Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-2025 - HEX Decision & appendix A - CE -- No Bldg Permit -- PDA LLC OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION – APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT (CODE 23-000593) Appellant: DK Market/PDA LLC 720 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Alleged Violation: No building permit for walk-in cooler. Location of Violation: 720 Lind Ave SW Renton, WA 98057 Public Hearing: April 8, 2025 Decision: Notice of Violation sustained. Corrective action: File timely construction permits and remove cooler or have it approved with required building permits within timelines specified at end of this decision. SUMMARY OF DECISION PDA LLC has appealed a Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that it has installed a walk-in cooler without a required building permit. PDA doesn’t dispute the violation but rather notes that it has had problems getting the installation manual it needs to acquire necessary permits. At the April 28, 2025 hearing the City stated it would be willing to waive the $250 fine if the cooler is removed within 60 days of permit approval. Given that more than 60 days has elapsed since the hearing, the Appellant will be given 30 days from permit approval to remove the cooler to have the fine waived. HEARING TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-13 identified in the City’s Exhibit List were admitted during the April 8, 2025 hearing. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant. DK Market/PDA LLC, 720 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. 2. Property. 720 Lind Ave SW, Renton, WA 98057. 3. Finding of Violation. A Notice of Violation and Order to Correct Third Notice (“NOV”) was issued to DK Market/PDA LLC on January 7, 2025. The NOV asserts that a single-family home was remodeled without a building permit as required by RMC 4-5-060. 4. Appeal. PDA LLC filed an appeal of the FOV on July 22, 2024. 5. Unpermitted Improvements. It is undisputed that a walk-in cooler was installed at the violation site without a required building permit. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-10-3C5. 2. Code Violation: The code violation identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is quoted below and applied to this appeal via a corresponding conclusion of law. RMC 4-5-060(E)(1)): 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by the Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 3. Appellant in Violation. The Appellant has violated RCW 4-5-060(E)(1) for failing to acquire building permit approval for the installation of a walk-in cooler as determined in Finding of Fact No. 5. As noted in the NOV, RMC 4-5-060A2a identifies the International Building Code (“IRC”) as comprising part of the City’s “Construction Codes.” The IBC requires a building permit for the cooler and the Appellant doesn’t contest this fact. Consequently, since the Appellant failed to acquire a “required permit” under Section 105.1 as quoted above, his is in violation of RMC 4-5-060(E)(1). 4. Waiver of Fines. RMC 1-10-5C5 authorizes the hearing examiner to modify fines considering factors such as the nature of the offense, the impact on the neighbors, neighborhood, or community and the need to discourage such conduct, inactivity or neglect. At hearing the City has agreed to waive the fine if the Appellant acquires the necessary permits and/or lawfully removes the cooler. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 3 DECISION The Finding of Violation (CODE 23-000593) is sustained, and the appeal is denied. The $250 fine imposed by the NOV shall be waived if corrective action is completed within the timeframes required below. ORDER TO CORRECT The Appellant is required to file complete a application for a building permit for the installation of the cooler installed at the time of the April 8, 2025 hearing or a complete building permit application to have it removed. If the application has not yet been filed, it shall be filed by July 31, 2025. If the permit is for removal of the cooler that was installed at the time of the April 8, 2025 hearing, the cooler shall be removed within 30 days of permit approval. If no permit is required for removal of the cooler in place on April 8, 2025, the cooler shall be removed by August 8, 2025. Complete applications for required mechanical, electrical and all other required construction permits shall also be filed within the later of 30 days of notice from City staff or July 31, 2025. City staff shall have the authority to extend deadlines as reasonably necessary. Failure to correct as ordered may subject the Violator (Appellant) to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-10-7A1. Failure to comply with an Order to Correct can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Per RMC 1-10-7A2, if a Violator is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Violator shall serve no less than five (5) days in jail for the first conviction, no less than ten (10) days for the second conviction, and no less than thirty (30) days for any subsequent conviction. A Violator shall not be eligible for Electronic Home Detention or any other alternative to jail time. DATED this 8th day of July, 2025. Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL 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. Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 9 Appendix A April 8, 2025, Hearing Transcript PDA LLC Appeal File No. – 23-000593 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): Alright, for the record, it's April 8th, 2025, 10:00 AM I'm Res Hearing examiner for the City of Renton, holding a hearing on a code enforcement appeal notice of violation appeal this morning for the P-D-A-L- L-C DK market appeal file number 23 dash 5 9 3. Looks like we have Mr. Churchill on behalf of the city. And is it Mr. Or Mr. Marquez who's representing the appellant, is that right? Mr. Marquez: (00:31): Yes, I'm representing the company who diagnosed the, what you call this the unit, sir. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:37): Okay, great. Alright, well the hearing format for today is we'll start off with a presentation from Mr. Churchill presenting evidence as to or supporting the allegations in the notice of violation. That violation has been committed. All his witnesses will be subject to cross-examination. Mr. Marquez, you can ask questions of every witness that presents testimony today. After Mr. Churchill is done presenting the city side on this, Mr. Marquez, it'll be your chance to present your side of the equation, any witnesses you want to present, that kind of thing. Your witnesses too, which would include yourself, will be subject to cross-examination as well from Mr. Churchill. Then after you're done presenting your side, since the city has the burden of proof, they get to provide a rebuttal, any rebuttal testimony they find necessary or exhibits. And then after all that, I get a couple of weeks, 10 business days to issue a final decision. Mr. Churchill put together some documents that he wants to be presented in the record today, a total of 13 exhibits, and I'll share my screen to show what those are. Oops. Ms. Moya, can you enable me to share a screen? Speaker 1 (01:51): Sorry, I forgot. Yes, I just did. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:54): Okay, perfect. Speaker 1 (01:55): I forgot my audio was off. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:56): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 9 Oh, there we go. Let's see. Where is that one? Oh, here it is. Okay. Alright, so Mr. Marquez, did you get this packet here that's composed of 13 documents? Speaker 1 (02:07): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:08): Okay. Do you have any objections to their entering the record at this point? It would just be objections over relevance that it doesn't really pertain to the allegations or authenticity. For example, a photograph that says it's a picture of your business may a picture of another business or something. Do you have any objections of that nature? Speaker 1 (02:28): No. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:28): Okay. I'll go ahead and admit Exhibits one through 13 and all testimony will be under oath. So I'll put Mr. Churchill under oath. Mr. Churchill, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Churchill: (02:41): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (02:41): Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Churchill: (02:44): Good morning. Like I stated before, I'm Jason Churchill with the city Renton Code Compliance Inspector. We're here today basically because it was noted that the property owner constructed a walk-in cooler without the benefit of a building permit, which is in violation of city code RMC four dash five dash six, the construction administrative code. This was brought to us by the fire department, which is exhibit three, an email from Daniel Johnson of the RFA and it basically cites that he went on site to do a fire inspection and noticed that the cooler had no permit for it and also required a sprinkler head to be installed in the unit that the sprinkler report is exhibit two of the report. (03:49): When we received this email, the city sent out a warning of violation to DK or P-D-A-L-L-C market, which is exhibit five with our first warning of violation. Through the process, DK market had tried to get a permit for the cooler but were denied based on energy requirements and I had basically pushed out the case and told that they could. When the case I stalled, I sent out a second warning of violation, which is exhibit nine, stating that, hey, you need to resubmit for a permit for the building permit for the cooler, which then no response was given. And then exhibit 10, I sent out my first notice of violation with the $250 fine and which was not appealed and still pushing for them to get the building permit or remove the cooler. (04:58): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 9 Nothing was satisfied on that end. Sent out to second notice of violation, which is Exhibit 11 with another fine. No appeal on that one either. And still no permit has been acquired or attempted to be acquired. In that case. I sent out the third appeal or a third notice of violation with another fine and this is the violation that they're appealing, which is in exhibit 13. The city's position on this is that they've had ample time, they've had a year and a half to apply for the permit and no permit has been acquired for the block and cooler. So at this point the city is at the, either get the permit or remove the cooler out of the store. That's where the city's position is. Examiner Olbrechts: (05:56): Okay, thanks Mr. Churchill. Mr. Marquez, did you have any questions of Mr. Churchill? Mr. Marquez: (06:03): None sir. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:04): Okay. Alright. Mr. Churchill, any other witnesses on behalf of the city? Mr. Marquez: (06:08): Nope. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:09): Okay. Alright, Mr. Marquez, now's your turn. Let me swear you in real quick. And just so you know, your video's not on, I don't think that's a problem unless the city objects, but in case you wanted your video to be on, it's not. But I'm Mr. Marquez: (06:22): Sorry, I didn't have a camera right now. So Examiner Olbrechts: (06:25): You what? Mr. Marquez: (06:25): I'm really sorry. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:26): Oh, you don't have a camera? I Mr. Marquez: (06:27): Didn't have a camera. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:27): Oh, that's fine. Okay. Just if you could just raise your right hand so I can swear in. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this proceeding? Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 9 Mr. Marquez: (06:34): Yeah, I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:35): Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Marquez: (06:38): Alright, so in behalf of Nortek Inc. So we receive a message before from the customer, which is Glenn, and then he mentioned that someone or from other company like install the walking cooler. And then he sent me those, what you call this document, the violation from the city of. And then after that we reviewed those document and then we, I mean we scheduled, we send out our senior technician and then here's the findings. But the first one is that, I mean, we cannot correct some of the details from the, what you call this, from the violation because first thing in order for us to correct this one is that we need a manual of the box that from the previous company installed and then our senior technician figured out as well that the box was not installed. I mean the box was not new, it's an old one. (07:50): So I already called, what do you call this, the other company that installed and then they cannot provide me the manufacturer manual in order for us to set or to rectify the installation that has been done with them. But they mentioned that they doesn't have the manual. So I suspected and also our senior technician that the box that was installed is a new one, so they cannot produce any copy for this one. And then we need those manual because a back load test is required in order for us to correct the drain line and then in order for us as well to install it. So that's the, to call this, that's the inspection. And also we recommend that this one due to the absence of the manufacturer's manual, so we can no longer correct the installation. So we suggest to the company or the DQ market that the best option here is to remove the old one and we will be the one to process for all the building permit, I mean to install a new one. Examiner Olbrechts: (09:11): Okay. And Mr. Marquez, so are you the contractor for the appellant? Is that your role here? Mr. Marquez: (09:18): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (09:19): Okay. And what's the name of your company? Mr. Marquez: (09:21): It's Nordic Inc. Examiner Olbrechts: (09:22): Nordic Inc. Alright, okay. And Nordic Inc's been filing, did you guys file a building permit application with the city or Mr. Marquez: (09:31): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 9 Not yet? What do you call this? I mean, we are not the one who installed directly, Examiner Olbrechts: (09:37): Right? Mr. Marquez: (09:38): Yeah. So when Glen called us, so when we went there, so we supposed to rectify the issue for us to apply for the building permit like any refrigeration like that. But then as per our senior technician, we cannot do that anymore because we cannot rectify the, because there's a lot of issues on the concern or on the violation. So we cannot what you call this, we cannot tify those because we need the manufacturer's manual for us to correct the installation that has been done or that has been processed. Examiner Olbrechts: (10:22): Okay. And so when you reference the person named Glen, could you just give his last name for the transcript? Speaker 5 (10:28): DEA, my last name is DEA. Examiner Olbrechts: (10:31): Oh, okay. Oh, you're there sir? DEA. Oh, I'm here. Yes, yes. Okay. Okay. Yeah, because what I was getting to is I just wanted to make sure that Mr. Marquez had your permission to represent you in this proceeding. Is that right? Okay. Alright. Good, good, good. Yeah, I didn't realize you were on as well, so, okay. Alright, Mr. Churchill, any questions of Mr. Marquez? Mr. Churchill: (10:51): Yes, I have a couple of questions. First and foremost, when did Glenn acquire your services for the cooler? Mr. Marquez: (11:02): Okay, hold on sir, I just need to double check. The first one here is, so this one is Mr. Churchill: (11:14): November 11th, 2024? Mr. Marquez: (11:19): Yes. Mr. Churchill: (11:26): Thank you. And from my understanding, your assessment of the cooler is that it would need to be removed in order for it to be permitted? Mr. Marquez: (11:38): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 9 Yes, because actually, honestly, we can actually correct the installation, but then due to the absence of the manufacturer manual, so we cannot, because the thing is that is we review the violation and then we know that the city of Renton will require the manufacturer's manual for them also to double check the data or something if the rectification of the installation is correct or not. So we cannot provide that one even though we cannot provide that as long as we want to help them. But then if there's something that, for example, you have a question for the ratification of the installation, so we cannot answer that one and we cannot, what do you call this? We cannot provide any information or like a backup because we didn't have the manufacturer manufacturer's manual. And I know that you'll go to ask for that one as well. Mr. Churchill: (12:48): Yes. Now Glenn, his questions more directed towards you. Yes. In Examiner Olbrechts: (12:58): Case D, lemme swear you in real quick, Mr. D, just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Mr. Churchill: (13:04): Yes, I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (13:05): Okay, great. Mr. Churchill: (13:07): So Glenn, this is in reference to when this case first started and why it took over a year to acquire or get the information that the cooler needed to be removed. This case has been started since November of 2023. Mr. Dea (13:25): So when I received the notice, I