1988, 01-15 WVE-22-87•
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A WAIVER OF VIOLATION )
REGARDING A GARAGE AND ATTACHED ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
CARPORT LOCATED WITHIN A FLANKING ) AND DECISION
STREET SETBACK. (WVE-22-87); )
JOSEPH A. TEDESCO )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
The applicant has constructed a garage (in 1986) and an attached shed -roof "carport"
(in 1987) in such a location that the street -side building face is located approximately
34.5 feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way and approximately 4 feet
from the property line. Section 4.04A.090 b. 3. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance
requires such an accessory structure to be located forty-five (45) feet from the
centerline of the roadway right-of-way or fifteen (15) feet from the property line,
whichever provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-
way. Authority to consider and grant such a request exists pursuant to Section 4.25.010
and 4.25.030 f. (Waiver of Violation) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The property is located on the south comer of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and
39th Avenue in the Ponderosa area of the Spokane Valley, in the NE 1/4 of Section 32,
Township 25N. Range 44EWM. The property is addressed as S. 3904 Ridgeview Drive.
The Assessor's parcel number is 32541-0803.
PECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project
proposal and examination of various County records/documents, the Zoning Adjustor
DENIES the Waiver of Violation and directs the applicant to bring the structures into
compliance with the proper setback regulations.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the
subject property and surrounding area numerous times, the Zoning Adjustor conducted
public hearings on December 7, 1987 and December 21, 1987 and rendered a written
decision on January 15, 1988.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located in the Ponderosa area of the Spokane Valley, on
the south corner of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and 39th Avenue in the NE 1/4 of
Section 32, Township 25N, Range 44EWM, and Is further described as Assessor's Parcel
No. 32541-0803, being more completely described in Zoning Adjustor File #WVE-22-
87.
2. The proposal consists of the applicant's desire to authorize the location of an
existing structure, built in two (2) phases within the last two years. The structure is
an enclosed detached garage with a shed -roof carport attached to it. This structure is
located approximately four (4) feet from the flanking street (39th Avenue) property
line and thirty-four and a half (34.5) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-
way. The Zoning Ordinance standards are respectively fifteen (15) feet and forty-five
(45) feet.
3. The site is zoned Single Family Residential, which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 2
4. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family
residential development, all of which is compatible with the proposal from the
standpoint of land uses. However, there is no evidence that variances have been granted
in the surrounding area for similar construction within flanking street or front yard
setback areas. No specific documentation of other similar construction in a set -back
area, legal or illegal, was presented.
5. The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance provides that a Waiver of Violation may
be granted, pursuant to Section 4.25.030 f:
"Recognizing the fact that a building, structure or fence may be erected in
good faith with every intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance in respect to the location of the building, structure or fence upon
the lot and the size and location of required yards, and that it may later be
determined that such building, structure or fence does not comply in every
detail with such requirements, although not violating the spirit or intent of
the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Adjustment may issue a Waiver of
Violation, subject to such conditions as will ,safeguard the public health,
safety, convenience, and general welfare."
The interpretation of this allows the Board of Adjustment or the Zoning Adjustor,
but does not require, to issue a Waiver of Violation if the decision body: (1) can find
that the structure was erected in good faith, with every intent to comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the location of the structure; and (2)
determine that while the structure does not comply with every detail of the Ordinance, it
does not violate the spirit and intent of the Ordinance (a two -fold test).
6. The Zoning Adjustor has decided, after consultation with legal counsel on
similar matters in the past, that the primary point in time to focus an examination of
situation is at the earliest point in the permitting/construction of the project; that is, at
the earliest point of contact between the applicant and either the Department of Building
and Safety or the Planning Department. The reason for this, in the first instance, is that
if there is no contact with a permitting agency of the County, then the property owner
involved is responsible for construction on his/her property, including illegal
construction and that essentially "ignorance of the law" is no excuse with regard to land
use regulations. In the second instance, when contact may have been made with either
the Planning Department or the Department of Building and Safety, the information
provided by the personnel of either of those agencies is important insofar as it may be
misleading, incomplete or inaccurate to the standpoint that a well meaning property
owner is misled, misdirected or misinformed. Testimony and evidence clarifies that
there was no contact with the Planning Department during the permitting process for the
garage and carport. Therefore, all examination by the Zoning Adjustor focuses on the
contacts between the Department of Building and Safety personnel and the applicant
and/or contractor. All testimony was taken under an oath administered by the Zoning
Adjustor.
7. Although there was some radically conflicting testimony, the Zoning Adjustor
has arrived at this decision by substantial reliance upon reconstruction of the sequence
of events as indicated by official documents and collaborating testimony; that is, through
areas of agreement, and NOT BY CHOOSING TO BEUEVE ONE PARTY'S VERSION OVER
ANOTHER'S. The Zoning Adjustor has also made some assumptions regarding what should
be the responsibilities and actions of persons whose intentions are to operate in good
faith and with every intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
8. The Zoning Adjustor held two sessions of public hearings. At the first session,
the primary document of interest was a memo of November 18, 1987 from the Spokane
County Department of Building and Safety and testimony from the applicant, Tedesco, and
contractor, Sitton, in response to the November 18th memo. The hearing was continued
to December 21, 1987 so that the Zoning Adjustor could solicit additional information
from the Department of Building and Safety and to allow the applicant to provide any
additional information in support of his version of the circumstances. The Zoning
Adjustor said that he would forward a report to the Department of Building and Safety,
after the first hearing of December 7, 1987, summarizing the difference in testimony
and sending a copy of that to the applicant, so that it may later be verified on the record
that the Zoning Adjustor's summary of the situation was accurate. The applicant
confirmed in the December 21, 1987 hearing that he had no problem with the summary
of his position as forwarded to the Department of Building and Safety by the Zoning
Adjustor.
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87
ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 3
9. In the continued public hearing of December 21, 1987, a more detailed report
dated December 21, 1987, was presented to the Zoning Adjustor from the Department of
Building and Safety. The applicant also presented information and provided additional
public testimony and new testimony from a neighbor who had been involved in part of the
construction project was presented. The applicant also responded to and rebutted the
December 21, 1987 report from the Department of Building and Safety at the second
hearing, mostly taking issue with much of the memo. No personnel from the Department
of Building and Safety appeared at either public hearing.
10. In both public hearings, there was substantial disagreement on the facts,
circumstances, situations, conversations and contacts between the Department of
Building and Safety and the applicant and contractor.
11. Based upon the above premises and consultation with legal counsel, much of
the discussion, reports and testimony regarding the latter phases of the project, such as
on-site inspections and construction, will not be closely examined in these findings, as
they are considered peripheral issues when compared to the early stages of the
permitting process. Legal counsel also advises that some of this peripheral information
may be used by the Zoning Adjustor to the extent that it collaborates or contradicts the
matters of central concern.
12. The following documents are established as exhibits.
A. Over-all site plan of the property provided by applicant for this file.
B. Detailed site plan of garage, shop, deck, drainfield and carport area.
C. November 20, 1987 report from Spokane County Engineering Department.
D. November 18, 1987 report from the Department of Building and Safety.
E. December 21, 1987 report from the Department of Building and Safety.
(E 1 and E 2 contain different hand written notes).
F. December 3, 1986 letter from the Department of Building and Safety to
Tedesco.
G December 22, 1986 from letter from the Department of Building and Safety
to Tedesco.
H. Comment sheet of Department of Building and Safety from September 29,
1987 to October 6, 1987.
I. Copy of site plan from building permit application (including comments in
red by Zoning Adjustor).
J. Departmental review sheet of building permit application, including
comments in red by Zoning Adjustor.
K. Front sheet of building permit application (project #13128).
L. Waiver of Violation questionnaire filled out by applicant and supplemented by
November 9, 1987 note from "Faye."
M. Front sheet of Planning Department application for case WVE-22-87.
N. Memorandum of November 9, 1987 from Zoning Adjustor to Department of
Building and Safety and Engineering Department soliciting information for
the original hearing of December 7, 1987.
n. Zoning Adjustor notes from public hearing of December 7, 1987.
Q Letter from Zoning Adjustor to Tedesco on December 8, 1987.
P. Memorandum of December 9, 1987 to Department of Building and Safety
regarding WVE-22-87.
Q Note from concrete contractor on December 16, 1987 regarding the concrete
pour.
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87
ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 4
R. A bill regarding footings, foundation and concrete work for Mr. Tedesco.
S. Zoning Adjustor notes from December 21, 1987 public hearing.
T. Zoning Adjustor notes from phone conversation with legal counsel (Mr.
Binger).
U. Notes from discussion with Tom Davis of the Department of Building and
Safety regarding an October 24, 1975 addition -to -residence permit obtained
by Tedesco for his residence, the site plan of which application showed an 18
foot flanking street setback (the same setback that the applicant has now
violated by constructing the garage structure 4 feet from the property line).
13. The following is the Zoning Adjustor's construction of the various contacts and
flow of permittee/permittor relationships, as put together from the documents and
testimony, as it relates to the early stages of the construction project for the enclosed
garage.
a The applicant conceived the project to build a shop, deck and garage, and
approached the Department of Building and Safety with an original site plan.
Exhibit 1 is a "modified" version of that original site plan and was the plan
ultimately approved in the permit process. Contact was made with the
Department of Building and Safety apparently on June 2, 1986, as indicated
by a "hold" date (on exhibit J) under the Environmental Health Departmental
Review.
b. At this first contact, the Department of Building and Safety states that its
personnel, Gloria and Jun, talked with Mr. Tedesco about the project. The
Department's position is that they pointed out that the project, as drawn on
the site plan, was too close to the street (Item #1 of exhibit E). They claimed
to have told Mr. Tedesco that if he wished to locate the garage so close to the
street he would have to obtain a variance from the flanking street setback
requirement from the Planning Department. They also claim to have told him
that a curb line, such as he may have been trying to indicate on his sketch,
may not be the property line and that it was an owner's responsibility to
determined where the property line was located. Mr. Tedesco claims that
little or no such conversation took place that would have led him to suspect
that the property line and the curb line were anything other than the same.
The contention by the Department of Building and Safety that they referred
the applicant to the Planning Department is supported by the fact that exhibit
J shows a scratched out "d" next to Planning and Zoning, supporting their
claim to have referred the applicant for a possible variance to the Planning
Department.
The Zoning Adjustor's assumption is that the applicant then proceeded to the
first Department on the list, Spokane County Health District, and received a
"hold" directive on the same day, June 2, 1986, with a notation from the
Health District that the rear of the garage structure had a possible conflict
with the drainfield location. Mr. Tedesco collaborated this with his testimony
by saying that he did learn of a possible conflict and had to suspend the permit
process to expose the drainfield corners in order to determine that none of the
garage structure would not be located, if he shifted it back to allow a greater
setback from the street, over the drainfield. He ultimately felt he could shift
it five (5) feet back, thereby apparently complying very closely with what
he believed to be the fifteen (15) foot setback from the curb. This is where
the assumption on his part that the property -line is the curb became crucial.
