Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA-09-097 - Report 01oes� W zo sasZ/aG 7O } �} ;dlaaaa wn;ad ol4sawo0 �ppZ ;sn6ny ` � �8C waod Sd sax Cl (—j -P3) &(JeAlla0 palau;salj '4 '0'0'0 ❑ IIeW paansul ❑ eslpuegaiayq jo; ldlaoaa ujn;alj ❑ papa4sl698 ❑ lleIN ssasdx3 ❑ Fh PallllJa0 ad/Cl aal a5 -E ON ❑ :Molaq ssaJppe IUanllap Ja;ua 'S3A 11 saA ❑ 61 wap wa.4;uaJ94lp sMWP fdanllap sl •0 r(�anlla�3 to �ief� '3, . facua ' 7Uue) p Pa !apaa 's aassa�ppy p amvy k •d tM6 VYA `011WS OOZE '31S `inuany gpnos 10() [ 011d `SIAEQ 'D :ol Passc-UPPV ela?lfd ' 1 •s;!wAad aoeds 11 lual ay; uo jo 'aooldllew agi;o joeq ay; of peo sly; goeay ■ •noA of pjeo ay; wnlaj ueo am }egl os osaanaj ay; uo ssaippe pue oweu ino><;uud ■ 'paJ!sap sl tianllad paloulsad J! b wall a;aldwoo osIV -£ pue 'Z `L swall aleldwoO ■ LSO$6 VAk `UOIUQW .tooi-4ti,L �1�'1 XPP'19 S SSOI aZ)uruzBx3 gut.rLaH ul?u.jnuN -r pa -IA . xoq siy; uE b+d1z pue 'ssaippe 'aweu anoA jupd aseali-japuag . 0l-J 'ON aluuad sdsn pied saad V 86BISOd Bevy sseJo-3sjl j 901na3g -lvlsOd s3-v15 ; mt-w-M-9eszaL ;dlaoay wn;ay of;sawn❑ 400Z ;snBny ' [ L8E wjo j Sd /j'170 -?f !_ ©f Uaga� a�ruas uroy �a;sua�� { (� aagwnt4 eaalyy sa,k ❑ (--qV) XM) IA—uaa papa;-FJ '4 'd•D•O ❑ IlBW pamsul ❑ aslpusyaiayy to;;dleoelj wn;ey ❑ paaa;s!59 I!aVq ssa3dx3 ❑ Im" pal;l;7aO adAi aouuag •g oil I!%( :molaq ssappa fiGenllap �a;ua 'S3A iI sa,K ❑ L l LLJ3! w04;u8Ja}4Ip —ppE fJen;lap sl .Q /!IB gaI/r I ti t uu 1 qp a ;uaby ❑ j�° 1E i� C-6an;eu6ls 'v SS086 V/I& `uIIIZ O"M IOZ FIS t 181 ao,11W u,qo� :o; passaappy alalp v ' L -s;Iwaed eoeds p ;uojt eyl uo ao 'aoeidpew au; to �oeq aql of pivo silo 4oeaV m -nog( o; pm ay; wn;aA use am }s'4; os asaanaa ayI uo ssaappe pus awau anon( ;ulad A paJ!sap sI )UaniEaa pa;ouIsaa t! tr wa;I ejeldwoo osIV •g pus 'Z 't swell a;aldwoo a IF� I l l i+ I I I I I I f I i I I I I II [I I LI If I It 111}II II if f[I i LIl It i �l L�086 `jk% `Ltolua�j .10011 Ii,L `,�tM 4B-T9 S SSOl 10LIIUIVXH RLII1S? LILLLi411UN - f P"i,q xoq siy} of ti+dlZ puar 'ssaippe 'aweu jnoA aupd ase9ld :Japuas 1 K ov5t w zo-s6szoG jdpoaa uen;aa ol;sewoa �ppZ;sn6ny ' L [BE wao=j Sd bLz c) S GZD © 0-�,z p bLo j (la4Pl e3y-as cuo�� aa{suerl} aagLUnN 0P!1J ' 7 sal ❑ (a3 e P4 Z�,UaAllad Papu;saa 'q 'a'0'0 ❑ IIEW paansul ❑ aslpuegwalm Ao� jdlao% uin;aa ❑ paja;sl6ad llew ssardx3 ❑ IleIN paliljja:),�� edA aolnaag 'g ON d! :Molaq ssaippe uanllap jalua 'S3A 11 SO), ❑ L � wau w04;uaaaWp ssappe +(aanllap sl •a lap 10 ele0 'o ( pajuua) IIq Panlaoab aip ;ua6y0!f a / ' nlLuslg •d SS086 W& `uolua�d a�L1d ,IZ �iS t181 a311tIN aurr(I :o; pesseippy slolliv l •s;luLad aoeds p ;uo4 aq; uo ao 'eoeldl!uw ay;;o )loeq ag; o; peso slgl go?E!4l ■ 'noA o; peo aq; ujn;aa ueo ann;eq; os asJanaJ aq; uo ssaippu pue awvu inoA luljd ■ 'paalsap sI IGanllaQ pa;ola;saa Jl V uaa;l a;aldwoo osltl -S pue 'Z "G swe;I o;aldwoo ■ 1111411111111111111 tl 111 1111111 till III I trill filgirrill I r I I L5086 VAk luoluz)ll .10014 ,,L 5o I u-minuN 'f P-0-14 xOq s"41 ul 17+dlZ PuR'sseJPP8 'eweu jnoA jupd aseeie �jepuac 3a1A'8-58,1V1SOd S3iViS 0311Nn U.S. Postal CERTIFIED Service MAIL RECEIPT (domestic M311 Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) ru Ir o�L Postage $ / - - ru [] Certified Fee � I Ln Roforn Rereip; Fee Posbgiark R ;Cod^rserne. nt equired) _- !� Here Q Restricted De:'ivery Fr-e 0 (Fndorseman', iiequiredJ _ -._- _ _ Total Postage a Fees $ ru ru M r i Name (Please Print Clear (To be cpmp7efed by mafler) 11— Street, Apt. No.; or F Sox No, ----------"--------------- Er ZOSS h � -------------------� - ---"--' --- City, Stale Pr 4 Lr- o- rU C3 u`J M C3 ru Mr ru E PSYage $ f ru M Certifi_d Fee Lr) 0 kTV1 tieceipi Fee (Fndrrsement Regni•el) rz 7 _ - - r Postmark Hem C3 O Rcsiricted DeNery Fec- (Endorsement Regc,red) (-'3 Total Postage & Fees $ rurLi m Name ( [ease Print Clearly) (To be completed by m r) ❑"' ------ --------------�---- Street, Ap[. Na.; or P� a-----� --- ----------------------------------- ox No, 2q �,C `� = _ -- � PS Form ::tt Julyjr POStai Service CERTIFIEli MAIL RECEIPT (Domeslic 'Wall Only;. [GtKe- Postage $ CertiFletl Fee � �� " 13etum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) _ L� - Poslmark Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Requrred) ` ---. r.�. Herei - Total Postage g FB.S d_ q +p' Er Stre tr- / tiClty. %-`-�- r'r7/[[((�10 be completed by malferJ I---- 5.: Q ilyt i LVi J Rp[. No.; or PO Box No. ------------- - S -- S - �----&)------- Cu ite, Z1P 4 --`Y 0 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING STATE OF WASHINGTON M11 County of King Nancy Thompson being first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and states: That on the 171h day of December 2009, affiant deposited via the United States Mail and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested a sealed envelope(s) containing a decision or recommendation with postage prepaid, addressed to the parties of record in the below entitled application or petition. Sig ature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of �.. �� 2009. a` my U' ° lop .