contacted the first installer and he said he started and then he keep giving me a go around and after so many months I realized he cannot do it or he cannot finish the permitting for me. Then I asked other HVAC technician, see who can help me, and Nortec was the one that being referred to me. So I contact Nortex to see if they can help me rectify the problems. And so they started the permitting process for me. But like Mr. Mark said he ran into this installation manual problem. That's where we at at this point. So that's why it get Jack on so long. Mr. Churchill: (14:44): Okay, thank you. I have no further questions, Phil. Examiner Olbrechts: (14:49): Okay. Mr. D, did you have any other witnesses or anything more you wanted to say before we go back to Mr. Churchill for any rebuttal testimony you want bring forth? Mr. Dea (15:00): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 9 No, I mean I try to solve the problem but I'm not, I don't know HVAC stuff, but I've been paying money to try to rectify the problem, but just this is where we were at at this point. So I told Mr. Marque department thing is such an issue with the first installer, so I asked him to submit me a proposal to remove the current one and then pull a permit to install a new one from scratch. So this is the solution right now. Examiner Olbrechts: (16:00): Okay. Alright. Thank you sir. Mr. Marquez: (16:01): And then what we are doing right is that, I mean because they want a bigger one and then we already submitted a code for two of the sizes of the walk-in cooler, but then right now, I mean we need to revise that one as well. And then once they already approved that one, so we are go ahead and remove the old one that they have and then pull the permit because we already applied, I mean we have already what you call this account from the city of Fon, so we can actually applied for the permit that is needed. Examiner Olbrechts: (16:42): Okay. Alright. Mr. Churchill, any questions you have again in case since they added testimony? Alright, go ahead Mr. Churchill. Any final evidence you want to present? Mr. Churchill: (16:52): Just the city stance is that respectfully the violation occurred and this has been going on for over a year and a half. The city's stance is that not to waive the penalty, but I am willing to concede if they have the project completed within a certain timeframe. And that timeframe being, I guess I do have a question, Ronelle, would it be possible to have the cooler removed within 60 days from now? Yes. Mr. Marquez: (17:26): Yes sir. We can actually do that. Mr. Churchill: (17:30): Then the city's stance would be to have the cooler removed within 60 days and the fine would be resolved. Examiner Olbrechts: (17:38): Okay. And Mr. Churchill, I take it they need to get a permit to have it removed, right? Wouldn't that, Mr. Churchill: (17:44): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (17:45): I mean can they actually get a permit approved and then remove it in 60 days or should I say 60 days from approval of a building permit to remove it? Mr. Churchill: (17:56): Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 9 It's going to have to fall within our building official, but it was constructed without a permit. Speaker 1 (18:02): And Mr. Churchill: (18:02): If it's removed without a permit, but then they go forward with getting the proper permit to get the new cooler, I would assume that our building official would agree to that. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:12): Oh, okay. Okay. Alright. Yeah. Okay. Well I can craft the condition that covers all that and in case the building official says a permit is required, then I'll say file the permit within 30 days and remove the building within 60 days, a permit approval. If a permit is required, I can write it up that Mr. Churchill: (18:27): Way. And the city stance is if the appellant continues to maintain contact with code enforcement, then I am more than willing to extend what I need to extend out for the case. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:39): Okay. Alright. Sounds like a reasonable solution. Yeah, sure. Mr. Marquez, go ahead. Mr. Marquez: (18:43): So we need to contact the building of Fish House or for us to get the permit because I know that there is a permit for demolition to remove the old one Examiner Olbrechts: (18:58): Sounds. Mr. Churchill: (18:59): You never had a permit to build the cooler in the first place. So you've done it, but then we need to have it corrected and if you're saying that it can't be corrected without a new installation, then like I said, the building official may see that as that it or look at it as if the cooler had never been constructed and now you need to apply for the real permit to install the rear a new cooler. Mr. Marquez: (19:27): Yes, that's correct. Examiner Olbrechts: (19:28): Yeah. And Mr. Merz, I think it's basically you should just call the building official and Mr. Churchill can give you that contact information to see if he's going to require a permit and then file it. I mean, like I said, my decision will come out in a couple of weeks. It's basically going to say remove it within 60 days and if a permit's required, it'll be 60 days from permit approval. Just to give yourself as much time as possible, I would contact the building official immediately and get that ball rolling. But yeah, get something from me in the mail probably within two to three weeks. I think that's everything. I think Appendx A -- PDA LLC Code Enforcement (Completed 07/08/25) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 9 we're all on the same page. Right. Okay. Alright, sounds good. Alright, so I'll go ahead. We're adjourned for this hearing and we'll move on to the next one at 10 30. Thank you Mr. Marquez, Mr. Dia, for your participation today.