus seems to be more on matters that the city has nothing to do with. You are concerned that his bushes grow out horizontally into your air space. You are concerned that he has left cuttings on your property. You may be able to get legal relief in those areas, but that would be through a private, civil action against the Curtos. You may wish to contact a private attorney to discuss that, and to discuss other boundary encroachments you have mentioned to me. St -rn C. Gish STEVEN C. GISH ATTORNEY AT LAW 408 E_ 5 St- PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 PH: (360) 457 -7391 FAX_ (360) 457 -7393 Y aGQ S 17 L' 7J OCT 1 3 2003 CITY OF MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds Assistant Planner 417 -4750 Scott Johns Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician CSW Coordinator 417 -4712 PORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. December 13, 2002 TO: Craig Knutson, City Attorney FROM: Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner RE: CURTO Zoning Enforcement In September, 2002, a memorandum was sent to your department outlining a zoning enforcement issue and asking that enforcement action be taken in the Curto/Pressley issue, 2916 South Peabody Street. As we have not heard how the enforcement is proceeding as yet, would you please provide an update of the matter at your earliest convenience. Thank you. f Sue Roberds, sistant Planner NOTE TO FILE: February 21, 2003 received a phone message from Dennis Dickson who said that the City Attorney's office has filed a complaint regarding the Curto hedge. Mr. Curto is working with the City through his attorney. W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: September 17, 2002 To: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney From: Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner RE: Curto /Pressley Complaint 2916 South Peabody Street On August 15, 2002, a letter was sent to Mr. Dan Curto recapping the concerns regarding the past hedge complaints on his property at 2916 South Peabody Street and asking him to choose a method of compliance that would bring the hedge into compliance no later than August 30, 2002. No return communication was made by Mr. Curto. I spoke to Mr. Pressley on September 11t and told him that I would perform a site investigation by the end of the week and that I would be forwarding a report to your office for review and action if compliance had not been reached. Mr. Pressley said he was mostly concerned at this point as to the encroachment of the hedge onto his property as he is getting ready to construct a fence and will have to do quite a bit of trimming to get the vegetation off the property line. I told him that the encroachment onto his property is not a zoning issue but is a civil matter between he and Mr. Curto. The City will only be pursuing the height and separation issues. On September 13, 2002, I did a site investigation and observed that it appeared some trimming was done on Mr. Curto's side of the hedge which did not result in compliance with the City's Zoning Ordinance. There was no sign that the hedge was being trimmed relative to height but only perhaps cosmetically. A pile of clippings was evident but they may not have been the result of hedge trimming. It was not apparent that any height had been removed or separation made. Therefore, I am forwarding a copy of my August 15, 2002, correspondence to Mr. Curto to you. I am aware that your files contain previous communications with Messrs. Pressley and Curto. Although the August 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Curto was not sent certified mail, it was not returned, so it is believed to have been received. Due to the inaction on the part of Mr. Curto, the Department is requesting that enforcement be commenced at this time. If I can be of further assistance in this matter, please don't hesitate to ask. Sue Roberds, Ass stant Planner Attachment MEMO CITY ATTORNEY Craig Knutson City Attorney [4531] Dennis Dickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney [4532] Candace Kathol Legal Assistant [4576] Diana Lusby Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Jeanie DeFrang Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Teresa Pierce Legal Records Specialist [4576] pORT NGELES Date: To: From: Re: W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. September 16, 2002 Department of Community Development City Attorney Jay Pressley Complaint About Curto Hedge at 2916 S. Peabody Street I had a phone call from Mr. Pressley inquiring as to the status of the Curto's compliance with the zoning regulations as applied to their hedge adjacent to Mr. Pressley's property. Mr. Pressley was apparently concerned that the August 30 deadline that you gave Mr. and Mrs. Curto in your August 15, 2002 letter has passed without any compliance. Could you respond to Mr. Pressley with regard to the status of this matter? Thank you for your assistance. Craig D. Knu on City Attorney CDK:dl C:\ DDOCS \DMEMOkk DeptCommDevelop -1.wpd SEP t 7 20e2 CITY OF PORT ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT August 15, 2002 Mr. and Mrs. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: 2916 South Peabody Street Hedge Trimming Dear Mr. and Mrs. Curto: During the past year and one -half, City staff have had several conversations with you regarding the need to either trim the hedge located along the southern edge of your property to no more than six (6') feet from ground level; separate the plantings by a distance of no less than six (6') from each other; or move the hedge into the seven (7') foot interior setback line. Although staff have tried to answer your questions and have responded to your Attorney Karen Unger in her attempt to advise you, the hedge remains in basically the same state it was in during the summer of 2000 and in some instances has grown from the minimal trimming you did in 2001. The City has been informed that the overheight hedge violation still exists. Because we are sure that you are aware of past conversation and direction as to what constitutes a legal situation and what does not, and because we do have a complaint on record, this letter is to advise you that the hedge must be maintained in a legal manner no later than August 30, 2002, or the City will begin enforcement proceedings. Due to past communications regarding the situation, we are certain that you know what needs to be done at this point to bring the hedge into compliance. If you need to discuss your maintenance schedule with staff, please don't hesitate to contact Sue Roberds at 417 -4750, however, maintenance must be done prior to August 30, 2002. If you have concerns that any of the information presented in this letter is incorrect, please contact Brad Collins at 417 -4751. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Assistant Planner cc: City Attorney 321 EAST FIFTH STREET PO BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 -3206 PHONE: 360- 417 -4750 FAX: 360-417-4711 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US OR PERMITS @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US 0 PORTANGELES cc: Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL Date: August 9, 2002 To: Craig Knutson, City Attorney From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Jay Pressley Complaint, 2920 S. Peabody St. ECEEIWE OP1iIENT AUG 1 2 2002 CITY OF PORT ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I met with Mr. Pressley today at his property and investigated the hedge complaint regarding his neighbor's property on the north side of Mr. Pressley's property. The hedge is grown together for most of this property line and is well in excess of six feet in height. We have communicated on numerous occasions over the past two plus years with the neighbor Mr. Curto, who has said that he would comply with the City's zoning requirements but has not maintained the hedge. DCD will send another letter to Mr. Curto citing the Zoning Code and his failure to meet the maintenance requirements. It is my opinion that Mr. Curto is not cooperating and that his repeated failures to maintain his hedge will require prosecution. Sue will send you a copy of our new correspondence to Mr. Curto when it is mailed to him. =u^ 44Z 6.8's4 ---1 -c Lem- 511,c,2 t A4'W •"C4J +1i2 hD 5 61))2*-re-i-yN- fr -6( aTr of PORTANGELES cc: Sue Roberds, Assistant Planner W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Date: August 9, 2002 To: Craig Knutson, City Attorney From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Jay Pressley Complaint, 2920 S. Peabody St. I met with Mr. Pressley today at his property and