� c� Z Eesiding Pl1Bca 'ary Public-i-n and fqr the State of Wa iington at . ,therein. OF IN I's roil Application, Petition or Case No.: Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal LUA 09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON 1:1.1t1 Zl1d"FRaID 01016111110 1 APPELLANT: Diane Miller 1814 SE 21" Place Renton, WA 98055 Mark Barber Warren, Barber & Fontes Sr. Assistant City Attorney Renton, WA 98057 Representing. City of Renton Marilyn Kamcheff Code Compliance Inspector Renton, WA 98057 Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.: LUA 09-097, AAD/C09-0279 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the Appellants' written requests for a hearing and examining available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the October 20, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Tuesday, October 20, 2009, at 9:00 a.m, in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. Parties present: Mark Barber, Sr. Assistant City Attorney Marilyn Kamcheff, Code Compliance Officer City of Renton Kirk Davis, Attorney for Appellant Diane Miller, Appellant The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No: I: Yellow file containing the original I Exhibit No. 2: Transcript the Hearing Below Miller Unfit Dwelling Appea Fite No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 2 appeal, the decision in the appeal and the appeal to -Hearing Examiner, as well as other documentation. There were no preliminary matters. Mr. Barber stated that the City did not intend to present testimony from any persons present today, but to rely on the record for the Director below. Mr. Davis stated that he had just received the transcript in this matter yesterday. He had sent a copy to Mr. Barber and filed the original with the Examiner. It was evident that the Examiner had reviewed the material on this matter and looked at the record. The points on appeal are well spelled out in the Motion that was filed to dismiss the Complaint. Exhibit 1 in the hearing before the Director was not offered nor admitted, that is verified in the transcript, in the City's case. In Administrative Hearings, the rules of evidence are relaxed especially with regards to hearsay, the Director naturally considers those matters. In the Renton Municipal Code, 1-3-5, Section F2 indicates that the hearing shall be governed by the civil rules of Superior Court, but the strict rules of evidence shall not be applied. There needs to be a basic fairness to the process. it was their contention that when a document or exhibit is marked but not admitted it is essentially that the Director is considering evidence that was not admitted and it does not give the opponent to that evidence a chance to object to the evidence, a chance to cross examine in regards to that evidence because there was no proffer of the evidence. This procedure violated due process. The Examiner asked if the evidence was discussed at the hearing. It was presumed that there was a basis for the City's unfit order and that in the proceeding there was argument against that decision based on neighbors' testimony or submissions by neighbors, it is not like the appellant was oblivious to the record that existed. In order to prepare for this hearing, someone must have come in and spent some time in reviewing the file. The appellant knew that the City was concerned about the shape of this building, the City issued certain orders regarding this building, the appellant was obviously aware of that and came in to protest that and check out the information the City had. The appellant was not totally oblivious to the record of some kind prior to the hearing. There was a record that someone dealt with, whether it was officially entered or not may not be relevant. How did Exhibit 1 being marked and was available at the hearing but not being entered into the record at that precise time prejudice your client? Mr. Davis stated that they did, at the time Exhibit 1 was being mentioned, not know what was in it. After getting Exhibit 1 and looking at it later, they understood the situation. When an exhibit is marked and not admitted into evidence, it is not evidence. It prejudiced the client, it is not something that can just be pulled out of the air, it certainly prejudiced his client because he was waiting for an Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 3 offer of that evidence before he cross examined anyone on it. He did cross examine people at the hearing, but not on Exhibit 1. He was waiting for the exhibit to be offered into evidence to go through that exhibit because they did not know what exactly was in that exhibit. He was deprived of the ability to object to any parts of that record because it was never offered into evidence and they had no idea of exactly what was in the exhibit. The hearing was to be a fact finding hearing. The Examiner asked if it did find facts, there was testimony and there was an opportunity to cross examine. This was an administrative proceeding where strict rules of evidence and law are not necessarily complied tivith other than as indicated in code. Cross examination is allowed but sometimes it is relaxed and dealt with through the Examiner, it may even be suspended if it seems inappropriate, this is an administrative process, it is not a court of law, the procedures are relaxed. Whether it was officially admitted or marked, it was at the hearing, people were basing a lot of things upon it or what was in it and the Director based his decision on a lot of the testimony he heard. There was testimony about the nature of the building, how long it had been unfit, how long it had been abandoned, testimony from Mr. Miller and his purchase of lumber and his attempts to fix the building but because of financial help or other constrains not being able to get to it. Those are the things that the Director relied on to make the decision. This hearing and that hearing were both administrative and not jury trials or trials before a judge where strict rules of evidence are complied with. Mr. Davis stated that when a decision is reached there must be some basis for that decision and it has to be based upon evidence that has been admitted. A large part of this exhibit does not apply to Diane Miller, it applies to Robin Miller. It does apply to the property and home. The Examiner stated that it does not matter who owns the home whether jointly or singly, the home is determined to be unfit by a lot