(The Zoning Adjustor notes, however, that this would still not be acceptable
to a standard of forty-five (45) feet back from the center of the street, as
noted on the site plan which was approved on September 12, 1986). Since
Mr. Tedesco had encountered the problem with the drainfield location at the
Health District, he apparently never originally visited the Planning
Department on June 2, 1986, and there is no indication that the Planning
Department either signed -off or discussed the variance with the applicant.
• •
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87
ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 5
c. The applicant testified that during the summer he did expose the drainfield
and thereby determined how far back from the street the garage structure
could be moved without infringing on the drainfield location, apparently five
(5) feet.
d. Judging from the dates on the Building Permit Application and the
Departmental Review Sheet, the applicant returned to the Health District on
September 12, 1986 and received an approval, as shown on exhibit J. The
applicant did not proceed to the next "J" agency on the Departmental Review
sheet as originally directed and where the setback and need for variances
could have been discussed. Instead, Mr. Tedesco proceeded back to the
Department of Building and Safety to pursue his application for a permit for
the enclosed garage. The Department of Building and Safety (top of page #2 of
exhibits E1, or E2) states that he did return to the office with the application.
Notations were on the site plan of "15" (feet) and "45 feet Center Street."
The 15 foot dimension was shown to be from the curb, or property line
depending on one's interpretation, to the street face of the garage. Building
and Safety personnel related in a conversation with the Zoning Adjustor that
since the site plan showed the two required standards, which they knew both
produced the same setback line, they scratched out the "4", on exhibit J,
negating the need to go to the Planning Department. They then approved, on
September 12, 1986, as shown on exhibit J, the plans, with the comment
"approved as noted on plans."
The Department of Building and Safety says their personnel vividly recalls
conversations during this second visit in which they made sure Mr. Tedesco
understood the two -fold test of the setback requirements. It seems reasonable
that scratching -out of the referral to Planning would only have taken place
after a food discussion regarding setbacks.
14. From this point on, Mr. Tedesco's case seems to be built on the fact that his
contractor built the garage at a location as either directed by Mr. Tedesco or as selected
by the contractor. Regardless, the law saddles Mr. Tedesco with accountability in this
regard, according to County legal counsel. At the time it was necessary for the required
footings and foundation inspection, Mr. Tedesco and the contractor claim the footings and
foundations were formed at the present location of the now existing footing and
foundation, illegally located within the flanking street setback area. They claimed the
building inspector approved the project for the pouring of the concrete, that the concrete
was poured and the building erected to the framing stage on that foundation. They claimed
that the inspector noted for the first time, during the framing inspection, that the
building did not meet the proper setback requirements. The Department of Building and
Safety claims that during the first inspection, the footing and foundation form -work
inspected was not located in the setback area. This leaves the implication that they
believe footing and form -work was added after the inspection and the concrete then
poured into the form -work by the contractor. The concrete contractor's statements,
exhibits Q and R, support that he poured only one foundation, and that this foundation was
the one which later was judged to be illegally situated. Whether or not the concrete
contractor was present at the footings and foundation inspection was not made clear.
15. The Zoning Adjustor's opinion is that the above finding is "interesting" and
highlights a major contradiction between the Department of Building and Safety and the
applicant, but that it is not judged relevant. Regardless of any disagreement over what
occurred during the Inspections, the Zoning Adjustor's position is that the applicant Is
culpable for the location of the building as it now exists some eleven (11) feet illegally
into the flanking street yard. The Zoning Adjustor must assume that a person of a
reasonably conscientious nature would have realized that he had approval for plans that
involved two setback standards, one of 15 feet from the property line, or even the curb
line if one were to misunderstand the distinction, and 45 feet from the centerline of the
roadway right-of-way or the street. The County Engineers Office, in exhibit C, states
that it is reasonable to assume that the centerline of the roadway is the same as the
centerline of the right-of-way, and that one could therefore measure from the center of
the roadway. Mr. Tedesco was able to do this when he prepared his site plan document,
exhibit B, for his Waiver of Violation application.
Furthermore, the applicant had in 1975, applied for a building permit for an
addition to the residence and had indicated an existing eighteen (18) foot setback from
the property line at the flanking street side of his dwelling unit. Certainly, this
• •
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 6
indicates a prior knowledge of the location of the house with regard to the flanking street
property line, which was presumably legal, but at any rate recognizes that the applicant
did in 1975 determine by some means the approximate distance of the building from the
property line, as distinct from the curb line.
The applicant, presumably wishing to operate in good faith and with intent to
comply with the Zoning Ordinance, should have conscientiously measured these two
linear standards. He should have arrived at either one setback confirmed by the two (2)
different standards or two (2) conflicting setbacks. The two possibilities are discussed
in 16 below.
16. There are only two scenarios that the Zoning Adjustor can imagine for the
applicant to have done the measuring in an effort to correctly locate the proposed garage
with respect to 39th Avenue. In one instance, he, as a reasonable conscientiously
person, should have measured 45 feet from the centerline of the road as indicated on HIS
site plan and determined that setback.
In the second instance, he should have attempted to measure 15 feet from the
property line to determine the setback, a standard also written and drafted as a
dimension on HIS site plan. If he had approximately located the property line at ten
(10) feet from the curb, as one can do when one assumes a 40 foot wide road is located in
the center of a 60 foot right-of-way or by calling the County Engineer and simply
asking, a conscientious person would have then measured 15 feet from that approximate
property line and determined approximately the same setback as was found when he
measured 45 feet from the centerline of the road. At that point, there should have been
little question that the building had to be back 45 feet from the centerline of the road, or
approximately 25 feet from the curb.
To examine "curb -is -the -property line" scenario, if after measuring 45 feet
from the centerline of the road and determining that point, Mr. Tedesco had incorrectly
assumed the curb line was the property line and measured 15 feet from it, he would have
come up with a point approximately ten (10) feet short of the location determined by
using 45 feet from the centerline of the road. The Zoning Adjustor's opinion is that a
reasonably conscientious person, attempting to comply with the Zoning Ordinance would
have been puzzled by the difference in possible setbacks and tried to determine, from the
proper authorities, which setback should apply, if, in fact, he wasn't advised (as the
Building and Safety Department claims that he was) that it is whichever standard
provides the greater setback from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way.
17. It is on this basis that the Zoning Adjustor chooses not to deal with the
discrepancies of the inspection phase and does not choose to determine who, if anyone, is
lying. The Zoning Adjustor is basing this decision primarily on two indisputable facts:
(1) the site plan provided to the Department of Building and Safety on September 12,
1986, which had the two correct zoning standards for setbacks written on it by the
applicant; and (2) the Department of Building and Safety personnel correctly decided
that the applicant no longer needed to be referred to the Planning Department for a
possible variance since both setback standards were written on the site plan and
scratched out that "d" for required departmental review by the Planning Department.
The Zoning Adjustor can see little or no reason for the scratched out "J" except that the
Building and Safety personnel felt that the setback question was resolved by the notes on
the site plan.
Mr. Tedesco, despite knowing the two setback standards, choose to locate the
building consistent with neither of those standards. Further, assuming a legitimate
misunderstanding regarding the property line's relationship to the curb, he should have
come up with two minimum distances for the building to be located from the street, thus
prompting the need to seek clarification if he truly was desirous of complying with the
Zoning Ordinance. By his own action, he chose to locate the garage between those two
points, rather than attempting to resolve with the public officials why there is a
difference in standards and which one of the two should be used.
18. At a later point in the inspection process, the applicant was advised twice in
writing, on December 3, 1987 (exhibit F) and December 22, 1986 (exhibit G), that
his building was in violation. Again, from this point, there is disagreement with what
occurred. Mr. Tedesco claims that after the second letter, as a result of one or both of
the letters, he visited the Department of Building and Safety and had what he described as
a "heated discussion" with a person in charge or a person of authority. Upon questioning
in the public hearing, Mr. Tedesco was neither able to describe that person's physical
appearance to the Zoning Adjustor, remember his name nor produced any notes from
• •
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87
ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 7
such a conversation. His claim was that he believed he had convinced the party that
something was wrong and further said he was led to believe that this person would
inspect the property on his way home one evening.
Mr. Tedesco said he expected to have been contacted for follow up and never was. He
therefore assumed that everything was okay. He choose to make no follow-up contacts.
The Department of Building and Safety responded in their December 21st report
(exhibit E, item 4 of page 2) that no one recalls having such contact. There are only two
persons who would have had the authority described by Mr. Tedesco, that being Mr.
Manson, the Director, or Mr. Holman, the Assistant Director. The Zoning Adjustor
described the physical appearance of these two persons in the public hearing to Mr.
Tedesco in order to help him decide with whom he may have talked and Mr. Tedesco could
not relate to either description. Neither of these two Department of Building and Safety
personnel recalled conversations with Mr. Tedesco.
Regardless of the disagreement on conversations, it is the Zoning Adjustor's opinion
that a reasonably prudent and conscientious person, who intents to comply with the
regulations, would not allow two written notices of violation to remain unresolved and
should therefore have continued to pursue clearing the matter up rather than to let the
issue remain unresolved. The fact that Mr. Tedesco choose not to do that supports the
Zoning Adjustor's position that he is capable of and comfortable with not exercising good
faith and intent to comply with regulations.
19. The next contact between the Department of Building and Safety occurred when
a building inspector in the area noticed a shed roof carport addition to the unauthorized
enclosed garage structure. At that time, the inspector posted a stop -work order on the
shed roof carport. This was in September of 1987. Mr. Tedesco at that point did contact
the Department, September 29, 1987, and was referred to the Planning Department for
a Waiver of Violation for both structures, which then led to the application being
submitted.
Again, the Zoning Adjustor finds that the owner/applicant did not display a
conscientious attitude insofar as he directed his contractor to build a carport structure
with the same setback as had previously been the subject of two written violation
notices, neither of which he had either responded to in writing or chosen to resolve with
the regulatory authority. Furthermore, on the advice of legal counsel to the Zoning
Adjustor, since neither the applicant nor his contractor made contact with the regulating
agency for permits regarding the carport, there was no opportunity for proper direction
or misdirection and the applicant, as the owner of the land, bears responsibility for
having caused there to be a building constructed in violation of the building code laws and
the zoning laws.
20. It is noted that a neighbor, Mr. Espanosa, spoke highly of Mr. Tedesco's
integrity and honesty.