investigated the hedge complaint regarding his neighbor's property on the north side of Mr. Pressley's property. The hedge is grown together for most of this property line and is well in excess of six feet in height. We have communicated on numerous occasions over the past two plus years with the neighbor Mr. Curto, who has said that he would comply with the City's zoning requirements but has not maintained the hedge. DCD will send another letter to Mr. Curto citing the Zoning Code and his failure to meet the maintenance requirements. It is my opinion that Mr. Curto is not cooperating and that his repeated failures to maintain his hedge will require prosecution. Sue will send you a copy of our new correspondence to Mr. Curto when it is mailed to him. MEMO CITY ATTORNEY Craig Knutson City Attorney [4531] Dennis Dickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney [4532] Candace Kathol Legal Assistant [4576] Jeanie DeFrang Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Diana Lusby Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Teresa Pierce Legal Records Specialist [4576] PORT NGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: To: From: Re: Today, I had a phone call from Jay Pressley regarding the on -going situation involving a "hedge" on the property of his neighbors, Dan and Karen Curto. Mr. Pressley stated that it has been approximately one year since Mr. Curto did some removal of vegetation along the property line, apparently in response to correspondence from the City. According to Mr. Pressley, the hedge is now grown over onto his property again. I told him that I would contact your department to have the situation investigated and that someone would contact him within a week to let him know what action, if any, the City will take in response to his current complaint. Please have someone from your Department contact Mr. Pressley to view the situation and let me know what you recommend doing about it. Thank you for your assistance. Craig D. Knuts City Attorney CDK:jd C: \jmemock- Collins.wpd July 29, 2002 Brad Collins, Director of Community Development Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney Jay Pressley Complaint, 2920 South Peabody CEfiWE ny L JUL 3 0 2002 I CITY OF PORT ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. CITY ATTORNEY November 20, 2001 Karen L. Unger, P.S. Attorney at Law 332 E. 5th Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Dan and Karen Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Dear Ms. Unger: This is in response to your September 4, 2001 letter regarding the City's communication with your clients Dan and Karen Curto to bring their hedge into compliance with the City's Zoning Code. After receiving your letter, I requested the City's Department of Community Development to respond to the statements that you relayed from your clients. Based on your letter and the information I received from City staff, it appears that the City has provided the Curto's with several options for bringing the hedge into compliance. It also appears from your letter that the Curto's either misunderstood some of the City's directives or were confused by the different options that they were presented with. If you would like, I could explain to you how the specific recollections of City staff differ from your clients' recollections. However, I don't think that resolving how the miscommunication occurred would be particularly productive at this point. I think the important thing now is to make it clear to your clients what their options are, so that they can bring the hedge into compliance soon. Otherwise, the City will have to pursue enforcement action in court. Accordingly, I will attempt to set forth the options clearly. They are as follows: 1. In order for the row of plantings to not constitute a "hedge" as defined by PAMC 17.08.45(H), there needs to be a space between each plant so that they do not "form a thicket and an unbroken line 2. In order for the plantings to remain as a hedge, with the plants growing together, the height of the hedge cannot exceed six feet. PAMC 17.94.140. However, the Director of Community Development's interpretation does allow for individual trees to extend above six feet as long as there are at least six foot long separations between any trees that are higher than the hedge. 3. In order for the plantings to not be regulated by the Zoning Code at all, they could be moved outside the seven foot set back that the RS -7 zone provides for side yard areas. PAMC 17.10.050A. Please let me know whether you and your clients understand these options or need to discuss them further. Also, please let me know if your clients will be bringing the hedge into compliance right 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. 0. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360 417 -4530 FAX: 360 417 -4529 TTY: 360 417 -4645 E -MAIL: ATTORNEY(a;CI .PORT- ANGELES.WA.US g Karen L. Unger, P.S. Re: Dan and Karen Curto November 19, 2001 Page 2 of 2 away in order to avoid enforcement action by the City. Thank you for your cooperation in resolving this matter. Very truly yours, Craig D. tson, City Attorney cc: Brad Collins, Director of Community Development CDK:jd MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician 417 -4815 PORTANGE LES W A S H I N G T O N U.S. A. Date: November 5, 2001 To: Craig Knutson, City Attorney From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Curto Hedge Zoning Violation and Unger Letter The Department's hegde trimming interpretation was expanded in response to Mr. Curto's inability to understand and accomplish what different staff people had tried to get him to do, which was to trim and/or separate his hedge. The August 22 interpretation was sent to Mr. Curto by me at Sue's request, and the primary purpose of that particular interpretation was to make an interpretation that could not be misunderstood by Mr. Curto. No one in our department has ever felt Mr. Curto accomplished any of the hedge trimming/separation choices that he was given, which included the one foot separation for each tree and shrub which Sue and Roger gave him. Regardless of Mr. Curto's past misunderstandings, his hedge needs to be trimmed and/or separated to comply with PAMC 17.94.140. We are not trying to punish the Curtos for past failure to trim the hedge. We are only trying to clarify in the August 22 interpretation what would meet the requirements of PAMC 17.94.140. If he would prefer to simply cut and maintain the entire hedge at six feet in height without the nuances of the August 22 interpretation or the one -foot separation for each tree and shrub interpretation of Sue and Roger, both these interpretations gave him some leeway, that could be easily accomplished. If the City Attorney would prefer that we require all hedges to be cut and maintained at six feet in height and leave it to the DCD staff to decide what is a hedge without specified measurements as provided in the August 22 interpretation, that could also be easily accomplished by eliminating that interpretation. The fact will remain that Mr. Curto has a hedge that is more than six feet in height. Please advise us about what to do with the August 22 interpretation, which is the only written interpretation that we have on specified measurements for trimming and separating hedges. Sue's and Roger's interpretation of separating each tree and shrub was a way to avoid creating a hedge by definition, not an interpretation of trimming and maintaining a hedge per se. cc: Interpretation File MEMO CITY ATTORNEY Craig Knutson City Attorney [4531] Dennis Dickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney [4532] Candace Kathol Legal Assistant [4576] Jeanie DeFrang Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Diana Lusby Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Teresa Pierce Legal Records Specialist [4576] W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: To: From: Re: This is in response to your October 17, 2001, memorandum to me regarding the above referenced matter. After reviewing your memo, I am still concerned about the lack of clarity with regard to your Department's interpretation of the zoning code's requirement that hedges be maintained to a maximum height of six feet within the building set back areas, as set forth in PAMC 17.94.140. When and how did you come up with the interpretation that there need to be six foot breaks in hedges above the six foot height level? I am also concerned about your statement that "in summer 2001 Sue and Roger apparently told Mr. Curto that the separation of one foot was necessary wherever the bushes