PORT ANGELES — How bad does your neighbor’s yard have to look before it becomes a public nuisance?
How much authority should Clallam County have in forcing that person to do something about it?
The three Clallam County commissioners will take on these questions in the coming weeks as they consider a staff proposal to form a nuisance abatement process that strengthens the county’s ability to deal with code violators who have dilapidated properties causing potential public health risks.
Doug Jensen, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, outlined the proposal during the commissioners’ work session on Monday.
The proposal, which is still in its infancy, calls for creating a Nuisance Abatement Committee with representatives from several county departments that would prioritize properties in violation of county code.
It would also narrow the state’s definition of “public nuisance” in the county code.
Court appearance
If a violator failed to comply with the code, a sheriff’s deputy could serve a warrant on the property, the county could clean it up and the owner could be sued in Superior Court.
“Most of the cases will be resolved, hopefully, through voluntary compliance,” Jensen said.
No action will be taken on the proposal in today’s business meeting. A public hearing process would precede a decision by the commissioners.
A property owner subject to a cleanup in Gales Addition east of Port Angeles sparked the proposal.
John Miller, Department of Community Development director, said the proposal puts “more arrows in the quiver.” He said voluntary compliance had worked in all but a handful of cases.
“We’re getting to the point where if we’re not successful with this handful of cases, we’re going to lose credibility,” Miller said.
“The resentment that we face right now in Gales Addition is the resentment of neighbors who now distrust the ability of the county to get this cleanup completed.”
Commissioner Steve Tharinger asked Jensen what’s broken with the current system.
The county can’t force violators to own up to their civil infractions, Jensen said.
“The biggest frustration for District Court judges on civil infractions is the that people aren’t paying their fines,” Jensen said.
“They don’t pay the fines on their [driver’s] licenses, they don’t get to drive. But on these, they just don’t do it.”
Nuisance property
A nuisance property may contain solid waste, pollute the water table, pose a fire hazard or violate a building code.
“We would determine these [properties] violate the county’s efforts to preserve public health safety, therefore they should be subject to violations,” Jensen said.
Commissioner Mike Doherty said nuisance standards vary by neighborhood.
He said the county risks losing trust with the citizenry — especially in a bad economy — if it can’t define public nuisance or provide the public with standards that the Nuisance Abatement Committee would use.
“I would like to see that list before we get serious with this,” Doherty said.
He asked Jensen to provide more information on the proposal, including an example from a similar process used in Lewis County.
Sheriff Bill Benedict and other county officials endorsed the proposal as presented by Jensen.
“I understand the need for more teeth, or sharper teeth, or some court action,” Tharinger said.
The abatement process would involve the county’s court system, Department of Community Development, Health Department, Sheriff’s Office, Road Department and Board of Health.
The cost of creating the process has not been determined.
Jensen said the county would likely recoup those costs by collecting fines from violators.
________
Reporter Rob Ollikainen can be reached at 360-417-3537 or at rob.ollikainen@peninsuladailynews.com.