21. Note that in the above findings, the Zoning Adjustor has not "chosen" between
the conflicting testimony and written versions of the applicant and his witnesses and the
personnel of the Building and Safety Department. The conflicts in testimony have been
noted. The Zoning Adjustor has primarily used the written information on the submitted
site plan, which identified the proper two setback standards, and then formulated what
should have been the actions of a reasonably prudent and conscientious person, that is,
one who would have an interest in and awareness of the responsibility to comply with the
various regulations, both of the Building and Safety Department and of the Planning
Department. The Zoning Adjustor has also relied, In the latter findings above, on follow-
up actions by the applicant which suggest that he continued to have a lack of interest in
the various regulations and resolving the written violation orders from local
government. He also displayed no apparent concern with erecting a second building with
the same degree of setback violation of which he had been notified through two official
notices of violation.
22. The zoning regulations require the building to be set 15 feet from the
property line. The construction was in fact erected approximately 4 feet from the
property line. This means, of the fifteen (15) feet of setback which should be clear of
structures, eleven (11) feet of the required 15 feet is occupied by structures. This
amounts to a 73.3% violation of the standard.
23. It is not for the Zoning Adjustor to judge whether or not a 15 foot setback from
a property line on a 60 foot wide right-of-way is or is not an excessive standard as
• i
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87
ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 8
required by the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Adjustor must take the Zoning Ordinance
on its face value and note only that the 15 foot setback from the flanking street property
line is a standard which was established by the Ordinance, adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners, as being in the public interest and designed to provide for the health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens.
24. The County Engineering Department has advised that the fence constructed at
the curb on 39th Avenue is an unauthorized improvement in the County road right-of-
way and that such construction may only remain with the approval of the County
Engineering Department. The applicant is requested to contact the County Engineering
Department regarding this matter.
' 25. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is
hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. Based upon the above findings, the Zoning Adjustor concludes that the applicant
did not erect the project in good faith with every intent to comply with the provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance. He had the proper standards written on the site plan which he
submitted for a building permit application. He should have done the measurements to
determine the proper location of the building from the street and if he had done so, he
would have at best, found the proper setback using the 45 foot from the centerline of the
street or 15 feet from the property line standard or, at worst, found there to have been a
discrepancy between the two standards and should have prudently and conscientiously
determined which standard of the two to use. Had he asked that question of either of
Building and Safety or the Planning Departments, he would have been told to use the 45
feet from the centerline of the roadway standard, if the curb line/property line
misunderstanding had yielded two different standards. The applicant further displayed
lack of conscientious recognition of the regulatory process, designed to bring about
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, when he failed to resolve a violation as identified
in two written documents. He further displayed at least a lack of good judgement when he
directed the construction of an addition with the same violation which had been identified
in two previous written notices of violation.
2. The degree of violation is a substantial one, over a 73% violation with regard to
the setback from the property line, and the Zoning Adjustor concludes that such a
difference between the project setback and the required setback amounts to a violation of
the spirit and the intent of the Ordinance, based upon the presumption that the standard
in the Ordinance is a legitimate standard designed to preserve and protect the public
interest and the health, safety and general welfare of the community.
3. The applicant has previously constructed an unauthorized fence in the County
right-of-way and has been requested by the County Engineer to seek authorization of that
fence, if in fact, such can be granted. Technically, the Zoning Adjustor and the Zoning
Ordinance have no authority to require compliance, as the right-of-way is not private
property regulated by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is
adopted as such.
DECISION
The Zoning Adjustor DENIES the Waiver of Violation as set forth in the
application. The applicant is directed, as a result of this denial, to bring the structures
into compliance with the proper setbacks; that is, forty-five (45) feet as measured
from the centerline of the roadway, or fifteen (15) feet from the property line,
whichever standard produces the greater setback.
The applicant is also strongly urged to contact the County Engineering
Department to seek authorization, which is a discretionary judgement and may be denied,
from the County Engineer regarding the existing fence constructed in the right-of-way
of 39th Avenue.
• •
•
CASE NO. WVE-22-87 ZONING ADJUSTOR FINDINGS PAGE 9
Recognizing that this decision may be appealed to the Spokane County Board of
Adjustment, the Zoning Adjustor will attempt to set the time frames in recognition of a
potential appeal. At such point as any appeal of this decision to the Board of Adjustment
or a court of competent jurisdiction may be denied, the applicant shall within thirty
(30) days outline in a letter to the County Engineering Department, the County Planning
Department and the Department of Building and Safety the steps to be taken to bring the
structures into compliance and obtain proper permits and authorization. The letter
shall propose a time frame for doing so.
Such corrective actions and time frames must be approved by the three
Departments involved. When an actual description of the work to be undertaken to
correct the situation and a time frame is established acceptable to the three agencies, the
applicant shall proceed to commence corrective action within sixty (60) calendar days.
If such corrective action has not been completed within a second sixty (60) day time
frame, the case shall be forwarded to the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for enforcement
actions to accomplish the corrective measures.
Failure to submit a written course of corrective action, as directed above, within
thirty (30) calendar days of final disposition of this decision shall also be cause for the
County to begin enforcement action.
DATED this 15th day of January, 1988.
Thomas . osher, AICP
Z. in• Adjustor
Spokane County, Washington
FILED:
1 ) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safety
7) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
8) Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Civil Division;
Attn: Rob Binger
NOTE: ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN
TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE
ACCOMPANIED BY A $100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON
STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260. (Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance)
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
TO Tom Mosher, Zoning Adjustor
Planning Department
FROM: Tom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator
Department of Building and Safety
DATE: November 18, 1987
RE WVE-22-87 South 3904 Ridgeview
In response to your memorandum dated November 9, 1987 requesting
information regarding contacts with the applicant by Building and
Safety personnel the following synopsis is presented.
- September 15, 1986 - Permit number 13128 was issued for
a storage building. A 15 foot setback from the
flanking street property line was required and noted on
the plot plan. (The permit has not been finalized.)
- September 17, 1986 - A footings inspection was made
noting that setbacks were in compliance with the
approved plot plan.
November 10, 1986 - During a routine framing
inspection, the inspector did note that an ell was
added to the building after the footing inspection.
That this addition encroached into the required setback
area.
December 13, 1986 - Mr. Tedesco was notified in writing
that a violation exists and was given 10 days in which
to apply for a waiver of violation.
- December 22, 1986 - A second notice was mailed to Mr.
Tedesco advising that if he wants to keep the building
in the present location, he will need to contact the
Planning Department for a decision.
- September 3, 1987 -`The inspector advised this office
that additional construction was occurring resulting in
further encroachment into the required setback.
Inspector was advised to issue a stop work order.
1\ Teti) 011 1VL•L•FD cl1N
•
SPOKANE. WASHINGTON 99260.0050
TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
Tom Mosher
November 18, 1987
Page 2 of 2
September 29, 1987 - Mr. Tedesco called this office
upon the issuance of a stop work order. Apparently a
lean-to type structure was added to the garage without
a building permit and in violation of setbacks.
October 16, 1987 - Planning advised this office that
application for the waiver has been applied for but not
turned in.
Should you have any questions, please call. Should this
application be approved, we will need to issue a building permit
for that portion of the building not covered under permit number
13128.
TLD:mak
• •
A --P,
��
„Ito 1at'7.
SPOKANt COUNTY COURT HOUSE
,' ,o K S r ; CN�` ry
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
MEMORANDUM
10 Thomas L. Davis, Code Coordinator, Spokane County Department of
Building and Safety
Bob McCann, Spokane County Engineering Department
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Zoning Adjustor
DATE: November 9, 1987
SUBJECT: WVE-22-87
This case is scheduled for hearing on December 7, 1987. In your response,
would you please give attention to the following. If the information contained
in our packet is insufficient, please contact Faye at 2205. (Faye is replacing
Jeannie while Jeannie is on vacation.)
FOR TOM DAVIS: a) Will you please respond to what I believe is the
applicant's comments that the Building and Safety
Department did not "catch" the zoning violation? I believe
the applicant's answers on our questionnaire indicate that
he believes he acted in good faith and was not advised until
his project was completed that he had violated the Zoning
Ordinance. If I am to grant any relief to his situation, I
must be able to make a finding to the effect that he erected
the project in good faith and with every intent to comply
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Knowing
whether or not he may not have been advised of a
violation in a timely manner by the Department of
Building and Safety helps me in rendering a decision based
on that criteria.
b) It would appear that the existing shop and deck were
constructed with respect in mind for the flanking street
setback. If the applicant was aware of or had been advised
of such a setback for the shop and deck, I am puzzled that
he would not have been sensitive to a similar regulation or
rule for the building which now stands in violation of the
Zoning Code. Would you please convey to me your various
file documents regarding the building permit, application,
etc., regarding the then proposed shop and deck (as labeled
• •
Memo to
Thomas L. Davis, Department of Building & Safcty
Bob McCann, Engineering Department
November 9, 1987
Page 2
on his drawings)? If you can offer any information for or
against the applicant's contention that he had no intention
of violating the Zoning Ordinance, I would appreciate it.
FOR BOB McCANN: I would appreciate having your engineer's road map for
the property in question, including any "as -built"
construction drawings for the flanking street
improvements at this location.
TGM:fcu
December 22, 1986
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
Mr. Joe Tedesco
South 3904 Ridgeview
Spokane, Washington 99206
RE Garage - South 3904 Ridgeview
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
Further review of your file indicates that the above -referenced
garage is in violation of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
If you wish to keep the building in this location, you are
required to contact the Spokane County Planning Department to
obtain a Waiver of Violation.
Once Planning has made a decision on your building, please notify
our department so we can clear, your file.
Sincerely yours,
DEPARTMENT CF BUILDING AND SAFETY
Arthur S. Erickson
Inspection Supervisor
ASE:pjk
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON
• SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260•0050
•
TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
December 3, 1986
f
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
MR. JOE TEDESCO
South 3904 Ridgeview
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Tedesco:
A visual inspection of your garage located at South 3904 Ridgeview
indicated that your building is too close to the property line as
outlined by the Spokane County.Zoning Ordinance.
ii2tVeetAt
DfAA. d
If you o keep the building in this location you ar" required
to contact the Spokane County PlanningCommission to obt i n a Waiver
of Violation45hould you choose not to obtain this waive , the garage
must be relocated so that compliance with Spokane County
requirements is achieved.
It should be further noted that you will be given ten (10) days from
the date of this letter to contact this office or take the appropriate
action.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
me at 456-3675 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., weekdays.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF,BUILDING AND SAFETY
Arthur S. Erickson
Inspection Supervisor
ASE:mas
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON
•
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260.0050
TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
co-(
r �
cyo
_ _ _
Y"
J
®i ,
‘-tft efc
s
1�
•
.,„i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPEAL HEARING
TLc.Ai c v, £.L..)