or trees exceed six feet in height." This conflicts with the August 22, 2001 final interpretation to the effect that a six foot separation is necessary. According to Sue Roberds' October 16, 2001 memo to you, the written interpretation was not provided to Mr. Curto. This is consistent with what his attorney Karen Unger also stated in her September 4, 2001 letter to me, in which she apparently mistook the written interpretation for an ordinance that her client was trying to get from your Department. Have the Curtos ever been provided with the final written interpretation? If not, don't you think they should be provided a copy along with the opportunity to comply with a different interpretation from what they had previously been provided? CDK: j d Craig D. Kn City Attorney C: \j memo \ck -Co I Iins.wpd October 24, 2001 Brad Collins, Director of Community Development Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney Curto Hedge Zoning Violation and Unger Letter ECEOdE OCT 252001 I/_ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haelmlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician 417 -4815 PORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: October 17, 2001 To: Craig Knutson, City Attorney From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Curto Hedge Zoning Violation and Unger Letter Attached you will find each of the Community Development staff person's version of what has taken place and what has been communicated. For the most part, Mr. Curto has either not followed through on what he said he would do or has not cooperated in our various attempts to gain his compliance. The bottom line is that his hedge exceeds six feet in height and has not been trimmed to the satisfaction of any City inspection. The fact that the matter went away last winter is more a result of an understanding that Mr. Pressley did not continue to have a problem, which is not the case now. I (not Lou as Karen Unger states) did visit the site last year (Summer 2000) and had a clear understanding with Mr. Curto about trimming the hedge in a manner that would separate the bushes and trees, particularly near the windows in Mr. Pressley's house to help with view concerns. Although Mr. Curto did not seem to want to do what Mr. Pressley asked, I was under the impression that something was done to satisfy Mr. Pressley's complaint. Into the 2001 growing season, Mr. Pressley again complained. Staff visited the site and found that the hedge had grown into a violation again. Maintenance of the hedge is an ongoing requirement. Staff took pictures and communicated with Mr. Curto once again with gaining his cooperation. Sue drafted an interpretation identifying a one foot separation standard (not 6 -10 foot as Karen Unger states), but given a succession of vacation schedules (first Mr. Curto, then me, and finally Sue) that interpretation was not made final. The confusion about the separation standard between the staff and Mr. Curto /Ms. Unger was resolved by the attached interpretation, which I made final on August 22, 2001. In Summer 2000, I believe that I told Mr. Curto there would need to be a six foot separation every ten feet or so and encouraged him to make one such separation near Mr. Pressley's windows. In Summer 2001, Sue and Roger apparently told Mr. Curto that the separation of one foot was necessary wherever the bushes or trees exceed six feet in height. The August 22, 2001, final interpretation expanded on an earlier unwritten interpreta- tion made in regards to a Mr. Black's complaint about a neighbor's hedge and because of the history of the Curto's hedge violation. Curto Hedge Enforcement October 17, 2001 Page 2 I agree with Sue that Karen Unger's version of the events and communications is not correct. None of us viewed and approved of any hedge trimming either in 2000 or 2001. We were never told that the work was done nor made any inspection upon request to verify compliance. Instead we relied on the words of both Mr. Curto and Mr. Pressley that they would resolve the complaint concerns. Because the hedge as pictured continues to be in violation of the six foot maintenance requirement and Mr. Curto has not done what he has been asked to do, the matter was sent to Dennis Dickson for legal enforcement. That is where we stand. Mr. Pressley continues to complain. The staff has informed Mr. Curto what his responsibilities under the law are without avail. The only expense the Curtos appear to have incurred is to hire an attorney. The staff cannot verify that they have ever followed the directives of the City, although Mr. Curto has repeatedly said that he would. To the contrary, the August 29, 2001, pictures show the Curto's hedge that has grown over what it was in Summer 2000. Date: To: W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT October 16, 2001 Brad Collins, Director From: Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist RE: CURTO 2916 South Peabody Street Following is a chronology of events in the Curto- Pressley issue. The subject hedge is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dan Curto, and is located on the south side property line dividing that property (2916 South Peabody) from Mr. Jay Pressley's property located at 2920 South Peabody Street: 1. June 27, 2000 Mr. Jay Pressley phoned to explain that a hedge existed on his neighbor's property at 2916 South Peabody that had grown to a solid hedge blocking his view. I explained that the City does not enforce view issues but that we do have regulations setting standards for hedges. I asked you to drive by and give me your opinion. A few days later you reported that the vegetation was indeed an overgrown hedge. 2. July 13, 2000 I wrote to Mr. Curto informing him that "The City's Zoning Ordinance provides that vegetation planted such that it grows together to form a hedge shall be maintained to a maximum height of six feet within the RS -7, Residential Single Family zones." I also stated that the vegetation on his south property line exceeds six feet and must either be trimmed and maintained to no more than six feet in height or separated such that it is no longer a hedge. I asked him to contact the Planning Department with a schedule for maintenance of the hedge. 3. Mr. Pressley called several times in the next couple of weeks and stated that he had talked to Mr Curto about the situation and that while he seemed in favor of trimming the hedge, his wife was not. The hedge was not trimmed. 4. August 30, 2000 Not having heard from Mr. Curto and after several calls from Mr. Pressley to various City departments, I again wrote to Mr. Curto reminding him of the July 13 letter and asked him to contact the Planning Department no later than September 8, 2000 with his intentions in the matter. 5. September 12, 2000 As we had had no contact with Mr. Curto with regard to a resolution to this problem, I sent one additional certified letter to the Curtos asking them to "either trim or separate the hedge and that as we had had no contact with them, I would be referring the situation to the City Curio Memorandum October 16, 2001 Page 2 Attorney's office for further action." The certified receipt was returned as being signed by Mrs. Curto on September 14, 2001. 6. September 20, 2000 City Attorney Craig Knutson sent a letter to the Curto's identifying the zoning violation and asking that they contact the Planning Department if they intended to comply with the zoning code as soon as possible. We were not contacted. 7. October 18, 2000 you met with Mr. Curto on the site and discussed with him the necessary steps to eliminate the zoning concern. You informed me that we should let that activity occur before pursuing the matter with the City Attorney. My note indicate that Mr. Pressley was happy with the situation at this point (E -Mail note of 10/18/00) and that "until the hedge grows together again there should not be a need to press further." By that note I assume you must have told me that they had either agreed to some plan of action or that something had been done. I don't have an answer to that in my file. 8. October 23, 2000 I received a phone call from Mr. Pressley to say that he and Mr. Curto were working out the problem and that the hedge would be trimmed by November 1, 2000. 9. June 29, 2001 Mr. Pressley stopped in to say that things hadn't worked out with the Curtos and the hedge had not been trimmed. He had had enough and additionally, rats and snakes are now infesting in the area where they had not been before, as well as bees. He was sure they were from the increased vegetation in the hedge. He said he is an old man and not able to deal with the overgrown vegetation nuisance issues that are being caused and is sure if the hedge is p •perly r. ReSs'167 trimmed things will change. Mr. Curto had cut two small slots in the hedge but as far a• ew that didn't constitute a hedge. He said Mr. Curto told him that he is not going to trim the hedge. 