of testimony and by the Director. Diane Miller was not even at the proceeding below. He will go over the Director's decision again, see what he decided and relied upon in reaching his decision and whether or not Exhibit 1, marked and not admitted was relevant or not. Mr. Davis pointed out that the Renton Municipal court document was totally irrelevant with regards to the administrative action. Exhibit I was relevant because there was no other evidence of personal service of the complaint without the admission of this Exhibit 1. There would have been no jurisdiction to go ahead with the hearing while the code requires that, they did object to jurisdiction at the hearing. Oaths need to be administered individually, codes indicate that rules of superior court need to be followed. It was a clear violation of the rule, the witnesses were not administered oaths individually. There is no knowledge of when the witnesses testified if they were actually in the room at the time the oath was administered by just looking at the record. Ms. KamehefTwas asked by the Director if she had been sworn in and she indicated that she had. I ler testimony would be okay in that event. The other witnesses were not asked that question by the Director and so would be a violation of the City Code. They further take issue with some of the conclusions reached by the Director, whether the house should be demolished or repaired (page 9 of 14 of Director's Decision, paragraph 7) the Director indicates that the City of Renton Building Official testified that repairs needed would be extensive with everything above foundation needing to be repaired or replaced. The cost of repairs would exceed 50% of the value of the current structure based on the assessed value for tax purposes. Mr. Davis did not find any testimony where it stated that the cost Miller Unfit Dwelling Appea File No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 4 of repairs would exceed 50% of the value of the current structure. It is not clear whether the testimony of Mr. Meckling was taken under oath or not, there is nothing in the record to support that conclusion. Mr. Miller wants to repair this structure, when he and his wife are given ultimatums by the City to stop work and to destroy the structure, all progress is stopped. The previous attorney sent a letter to Ms. Kamcheff requesting clarification, there was never any response to that letter. There was an Order to Correct issued at the same time as an Order to Demolish, the letter to Ms. Kameheff was to request clarification as to whether or not they could proceed with correction. Finally, the Millers feel that their property was previously in King County, the City of Renton annexed the property and this process was immediately started. The Millers feel that they have never been given the opportunity to bring their property into compliance. Mr. Barber stated that the Director's decision should be given substantial weight as provided in the Renton Municipal Code. After review of the evidence and file, the decision of the Director was not erroneous. The Director's file (Exhibit 1) not admitted into evidence appears to be a last argument, in court a Judge is permitted to take judicial notice of the court file. In a trial all pleadings in that court file are not admitted into evidence. Administratively in this instance, Exhibit 1 is the Director's file and it is similar to a court file, it is where the documents are filed. The City by RMC 1-3-5F2 does have the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of evidence that a violation has occurred and required corrective action is reasonable. The City has met that burden. The transcript was provided to the Hearing Examiner and he would have an opportunity to review that transcript and determine whether or not the witnesses were under oath. This point was made by the appellant and is hyper technical for an administrative proceeding, it is normal to have persons raise their hands and be sworn in at the beginning of the hearing if they intend to present testimony. The code does state that the hearing shall be governed by the rules of Superior Court for the State of Washington, but that does not change the character of the administrative hearing and turn it into a court hearing. All evidence produced before the Director is to be considered that includes all oral testimony. Regarding the issue of not having sufficient time to deal with the structure, this structure has been in this dilapidated condition for at least 15 years. The neighbors have been complaining the structure is not getting any better. It is clear from Mr. Meckling's testimony, the structure is dilapidated to such an extent that it is subject to demolition. There is some confusion between the Order to Demolish versus the Order to Correct by Mrs. Miller's previous attorney. The Order to Demolish may be the decision that was rendered by the Examiner with regard to Mr. Miller's appeal, which sustained the Director's decision to demolish the structure. However, with regard to the Order to Correct that was issued to Mrs. Miller because the City wished to see that she had her due process rights and the City was unaware that she was a co-owner of the property initially and so she was not named along with Mr. Miller in the initial proceeding. The Order to Correct provided that she could within 30 days submit approved building plans for the repair of the dwelling and within 90 days of the date if the plans were approved, construction and required inspection would have to be completed and approved. The date of that document was April 14, 2009. Mrs. Miller did nothing. Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.: LUA-09-097, AADIC09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 5 Mr_ Davis stated that what was marked as Exhibit I at the hearing before the Director, he was given a copy of that at the end of the hearing, there was no proof of personal service on Diane Miller, which was required in the Renton City Code unless it can be shown that personal service cannot be obtained. There was an indication that the declaration of personal service from the officer was in Exhibit 1, and he was unable to find that in his copy. He does have a declaration of service from Donna Locher indicating that it was sent by First Class mail �vlth Return Receipt Requested. Hearing Examiner stated that the top of page 8 of 14 in Finding I states the complaint was served to Robin Miller the husband of Diane Miller by Officer Gould on May 28, 2009. Robin Miller testified in the hearing that he personally delivered the notice to Diane Miller regarding the scheduled hearing and associated date. Mr. Davis stated that that testimony by Mr. Miller came after the City has rested. The case had been moved for dismissal. Mr. Davis stated that he first saw the file the morning of the hearing and had not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the file. In a hearing evidence must be stated, properly marked and admitted, if that is not the entire file, then what else is out there and there is no chance to object to that. The Examiner will go through Mr. Watts decision and see what exactly he relied on. A lot of it was the testimony at the hearing. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this project. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The hearing closed at 9:55 a.m. FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS: The appellant, Diane Miller, filed an appeal of decision finding a residence an unfit building and ordering that it be demolished. 2. The appeal was filed in a timely manner. The appellant owns property located at 16855 125th Avenue SE in Renton, Washington. The property is a single family home. 4. The home is located in the City of Renton. The property was annexed to the City in March 2008. Prior to annexation the property was under the jurisdiction of King County. The appellant and her husband co-own the property. Originally, an order to demolish this same property was issued to appellant's husband and he appealed that order. That appeal was denied in a prior proceeding. Since that order was issued, the City determined that it should have included Diane Miller the co-owner of that same house. Since the City failed to notify Diane Miller at that time, it brought a separate action against her and a similar order to demolish the home was issued by the Director. The appellant Diane Miller did not attend the hearing. She was represented by counsel and her husband Robin Miller did attend the hearing. It was agreed that the home is in a state of serious disrepair. Robin Miller testified that he wanted to bring it back up to code but with a pending order of demolition, he did Miller Unfit Dwelling Appea. File No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 6 not want to expend time and money under ambiguous circumstances and potentially see the home demolished. 7. Mr. Davis is the attorney representing Diane Miller in this proceeding. He also represented her in the proceeding below. He was not the original attorney in the earlier proceedings and came aboard to represent Diane Miller just prior to the hearing. On appeal the appellant's arguments are due process or procedural arguments_ The appellant argues the Exhibits, particularly Exhibit 1 was never admitted and, therefore, could not be relied upon by the Director in reaching a decision in this matter. Under those circumstances, the appellant argues that there is no record that the appellant received the appropriate notices and orders and hearing information. The second main argument was that the oath was not properly administered to witnesses and, therefore, the testimony was not properly sworn. Under this argument, nothing testified to by the various parties would be admissible. Section 1.3.4 provides the definitions of "unfit or abandoned structure": "(22) Unfit or Abandoned Structure: Any structure, which has been damaged by fire, weather, earth movement, or other causes, and which is not fit for occupancy, and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days; or where the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure once repaired; or such a damaged structure whose owner shows no intention of completing or making substantial progress on completing such repairs within 90 days. Included within this definition shall be any dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Renton. (Ord. 5221, 9-11-2006)" 9. The record below established the costs of repair as exceeding the statutory values. 10. The director admitted Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 into the record. (At Page 64 of the transcript.) 11. After some introductory remarks and near the beginning of the proceeding the Director administered the affirmation: "At this time, I ask all parties who wish to testify to raise their right hand and take the following affirmation. Do you and each of you affirm the facts you are about to give in the matter now heard are the truth? If so, answer'I do."' (At Page 4 of the transcript.) CONCLUSIONS: Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 7 The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City Official was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious (Section 4- 8-110(E)(7)(b). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the Director should be reversed. The appeal is denied. 