IN THE MATTER OF: ) HEARING DATE:
WVE-22-87; Waiver of Violation regarding a ) April 20, 1988 9:00 A. M.
garage and attached carport located within a )
flanking street setback. ) HEARING LOCATION:
) Spokane County Planning Department
APPLICANT/APPELLANT: ) Broadway Centre Building
Joseph A. Tedesco ) 2nd Floor Hearing Room
C/O Thomas F. Kingen ) N. 721 Jefferson Street
Suite #1480 ) Spokane, WA 99260
Seafirst Financial Center )
Spokane, WA 99201 ) PUBLIC INFORMATION:
) The Zoning Adjustor's decision of
SITE LOCATION: ) January 15, 1988, the Zoning
Generally located in the Ponderosa area of the ) Adjustor's report to the Board of
Spokane Valley at the south corner of the ) Adjustment dated April 5,1988
intersection of Ridgeview Drive and 39th Ave. ) and the file are all available for
The tax Assessor Parcel number is 32541-0803 ) public inspection at the above address.
and the street address is S. 3904 Ridgeview )
Drive. ) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Contact the Spokanc County
SITE SIZE: Approximately 17,900 sq. ft. ) Planning Department at (509) 456-2205.
)
ZONING: Single Family Residential Zone (R-1) )
)
ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: )
4.04A.090 b. 3, - FLANKING STREET SETBACK )
FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. )
4.25.030 f. - AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD 10 )
CONSIDER WAIVER OF VIOLATION. )
REQUEST
The proposed Waiver of Violation is requested by the applicant in order to authorize the
location of an existing structure, which was built in two (2) stages within the last two (2) years,
not in conformance with the required setbacks of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The
structure consists of an enclosed detached garage with a shed -roof carport attached to it. This
entire structure is located approximately four(4) feet from the flanking street (39th Avenue)
property line and thirty-four and one half (345) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way
(39th Avenue). The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance standards require a flanking street setback
for accessory buildings of fifteen (15) feet from the flanking street property line and/or forty-five
(45) feet from the centerline of the flankdngstreet roadway right-of-way.
CASE BEFORE THE BOARD
The Spokane County Zoning Adjustor examined all available information on file with this
application, visited the subject property and surrounding area numerous times, and conducted
• •
Spokane County Board of Adjustment Agenda:
public hearings on December 7, 1987 and December 21, 1987 regarding this proposed Waiver of
Violation. On January 15, 1988 the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by written Findings,
Conclusions and Decision, did deny the requested Waiver of Violation. In denying the request, the
Zoning Adjustor, in effect, ordered the applicant to bring the existing accessory building into
compliance with the setback requirements of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, that is, the
building must be modified so as to have a fifteen (15) foot setback from the flanking street (39th
Avenue) property line.
The applicant, through his representative, Thomas G. Kingen, appealed the Zoning
Adjustor's denial of the Waiver of Violation on January 22, 1988. The applicant believes he
erected the structure "...in good faith, believing he was complying with the setback requirement."
The applicant further takes exception with several of the Zoning Adjustor's Findings and
Conclusions.
April 20. 1988 Pagc 2
•
y r
Y
�" CA 0 } LL 4�D �,
r A F1 �`.c DO � T� 4..., •, • .. ...., •
�� sr
46111 4V
k
•
•
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
TO Tom Mosher
Planning Department
Tom Davis
Department of Building and Safety
DATE: December 21, 1987
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
RE WVE-22-87 - South 3904 Ridgeview
In accordance with your memorandum dated December 9, 1987, this
office has completed a review of the events surrounding the
issuance of building permit number 13128, and the construction
activity at South 3904 Ridgeview.
From review of documentation and information supplied by
department personnel, it is our conclusion that department
procedures were followed and that the applicant and his builder
were made fully aware of the setback requirements before
and during construction.
In response to statements contained in your memorandum, the
following is presented:
Item 1: At the time application was first made, Mr. Tedesco
illustrated on the permit application a setback of 8 feet from
the side property line, Both Gloria Wendel and Jun Mascardo
informed Mr. Tedesco of the proper setback requirements and that
if he wished to locate his garage closer to the street, he would
have to contact the Planning Department regarding a variance.
Further, the Technicians made it explicitly clear, in response to
a question by Mr. Tedesco, that a curb line may or may not be
the property line and that it was the owner's responsibility to
determine where his property line is located. Mr. Tedesco made
statements such as, why could his neighbors build closer to the
street and he had to abide by the setback requirement? Further,
he stated that nobody can stop him since it is his own property.
Mr. Tedesco then left the office presumably to go to Planning to
inquire about the feasibility of a variance.
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON
• SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260.0050
• TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
(Mr. Tom Mosher
December 21, 1987
Page 2 of 3
A few weeks later Mr. Tedesco returned to the office with the
application and the notations of 15 feet and 45 feet from the
center line written on the plot plan. The permit was issued.
Both Technicians were quite diligent in their responses, making
sure Mr. Tedesco understood the setback requirements. They
remember their conversations vividly.
Item 2: To further clarify what transpired when the footings
were inspected, our inspector did observe that an existing
concrete driveway (that portion extending into the flanking
street setback area) had holes drilled with anchor bolts
inserted. Mr. Tedesco's builder stated that it was the
foundation for the garage. Our inspector informed the builder
that this is not sufficient to support a building and further it
encroached into the required setback area for the flanking
street. The builder was advised of the code requirement, and not
to proceed with construction over the driveway.
Footings were never approved within the 15 foot flanking street
setback area.
Please note that our inspector has never met nor communicated
with Mr. Tedesco. His contacts were directly with the builder.
Item 3: Again, the builder was advised at the time the footings
were inspected that the use of the concrete driveway was not an
acceptable foundation and is not authorized under the Uniform
Building Code. Additionally, it's location would place the
building in violation of the setback requirement. Proper warning
was given to the builder prior to framing. Under these
circumstances an inspector would not authorize the continuation
of construction. Upon finding that framing was completed and
within the setback area, the inspector reported to his
supervisor, that a building was erected in violation of setbacks
and without a proper foundation. The supervisor confirmed the
violation and so informed Mr. Tedesco in writing on December 13,
1986 and again on December 22, 1986.
Item 4: No member of our staff could recall having any contacts
with Mr. Tedesco regarding the two written notices.
2
Mr. Tom Mosher
December 21, 1987
Page 3 of 3
Please be advised that notices of violation may be either by a
stop work order, written notice, or a combination of both. For
clarity of the record written notices are preferred.
Item 5: Regarding the "small" (18.5' by 34.5') addition:
In this case when the inspector noticed the unauthorized
construction and posted a stop work order on the building because
of probable structural defects which could result in injuries to
persons occupying the structure. The builder was present and
was made aware of the problems. Apparently as a result of this
order, Mr. Tedesco on September 29, 1987 contacted the Assistant
Director, who advised Mr. Tedesco that permits are required for
construction of an addition including compliance with setback
requirements. Mr. Tedesco was referred to the Planning
Department regarding a waiver of violation application. Our last
recorded entry was dated October 6, 1987 whereby, John Mercer
advised our inspection supervisor that the matter was turned over
to Steve Horobiowski.
The above accounting concludes our remarks and our position
remains, that proper procedures were followed at all times.
Please feel free to call, if you desire further information.
TLD:mak
SPOKANC COUNTY COURT NOUS(
. ?aui5//'N•A• pcvt
S op telt 'f0 1401-04
a- dry f rex°6 9'C
-to Yam. FO I''�`
PLANNING DErMnimcwi
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
TO : *TOM DAVIS, CODE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
& SAFETY
FROM:
DATE:
G. MOSHER, AICP, ZONING ADJUSTOR
DECEMBER 9, 1987
SUBJECT: WVE-22-87
WAIVER OF VIOLATION
JOSEPH A. TEDESCO
On December 7, I opened the hearing for the above case and took testimony from
Dr. Tedesco and his contractor, Mr. Sitton. Because of an irregularlity in the
advertising, we have continued the public hearing until 11:15 a.m. on Monday,
December 21. Previous to this hearing, I had solicited a case summary from your
department and received your memo dated November 18, 1987.
During the public hearing, I discussed with the applicant and his contractor the content
of your memorandum. I am very perplexed and quite at a loss to even tie down the facts
involved in this case, which would hopefully lead me to rendering a decision.
As you may know, I can only grant a waiver of violation upon making a finding that the
applicant operated in good faith and with every intent to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance, and that furthermore, the violation, if granted and allowed to remain, would
not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. I am quite
comfortable in dealing with the issue of the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
but I always have difficulty dealing with whether or not somebody has operated in good
faith and with every intent to comply with the Ordinance. I also assume as I wrestle with
these issues that the Building Official is responsible for enforcing the Ordinance
(Section 4.22.030).
When I read, piece by piece, your memorandum into the record and asked the applicant to
respond to it or to provide his story with regard to the statements made, I found fairly
substantial disagreement from Tedesco/Sitton. Consequently, I intend to summarize
below Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton's version of what happened.
• •
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 2
I request that your Department either respond to the version presented by Tedesco and
Sitton in writing, with a carbon copy to Dr. Tedesco, or notify me that someone will be
present at the hearing to respond to their remarks. If someone is to be present at the
hearing, will you please let me know in advance so that I may notify Dr. Tedesco and Mr.
Sitton, as they may also wish to be present at the continued hearing.
Under oatti, the following was described and agreed to by both Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton.
1. September 15, 1986. Dr. Tedesco commented that he was advised that his
building was shown as being only 8 feet from the property line and that he
had to comply with15 feet from the property line or 45 feet from the
centerline of the roadway. He moved 5 feet of the building from the front of
the garage to the rear of the garage and noted the 15 -foot setback from the
side street. He said that there was nothing in the conversation with the
Building and Safety personnel to lead him to believe there was a possibility
that the curb line and the property line were not the same. You stated that
the plot plan showed a 15 -foot setback from the property line. Dr. Tedesco
said it did not show that and I tend to agree with him. He said the only thing he
intended to show was that it was 15 feet back from the curb line and that is
why he wrote "side street" in the margin to indicate that it was, in fact, 15
feet from the edge of the street. He felt that your staff should have been
alerted to push for a clarification of the "curb line" versus the "property
line."
2. September 17, 1986. Both Mr. Sitton and Dr. Tedesco stated that a footings
inspection was done. However, they protest the description that the setbacks
were in compliance with the approved plot plan, so stated as to suggest that
the site plan did not show the garage extending toward the street. "Didn't the
inspector have a site plan?" they asked. Their position is that the approved
plot plan showed a T-shaped structure, with one end of the T being 15 feet
from the side street. They both testified under oath that the footings and
foundation for the now offending T-shaped garage were in place. were
inspected and were okayed. This is in great contrast with the September 17,
1986 description stated in the memo. If the footings were in place and only
15 feet from the street, why were they approved by the inspector? I believe
you told me in a conversation prior to the hearing that the inspector reported
that only the footings of the shop and deck were in and that was all he
approved. 1 believe I recall your saying that your inspector may not have had
the applicant's site plan with him in the field.