11. July 6, 2001 Wrote to Mr. Curto. 10. July 2, 2001 I drove by to assure that the neither trimming nor separation had not been done, took pictures. 12. July 11, 2001 Received phone call from Mr. Curto telling me that he would trim or separate the vegetation no later than the first week of August, 2001. He was going on vacation and didn't want to deal with it at the moment. I so informed Mr. Pressley. 13. Jul 2, 2001 In anticipating that an interpretation would be needed on the trimming /separation issu spoke to you and you told me to do one up. I did, and drafted an interpretation that read in part "If a hedge is intended to exceed the maximum height of 6' as is the standard set in Section 17.94.140, individual plantings must be separated a minimum distance of one foot to maintain a logical separation that will fulfil the intent of Sections 17.08.045 "H" PAMC. Such distance will provide a visual separation which is the intent of the regulation. A lesser distance does not allow the individual planting to be distinct without constant maintenance Plantings that are maintained to 6' need not be separated." You apparently did not review this interpretation until much later R4 A Curto Memorandum October 16, 2001 Page 3 14. July 23, 2001 Received an E -Mail from Roger Vess who received an E -Mail note from Ken Dubuc, Fire Marshal, saying Mr. Pressley had phoned and that he knew Mr. Curto was not going to comply and was in fact "laughing up his sleeve" at the City. 15. Second week of August, 2001 Sometime during this week I asked Roger Vess to drive by on his rounds and check the trimming /separation issue. He informed me there was nothing done that he could see. 16. August 9, 2001 Again wrote to Mr. Curto reminding him of our conversation of July 11"' and that the maintenance had not been performed. told him that I would be again referring the matter to the City Attorney for action as the situation was now over a year old. 17. August 9, 2001 referred action to City Attorney by memorandum. 18. August 10, 2001 I am not positive of this date because I did not write it down, but believe it was the next day that Mr. Curto visited me at the front counter for the first time. He was tense. I told him that we had done an interpretation on the issue of trimming hedges but that it had not been officially signed by you and I could not produce it as finaled but explained that trimming /separation would involve just that either trimming the entire hedge to a height of no more than six feet or separation of the plants that the hedge consists of such that they do not touch. I told him you were out of the office (on vacation, I think) and that I would get him a copy as soon as you returned. 19. Week of August 13, 2001 When you returned from vacation we talked about the issue (you may be able to find the exact date in your DayTimer). You did not agree with the information that I provided in the interpretation and said you would do a formal one for the file. You did so on August 22, 2001. I have read Attorney Unger's letter and am perplexed at her statement that the Curto's have made numerous attempts to comply with the requests of various city employees to modify the hedge. City staff have made numerous attempts to work with the Curtos to no avail, but I am not aware of any attempts made by the Curtos. I do not have any record nor do I have any memory of telling the Curtos that a 6 10 foot space in the landscaping was needed or that any space they had made earlier was too big. I am very surprised at this statement and absolutely do not believe it to be true. I probably did say that there needed to be a break in the hedges such that they weren't touching since that is what Mr. Curto and I have discussed on several occasions. However, the statement that "once again, they complied with these requirements" is completely erroneous. From what was observed, these numerous attempts consisted of minimal trimming of the vegetation which did not result in any noticeable separation. The reference to Roger Vess's visit where he told the Curtos that they must have at least one foot of space between every tree or shrub is likely true since that is the information I passed along to Roger as it was my belief after discussing the interpretation need with you in July. Curto Memorandum October 16, 2001 Page 4 Finally, yes, I did tell Mr. Curto that he could not have a copy of the interpretation, not the ordinance, as stated in Ms. Unger's letter, as it had not been finalized. I documented the above actions with the exception of Nos. 19 and 20 as they occurred. The information is documented in the departmental record. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Sue Roberds, P ing Specialist MEMO CITY ATTORNEY Craig Knutson City Attorney [4531] Dennis Dickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney [4532] Candace Kathol Legal Assistant [4576] Jeanie DeFrang Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Diana Lusby Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Teresa Pierce Legal Records Specialist [4576] Date: To: From: Re: Craig D. Kn City Attorney CDK:jd C:ymemo\ck- Collins.wpd GELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. This is in response to your October 17, 2001, memorandum to me regarding the above referenced matter. After reviewing your memo, I am still concerned about the lack of clarity with regard to your Department's interpretation of the zoning code's requirement that hedges be maintained to a maximum height of six feet within the building set back areas, as set forth in PAMC 17.94.140. When and how did you come up with the interpretation that there need to be six foot breaks in hedges above the six foot height level? I am also concerned about your statement that "in summer 2001 Sue and Roger apparently told Mr. Curto that the separation of one foot was necessary wherever the bushes or trees exceed six feet in height." This conflicts with the August 22, 2001 final interpretation to the effect that a six foot separation is necessary. According to Sue Roberds' October 16, 2001 memo to you, the written interpretation was not provided to Mr. Curto. This is consistent with what his attorney Karen Unger also stated in her September 4, 2001 letter to me, in which she apparently mistook the written interpretation for an ordinance that her client was trying to get from your Department. Have the Curtos ever been provided with the final written interpretation? If not, don't you think they should be provided a copy along with the opportunity to comply with a different interpretation from what they had previously been provided? October 24, 2001 Brad Collins, Director of Community Development Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney Curto Hedge Zoning Violation and Unger Letter MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician 417 -4815 J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. October 5, 2001 To: From: Brad Collins, Director Roger Vess, Permit Technician Subject: Curto Complaint I have received three complaint calls regarding Mr. Jay Pressley. I made an inspection for the first complaint on 7- 13 -01, Mr. Presselys complaint was about his neighbor Mr. Curto whose hedge was growing over into his yard along with the blackberry vines. I explained to Mr. Pressley that there is a process that needs to be followed for the hedge to get trimmed. First, a letter about the problem needs to be sent to the hedge owner and the time frame of when the correction needs to be completed.. Second it is between him and his neighbor to have the berry vines trimmed. After returning to the office I brought this complaint to the attention of Sue Roberds in Planning who informed me that Mr. Cur4o had been sent a letter previously to correct the problem. Mr. Curto would take action to correct the problem when he returns from vacation by the first week of August. The second complaint from Mr. Pressley was on 7- 20 -01. I again visited Mr. Pressley on 7 -26 -01 and informed him of the letter to Mr. Curto and that we must wait to see if the hedge gets trimmed after the first week of August. I noted that some of the berry bushes had been trimmed back and two paths had been cut through the hedge on Mr. Curto's side. The third complaint I received was an E -mail from Ken Dubuc, Fire Marshal on 7- 23 -01. This complaint was from Mr. Pressley to Ken about tall vegetation and a compost pile that was a fire hazard located on Mr. Curto's property. This inspection was viewed on 7- 26 -01, no fire hazard was found. The first part of the second week of August, at the request of Sue Roberds I met with Mr. Curto at his home to discuss the requirements of what is needed to correct the trimming of his hedge. At that time Mr. Curto showed me where he had cut the two paths through the hedge. I informed Mr. Curto that cutting the two paths about 15 feet apart would not be an acceptable correction to the problem with his hedge. His explanation for doing so was that the plantings are trees and not a hedge and he was making definitions to show a separation between trees. I explained that in order to consider the planting to be trees, each individual stock or tree would need to have separation to the point that limbs were not entwined or touching and have space between. My response to him was that his planting is a hedge and that it needs to be trimmed to 6 foot in height. I also told him that I would report back to Sue Roberds in Planning and she would notify him of the action would be taken in regards to the hedge. Roger Vess, Permit Technician c:APLANNING \RVESSCURTOMEMO.WPD MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician/ CSW Coordinator 417 -4815 or 417 -4712 J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: September 28, 2001 To: Brad Collins, Community Development Director From: Lou Haehnlen, Building Official Subject: Dan and Karen Curto 2916 South Peabody Street C: \doc_HOLD \MyFiles \Curto.wpd I have read the letter from the attorney for the Curtos and do not recall ever talking with the Curtos, regarding their hedge or what they needed to do with their hedge to comply with the City Ordinance. I did receive a telephone complaint from the next door neighbor Mr. Presley in early part of 2000 about the hedge and referred him to the Planning Department for action. MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician 417 -4815 P ORT A NGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: September 18, 2001 To: DCD Staff From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Curto Complaint The City Attorney has requested that I investigate the Department's code enforcement actions in the Curto hedge violation (see attached memo from the City Attorney and letter from the Curto's attorney). I would like you to write your description of what actions you took individually. Also please respond to the veracity of statements attributed to you individually in Ms. Unger's letter. If you have not already reviewed my interpretation of acceptable hedge maintenance, please do so. The initial administrative interpretation was made for the Black complaint several years ago and is in the files as well. The second interpretation was made specifically for Mr. Curto and elaborates on the first interpretation by being more specific about the degree of separation (i.e., establishing a six foot separation of vegetation either above or below the six foot height line. Attachments: City Attorney 9/10/01 Memo Karen Unger 9/4/01 Letter MEMO CITY ATTORNEY Craig Knutson City Attorney [4531] Dennis Dickson Sr. Assistant City Attorney [4532] Candace Kathol Legal Assistant [4576] Diana Lusby Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] Jeanie DeFrang Legal Administrative Assistant [4530] W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Date: September 10, 2001 To: Brad Collins, Director of Community Development From: Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney Re: Dan and Karen Curto 2916 South Peabody Street On September 4 I gave you a copy of the September 4, 2001 letter that I received from Karen L. Unger, attorney for Dan and Karen Curto. Ms. Unger's letter sets forth a history of inconsistent enforcement efforts by the Department of Community Development with regard to back yard hedges at the above referenced property. I presume that you have been investigating this matter and will be able to explain your Department's version of the assertions in Ms. Unger's letter. Please let me know what you find out. Craig D. Knut City Attorney Attachment CDK: j d C: \j memo \ck -Co I lins.wpd 332 East Fifth Street, Suite 100 Port Angeles, Washington 98362 (360) 452 -7688 fax (3 60) 45 7 -05 81 September 4, 2001 Craig Knutson City Attorney City of Port Angeles 321 East 5 Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Mr. Knutson Server \e\ I wpdocs. u&b \dissoTbasic forms\KLU. WPD KAREN L. UNGER, P.S. Re: Dan and Karen Curto 2916 South Peabody Street ATTORNEY AT LAW karenunger@juno.com 2001Western Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98121 (206) 441 -3288 fax (206) 448 -2252 PORT Aa EL E3 CITY AT i C[ EY Please be advised that I have been contacted by Dan and Karen Curto regarding their attempt to comply with the directives of the City of Port Angeles to address their hedge problem. The Curtos were extremely upset after they received your letter, in light of their numerous attempts to comply with the requests of various city employees to modify their hedge to comply with city requirements. Last year, 2000, the Curtos received a letter from the City regarding their backyard hedges. They were visited by Lou Haehnlen, who told them what they needed to do with the hedge to solve the problem. Mr. Haehnlen told the Curtos that they needed to create a space between the hedges every 20 feet if the shrubs were over 6 feet in height. The Curtos complied with this requirement within 2 weeks' time. They heard nothing more from the City. Then, a year later, they received correspondence in July, 2001 advising them that they had "done nothing," and were still in violation. A call was placed to the planning department and they spoke with Sue Roberts, who told them that there had to be a 6 -10 foot space in the landscaping and that the space they had made the year earlier was too big and instead all they had to do was to make a break in the hedges and make sure none of the branches were touching. Once again, they complied with these requirements and once again received another letter from the city, claiming they were still not in compliance with the city's ordinance and that the matter would be turned over to your office. The Curtos once again contacted Ms. Roberts, who sent up another building inspector. This other person, "Roger," told the Curtos that they must have at least one foot of space between every tree or shrub. raig Knutson September 4, 2001 Page 2 When my clients then attempted to obtain a copy of the ordinance that had now been interpreted 3 different ways, they were told that Brad Collins was the only person who had a copy of this ordinance, as it had recently been passed and was not yet available, in writing, to the public. Then, they received the letter from you. You can imagine the frustration the Curtos have experienced over this matter. After following the directives of the City on two different occasions and then being told that, not only have they done nothing to comply, but that the matter was being forwarded for possible criminal charges, they felt they had little choice but to contact legal counsel for advice. The Curtos have gone to considerable expense to comply with the City's request and yet each time they make modifications to their landscaping, they are told they have done nothing and could now be prosecuted. I hope you are able to look into this matter and resolve it to everyone's satisfaction. I hope you will refrain from any formal legal action against the Curtos until you have had a chance to figure out what is going on here. cc: client Server \e \Iwpdocs.u&b \disso7 \basic forms\KLU.WPD Ve truly yours, N L. UNGER, P, •I' K. en `',er Unger ,ast Fifth Street, Suite 100 c Angeles, Washington 98362 160) 452 -7688 fax (360) 457 -0581 September 4, 2001 Craig Knutson City Attorney City of Port Angeles 321 East 5 Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Dear Mr. Knutson KAREN L. UNGER, P.S. Re: Dan and Karen Curto 2916 South Peabody Street ATTORNEY AT LAW karenunger @juno.com 2001 Western Avenue, Suite 20 Seattle, Washington 9812 (206) 441 -328+ fax (206) 448 -2253 _7 1r. 7A _I :uui PORT AN ELES CITY Ai TOr'- ;cY Please be advised that I have been contacted by Dan and Karen Curto regarding their attempt to comply with the directives of the City of Port Angeles to address their hedge problem. The Curtos were extremely upset after they received your letter, in light of their numerous attempts to comply with the requests of various city employees to modify their hedge to comply