Click here to skip to main content.
scenic picture from Washington state
RESEARCH TOOLS › MRSC INQUIRIES › Public Nuisances
MRSC Inquiries - Public Nuisances
Reviewed 01/05

MRSC Inquiries

Public Nuisances

See Also MRSC Web pages on the Regulation and Abatement of Nuisances

Contents:

Unsightly Conditions

  1. How do Washington cities and counties regulate overgrown weeds, accumulations of trash and litter, and other unsightly conditions on private property?  

    Regulation of unkept lots and property containing overgrown weeds, trash, and litter is generally accomplished through enforcement of nuisance ordinances.  See Web page for a listing of statutes on the Authority to Regulate and Abate Nuisances

  2. There is a limit on how far a city or county  may go in regard to regulations in this area. It is an open question in this state at this time whether our courts would uphold beautification ordinances or appearance codes if the regulations are based purely upon aesthetic grounds.

Junk Vehicles

(See also Web Page on Junk Vehicles)

  1. What does the term "junk vehicle" mean under state law?

    The term "junk vehicle" is defined in RCW 46.55.010(4) to mean a vehicle meeting at least three of the following requirements:

      (a) Is three years old or older;
      (b) Is extensively damaged, such damage including but not limited to any of the following: A broken window or windshield or missing wheels, tires, motor, or transmission;
      (c) Is apparently inoperable;
      (d) Has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in it.

  2. How do Washington cities and counties regulate junk vehicles on public and private property?

    Junk vehicles on public or private property are generally regulated as a public nuisance. There are two basic enforcement situations which may confront local officials: (1) where the city or county, as property owner, wishes to remove a junk vehicle from public property; and (2) where the city or county provides for the removal of junk vehicles that are located on private property.

  3. How may junk vehicles be removed from public property?

    RCW 46.55.230 sets forth the procedures for property owners (either public or private) to remove junk vehicles from their property. These are the procedures that counties, cities or towns would use to provide for the removal of junk vehicles from public property, or which private property owners would use to have an unauthorized junk vehicle removed from their property. The statute basically provides that a notice be sent to the registered owner of a junk vehicle, after which, if the vehicle remains unclaimed for more than 15 days, it may be disposed of or sold. The local government may also recover from the registered owner any costs incurred in the removal of a junk vehicle.

  4. How may junk vehicles be removed from private property?

    RCW 46.55.240 deals with situations in which the city, town or county wants to have junk vehicles removed as a public nuisance from private property within its jurisdiction. This statute provides specific authority for a city, town or county to adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the abatement and removal as a public nuisance of junk motor vehicles or parts from private property.

    The statute establishes a procedure for notice to property owners and an opportunity for a hearing to determine responsibility for removal of a junk vehicle. After notice has been given and after a hearing, if requested, has been held, the jurisdiction may remove and dispose of the vehicle. Costs of the removal may be assessed against the last registered owner of the vehicle, or the costs may be assessed against the owner of the property on which the vehicle is being stored.

    RCW 46.55.240(3(c) exempts from local nuisance ordinances junk vehicles that are completely enclosed in a building and which are not visible from the street and junk vehicles that are stored in a lawful manner on the premises of a licensed dismantler or vehicle dealer.

  5. How do cities and counties deal with junk vehicles which do not meet the strict definition established by RCW 46.55.010?

The legislature amended  the definition of "junk vehicle" in the statute. It is now irrelevant whether the vehicle is currently registered and licensed. The vehicle only has to meet three of the four remaining criteria in the statute. See Chapter 176, Laws of 1994. Each jurisdiction wishing to take advantage of this new definition will need to pass an ordinance to bring its  regulations into compliance with the amended statute.

top of page

Noise

See Web Page on Noise Control

  1. How do Washington cities and counties deal with noise problems?

    Most Washington jurisdictions follow two basic approaches to control noise problems: (1) adoption of noise control provisions based upon the state Noise Control Act utilizing decibel-based standards; (2) adoption of subjective "public disturbance noise" standards which do not require the use of decibel meters for enforcement; or a combination of these two basic approaches.

  2. What are decibel-based noise ordinances?

    A decibel-based noise ordinance is based on the noise control provisions enacted pursuant to the state Noise Control Act, Ch. 70.107 RCW. This Act authorizes the State Department of Ecology to establish maximum noise levels in identified areas or environments. See RCW 70.107.030(1). Local governments may enact similar provisions establishing noise limitations for areas within their jurisdictions. Any difference between the local regulations and those provided for by the state must be approved by the Department of Ecology. See RCW 70.107.060(3). If the state has not acted within 90 days after a local ordinance has been submitted to it, the local provision is automatically approved.

    The rules adopted by DOE establishing maximum permissible noise levels are contained in Chapter 173-60 WAC, relating to maximum environmental noise levels, and Chapter 173-62 WAC, relating to motor vehicle noise performance standards.

  3. What are public disturbance noise ordinances?

    Public disturbance noise ordinances are based upon subjective standards as opposed to noise ordinances which are based upon maximum decibel readings and which require the use of sound meters for their enforcement.

    Public disturbance noise provisions, while perhaps easier to enforce, may raise some constitutional questions. Are the provisions sufficiently detailed to place a person on notice of their prohibitions? Are the prohibitions so broad as to chill free speech?

    There have been three appellate cases in recent years reviewing public disturbance noise provisions. In Everett v. O&Brien, 31 Wn. App. 319, 641 P.2d 714 (1982), and Seattle v. Eze, 111 Wn.2d 22, 759 P.2d 366 (1988), public disturbance type noise ordinances have been upheld; however, in Spokane v. Fischer, 110 Wn.2d 541, 754 P.2d 1241 (1988), an ordinance prohibiting frequent and habitual dog barking that disturbs or annoys any person and the neighborhood was found unconstitutionally vague.  (See Court Case Links)