3. November 10, 1986. Your explanation indicates that, on the routine framing
inspection, the inspector found that the garage was added to the building after
the footings inspection and that this was the first time it was noted that the
addition violated the required setback area. Again, both gentlemen testified
under oath that the foundation and footings for the building which they had
framed in for the framing inspection were in the ground at the time of the
footings and foundation inspection. Their natural question is why did the
1 •
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 3
inspector wait until the framing was up and the exterior skin of the building
on before advising them that they had encroached into the setback. They also
say at this point they were advised by your inspector to complete the
construction job. and that approval could be obtained from the Planning
Department, or something very much to that effect. (The contractor
remembered specifically that he had not had the subcontractor come in to
install the garage door and asked whether he should hold off doing that until
the problem was resolved. He was advised to go ahead and have the garage door
installed and complete the construction.) They claim that in good faith they
completed the construction and were surprised to receive on December 13,
1986, a notice of violation. No stop work order was placed on the
construction, which further supported the fact that the Building and Safety
Department appeared to feel the problem was resolvable without resorting to
a stop work order.
4. December 13, 1986 and December 22, 1986. Dr. Tedesco said that, upon
receiving either the first or the second complaint, he came to your offices and
talked with "the people in charge." I asked if he spoke with Mr. Manson or
Mr. Holman; but he was not sure that he was able to match up my description
with his recollection. Dr. Tedesco said he had a heated discussion at the time
with the person to whom he was talking, expressing his anger and frustration
that this problem was not caught at the footings and foundation inspection
when all of the footings were in, inspected and approved. He recalled that
whoever he was talking with said they would stop by on the way home in the
near future and look at the situation. I asked them why they did not respond
in writing to two notice of violation letters or why they did not contact the
Planning Department, as directed. Dr. Tedesco responded that he felt, after
the discussion in the Building and Safety Department offices and with his
explanation that the building inspector had erred, that the ball was in the
Building and Safety Department's court and that he would hear from them as
to the next course of action. He did not hear from anybody from your offices
and admittedly failed to contact your office back to see what had happened and
why he hadn't heard from anyone. No stop work order was placed on the
construction, which further supported the fact that the Building and Safety
Department appeared to feel the problem was resolvable without resorting to
a stop work order.
5. September 3, 1987. Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton acknowledged that they were
constructing a small addition. But, they felt it did not need a permit due to its
size. At least there is no factual disagreement here, and 1 can deal
accordingly.
My dilemma is that if I lean toward the testimony given under oath, it would appear that
the applicant and his contractor operated in reasonably good faith and with intent to
comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Certainly, I cannot find that they blatantly ignored
ordinances and codes if au the footings and foundations were in at the first inspection and
approved as installed. I am asking them for verification of fully installed footings and
foundations by the concrete hauler.
• •
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 4
On the other hand, if I lean toward the version described in your memo, as probably
reported by your building inspector, it would appear as if they didn't display a clear
intent to comply with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. Your memo clearly suggests to
me that the offending footing and foundation was added after the inspection.
I would appreciate any additional information you care to give which would further
clarify this situation.
TGM:fcu
oc:Dr. Tedesco
:James Manson, Director, ✓
Spokane County Department of
Building & Safety
•
casc ) U,wtvt4avy
7\1?, -Al T(jtvy.....t.0 0.4v b Ll‘^ -2 `s ( ot,wC. c A..„4
c,elx/ et `rAuis Ie ec Ino m & f eCtc cL9fi vj eitgAbytt G►;►, ---a p4- w/
tMQtv0A. (IZ • L1`�) a —
1
Sf'OPAN( COUNTY COURT h0USC
r
S I i WA `. C 1171%"7"1'
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
BEFORE THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A WAIVER OF VIOLATION
OF A FLANKING STREET YARD VIOLATION
JOSEPH A. TEDESCO [WVE-22-87]
NOTICE
OF
CONTINUANCE
The above -entitled matter, coming on regularly for hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County, Washington, and the Zoning Adjustor being desirous of
giving said matter further consideration, did determine to continue this hearing to
11:15 a.m., or as soon thereafter as passible, in the Broadway Centre Building Hearing
Room, North 721 Jefferson Street, Spokane, Washington, on Monday, December 21,
1987.
DATED this 8th day of December, 1987.
:
T OMAS G.
ZONING
TGM:fcu
cc: Joseph A. Tedesco
Spokane County Engineering Department
Spokane County Utilities Department
Spokane County Health District /
Spokane County Building & Safety Department
M ER, AICP
AD . TOR
AGENDA - ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING - December 7, 1987 - Page 3
4) VE -100-87
(This itcm will be heard
at 10:15 a.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.)
VARIANCE FROM FLANKING STREET
SETBACK REQUIREMENT
Generally located in the Spokane
Valley, north of 4th Avenue and east
of and adjacent to Adams Road in the
NW 1/4 of Section 23, Township 25,
Range 44.
PROPOSAL• The applicant requests a variance to allow twenty-nine (29)
12' x 24' garages to be constructed five (5) feet from the existing property line.
whereas Section 4.07.130 b. 3. of the Spokanc County Zoning Ordinance
requires a fifteen (15) -foot setback from the flanking street right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING: Multiple Family Suburban (MFS)
SITE SIZE: Approximately 4.66 acres
APPLICANT: Earl and Mary Boettcher, c/o Alvin J. Wolff, Inc.
West 907 Riverside Avenue
Spokanc, WA 99201
AGENT:
Howard B. Johnson
Alvin J. Wolff. Inc.
(509) 624-1100
* * • • * * * * * * * * * • * • * • • • * • • * * * * * * • • * *
5) WVE-22-87
(This item will be heard
at 10:45 a.m. or as soon
thereafter as possible.)
WAIVER OF VIOLATION FOR FLANKING
EDIEELSEMACK
Generally located on the south corner
of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive
and 39th Avenue in the NE 1/4 of
Section 32. Township 25. Range 44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a waiver of violation to allow an existing
garage and concrete slab to remain four (4) feet from the existing property
line at 39th Avenue. whereas Section 4.04A.090 b. 3. of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum fifteen (15) -foot setback from the
property line of a flanking street right-of-way.
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-1)
SITE SIZE:
Approximately 15,600 square feet
APPLICANT: Joseph A. Tedesco
South 3904 Ridgeview Drive
Spokane, WA 99206
* * * * * • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
•
•'1 Ave
,.. Aveti 1
Ave
Iti Ave
Ave..
�{ , T iJ
5 'STH
4LONA
CT.
DfiT►.1
ctirk 211
r - - 1:1000 'y.
`
AD ;
y_i
Ake�)� �1�U _ ;76;,/4/
SPOKANEOUNTY PLANNING DEPA 1���rr'
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certificate of Exemption #:
4/1
Application #:
Name of Applicant: -�os� 1, A . 1 Ie
*
*
*
Street Address:
Ci ty:
State: L0A Zip Code:cq
Name of Property Owner(s):�,�,�h A . -I-ea
REQUESTED ACTION(S) (Circle Appropriate Action):
Variance(s) Conditional Use Permit
Waiver of Violation Temporary Use/Structure
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
6c6u4.7eO
:/
Ordinance Section.2-o6fr Old Code:
Home: cm y -- (, l -
Phone :Work : cia y -12--ti
Acr.vrs ot'
Non -Conforming Lot/Use
Other:
*Cite
*
*Sectior�
*
*Existing
*
"32— Township Z S Range 4
/
Zoning: /e /2 / (tZ 1 7(.o F.L.U.P.
UTA: 6) N ASA: ) N FIRE DIST.:
*PSSA: i� N
*
*Hearin Date:
*********19?*-*-
**
Existing Use of Property:
Describe Intended Proposal:
* * *
(3)New„de,---
* L
*
} S
i3�,
* —
Property Size : i
Designation:
te_/
*
*
LEGAL CHECKED BY:
Staff taking in Application:
k * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * *
mite,
tl
Street Address of Property:.
Legal Description of Property (Include easement if applicable) :
crc1q,
!c 1= w
Parcel 4: _ Source of Legal: Tax
Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner/sponsor:
What interest do you hold in the property:
S-k-!e,»a.t•4-
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this property: r
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE
OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF
RESPONSES AND TH OW SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE
MY KNOWLEDG�,G oQL‘i 4
NOTARY SE
I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
OWNER, WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM SAID
IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
Signed: -G .a -e -a
Address:;c1iLe� ;e
b
Phone No.: qty -1 i -t Date:
Notary:
rQ-1-0
Date:
(over)
?q,t it, /917
•pilE:
FILE #:
II. WAIVER OF VIOLATION (Section 4.25.030 f. of Zoning Ordinance)
A. Was project erected in good faith and with every
intent to comply with the
rcised
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance? infviolationain how you of the Zoninge0rdinance?d
faith and intent and still ended up � J
{ -,R *., M
i fff`1
B. While not complying with every detail
explain how the project is consistent
ordinance?
a.,
of the provisions of the ordinance,
with the spirit or intent of the
. ,1
r.
44
c t i.c C.e_
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the
reasons why the requested proposal should be approved and to literally put forth
the basic case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc.) designed to help you present your case
in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider.
Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the Planning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed.
B. SIGN -OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
1.
COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
cant has been informed of requi rements and standards.
gnature)
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
c t has been informed of requi rements and standards.
(
gnatu
�
� 3cr 87
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
3. COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
] A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
applicant has been informed of requirements and standards.
(Si gnature)
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
] The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
standards.
(Distri ct Si gnature)
to become informed of requirements and
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
4 WATER PURVEYOR (Waive if outside CWSSA) NAME:
a) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our future service are
b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current district.
c) We are/are not able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements have/have not been made to serve this proposal.
(Si gnature)
(Date) (Sign -off Waived)
SPO..nhL COVhTV COURT CSI
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
MEMORANDUM
IL? Thomas L. Davis, Code Coordinator, Spokane County Department of
Building and Safety
Bob McCann, Spokane County Engineering Dcpartmcnt
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Zoning Adjustor
DATE: November 9, 1987
SUBJECT: WVE-22-87
This case is scheduled for hearing on December 7, 1987. In your response,
would you please give attention to the following. If the information contained
in our packet is insufficient, please contact Fayc at 2205. (Faye is replacing
Jeannie while Jeannie is on vacation.)
FOR TOM DAVIS: a) Will you please respond to what I believe is the
applicant's comments that the Building and Safety
Department did not "catch" the zoning violation? I believe
the applicant's answers on our questionnaire indicate that
he believes he acted in good faith and was not advised until
his project was completed that he had violated the Zoning
Ordinance. If I am to grant any relief to his situation, I
must be able to make a finding to the effect that he erected
the project in good faith and with every intent to comply
with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Knowing
whether or not Ile may not have been advised of a
violation in a timely manner by the Department of
Building and Safety helps me in rendering a decision based
on that criteria.
b) It would appear that the existing shop and deck were
constructed with respect in mind for the flanking street
setback. If the applicant was aware of or had been advised
of such a setback for the shop and deck, I am puzzled that
he would not have been sensitive to a similar regulation or
rule for the building which now stands in violation of the
Zoning Code. Would you please convey to me your various
file documents regarding the building permit, application,
etc., regarding the then proposed shop and deck (as labeled
• •
Mcmo to
Thomas L. Davis, Department of Building & Safety
Bob McCann, Engineering Department
November 9, 1987
Page 2
on his drawings)? If you can offer any information for or
against the applicant's contention that he had no intention
of violating the Zoning Ordinance, I would appreciate it.