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). An appellant body should not necessarily substitute its judgment for the underlying agency with expertise in a matter unless appropriate. 4. The appellant argues that the Director administered the oath to all potential witnesses at the beginning of the hearing rather than administering the oath to each individual witness as they testified. The appellant cites RMC 1-3-5(F)(2): "Any party wishing to testify shall be sworn on oath.: and then noted that the hearings are to be governed by the civil rules of superior court. The objection was there was no way to determine if any particular witness actually took the oath before testifying. Washington Law and Practice, Vol. 5A, Section 603.1, pp 359-360 states: "Before testifying, a witness must declare that he or she will testify truthfully. The declaration must be by oath or affirmation calculated to awaken the witness's conscience and to impress upon the witness the duty to tell the truth" ... "1f the court inadvertently fails to administer an oath, the opposing party should object and request that the oath be administered. In the absence of such an objection, the error is waived." Taken together those phrases would appear to remove an objection by the appellant to the manner in which the oath was administered in this case. The first reference does not require individual oatli-takinb - it merely says that "before testifying, a witness must declare that he or she will testify truthfully." Administering an oath to the assembled witnesses would seem to provide the same objective - "to awaken the witness's conscience and impress upon the witness the duty to tell the truth." The second reference appears to remove the doubt that maybe one or more of the witnesses arrived after the group oath was administered. The appellant was not heard to object until filling the appeal. The appellant should have objected to the "group oath" procedure but failed to do so. The error, failure to administer the oath, if it occurred, would be waived by the failure to object to it in a timely fashion. In addition, there is no evidence that any particular witness failed to take an oath to tell the truth. The appellant argues that Exhibit 1 was never admitted and, therefore, could not be considered. If the exhibit were not admitted, then the argument goes, there was no evidence that the "complaint was personally served..." (Page 2, Brief of Defendant). At Page 64 of the transcript of the hearing the Director admitted Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 into the record. In any event, it is quite evident that the appellant, Diane Miller, had notice of the hearing. She hired an attorney to take up matters with the City and represent her and then replaced that attorney with the current attorney, Mr. Davis. The current'attorney Miller Unfit Dwelling Appea. File No.: LUA-09-097, AADIC09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 8 was present at the hearing before the Director demonstrating the appellant was appropriately notified even if appellant, herself, did not attend. Her husband and co-owner of the property was also III attendance at the hearing and testified. 6. This office can find no meaningful substance to the appellant's objection to either the record and its exhibits or the possible failure to individually administer oaths to witnesses. The appellant apparently changed attorneys very shortly before the hearing but herself had adequate notice of the proceeding. The materials were available for review by the appellant or her attorney in a normal manner and the only prejudice is that the last attorney hired may not have had as much time as he would have preferred, The materials were referred to at the hearing and there was no substantive objection as they were testified about by various witnesses. It is disingenuous to now argue that no argument was made against those exhibits because Mr. Davis did not believe they were part of the record. Any defect in their admission was rectified by the Director at the end of the hearing. The appellant did not object to the oath being administered to the entire assembly when it occurred, nor did the appellant object wile" any individual witness testified that the oath "ceremony" was defective. Modern Courts have determined that rules should not be thrown up as impediments to reaching a fair hearing. They generally allow amended pleadings, new witnesses and similar deviations that allow a fair [tearing. The appellaut's reliance on such formalities is misplaced since the lower appellate body should have been given a chance to "fix" any mistakes that may have occurred as opposed to bringing out the technical guns in this appeal. This office subscribes to the arguments in the City's brief - even if the rules of procedure for Court are applicable to oaths, the court rules allow the testimony if there is no objection at the time it was offered. It is late for the appellant to play the "oath card" when it should have been raised below. Similarly, the record consists of the exhibits as entered into the record by the Director as they were part of the entire file and always available for inspection by an attorney, if not this attorney, representing the appellant. With those procedural issues dispensed with, there is the merit of the Director's Decision. The record demonstrates that the residence is very badly deteriorated. There are holes in the roof and floor_ The interior walls and supporting structures are rotting. Walls are open and old pipes and wiring are exposed. The building presents a hazard to those who would enter it. The period this building has been in this state exceeds 90 days. The building is "unfit" by definition and that is what the Director found. The definition does not confine itself to one jurisdiction or another - that is City or County. The building has been in a serious state of disrepair in both jurisdictions for a long time, exceeding 90 days. The evidence, both photographs and descriptions show a building that declined over a long period of time. The decision is clearly correct. This single-family residence is unfit and the appellant admitted as much at the appeal hearing while possibly using different phrasing. Experts provided evidence that it was in such a state of disrepair that costs of repair exceed the statutory limits. The appellant was given a full opportunity to refute the City's a]legations about the nature of the residence. The Director found the residence "unfit" after appropriate deliberation. 