with city requirements. Last year, 2000, the Curtos received a letter from the City regarding their backyard hedges. They were visited by Lou Haehnlen, who told them what they needed to do with the hedge to solve the problem. Mr. Haehnlen told the Curtos that they needed to create a space between the hedges every 20 feet if the shrubs were over 6 feet in height. The Curtos complied with this requirement within 2 weeks' time. They heard nothing more from the City. Then, a year later, they received correspondence in July, 2001 advising them that they had "done nothing," and were still in violation. A call was placed to the planning department and the y spoke with Sue Roberts, who told them that there had to be a 6 -10 foot space in the landscaping and that the space they had made the year earlier was too big and instead all they had to do was to make a break in the hedges and make sure none of the branches were touching. Once again, they complied with these requirements and once again received another letter from the city, claiming they were still not in compliance with the city's ordinance and that the matter would be turned over to your office. The Curtos once again contacted Ms. Roberts, who sent up another building inspector. This other person, "Roger," told the Curtos that they must have at least one foot of space between every tree or shrub. zaig Knutson September 4, 2001 Page 2 When my clients then attempted to obtain a copy of the ordinance that had now been interpreted 3 different ways, they were told that Brad Collins was the only this ordinance, as it had recently been passed and was not yet available in writing, to the public. Then, they received the letter from my person who had a copy you. y You can imagine the frustration the Curtos have experienced over this matter. the directives of the City on two different occasions and then being they done nothing to comply, but that the matter was being after. After charges, they felt they had little choice but to g counsel for advi ce. contact legal emg told s hat, not only charges, a to considerable expense to comply g fo�ard for ce. Th he e Curtos have nave modifications to their landscaping, they told they ave done nod yet each time and could now no y ma prosecuted. nothing be e I hope you are able to look into this matter and resolve it to everyone's s you will refrain from any formal legal action against the Curtos until you have had a chance to figure out what is going on here. satisfaction. I hope cc: client K Ve truly yon, N L. UNGER, P 10 Unger MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Debra Barnes, ;Associate Planner 417 -4752 Lou Haehnlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician 417 -4815 P ORT A NGELES WASHINGTON, U.S.A. Date: August 22, 2001 To: INTERPRETATION FILE From: Brad Collins, Community Development Director Subject: Interpretation of PAMC Section 17.08.045(H) Kedge The question of separation of shrubs or other plants that have been planted close together continues to be a problem of interpretation regarding when a hedge ceases to be a hedge. In many instances, plants that have formed "a thicket and an unbroken line," whether intentionally or unintentionally, are in violation of PAMC Section 17.94.140, which requires that a hedge "be maintained to a maximum height of six (6) feet within the building setback areas." Upon complaint, the City enforces maintenance of such a hedge in accordance with the following standards: 9' 6 k A 8' //4., k 2 9 0' The thicket and unbroken line of the hedge cannot visually screen above the six -foot height without six -foot breaks in the screen above and/or below the unbroken line of the hedge at the si oot level as depicted below. sky 10' 12' 14' 16' 18' ground Section 17.08.45(H) of the Port Angeles Municipal Code states: "Hedge the special application of shrubs or other plants that have been planted close together so that they form a thicket and an unbroken line, acting as a space boundary or creating a visual screen. An individual tree cannot be a hedge by itself. Section 17.94.140 PAMC states: "In all Residential and Commercial Zones a wall, fence, or hedge may be maintained to a maximum height of six (6) feet within the building setback areas. All vision clearance requirements shall be maintained pORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. CITY ATTORNEY August 20, 2001 Mr. And Mrs. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Zoning Code Violation Dear Mr. and Mrs. Curto: On September 20, 2000, I sent you the attached letter regarding an overgrown hedge on your property. The overgrown hedge violates the City's zoning code. Following that letter, it was my understanding that you had met with Brad Collins, Director of Community Development, and had agreed to take the necessary steps to eliminate the zoning violation. Now, the Department of Community Development informs me that the agreed upon trimming of the hedge has not occurred and the City has continued to receive complaints about the condition of the hedge. In a letter dated August 9, 2001, you were informed of this continuing problem by Planning Specialist Sue Roberds. Since you have had ample opportunity to correct the problem and have not done so, the City is in the position of having to take enforcement action. Accordingly, the City Attorney's office will be pursuing the appropriate action, as set forth in the attached correspondence, if you do not correct the problem immediately. Very truly yours, Craig D. Knutson, City Attorney cc: City Manager Department of Community Development Senior Assistant City Attorney Attachments CDK:dI C:\DLETTERSkurto.wpd 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. 0. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360- 417 -4530 FAX: 360 -417 -4529 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: ATTORNEY @CI.PORT -ANGELES.WA.US PORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. CITY ATTORNEY September 20, 2000 Mr. And Mrs. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Zoning Code. Violation Dear Mr. and Mrs. Curto: The City of.Port Angeles Planning Departure -nthas referredthe referred. mattepofan.overgr�, hedge on your properly to the City Attorney's offree. for enforcement action p g PPf.P eg Accordingly, we will :t1e re arias thea o ria� 1 al aption if yen have.not Corrected, thisiproblem on or before September 29, 2000. Such:legal action could include prosecuting you. for a misdemeanor violation_ of .the zoning code, which is punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and/or six months in jail; with each continuing day of violation constituting a separate offense, or prosecuting an action to obtain an injunction requiring you to comply with the zoning code. If you do plan to trim the hedge in order to comply with the zoning code, please contact the Planning Department directly as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Craig D. K tson, City Attorney cc:anning Department City Manager CDK:dl C:IDLETTERSkurta.wpd 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. O. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-0217 PHONE: 36 417 -4530 FAX: 360 417 -4529 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: ATTORNEY@CI.PORT- ANGELES.WA.US Looking Northwest from Mr. Pressley's residence Looking east from Pressley's back yard (Note: Cyclone fence is 4' high) Looking southwest from Mr. Curto's residence Looking north from Mr. Pressley's back yard August 29, 2001 Pressley /Curto Hedge Concern MEMO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Brad Collins, Director 417 -4751 Debra Barnes, Associate Planner 417 -4752 Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist 417 -4750 Lou Haelmlen Building Official 417 -4816 Roger Vess Permit Technician CSW Coordinator 417 -4712 Ed Eastwood Building Intern 417 -4815 W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. August 9, 2001 TO: FROM: RE: Craig Knutson, City Attorney Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist Zoning Violation Curto 2916 South Peabody Attached is correspondence subsequent to your correspondence with Mr. Dan Curto regarding the trimming of a hedge on his property located at 2916 South Peabody Street. Briefly, we ceased violation proceedings in October, 2000, because Mr. Curto had somewhat trimmed the hedge to a point that was acceptable and had agreed to further trim by November, 2000. The trimming did not occur and continued complaints have been received by the neighbor, Mr. Jay Pressley pointing out this fact. Mr. Curto was contacted as you will see by the attached documentation and said that he would have the