FOR BOB McCANN: I would appreciate having your engineer's road map for
the property in question, including any "as -built"
construction drawings for the flanking street
improvements at this location.
TGM:fcu
•
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
TO Tom Mosher, Zoning Adjustor
Planning Department
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
FROM: Tom Davis, Code Compliance Coordinator
Department of Building and Safety
DATE: November 18, 1987
RE WVE-22-87 South 3904 Ridgeview
In response to your memorandum dated November 9, 1987 requesting
information regarding contacts with the applicant by Building and
Safety personnel the following synopsis is presented.
September 15, 1986 - Permit number 13128 was issued for
a storage building. A 15 foot setback from the
flanking street property line was required and noted on
the plot plan. (The permit has not been finalized.)
September 17, 1986 - A footings inspection was made
noting that setbacks were in compliance with the
approved plot plan.
November 10, 1986 - During a routine framing
inspection, the inspector did note that an ell was
added to the building after the footing inspection.
That this addition encroached into the required setback
area.
o3
December 13, 1986 - Mr. Tedesco was notified in writing
that a violation exists and was given 10 days in which
to apply for a waiver of violation.
December 22, 1986 - A second notice was mailed to Mr.
Tedesco advising that if he wants to keep the building
in the present location, he will need to contact the
Planning Department for a decision.
September 3, 1987 -`The inspector advised this office
that additional construction was occurring resulting in
further encroachment into the required setback.
Inspector was advised to issue a stop work order.
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON
• SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260.0050 • TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
Tom Mosher
November 18, 1987
Page 2 of 2
September 29, 1987 - Mr. Tedesco called this office
upon the issuance of a stop work order. Apparently a
lean-to type structure was added to the garage without
a building permit and in violation of setbacks.
October 16, 1987 - Planning advised this office that
application for the waiver has been applied for but not
turned in.
Should you have any questions, please call. Should this
application be approved, we will need to issue a building permit
for that portion of the building not covered under permit number
13128.
TLD:mak
J
•
s PO�4HE counTY COURT Hcusc
•
AVIS//4"4
, mv-t
f ecAa f0 tom{
-to Yom t
PLANNING DErurs u mcIV I
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
TO : *TOM DAVIS, CODE COMPLIANCE COORDINATOR, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING
& SAFETY
FROM: r h-1OMAS G. MOSHER, AICP, ZONING ADJUSTOR
DATE: 1J�JJ DECEMBER 9, 1987
SUBJECT: WVE-22-87
WAIVER OF VIOLATION
JOSEPH A. TEDESCO
On December 7, I opened the hearing for the above case and took testimony from
Dr. Tedesco and his contractor, Mr. Sitton. Because of an irregularlity in the
advertising, we have continued the public hearing until 11:15 a.m. on Monday,
December 21. Previous to this hearing, I had solicited a case summary from your
department and received your memo dated November 18, 1987.
During the public hearing, I discussed with the applicant and his contractor the content
of your memorandum. I am very perplexed and quite at a Toss to even tie down the facts
involved in this case, which would hopefully lead me to rendering a decision.
As you may know, I can only grant a waiver of violation upon making a finding that the
applicant operated in good faith and with every intent to comply with the Zoning
Ordinance, and that furthermore, the violation, if granted and allowed to remain, would •
not be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. I am quite
comfortable in dealing with the issue of the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance,
but I always have difficulty dealing with whether or not somebody has operated in good
faith and with every intent to comply with the Ordinance. I also assume as I wrestle with
these issues that the Building Official is responsible for enforcing the Ordinance
(Section 4.22.030).
When I read, piece by piece, your memorandum into the record and asked the applicant to
respond to it or to provide his story with regard to the statements made, I found fairly
substantial disagreement from Tedesco/Sitton. Consequently, I intend to summarize
below Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton's version of what happened.
• •
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 2
I request that your Department either respond to the version presented by Tedesco and
Sitton in writing, with a carbon copy to Dr. Tedesco, or notify me that someone will be
present at the hearing to respond to their remarks. If someone is to be present at the
hearing, will you please let me know in advance so that I may notify Dr. Tedesco and Mr.
Sitton, as they may also wish to be present at the continued hearing.
Under oath, the following was described and agreed to by both Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton.
1. September 15, 1986. Dr. Tedesco commented that he was advised that his
building was shown as being only 8 feet from the property line and that he
had to comply withl5 feet from the property line or 45 feet from the
centerline of the roadway. He moved 5 feet of the building from the front of
the garage to the rear of the garage and noted the 15 -foot setback from the
side street. He said that there was nothing in the conversation with the
Building and Safety personnel to lead him to believe there was a possibility
that the curb line and the property line were not the same. You stated that
the plot plan showed a 15 -foot setback from the property line. Dr. Tedesco
said it did not show that and I tend to agree with him. He said the only thing he
intended to show was that it was 15 feet back from the curb line and that is
why he wrote "side street" in the margin to indicate that it was, in fact, 15
feet from the edge of the street. He felt that your staff should have been
alerted to push for a clarification of the "curb line" versus the "property
line."
2. September 17, 1986. Both Mr. Sitton and Dr. Tedesco stated that a footings
inspection was done. However, they protest the description that the setbacks
were in compliance with the approved plot plan, so stated as to suggest that
the site plan did not show the garage extending toward the street. "Didn't the
inspector have a site plan?" they asked. Their position is that the approved
plot plan showed a T-shaped structure, with one end of the T being 15 feet
from the side street. They both testified under oath that the footings•and
foundation for the now offending T-shaped garage were in place. were
inspected and were okayed. This is in great contrast with the September 17,
1986 description stated in the memo. If the footings were in place and only
15 feet from the street, why were they approved by the inspector? I believe
you told me in a conversation prior to the hearing that the inspector reported
that only the footings of the shop and deck were in and that was all he
approved. I believe I recall your saying that your inspector may not have had
the applicant's site plan with him in the field.
3. November 10, 1986. Your explanation indicates that, on the routine framing
inspection, the inspector found that the garage was added to the building after
the footings inspection and that this was the first time it was noted that the
addition violated the required setback area. Again, both gentlemen testified
under oath that the foundation and footings for the building which they had
framed in for the framing inspection were in the ground at the time of the
footings and foundation inspection. Their natural question is why did the
• •
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 3
inspector wait until the framing was up and the exterior skin of the building
on before advising them that they had encroached into the setback. They also
say at this point they were advised by your inspector to complete the
construction job. and that approval could be obtained from the Planning
Department, or something very much to that effect. (The contractor
remembered specifically that he had not had the subcontractor come in to
install the garage door and asked whether he should hold off doing that until
the problem was resolved. He was advised to go ahead and have the garage door
installed and complete the construction.) They claim that in good faith they
completed the construction and were surprised to receive on December 13,
1986, a notice of violation. No stop work order was placed on the
construction, which further supported the fact that the Building and Safety
Department appeared to feel the problem was resolvable without resorting to
a stop work order.
4. December 13, 1986 and December 22, 1986. Dr. Tedesco said that, upon
receiving either the first or the second complaint, he came to your offices and
talked with "the people in charge." I asked if he spoke with Mr. Manson or
Mr. Holman; but he was not sure that he was able to match up my description
with his recollection. Dr. Tedesco said he had a heated discussion at the time
with the person to whom he was talking, expressing his anger and frustration
that this problem was not caught at the footings and foundation inspection
when all of the footings were in, inspected and approved. He recalled that
whoever he was talking with said they would stop by on the way home in the
near future and look at the situation. I asked them why they did not respond
in writing to two notice of violation letters or why they did not contact the
Planning Department, as directed. Dr. Tedesco responded that he felt, after
the discussion in the Building and Safety Department offices and with his
explanation that the building inspector had erred, that the ball was in the
Building and Safety Department's court and that he would hear from them as
to the next course of action. He did not hear from anybody from your offices
and admittedly failed to contact your office back to see what had happened and
why he hadn't heard from anyone. No stop work order was placed on the
construction, which further supported the fact that the Building and Safety
Department appeared to feel the problem was resolvable without resorting to
a stop work order.
5. September 3, 1987. Dr. Tedesco and Mr. Sitton acknowledged that they were
constructing a small addition. But, they felt it did not need a permit due to its
size. At least there is no factual disagreement here, and I can deal
accordingly.
My dilemma is that if I lean toward the testimony given under oath, it would appear that
the applicant and his contractor operated in reasonably good faith and with intent to
comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Certainly, I cannot find that they blatantly ignored
ordinances and codes if a the footings and foundations were in at the first inspection and
approved as installed. I am asking them for verification of fully installed footings and
foundations by the concrete hauler.
• !
Memo to Tom Davis, Department of Building & Safety
December 9, 1987
Page 4
On the other hand, if I lean toward the version described in your memo, as probably
reported by your building inspector, it would appear as if they didn't display a clear
intent to comply with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance. Your memo clearly suggests to
me that the offending footing and foundation was added after the inspection.
I would appreciate any additional information you care to give which would further
clarify this situation.
TGM:fcu
cc:Dr. Tedesco
:James Manson, Director, ✓
Spokane County Department of
Building & Safety
Ca E S w(AAw4aq
•
4c
1•1/14- T(ittACJZA v C.) C. tv•- t L ot,wC (`
ce b{ `ristwiS I&44 }D from&&(ALv9 efrkinpitt C& tt 4v 9dc w/
tMQ- ". (12-, 1,4) Glow--
•
•
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
TO Tom Mosher
Planning Department
Tom Davis
Department of Building and Safety
DATE: December 21, 1987
RE WVE-22-87 - South 3904 Ridgeview
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
In accordance with your memorandum dated December 9, 1987, this
office has completed a review of the events surrounding the
issuance of building permit number 13128, and the construction
activity at South 3904 Ridgeview.
From review of documentation and information supplied by
department personnel, it is our conclusion that department
procedures were followed and that the applicant and his builder
were made fully aware of the setback requirements before
and during construction.
In response to statements contained in your memorandum, the
following is presented:
Item 1: At the time application was first made, Mr. Tedesco
illustrated on the permit application a setback of 8 feet from
the side property line, Both Gloria Wendel and Jun Mascardo
informed Mr. Tedesco of the proper setback requirements and that
if he wished to locate his garage closer to the street, he would
have to contact the Planning Department regarding a variance.
