What Do I Do If I Have A

VIEW or TREE MATTER

With My Neighbor?

View Regulations - Overview

In 1991, the Council adopted the City's "View Ordinance." This section of the Code was designed to address plantings that unreasonable obstruct a view or sunlight. Chapter 17.38 of the Municipal Code directs itself toward regulating the maintenance and restoration of views within the City of Clyde Hill. These regulations establish a specific process for resolving situations where the growth of one or more trees on a neighboring property unreasonably obstructs the view or sunlight reaching another property.

The initial step in the established process is for the complainant to make all reasonable efforts to find a voluntary solution with their neighbor. This is the most important and sometimes the most challenging step in the process. The intent of the View Ordinance is to exhaust all reasonable efforts to resolve these matters as neighbors, without governmental intervention. The experiences of many other people throughout Clyde Hill have demonstrated many successes when a degree of respect and sincerity for each neighbor's concern was taken seriously.

If after exhausting all reasonable approaches as neighbors the view obstruction matter is still unresolved, the complainant is required, with the voluntarily concurrence of the tree owner, to seek the services of the King County Dispute Resolution Center in an attempt to settle the matter.

If mediation is unsuccessful, the issue can go before the City's Board of Adjustment for a public hearing and a specific decision by the Board. The Board will base its decision on standards and guidelines set forth in Chapter 17.38 of the Municipal Code and on the factual testimony from a public hearing where the matter would be discussed. The tree owner and the complainant are bound by the Board's decision unless the findings are appealed to the City Council, whose decision is final.

Any tree whose age precedes the incorporation of the City (1953) is exempted from these regulations.

More Information about the ordinance, responsibilities and the successes of others throughout the community may be obtained from the City.

Living Fence Regulations:

The manner in which plants along a property line or "living fences" are maintained are a concern within the community. Almost all the time these plants are adequately maintained to provide privacy in a way that does not conflict with another neighbor's enjoyment. On fewer occasions there is a concern. The following information should help to clarify the City's policy and provide information on how the City's fence regulations were interpreted by the Washington State Court and are consequently enforced by the City.

Section 17.04.230 CHMC defines a "fence" as:
"A 'fence' shall be any barrier which is naturally grown or constructed for purposes of confinement, means of protection or use as a boundary."

Section 17.37.020 (A.) states that:
"Constructed fences shall not exceed six feet in height measured from the original grade, except as permitted under Chapter 17.040 for recreational facilities. Whenever a fence is placed on top of a retaining wall, the height of the fence and the retaining wall together shall not exceed six feet as measured from the original grade, except as permitted under Chapter 17040 for recreational facilities. Naturally grown fences shall not exceed eight feet in height as measured from original grade.

COMMENTS
Both the State of Washington Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court upheld the validity of the living fence ordinance. The ordinance was questioned as being unconstitutionally vague and indefinite but the Supreme Court found that the definition set forth above utilized plain language as to what constituted a fence and no further objective standards were necessary. The State Supreme Court also pointed out that a specific intent to violate the ordinance was not required at the time the trees or shrubs in question were planted. The Court ruled that, even though the landowner's stated purpose for planting the trees may be for aesthetics, sufficient intent to create a fence may be inferred for the results. The State Supreme Court also held that the trees and shrubs need not be planted precisely on the property line to be considered a fence. The fact that an owner has planted or maintains tall, bushy trees close together at, near or along the owner's property line in a manner that would create a dense, wooded wall will have created a naturally grown or "living fence" prohibited by the City ordinance.

COUNCIL POLICY
In 1990, the City Council approved the following enforcement policy:

1. Enforcement will be by written complaint.
2. The complaint will be investigated to determine that a violation is actually present.
3. If there is no violation, the complainant will be advised in writing as to the reason that a violation is not present.
4. If there is a violation, every effort will be made by the City staff to personally meet with the property owner prior to sending a written notice, which would explain the violation, the need and the type of corrective action.
5. Call upon volunteers to assist in mediation or negotiations to have the violations corrected.
6. The property owner will be given a copy of the complaint and a copy of the articles of the Municipal Code detailing the violation.
7. The corrective notice will give the property owner 30 days to take corrective action, show cause why such action can not be taken, or explain why the City is in error and no violation is present. The corrective notice will also point out the optional appeal process through the Board of Adjustment.