Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9-20-2023 - HEX Decision - Song Code Enforcement BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON FINAL DECISION -- APPEAL OF FINDING OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT FILE NUMBER: CODE23-000066 SITE OF VIOLATION: 13248 Renton Ave S. Renton, WA 98057 PROPERTY OWNER: Zhaolu Song 1133 107th Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98004 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Notice Violation and Order to Correct. DISPOSITION: Appeal Denied. Violation found committed. $250 fine reduced to $150. Payable within 30 days. INTRODUCTION Mr. Song appeals a Notice of Violation and Order to Correct Second Notice, CODE22-000066 (NOV). The NOV asserts one bulky waste violation. Mr. Song, the landlord for the violation site, did not contest the violation. He notes that his tenants were responsible for the violation and that he made some effort to make them abate the violation until they finally moved off the premises as they had repeatedly promised. Mr. Song could have been more proactive in seeking abatement and monitoring the compliance efforts of his tenants. Nonetheless it is recognized that Mr. Song made some effort and that his hands were tied with difficult circumstances. For these reasons, Mr. Song’s $250 fine is reduced by $100 to $150, payable within 30 days. TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS The staff’s exhibit list identifying 10 exhibits were admitted as Ex. 1-10 during the September 5, 2023 hearing date. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant/Violation Site. The violation site is 13248 Renton Ave S., Renton. The Appellant is Zhaolu Song, 1133 107th Ave SE, Bellevue, WA 98004. Mr. Song is the owner of the violation site. 2. Notice of Violation. A Notice of Violation and Order to Correct Second Notice (“NOV”) was issued to Mr. Song on June 7, 2023. The NOV alleged a bulky waste violation, RMC 8-1-4E. 3. Violation No. 1 Bulky Waste. On June 6, 2023 a washer and dryer were stored outside at the violation site. According to the testimony of Mr. Churchill, these items had been stored outside for months. Mr. Song did not dispute these facts. 4. Hearing. A hearing on the subject appeal was held on September 5, 2023. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review appeals of NOVs as provided in RMC 1-10-5. 2. Code Violations: The Finding of Violation of this case is based upon one alleged code violations, which is quoted below in italics and assessed in corresponding conclusions of law. Violation 1 RMC 8-1-4(E) Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of bulky waste. RMC 8-1-2 Bulky Waste Definition: BULKY WASTE: Large items of solid waste, including but not limited to items such as furniture; large household appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators, freezers, ovens, ranges, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines, or clothes dryers; junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or any parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-2, as now worded or hereafter amended; and any other oversized solid wastes which would typically not fit into or be permitted for collection as garbage in garbage cans. 3. Violation Committed. The violation is found committed. Bulky waste was stored at the violation site on June 6, 2023 as determined in Finding of Fact No. 3. 4. Fines. RMC 1-10-5C5 authorizes the Examiner to reduce fines. At hearing Code Enforcement Officer Churchill requested that the $250 fine not be waived. It is recognized that it was Mr. Song’s tenant, rather than Mr. Song himself, that was directly responsible for the illegal storage. It is also recognized that Mr. Song was dealing with a tenant in severe economic distress. However, Mr. Song could have been more diligent in monitoring the compliance activities of his tenant given that it took more than four months to achieve compliance. For these reasons the fine will be reduced to $150. Mr. Song received his first warning of violation in February, 2023. He immediately texted his tenant and told him to take care of the violation. Mr. Song did not follow up to see if the violation had been abated and received a second warning of violation in March, 2023. Mr. Song again told his client to take care of the violations. At the same time, Mr. Song was counting on the tenant to leave the premises, as he hadn’t paid rent for several months and assured Mr. Song that he would leave. Further, as noted in the City’s compliance narrative, the tenant did take some steps to abate throughout the violation period. The tenant finally left at the end of May, enabling Mr. Song to fully abate the premises himself. Mr. Song was still in violation of the bulky waste ordinance in June as found in this appeal, but did have the violation site fully abated as of the date of the appeal hearing. From the foregoing facts it is evident that Mr. Song made some effort to achieve compliance and that his efforts were impeded by a difficult tenant. Mr. Song could have threatened and even commenced an eviction process over the several months of noncompliance, but it is understood that eviction is an expensive and time consuming process and Mr. Song sincerely believed the tenant was leaving anyway. Indeed, if eviction would have materially expedited the tenant’s removal from the premises, it would have been in Mr. Song’s financial interest to do so given the tenant wasn’t paying rent. Under these circumstances it’s reasonable to believe that eviction wouldn’t have appreciably expedited compliance and/or Mr. Song was trying to not be too hard on a tenant suffering through difficult times. Under either scenario Mr. Song’s delays in compliance are at least partially justifiable and part of the $250 fine should be waived accordingly. DECISION The appeal is denied. The bulky waste violation is found committed. The $250 fine for the violation is reduced to $150, payable within 30 days of this decision. Decision issued September 19, 2023. Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Code Enforcement Decision -- 4 Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 6 Appendix A September 5, 2023 Hearing Transcript Song Code Compliance Hearing -- CODE23-000066 Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Examiner Olbrechts:(00:02): Okay, great. For the record, it is September 5th, 2023, 9:00 AM I'm Phil Albright's, hearing examiner for the city of Renton. This morning we have a code enforcement appeal hearing. This is code number 23 dash 0 0 0 6 6. Mr. Song here is appealing a notice of violation and it looks like Jason Churchill, the code enforcement officer who issued the notice and will be representing the city is in attendance as well. So it looks like we have everybody we need to proceed with this. We did originally hold a hearing a few weeks ago and Mr. Song did not appear and phoned in and said that there was some confusion over the hearing date. So we're just going to redo it for today. The hearing format will be, we'll start off, since the city has the burden of proof, Mr. Churchill will go over the violations and the evidence. The city has to establish that the violation occurred. (01:00): Mr. Song, you'll have a chance to cross-examine any witnesses presented by the city, which is probably just going to be Mr. Churchill in this case. Then once Mr. Churchill is finished, Mr. Song, you'll have your chance to give your side of the story and present any witnesses you might want to present. And you and your witnesses will be subject to cross-examination as well. Then city, since they have the burden of proof, gets a chance for rebuttal. And after that I get 10 business days to issue a decision. By state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence put in the record. That's the testimony today as well as any documents that either party wants to put into the record as well. I'm going to share my screen. Cindy, can you enable me to share a screen here? Mr. Song: (01:48): Sorry, I'm doing it. Examiner Olbrechts:(01:49): Oh good. Okay. Yeah, let's get that Mr. Song: (01:51): Out. I was going to do it and then Examiner Olbrechts:(01:54): Oh, almost Mr. Song: (01:55): It's like, holy sucks. There you go. Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 6 Examiner Olbrechts:(01:57): Alright. Okay. It looks like, yeah, I can do it now. Let's see. I'll put that up on the screen. Mr. So hopefully you received a packet of documents from Mr. Churchill. This is a list of what those documents contain, the code of compliance narrative, which is just a summary of the city's code enforcement involvement in your case, and then requests for inspections of the property, the photos taken of your property. And then we've got your first warning letter, your second warning letter, and your first notice of violation and second notice of violation. Did you receive these documents, Mr. Sa? Mr. Song: (02:35): Yeah, I got through the folder first. I apologize. I appreciate the opportunity to reschedule this. Like I said, mostly we have gone paperless, so a lot of this mail might get misplaced or lost in the mail. But I think I'm pretty, but I think I'm aware of these. Yes, I saw the folder and I see the documents. Yes. Examiner Olbrechts:(03:01): Okay. Do you have any objection to their entering the record? This would just be over if you believe they're not relevant to this proceeding or maybe some documents aren't authentic, I mean that kind of thing. Mr. Song: (03:12): No, I think that's fine. I think fine. Examiner Olbrechts:(03:15): That's all. Yeah, that's all there. Pretty standard to get 'em in. So I'll allow exhibits one through 10. And with that, Mr. Churchill, let me swear you in here. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Yes. Thank. Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Churchill: (03:33): Well, good morning. On February 19th, 2023 received a request from citizens concerned about the property of numerous vehicles on the property being unlicensed. And also when I went out there, there were piles of garbage, which I'll show in exhibit later on. And then on February 21st, I performed another inspection on the property and noticed that all the violations still were present on the property. So on February 23rd, I sent out the first warning of violation letter to the defendant with, and then on March 29th, I performed another inspection on the property to verify the violations if they were corrected. And on the property there were still the violations with exhibit number five with all the photos. March 30th sent out a second warning of violation to the property owner, and on May 17th performed another inspection of the property and the violations were still not corrected. On May 18th, I sent out the first warning of violation with a fine of a hundred dollars, which was never refuted. He never appealed that fine. Examiner Olbrechts:(05:06): Mr. Churchill, I believe that's a notice violation you sent not a warning, is that right? Yes. Mr. Song: (05:11): Notice a violation on the Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 6 Examiner Olbrechts:(05:12): Second. Okay. Yeah. Alright, go ahead. Mr. Churchill: (05:15): And then on June 6th I performed another inspection of the property to verify whether the actions or violations were corrected and notice that the vehicles were corrected. But the bulky waste still remained on the property as being a washer and dryer remaining, which will be photo exhibit number nine. And then on June 7th, I sent out the second notice letter with the $250 fine for still remaining of the bulky waste on the property at this time. I did go out there this morning at 7 0 9 roughly this morning to verify that everything was corrected on the property and all the violations are cleared as of this time. Examiner Olbrechts:(06:04): Okay. Is that all your testimony, Mr. Churchill? Yes. Okay. Mr. Song, did you have any questions of Mr. Churchill? Mr. Song: (06:12): No, no, no. I think it's all, like I said, it stated in a fact. I Examiner Olbrechts:(06:18): Just understand. Okay. Hold just a sec. Let Ms. Churchill, did you have any other witnesses or evidence you wanted to present? Mr. Song: (06:25): No. Examiner Olbrechts:(06:25): Okay. All right. Mr. Song, now is your turn and let me swear in, just raise your right hand. Do you swear Affirm, tell the truth, nothing but the truth this proceeding? Mr. Song: (06:33): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts:(06:33): Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Song: (06:35): Alright. I know, like I said, those are the facts. I have no dispute to do that. Only thing is I wasn't, so we're trying to work with the tenants. The tenants was not performance, so it's not their pains that let them go. It's like they weren't paying anything. They had a lot of difficulties in their time staying their six months. We try to work with them and to find them a better, more suitable place. So he was doing a lot of, he didn't get a job, he lost the job, he just doing gigs and fixing trucks. But we try to work with him and I think eventually he move out, I think end of May or sometime. So they were probably also, the window was broken, so we're just waiting for everything to be to get repair everything, including Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 6 remove the garbage. Actually I did that before, even before I moved out though, we moved the truck of probably garbage job and then he still left something after he moved out. (07:47): So that's saying, and eventually they would get everything back to the order or there's a lot of things going on at the time. I may have missed a few letters from Mr. Churchill, but it's not like we lack of trying, we're just purposely doing that. So we did everything we could. It just took a little bit of time to get everything ordered. He left a lot of things behind, so including some of the broken windows. So we just need to get those fixed. And like I said, it took some time there. In addition that, like I said, I would make some letters so that also part of my fault as well. But I'm just hoping today that the fine can be lived given everything has been fixed and oil compliant today. Examiner Olbrechts:(08:35): Okay. Mr. Churchill, do you have any questions of Mr. Sa? Mr. Churchill: (08:44): The first notice of violation that was sent out with the a hundred dollars fine. Nothing was ever said about that one. There was no appeal to that violation and here we are, the second finding of violation and would hit the two 50. The question is what is the determining factor whether we should remove the fine or not. I mean the violation is still present even when I went out there to do the inspection. Examiner Olbrechts:(09:19): Well, at this part it's just questions of Mr. Song. Did you have any questions of him at all or? Mr. Song: (09:25): I don't have any questions. Examiner Olbrechts:(09:26): No. I was asking Mr. Churchill if Mr. Churchill, did you have any questions of Mr. Song? (09:32): Okay, I've got a few then. So Mr. Soya, like I said, everything I know about this case is from that packet that was sent to you and from the packet, I don't think it says you are the landlord as opposed to the occupant of the premises. So let's just clear that up for the record. So these were tenants that created? Yeah. Okay. And could you just go through the chronology of the efforts you took to have this fine abated or this problem abated? I guess the first time you were notified of a problem was, let's see, was February 23rd, 2023. So can you lead me through what you did to try to get your tenants to comply from that date? Mr. Song: (10:14): Well, I immediately talked to him. I have text messages I can give to you in the text message I exchange with Jason throughout the process. And then I sent him pictures, letters, the first letter we received that says you can't put a boat there, you can't put the more RV there. It's not like, but again, that's so much I can do so without involve any other forced environment. But like I said, also he has a family and he seems nice. He's just going through difficulties and he also promised to fix those. But again, I have text message, happy to send them over for a record. Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 6 Examiner Olbrechts:(11:12): Well, I don't think that'll be necessary unless you want to put them in. But So before you got the second warning on March 30th, I mean you said you sent some text messages to the tenant. Did you follow up on that before the second warning or check to see if work had been done? Mr. Song: (11:31): Well, I did not. Typically this is the first letter we got it and then I'd assume that he will comply. Oh, okay. But again, I did not realize that it wasn't compliant. Again, I think that he had some, I kind of guess who, there's a duplex, I kind of guess who reported again for those things. So I have to go between the two tenants to get those things sorted out anyway, so there wasn't, I have not trying these things, it just like so many things I might say here. They bring my breakfast. Thank you. Examiner Olbrechts:(12:15): Okay, so the second morning letter came out March 30th. Did you forward that to the tenant as well? Mr. Song: (12:21): Yeah, like I said, why it's still there and I'm still getting this letter and then I'm getting a fine probably, so you just need to comply. But again, he's not even paying the rent. So there's very Examiner Olbrechts:(12:35): Few things. Mr. Song: (12:37): Like I said, it's non performance in the entire period of time. I think most of the time he's not paying any rent and even utilities. Examiner Olbrechts:(12:47): Did you ever threaten eviction if he didn't comply or anything of that nature? Mr. Song: (12:55): Well, I did not directly. Like I said, he's trying to say we're find a place, this place might be too small. I'm trying to move out and then, I mean eventually by the end of May I have to come there several times and then he finally may. He may said I'm moving out in two weeks. Examiner Olbrechts:(13:13): Oh, I see. So Mr. Song: (13:14): That's the Examiner Olbrechts:(13:14): Whole, so you didn't the thing, so you kind of thought he was going to leave, so you didn't want to start the eviction process because you thought that was going to happen anyway? Yeah, Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 6 Mr. Song: (13:23): I mean it's going to take few months anyway. And then he has a young family and three or four kids there. So like I said, he moved from Colorado and then he lost the job and then something like their cousin died, so their whole clan lost that job, something like that. So it wasn't very pleasant. But again, I try to do everything I can to comply with the city. I also work with him to get through that difficulties. And by May I think he moved to Texas and then that's what Examiner Olbrechts:(14:00): Happened. She took care of it. Okay, thank you. Mr. Churchill had any questions in light of my questioning or Mr. Song: (14:08): It's just that the city provided? Examiner Olbrechts:(14:11): Well again, at this point I'm just asking if you have any questions of no question. Okay. Alright. Mr. So here, this is all the testimony you're going to present, correct? Mr. Song: (14:19): Yeah, like I said, the letters, the letters, the pictures, the pictures, there's no distribution of it. I just want to explain the circumstance. That's all Examiner Olbrechts:(14:30): I'm doing. Okay, gotcha. Understood. Alright, now Mr. Churchill, now finally you have your chance to make any final comments you want to make. Mr. Song: (14:38): Just the city provided ample time. It was well over almost five months to get everything cleaned up. Even between the warnings of and the separations for notice of violations, there was a good couple of months in between there and you knowing full well that I've already started finding and it could have been a daily fine and it wasn't and it was just a one-time fine. I don't see the city waiving the fee at this time with all the work that went in. Examiner Olbrechts:(15:14): Alright, thanks. Yeah. Alright, well I guess I'll close the hearing then and like I said, get that decision out in 10 days. I just need to take a close look at the timeline and figure out if there's a basis for reducing the fines at all when it's a landlord tenant situation. Obviously I think we need to be a little more flexible than if it's the tenant that's being fined directly. I'll certainly take that into consideration at the same time. Five months is a long time, but I also understand Mr. Stone's point that the tenant appeared to be on his way moving out. So that could be a mitigating factor. But like I said, I just need to look at the chronology real close and see if it's reasonable basis to reduce and I'll get that written decision out real soon. So thanks all for participating this morning. We're adjourned for today.