Further, the Technicians made it explicitly clear, in response to
a question by Mr. Tedesco, that a curb line may or may not be
the property line and that it was the owner's responsibility to
determine where his property line is located. Mr. Tedesco made
statements such as, why could his neighbors build closer to the
street and he had to abide by the setback requirement? Further,
he stated that nobody can stop him since it is his own property.
Mr. Tedesco then left the office presumably to go to Planning to
inquire about the feasibility of a variance.
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON
•
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260.0050
•
TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
(TMr."Tom"Mosher
December 21, 1987
Page 2 of 3
A few weeks later Mr. Tedesco returned to the office with the
application and the notations of 15 feet and 45 feet from the
center line written on the plot plan. The permit was issued.
Both Technicians were quite diligent in their responses, making
sure Mr. Tedesco understood the setback requirements. They
remember their conversations vividly.
Item 2: To further clarify what transpired when the footings
were inspected, our inspector did observe that an existing
concrete driveway (that portion extending into the flanking
street setback area) had holes drilled with anchor bolts
inserted. Mr. Tedesco's builder stated that it was the
foundation for the garage. Our inspector informed the builder
that this is not sufficient to support a building and further it
encroached into the required setback area for the flanking
street. The builder was advised of the code requirement, and not
to proceed with construction over the driveway.
Footings were never approved within the 15 foot flanking street
setback area.
Please note that our inspector has never met nor communicated
with Mr. Tedesco. His contacts were directly with the builder.
Item 3: Again, the builder was advised at the time the footings
were inspected that the use of the concrete driveway was not an
acceptable foundation and is not authorized under the Uniform
Building Code. Additionally, it's location would place the
building in violation of the setback requirement. Proper warning
was given to the builder prior to framing. Under these
circumstances an inspector would not authorize the continuation
of construction. Upon finding that framing was completed and
within the setback area, the inspector reported to his
supervisor, that a building was erected in violation of setbacks
and without a proper foundation. The supervisor confirmed the
violation and so informed Mr. Tedesco in writing on December 13,
1986 and again on December 22, 1986.
Item 4: No member of our staff could recall having any contacts
with Mr. Tedesco regarding the two written notices.
Mr. Tom Mosher
December 21, 1987
Page 3 of 3
Please be advised that notices of violation may be either by a
stop work order, written notice, or a combination of both. For
clarity of the record written notices are preferred.
Item 5: Regarding the "small" (18.5' by 34.5') addition:
In this case when the inspector noticed the unauthorized
construction and posted a stop work order on the building because
of probable structural defects which could result in injuries to
persons occupying the structure. The builder was present and
was made aware of the problems. Apparently as a result of this
order, Mr. Tedesco on September 29, 1987 contacted the Assistant
Director, who advised Mr. Tedesco that permits are required for
construction of an addition including compliance with setback
requirements. Mr. Tedesco was referred to the Planning
Department regarding a waiver of violation application. Our last
recorded entry was dated October 6, 1987 whereby, John Mercer
advised our inspection supervisor that the matter was turned over
to Steve Horobiowski.
The above accounting concludes our remarks and our position
remains, that proper procedures were followed at all times.
Please feel free to call, if you desire further information.
TLD:mak
•
March 28, 1989
•
Spokane County
Department of Building & Safety
Mr. Thomas F. Kingen
PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS & HOLMAN
1400 Seafirst Financial Center
Spokane, Washington 99201-0636
JAMES L. MANSON, DIRECTOR
RE: South 3904 Ridgeview Drive - Dr. Tedesco
Dear Mr. Kingen:
I am in receipt of your correspondence of March 16, 1989 concerning
the above matter and offer the following:
The "storage building" referred to in Mr. Aman's letter is in
reference to the "shed roof carport" attached to the detached
garage, and we offer our apologies for any confusion the
terminology may have caused - the choice of words was based on the
permit(s) issued to Mr. Tedesco.
As you are aware, one of the conditions of approval (# 1) from the
Board of Adjustment in approving Mr. Tedesco's Waiver of Violation
was that a building permit be obtained for that portion of the
building not covered under the original permit for the garage,
i.e., the lean-to attached to it.
As a point of clarification, the Board of Adjustment's action
approved the zoning setbacks, regulated under the County Zoning
Ordinance, of the structure. The construction details regulated
under the Uniform Building Code are not included in the Board's
action and are subject to the building permit and inspection
process.
Mr. Tedesco did obtain the necessary permit, however as of the date
of Mr. Aman's letter, apparently did not request any follow-up
inspections of the structure.
Permits are valid, provided that the work authorized is not
suspended or abandoned for a period exceeding 180 days after
commencement of construction. During the winter, field staff
WEST 1303 BROADWAY
• SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 • 0050 • TELEPHONE (509) 456-3675
Mr. Thomas F. Kingen
March 28, 1989
Page 2 of 2
typically go through their outstanding permits for a status review
and it is my understanding that it was during this process that the
permit came to Mr. Aman's attention, resulting in his March 1, 1989
correspondence to Mr. Tedesco.
Mr. Aman has indicated that he discussed the rafter spans with the
contractor at the time of construction last year and has since
discussed the issue with Mr. Tedesco subsequent to his receipt of
Mr. Aman's correspondence. It is my understanding Mr. Tedesco
indicated he would work on bringing the structure into compliance
and Mr. Aman verbally extended the time frame for compliance
indicated in his letter.
Both the garage and the lean-to do require an approved final
inspection prior to use of the structure and, as such, it would be
advisable for Mr. Tedesco to schedule an inspection at his earliest
convenience in order to determine whether any other item will
require correction.
On a final note, Mr. Aman has advised me that a deck has been
erected on the property for which we are unable to locate any
permits.
Should either yourself or Mr. Tedesco have any further questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Mark Holman
Assistant Director
MH:pjk
• •
7 1 • ► 5 5for 0,5-e 8leA,i ` kt �atl.�& or( )( stud voo ?i46-5
Z. i4,t,e c( 3 0 (AcRis
cemd 9 a 0A40-__
3, vw+i- i5c p 5120/Be,
11,1'e6-.
Fuawvt ` ov 5f -010k -roc 3169 appw.5 JO IAew°et..._ 4 p Vd v of /.1I(
C ei-Oa s 5 1001 1 e & vichus( APPvo ueS) — Pestesied, `z
R • Z' -f
,67
(AO- aloin -e AA c 51--mrav I eti 4
JN o k - S g g' — — /('; (.x.,64 -ems cra.st
3,g9
bect 0-7A 4-0 outeiLiv z\- H --o ur4 e‘Q.,(11-
CQ, vJ - /Lo4r S 9 te,erspo ,)_A
136 � 1.05 GCRIA('^47
lit2gA.- 0-64 k
�t�^a(5
thf-esnAfif- kaAtc,i y et,i14;.:1
�. pRt rr« 4- ivAs S SuBD fes►' Sfa rote 6(d1 "
2. 24 p-eviii- was ism for (tow, havksicQ of 5 y x e tots.'
i
ROY J. KOEGEN
THOMAS F. KINGEN
MICHAEL C. ORMSBY
EDWARD G. JOHNSON
CYNTHIA IMBROGNO
CRAIG S. TRUEBLOOD
JAMES P. MC NEILL 111
LAW OFFICES OF •
PRESTON, THORGRIMSON, ELLIS & HOLMAN
SUITE 1400
SEAFIRST FINANCIAL CENTER
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201-0636
AREA CODE (509) 624-2100
TELECOPY (509) 456-0146
March 16, 1989
Mark Holman
Spokane County Building and Safety
West 1303 Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260-0050
Re: Structure at South 3904 Ridgeview Drive
Dear Mr. Holman:
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON OFFICE
5400 COLUMBIA SEAFIRST CENTER
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104-7011
AREA CODE 206-623-7580
TELEX: 4740035
TELECOPY 206-623-7022
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
SUITE 500
1735 NEW YORK AVENUE N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-4759
AREA CODE 202-628-1700
TELECOPY 202-331-1024
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA OFFICE
SUITE 404
420 L STREET
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-1937
AREA CODE 907-276-1969
TELECOPY 907-276-1365
PORTLAND, OREGON OFFICE
3200 U.S. BANCORP TOWER
111 SOUTHWEST FIFTH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OREGON 97204-3635
AREA CODE 503-228-3200
TELECOPY 503-248-9085
This firm represents Dr. Joseph A. Tedesco who resides at South
3904 Ridgeview Drive; Spokane, Washington 99206. Dr. Tedesco has
received a letter from Mr. Morris R. Aman, Building Inspector,
concerning an inspection of the "storage building" located at the
above address. Mr. Aman's letter says the "roof of the storage
building is over spanned." I am uncertain what this means but I
would like to draw your attention to the action of the Board of
Adjustment of Spokane County in WVE-22-87; Tedesco. The only
structure other than the home located on the premises is a
"detached garage with a shed roof carport attached to it." This
is Finding of Fact #2 in the decision of the Board of Adjustment
dated May 18, 1988. The Board of Adjustment then concluded that
the "construction does not violate the spirit and intent of the
setback requirements." Conclusion of Law #3. The Board of
Adjustment granted a Waiver of Violation for the existing structure
and required a title notice to be filed with the Spokane County
Auditor. A title notice signed by Mr. Thomas G. Mosher dated May
18, 1988 was filed May 20, 1988 in the office of the County
Auditor.
It is my understanding that this Waiver of Violation approves the
pre-existing structure. Pictures of the structure were presented
and should be in the file of the Board of Adjustment.
I hope this will resolve the letter of March 1, 1989 by Mr. Aman.
Mark Holman
March 16, 1989
Page 2
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
PREST.j THORGRIMSON,
& HOLMAN
TFK/kmb
cc: Rob Binger
TFK\LTR\1MTEDESC.08B
a F. Kingen
• •
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF REVIEWING THE ACTION )
OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR )
IN A DECISION ON WAIVER OF VIOLATION )
#WVE-22-87; TEDESCO. )
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION
THIS MATTER, Being the consideration by the Board of Adjustment for Spokane County,
is an appeal of an action by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor denying Waiver of Violation
#WVE-22-87, for the purpose of authorizing the location of an existing structure at
approximately 4 feet from the flanking street (39th Avenue) property line and 34.5 feet
from the centerline of the roadway (39th Avenue) right-of-way, hereinafter referred to as
the "Proposal" and the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County having held a public hearing
on April 20, 1988, and having fully considered all testimony presented thereat, and having
rendered a decision on the 20th day of April, 1988, OVERTURNING the Zoning Adjustor's
decision and thereby APPROVING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is generally located in the Ponderosa area of the Spokane Valley, on
the south corner of the intersection of Ridgeview Drive and 39th Avenue in the NE Y4 of
Section 32, Township 25N, Range 44EWM, and is further described as Assessor's Parcel No.
32541-0803, being more completely described in File #WVE-22-87.