hedge trimmed to City standards following his vacation, which would be completed by the first week of August. This is the end of the second week of August and the hedge has not been trimmed. This issue is not going to be resolved without action from your department. Please begin those proceedings. Let me know if you need further information from our files. Sue Roberds, Pla Attachments ng Specialist J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 9, 2001 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Zoning Code Violation 2916 South Peabody Street Dear Mr. Curto: On July 11, 2001, we had a phone conversation as a result of a letter written to you as follow up to action it was understood you would be taking in November, 2000. You said that you were going on vacation but that the hedge would be trimmed to acceptable standards, previously described to you, during the first week of August, 2001. It is now the end of the second week of August and the hedge has not been trimmed, nor have you contacted the City to explain an extenuating circumstances which would have kept you from trimming the hedge. As this issue has now extended into a full year without the required trimming occurring, I am forwarding this issue to the City Attorney for appropriate enforcement action. As you were previously informed, violation of the City's zoning regulations is a misdemeanor Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provisions of the Zoning Code shall be g uilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Such person, firm, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this Title is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, firm, or corporation and shall be punishable as herein provided. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, you may contact Department of Community Development Director, Brad Collins, or City Attorney, Craig Knutson, who will be corresponding with you shortly. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. 0. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES. WA 98362-0217 PHONE: 360 -417 -4750 FAX: 360 -417 -4609 TTY: 360-417 -4645 E -MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US From: Kenneth Dubuc To: RVESS Date: 7/23/01 4:58pm Subject: Vegetation complaint Hello Roger! I took a phone call today from Jay Presley, at 2920 S. Peabody. Mr. Presley was complaining about the tall vegetation of his neighbor to the north, Mr. Kurdo. Mr. Presley says that we sent a letter to Mr. Kurdo, but nothing has been done and that Kurdo is "laughing up his sleeve" at the City. Have we indeed sent a letter? I wasn't sure if this was all true or not! Thanks! Ken CITY OF PORT ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION REPORT REQUEST: Date 2'x)'C Time cA 4 Received by 1" (phone, person) Location of Work to be inspected Aq 20 cd, y Name of person requesting inspection y f r E' y 41 67 Address of person requesting inspection Phone No. -7Q Type of Inspection (circle appropriate one): Permit No. Sewer Foundation Framing Chimney Plumbing Final Sewer Excay. Other INSPECTION NOTES: Inspected: Date Time By Remarks: RESTORATION REQUIRED YES NO SURFACE RESTORATION: SURFACE TYPE: n Unimproved Gravel Asphalt PCC Other n Repaired by City Work Order Repaired by Permittee COMPLETE No Damage Found INCOMPLETE (Continue on reverse side if necessary) STREET SUPERINTENDENT (DATE) REQUEST: Date -7 1 3 CITY OF PORT ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION REPORT Location of Work to be inspected 2 9 •,y Name of person requesting inspection Address of person requesting inspection Phone No.q�2 90 7 0 Type of Inspection (circle appropriate one): Time S ,14:) 04 'r Received by Sewer Foundation Framing Chimney Plumbing Final Sewer Excay. Other INSPECTION NOTES: Inspected: Date Time By Remarks: RESTORATION REQUIRED YES NO o aq 1 6 -dy -E� a /t Z cc LCD SURFACE RESTORATION: SURFACE TYPE: Unimproved Gravel Repaired by City Repaired by Permittee No Damage Found (Continue on reverse side if necessary) (phone, person) Permit No. Asphalt PCC Other Work Order COMPLETE INCOMPLETE STREET SUPERINTENDENT (DATE) July 6, 2001 J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Zoning Code Violation Dear Mr. Curto: PLANNING DEPARTMENT During the summer of 2000 several letters were sent to you regarding the need to trim an overgrown hedge on your property. It was the understanding of this department that you were working toward trimming the hedge in a manner that would comply with the City's restrictions on hedge height and /or reducing the volume of the plantings such that they were no longer considered a hedge and that that action would be completed by November, 2000. Some trimming was accomplished however not enough to constitute a change in the way the plantings are viewed. They are still an overgrown hedge and must be trimmed. I am again enclosing copies of provisions from the City's Municipal Code that define what is a hedge, and am available during business hours to discuss this with you personally if you do not understand the information. Staff can meet with you on -site if you prefer to discuss what trimming needs to be done if you prefer. The hedge must be trimmed in order to avoid further communication or action by the City on this issue. Please contact this office to let us know your intent in this matter no later than July 13, 2001. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist cc: City Attorney 2� /�D l k ocar Cwt. -tom ,.0,..._,L,L,A _...,____,_)_,_1_____t___ oc--c -c_ _.iz_<_,,,-- v---i-e__ _e, Y /Lc-(. LL _,-L___- t c_ 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. 0. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES. WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360- 417-4750 FAX: 360 417 -4609 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E-MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US From: To: Subject: This is in response to your request as to the outcome of the Curto hedge zoning violation. Brad Collins met Mr. Curto on site and discussed with him the necessary steps to take to eliminate the zoning concern. He (Brad) informed me that we should let that activity occur before we pursue this matter further with the assumption that it would be forthcoming. Mr. Pressley (complaintant) is happy at this point and until the hedge grows together again there should not be a need to press further. Thank you for your attention to the matter. /0.8/( c>.. `7 L X22' z0C c 7/y:("' Sue Roberds CKNUTSON Curto hedge zoning violation p Q S 6 e-----1 4 7 bc C-1)---4-----v-v-) c -4-"L -1 .___r..r'� cam..- r \7Z_-,� o.� -z- -Q 1/ i2. c� r Lam-' T' �'�l -K� SL C�`- 4 J WASH I N G T O N, U. S. A. CITY ATTORNEY September 20, 2000 Mr. And Mrs. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Zoning Code Violation Dear Mr. and Mrs. Curto: The City of Port Angeles Planning Department has referred the matter of an overgrown hedge on your property to the City Attorney's office for enforcement action. Accordingly, we will be preparing the appropriate legal action if you have not corrected this problem on or before September 29, 2000. Such legal action could include prosecuting you for a misdemeanor violation of the zoning code, which is punishable by a fine of not more than $500 and/or six months in jail, with each continuing day of violation constituting a separate offense, or prosecuting an action to obtain an injunction requiring you to comply with the zoning code. If you do plan to trim the hedge in order to comply with the zoning code, please contact the Planning Department directly as soon as possible. Very truly yours, Craig D. K tson, City Attorney cc:�anning Department City Manager CDK:dl C:\DLETTERSkurto.wpd 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. O. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-0217 PHONE: 360- 417 -4530 FAX: 360 -417 -4529 TTY: 360-417 -4645 E -MAIL: ATTORNEYa@CI.PORT- ANGELES.WA.US J W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT September 12, 2000 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Hedge 2916 South Peabody Dear Mr. Curto: This department has sent you two letters regarding the need to either trim or separate a hedge that is planted on your property line. The City's Zoning Ordinance limits the height of hedges in required yard setbacks from property lines. Staff has no record of your being in the office to question the information provided in the letters or arrange for a time period to bring the hedge into compliance. The matter of this zoning violation has been referred to the City Attorney's Office for appropriate action. If you have questions at this point, please contact the City Attorney's Office at 417 -4530. Sincerely, Sue Roberds :ornpiete SENDER: items 1 and/or 2 "for additional Planning Specialist Complete items R :r• g 1� ecialist m Print your name an -s n greirself tig f return this card to yo Attach this form t does not permit. Write "Return Recei rr steeM h m i =,,.7. y 1 w t a The Return Receipt I roN�lrou *le sion r e of the l to and the date of del ery. 3. Article Addre ed cc: City Attorney t of the mailpiece, or on the Dan Curt 2916 South Peabody Port ANgeles, WA bt 5. Si s nature (Addressee) 6. Signature (Agent) PS Form 3811, November 1990 321 EAST FIFTH STRE PHONE: 360- 417 -475( E -MAIL: PLANNING( CI.PORT- ANGELES.WA.US PORT ANGELES PLANNING DEPARTMENT Street 98362 CERTIFIED MAIL I also wish to receive the following services (for an extra v e can fee): pace 1. Addressee's Address number 2. Restricted Delivery n elivere Consult postmaster for fee. 4a. Article Number 4b. Service Type ❑iegistered Insured LK Certified COD Express Mail Return Receipt for M: chandise 7. D -e •f Deivery 8. Addre see's Address my if requested and fee is paid) *U.S. GPO: 1991 287-088 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT /OD From: To: Subject: Sue Roberds CKNUTSON Curto hedge zoning violation This is in response to your request as to the outcome of the Curto hedge zoning violation. Brad Collins met Mr. Curto on site the necessary steps to take to eliminate the zoning concern. He (Brad) and discussed with him informed me that we should let that activity occur before we pursue this matter further with the assumption that it would be forthcoming. Mr. Pressley (complaintant) is happy at this point and until the hedge grows together again there should not be a need to press further. Thank you for your attention to the matter. /oo 4)/ ,,q 3 60 `72d2J. .zocc. 9/ 1 GC-Q-C-� /c,� G' PORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 30, 2000 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Hedge at 2920 South Peabody Street Dear Mr. Curto: A letter was sent to you earlier this summer informing you that the vegetation planted along the fence line between your residence and that of 2920 South Peabody is in violation of the City's zoning regulations. You were asked to contact this department if you had any questions but since that time the hedge has not been trimmed nor have you called with questions. The hedge must either be trimmed to an overall height of not more than 6' or you must cut slots in the hedge such that it is no longer an impenetrable barrier. Please contact this office no later than September 8, 2000, to let us know of your intentions in this matter. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist cc: City Attorney 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. O. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES. WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360- 417 -4750 FAX 360-417 -4609 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US MEMO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Brad Collins, Planning Director Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist Debra Barnes, Associate Planner P ORT A NGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. August 23, 2000 To: Craig Knutson, City Attorney From: Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist Subject: Hedge at Curto Residence 2916 South Peabody Street Attached are copies of correspondence that was sent to Mr. and Mrs. Dan Curto over the past two months with regard to an overgrown hedge on a property line. The Curtos have not responded in any way to the request that they do so. The complaintant Mr. Jay Pressley has been in several times and noted that while Mr. Curto seemed willing to comply, his wife was not. We believe the Curtos are aware of the situation which is a violation of 17.94.140 PAMC. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please let me know if you need additional information. Sue Roberds, P1 Attachments mg Specialist Dear Mr. Curto: ORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 9, 2001 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Zoning Code Violation 2916 South Peabody Street On July 11, 2001, we had a phone conversation as a result of a letter written to you as follow up to action it was understood you would be taking in November, 2000. You said that you were going on vacation but that the hedge would be trimmed to acceptable standards, previously described to you, during the first week of August, 2001. It is now the end of the second week of August and the hedge has not been trimmed, nor have you contacted the City to explain an extenuating circumstances which would have kept you from trimming the hedge. As this issue has now extended into a full year without the required trimming occurring, I am forwarding this issue to the City Attorney for appropriate enforcement action. As you were previously informed, violation of the City's zoning regulations is a misdemeanor Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provisions of the Zoning Code shall be g uilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. Such person, firm, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of this Title is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, firm, or corporation and shall be punishable as herein provided. If you have any further questions concerning this matter, you may contact Department of Community Development Director, Brad Collins, or City Attorney, Craig Knutson, who will be corresponding with you shortly. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. O. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360- 417 -4750 FAX: 360- 417 -4609 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA Il.c PORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT July 13, 2000 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 RE: Hedge at 2916 South Peabody Street Dear Mr. Curto: This letter is in regard to a tall hedge that exists on the property line at the south of your property, located at 2916 South Peabody Street. The City's Zoning Ordinance provides that vegetation planted such that it grows together to form a hedge shall be maintained to a maximum height of six feet within the RS -7, Residential Single Family zones. The vegetation that exists on your south property line exceeds six feet in height and must either be trimmed and maintained to no more than six feet in height or separated such that it is no longer a solid hedge. The hedge must be trimmed in such a manner that it conforms to the maximum hedge requirements right away. Please feel free to contact Planning Department staff if you have any questions and to arrange a schedule by which time the hedge will be trimmed. City Hall is open from 8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist 321 EAST FIFTH STREET PO BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES, WA 98362 -3206 PHONE: 360- 417 -4750 FAX: 360-417-4711 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US OR PERMITS CI.PORT ANGELES.WA.US July 6, 2001 Mr. Dan Curto 2916 South Peabody Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Re: Zoning Code Violation Dear Mr. Curto: During the summer of 2000 several letters were sent to you regarding the an overgrown hedge on your property. It was the understanding of this department that you re working toward trimming the hedge in a manner that would comply with the City's on hedge height and/or reducing the volume of the plantings such that y u were considered a hedge and that that action would be completed y s restrictions hat they w2 0 l trimming was accomplished however not enough to constitute a change in the way the p lantings trimmed. are viewed. They are still an overgrown hedge and must be trim Some y the plantings I am again enclosing copies of provisions from the City's Municipal Code th is a hedge, and am available during business hours to discuss this with you personally t define what not understand the information. Staff can meet with you on -site if you prefer to discuss what trimming needs to be done if you prefer. The hedge must be if you do communication or action by the City on this issue. e trimmed in order to avoid further Please contact this office to let us know your intent in this matter no later than July 13, 2001. Sincerely, Sue Roberds Planning Specialist cc: City Attorney ORTANGELES W A S H I N G T O N U.S.A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 321 EAST FIFTH STREET P. 0. BOX 1 150 PORT ANGELES. WA 98362 -0217 PHONE: 360- 417 -4750 FAX: 360- 4 17 -4609 TTY: 360- 417 -4645 E -MAIL: PLANNING @CI.PORT ANGELES �nIA