2. The proposal consists of a request to authorize the location of an existing
structure, built in two (2) phases between September 1986 and October 1987. The
structure is an enclosed detached garage with a shed -roof carport attached to it. This entire
structure is located approximately four (4) feet from the flanking street (39th Avenue)
property line, thirty-four and a half (34.5) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-
of-way, and approximately 15 feet from the curb line. The Zoning Ordinance standards are
fifteen (15) feet from property line and forty-five (45) feet from right-of-way
centerline.
3. That the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor held public hearings on December 7,
1987 and December 21, 1987 concerning the proposal, and that on January 15, 1988, the
Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by Findings, Conclusions, and Decision did render a
decision to deny the proposal and ordered the applicant to bring the existing accessory
building into compliance with the setback requirements of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance.
4. That on January 22, 1988, an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Adjustor of
Spokane County was filed by Joseph A. Tedesco, the applicant, through his attorney, Thomas
F. Kingen.
5. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the
Board of Adjustment of Spokane County have been met.
6. The Spokane County Zoning Ordinance provides that a Waiver of Violation may be
granted, pursuant to Section 4.25.030 f.:
"Waiver of Violation:
Recognizing the fact that a building, structure or fence may be erected
in good faith with every intent to comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in respect to the location of the building, structure
or fence upon the lot and the size and location of required yards, and
that it may later be determined that such building, structure or fence
does not comply in every detail with such requirements, although not
violating the spirit or intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Board of
Adjustment may issue a Waiver of Violation, subject to such
conditions as will safeguard the public health, safety, convenience,
and general welfare"
The interpretation of this allows the Board of Adjustment to issue a Waiver of violation
if the Board: (1) can find that the structure was erected in good faith, with every intent to
comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to the location of the
structure; and (2) determine that while the structure does not comply with every detail of
the Ordinance, it does not violate the spirit and intent of the Ordinance (a two -fold test).
CASE NO. WVE-22-87; TEDESCO SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2
7. The exhibits established by the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor (which
include Exhibits A through U, E1, E2, and n), are also acknowledged as exhibits by the Board
of Adjustment:
8. The following documents are also established as Board of Adjustment exhibits:
V. Copy of Spokane County Assessor's map which indicates the sites location in
the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 25N, Range 44EWM.
W. Copy of Spokane County Building and Safety Department Inspector's log book
for September 17, 1986, footings and setback inspection and, presumably,
November 10, 1986 framing inspection together with an inspection code
sheet.
X. Copy of Acme Concrete Company bill, dated September 18, 1986, indicating
delivery time and amount of concrete delivered.
Y. Series of 17 photographs (numbered 1 thru 17) of site and building in
question.
Z. Letter, dated March 19, 1988, from James E. Bennett indbating support for
the Waiver of Violation.
AA. Letter, dated January 27, 1988, from Thomas C. Stewart indicating support
for the Waiver of Violation.
BB. Letter, dated January 26, 1988, from Duane Cocking, indicating support for
the Waiver of Violation.
CC. Copy of building permit information for storage building at S. 3904
Ridgeview Drive from the Spokane County Department of Building and Safety
which includes: the computerized building permit, building permit
application, building permit worksheetsignature sheet, and the approved
site plan.
9. That nearly all testimony presented to the board of Adjustment on behalf of the
applicant was provided by the applicant's attorney, Thomas F. Kingen. The applicant, Joseph
A. Tedesco, responded only to a few questions posed by Board members.
10. The site is zoned Single Family Residential, which would allow the proposed use
upon approval of this application.
1 1. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family
residential development, all of which is compatible with the proposal from the standpoint of
land uses. There is no evidence that variances have been granted in the surrounding area for
similar construction within flanking street or front yard setback areas. No specific
documentation of other similar construction in a set -back area, legal or illegal, was
presented.
12. That the Zoning Adjustor's Findings, Conclusions and Decision, dated January 15,
1988 for this case are exhaustive and detailed. The Board of Adjustment acknowledges the
fact that they are familiar with the case prepared by the Zoning Adjustor and much of that
documented factual information is also accepted by the Board of Adjustment. The Board does
not concur with the Zoning Adjustor's adverse findings or conclusions regarding the
proposal.
13. The Board of Adjustment finds that the Zoning Adjustor may have been provided
with inaccurate or incomplete information from the Spokane County Department of Building
and Safety regarding the building inspections. Exhibit W indicates that the Building
Inspector visited the construction site twice and found no setback problems. The applicant
was not notified of the setback problem until approximately December 13, 1987; a full
month after a November 10th framing inspection. There was no documentation provided by
the Department of Building and Safety as to what circumstances brought the setback problem
to light after two inspections found no problem.
14. When the Department of Building and Safety pointed out to the applicant on
September 2, 1986 that his building permit application site plan contained inaccurate
setback information, he amended it to indicate the needed 15 foot structure setback. Because
of the correction, the Department of Building and Safety removed the requirement that the
CASE NO. WVE-22-87; TEDESCO SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 3
Planning Department review the site plan for setbacks. However, the applicant assumed the
setback was to be measured from the curb line which was, in his mind, synonymous with the
property line. He contends that no one from the Department of Building and Safety clarified
the difference between curb line and property line.
15. Testimony indicated that when the applicant purchased the house, just after it
was constructed, he found construction stakes left by the contractor in the location where
the curb now exists. From that time until the current problems, the applicant believed that
the stakes, and eventually the curbs, indicated the location of the property lines.
1 6. That since the Building Inspector discovered no setback problems on either his
first or second inspection (see exhibit W), then he also may have measured the setback from
the curb line.
1 7. The applicant's representative testified that Mr. Tedesco met with Mr. Manson,
Director of the Department of Building and Safety in December of 1987 following receipt of
notice that the building had a setback problem. Mr. Manson assured the applicant that he
would visit the site and get back to the applicant concerning resolution of the problem. The
applicant was not contacted again by anyone from the Department of Building and Safety and
he therefore assumed the situation had been resolved.
1 8. The Board of Adjustment notes that representatives from the Department of
Building and Safety did not attend either the Zoning Adjustor or the Board of Adjustment
hearings, but did provide written correspondence. The applicant rebutted those documents.
1 9. Three letters supporting approval of the Waiver of Violation (see exhibit Z, AA,
and BB), from property owners adjacent to this property were submitted. All three
indicated that the structure poses no sight obstruction problems along 39th Avenue.
20. The applicant submitted 17 photographs (see exhibit Y) to document that the
building poses no significant sight distance or access problems along 39th Avenue.
21 . The Board of Adjustment notes that 39th Avenue, as it exists adjacent to this site,
was platted and designed with a 60 foot wide right-of-way as part of Ponderosa Second
Addition. At the time it was platted, 39th Avenue may have been envisioned as a major
collector road. However, in subsequent platting activities, such as Ponderosa Fourth
Addition and Ponderosa Sixth Addition, the design and extension of 39th Avenue became a
"dog -leg" situation with a right-of-way width of only 50 feet. Because of this design and
reduced width, it appears that 39th Avenue, between Ridgeview Drive and Woodruff Road,
will not be a major collector.
22. The Spokane County Engineering Department, in review of this proposal, did not
indicate that the proximity of the structure to 39th Avenue caused any significant sight
distance problems or compromised future road improvements. However, they did indicate
that the applicant would be prohibited from parking vehicles in the driveway because there
is not adequate area on the applicant's private property outside of the County's right-of-way.
23. The basic purpose of setbacks is to provide light, air, open space and fire
protection between structures and other improvements. Specifically, the purpose of front
and flanking street yard setbacks is to provide separation between structures and roads, to
allow adequate storage room for vehicles off of the public right-of-way, and to provide for
unobstructed views along public roads for traffic and pedestrian safety.
24. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is
hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Board of Adjustment comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. In regards to the first criteria for granting a Waiver of Violation, that is, was the
structure "...erected in good faith with every intent to comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance...", the Board of Adjustment concludes that the applicant did act in good
faith. The applicant's site plan, while not of a quality comparative to the value of the
structure, was revised by the applicant to reflect a 15 foot building setback. His
assumption that the curb line was also the property line and therefore the point at which to
begin the setback measurement must also have been shared by the Building Inspector. Two
inspections by the Spokane County Department of Building and Safety failed to find any
setback problem. When advised of the setback problem in writing, the applicant met with
• •
CASE NO. WVE-22-87; TEDESCO SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 4
the Director of the Department of Building and Safety to resolve. He assumed the problem
was corrected since he was not contacted further as promised.
2. In regards to the second criteria for granting a Waiver of Violation, that the
structure does not violate "...the spirit and intent of the Ordinance...", the Board of
Adjustment concludes that the location of the structure does not cause a sight distance
problem or violate the purpose of flanking street setbacks. The design and right-of-way
widths of 39th Avenue, between Ridgeview Drive and Woodruff Road, indicate that 39th
Avenue will not be a major collector and probably won't be expanded beyond its present
improvements. Written testimony, as well as photographs taken of the structure, indicate
that the existence of the structure does not pose a sight distance or access problem along
39th Avenue.
3. While the subsequent construction of the shed -roof carport without a building
permit exhibits poor judgement on the part of the applicant, the Board concludes that the
applicant was operating in good faith and that the structure does not violate the spirit and
intent of the setback requirements. The applicant had assumed that the previous setback
problem had been resolved, and therefore, construction of the carport at the same setback
line was appropriate.
4. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may deemed a conclusior herein is hereby
adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Board of Adjustment of Spokane
County hereby OVERTURNS the decision of the Zoning Adjustor, and therefore, APPROVES the
proposal, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS
1. That the applicant is required to obtain a building permit for that portion of the
building not covered under building permit #13128.
2. The applicant is advised that the fence along 39th Avenue is constructed within
the public road right-of-way. The applicant must obtain a permit from the County Engineer
which would allow him to obstruct the right-of-way. The terms and conditions of the
permit will be specified by the County Engineer at the time application for the permit is
made.
3. Since the distance between the subject garage and the curb is about 15 feet, the
applicant is prohibited from parking any vehicles in the driveway which serves the subject
building. The driveway is not long enough to store a vehicle. The applicant is bound by this
condition unless otherwise allowed or approved by the County Engineer.
4. A Title Notice shall be filed in the Spokane County Auditor's Office by the
Planning Department which clarifies to any interested party that Spokane County has
granted a Waiver of Violation to Joseph A. Tedesco allowing the existing structure to remain
on the subject parcel four (4) feet from the flanking street (39th Avenue) property line
and thirty-four and one half (34.5) feet from the centerline of the roadway right-of-way
(39th Avenue).
BOARD VOTE: 4 to 1
DATED THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY, 1988.
SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WA$HI IGTON
MARTIN E. H
S, Chairman
hairman
C. M.‘"4.211"."-: TTIT
PAUL E. EICHIN
• 1
CASE NO. WVE-22-87; TEDESCO SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 5
FILED:
1 ) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineering Department
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Department
6) Spokane County Department of Building & Safety
7) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
PCF/jh