10. The decision below should not be reversed without a clear showing that the decision is clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. This office has found that the decision below was clearly supported by the facts and the decision below should not be reversed or modified. Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.; LUA-09-097, AADIC09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 9 DECISION: The decision is affirmed and the appeal is denied. ORDERED THIS 171h day of December 2009. FRED J. KAUF N HEARING EXAMINER TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of December 2009 to the parties of record: Mark Barber Sr. Asst City Attorney City of Renton Renton, WA 98057 Stephen Perkins 17103 125`h Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Patricia Schmidt 17309 1251h Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Marilyn Kamcheff Code Compliance Inspector City of Renton Renton, WA 98057 Gary & Donna Palmer 17104 125th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Robin Miller 1814 SE 21" Place Renton, WA 98055 Diane Miller 1814 SE 2 1 " Place Renton, WA 98055 George Runne 16835 125`h Ave SE Renton, WA 98058 Kirk C. Davis, PLLC 1001 Fourth Ave., Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Pursuant to Title IV, Chapter 8, Section 100Gof the City's Code, request for reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 500 p.m., December 31, 2009. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within fourteen (14) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. Owner has the right to petition the superior court of King Coun for appropriate relief within 30 days after the order becomes final. If the Examiner's Recommendation or Decision contains the requirement for Restrictive Covenants, the executed Covenants will be required prior to approval by City Council or final processing of the file. You may contact this office for information on formatting covenants. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine provides that no ex parte (private one-on-one) communications may occur concerning pending land use decisions. This means that parties to a land use decision may not communicate in Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal File No.: LUA-09-097, AAD/C09-0279 December 17, 2009 Page 10 private with any decision -maker concerning the proposal. Decision -makers in the land use process include both the Hearing Examiner and members of the City Council. All communications concerning the proposal must be made in public. This public communication permits all interested parties to know the contents of the communication and would allow them to openly rebut the evidence. Any violation of this doctrine would result in the invalidation of the request by the Court. The Doctrine applies not only to the initial public hearing but to all Requests for Reconsideration as well as Appeals to the City Council. 09103/09 04:33PIT EIR.k C DAVIS 2062603685 p.01 LAW OFFICES OF KIRK C. DAVIS, PLLC SEP 8 2009 To: Hearing Examiner Mark Barber From: Kirk Davis Date: September 3, 2009 Re: Diane Miller FAX COVER SHE -'ET HF ! U f= % y Y�iivlfPqL==, 4. Fax No.: (425) 430-6523 Fax No.: (425) 255-5474 Phone: (206) 684-9339 Number of Pages including Cover: 3 Message: The purpose of this fax is to notify the Hearing Examiner and the City Attorney that I will be seeking a continuance to obtain a transcript of the hearing before the director and to enter my notice of appearance. IMPORTANT: The information contained in this fax is confidential attorney work product and may be privileged from disclosure under the attorney -client privilege. The information is intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient or making delivery to the intended recipient, please note that any use, distribution or copying of this fax is strictly prohibited. Inadvertent delivery does not waive our privilege against disclosure. If you have received this fax in error, please do not read it and immediately notify us by a collect telephone call to (206) 684-9339, and mail the original to us at the address below. Thank you. LAW OFFICES OF KIRK C. DAVIS, PLLC 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, Washington 98154 Phone: (206) 684-9339 Fax: (206) 260-3685 09l03;'09 04: 3: FP1.1 KIRK C DAVIS. ?nr- FC-,E8r p.02 1� 2i 3' 4 5 6 7 9 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON THE CITYOF RENTON, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, V5. DIANE MILLER, Defendant. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE CLERK'S ACTION REQUIRED TO: CLERK OF THE ABOVE -ENTITLED COURT; AND TO: Mark Barber, Attorney for Plaintiff, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the below attorney hereby enters his appearance on behalf of the Defendant. All pleadings and papers, excluding the original service of process, should be served upon the undersigned at the below -referenced address. This Notice of Appearance is made without waiving insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, timeliness of action, improper venue, failure to state a claim, or failure to join a party. LAW OFFICE OF KIRK C. DAVIS, PLLC 1001 Foutch Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 "Cei: 206.684.9339 Fax:206.260.3685 09/03/0u fl4.33PH KIRK C DAVI ; 2062,6ft3685 n.03 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9'' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DATED this 3"J day of September 2009. I NOTICE OF APPEARANCE - 2 LAW OFFCC, OF KIRK C. DAVIS, PLLC irk C. avis, SBA 421461 1001 0t Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Tel. 206.684-9339 LAW OFFICE OF KIRK C. DAVIS, PLLC 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 TeL 206.684.9339 Fax:206.260.3685 Denis Law, Mayor November 5, 2009 Mark Barber Sr. Assistant City Attorney City of Renton Kirk C. Davis Law Offices of Kirk C. Davis, PLLC 1001 fourth Avenue, Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 Re: Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal Dear Misters Barber and Davis: CITY .F-' .°`fi`T0. , Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman This office has been reviewing the record and has decided that briefs from both parties regarding two primary issues would assist in reaching a decision. This office would like the briefs to address the issue of oaths or affirmations, individual versus group and the possible failure to swear in a witness at a formal public hearing where the forum's solemnity might impart a measure of truthfulness to any testimony. The second issue would be the failure to formally enter an exhibit into the record. This office would suggest that the first briefs be submitted within two weeks of this letter and that responses to those initial briefs follow one week later. The parties shall send copies to each other and this office. If there are any problems with scheduling these briefs or replies, this office would appreciate it if the parties worked out a reasonable but not lengthy schedule amongst themselves. If this office can provide any additional assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred Kaufman Hearing Examiner City of Renton FK/nt 1055 South Grady Way ��-^^Renton, Washington 98457 - (425) 430-6515 [7� Thia ranar ennrainc 9M;, rar.,��.ri n,an�roi .u,�,, nn�, r•v,c.nr. REI TON' A I!F..;kD 01- T]iB is Denis Law, Mayor October 5, 2009 Kirk C. Davis 1001 4`h Avenue, Ste. 3200 Seattle, WA 98154 RE: Findings & Order of Director, Neil Watts Appeal Unfit Dwelling, Building & Structures — 16855 125"' Ave SE, Renton Dear Mr. Davis Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing on the above referenced matter has been rescheduled for Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in. Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufm Hearing Examiner City of Renton cc: Mark Barber, Sr.Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Stacy Tucker, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-65I5 his ca��rco.rirs 50^h r_:�eien ma�7�! �1,=%v .�cs: co^sup-,e ._ �-, �i "� f....( , _: Dcnis Law, Mayor August 20, 2009 Diane E. Miller 1814 SE 2151 Place Renton, WA 98055 RE: Findings & Order of Director, Neil Watts Appeal Unfit Dwelling, Building & Structures — 16855 125`1' Ave SE, Renton Dear Mrs. Miller: This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2009 to begin not before 10:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing. Sincerely, f Fred J. Kaufmanj Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl: Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Mark Barber, Sr.Assistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Stacy Tucker, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 T i;s pm)er cnn'e!ns 50°G, rr;gde,9 iialeriai. 30 % ,,[ c,n,,Me, - , E -I_' 0 yyt� Notice of Appeal r'--R�09 ' August 17, 2009 To: Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way 98057 Subject of Appeal: Findings & Order of Director, Neil Watts, July 15, 2009 Re: Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures Hearing - 16855, 125`h Ave. SE, Renton, WA The undersigned hereby serves notice of intent to appeal the subject Findings & Order dated by Director Neil Watts on July 15, 2009, This appeal is based on the undersigned's belief that the subject Findings & Order are erroneous for specific reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Lack of Due Process under Renton Municipal Code 2. Lack of Due Process under the Revised Code of Washington State 3. Erroneous Findings of Fact 4. Erroneous Conclusions based thereon 5. Unreasonable Decision and Imposition of fees and costs based thereon Please find check #6816 (attached herewith) as payment in hill of the requisite $75,00 filing fee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Diane E. Miller 1814 SE 21 " Place Renton, WA 98055 Notice of Appeal — August 17, 2009 Page i of 1 CC !fn ✓r'� fL'a=v "Vx 1 m 0 z u a� � Q z o H z.�b w� OA�3� LU w d� u LT. r U m UNFIT DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES HEARING BEFORE THE DIRECTOR CITY OF RENTON FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OWNER: Diane Miller 1814 SE 21" Place Renton, WA 98055 LOCATION: 16855 —1251h Avenue SE, Renton, WA FILE co?t LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 27, Block 1, Cascade Vista, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 60, pages 33 through 35, records of King County, Washington SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Director determined the appropriate disposition of the building located at 16855 - 125th Avenue SE, in response to the City of Renton Building Official's unfit building complaint, declaring the building an unfit building per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 1-3-5. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the City's written request for a hearing, and examining available information on file, the Director conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 18, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Director. Parties resent: Mark Barber, City Attorney Marilyn Kamcheff, Renton Code Compliance inspector Larry Meckling, Renton Building Official Paul Balser, Renton Lead Code Compliance Inspector Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Inspector Darren Wilson, Renton Code Compliance Inspector Robin Miller, husband of defendant Diane hiller Unfit Building ing July 15, 2009 Page 2 of 14 Kirk Davis, attorney for the defendant Gary Palmer, resident xf Donna Palmer, resident Carolyn Norris, resident Cameron McLaughlin, resident The Director opened the hearing, explained the structure and procedures of the hearing, and asked all parties wishing to testify to take an affirmation. The Director addressed the defendant's attorney's request for continuance of the hearing by granting the defendant's attorney, Mr. Davis, the opportunity to explain why a continuance should be granted. Mr. Davis stated that he was a late entrant into these proceedings, that the defendant's prior attorney's attempts to obtain clarification of an order to correct for the property were not successful, and that the criminal proceedings against Ms. Miller on a nuisance violation for this property had been dismissed. The City's Attorney, Mark Barber, opposed the motion because the defendant had received sufficient notice of the hearing and that the late securing of new legal counsel was not relevant to the timing of the hearing. The Director noted that the hearing had been properly scheduled and noticed to the many parties involved with the unfit building complaint. This included the defendant, the City staff in attendance at the hearing and the neighbors in attendance at the hearing. Finding insufficient grounds for continuance of the hearing, the Director denied the continuance request by the defendant's legal counsel. The Director noted that the defendant, Diane Miller, was not in attendance at the hearing. When queried, no response was provided by either the defendant's reported attorney or her husband, Robin Miller, who was in attendance at the hearing. Marilyn Kamcheff, Code Compliance Inspector, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057, provided testimony outlining the history of the investigation for this site, results of the site investigation, results of the title search on the property, and City staffs recommendation on disposition of the building. A complaint was received by the Renton code compliance group on March 5, 2008, of an abandoned house at 16855 - 1251h Ave SE. The house was reported to be quite a dump, vacant for many years, with the roof falling in and rats reported on the site. Ms. Kamcheff visited the site on March 11, 2008, and found the house to be in considerable disrepair. The house was abandoned, with a roof that was partially collapsed. Several holes were observed in the roof, allowing for entry of water and potential vermin. There was green frayed material secured along the roofline covering the gutter area with exposed roof beams that had obvious dry rot. The two front windows were boarded up with plywood. The wall between the windows was sagging. An Order to Diane Miller Unfit Building Hea....o July 15, 2009 Page 3 of 14 Correct was issued and mailed to Robin Miller on March 18, 2008. The compliance date was set as April 23, 2008. No response was noted by the City prior to the compliance date. On May 12, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff was able to talk with Robin Miller, owner of the property, about the problem and the need to correct the situation. Mr. Miller said he was in a state of shock over the City's requirements to bring the property into compliance with City of Renton codes. Mr. Miller argued that the condition of the house was such that he could repair it. On May 15, 2008, Mr. Miller brought a letter to Ms. Kamcheff refuting the charges as listed in the Orders to Correct. During this discussion, he stated his desire to repair the house. He indicated that he would like to have an additional 60 days to continue work on the house. On May 20, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff sent a letter to Mr. Miller that listed the City's requirements for the violations listed on the earlier Order to Correct. The letter granted Mr. Miller additional time to work on his property. His new compliance date was July 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff conducted an inspection of the site. She found that the house was still in a dilapidated condition. It was apparent that there had been no work done on the Douse. On July 17, 2008, a notice and order was mailed to Robin Miller advising him of the City's intention to abate this house. This notice and order was cancelled on July 29, 2008. Mr. Miller was mailed notice that the notice and order was cancelled, along with the associated hearing date. On August 21, 2008, an Amended Complaint for Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures was sent to the property owner, Robin Miller, by registered mail. The complaint stated that the house located at 16855 - 125th Ave 5E was an unfit building as set forth in RMC 1-3-5. The complaint states that a Renton code compliance inspector inspected the dwelling, and found the dwelling unfit, substandard, and unfit for use as a dwelling in that it lacked the components of a livable dwelling, and that it is unfit for use as a building or structure, in that it had the following conditions: (1) no sanitary sewer service; (2) no water service; (3) no electrical service; and (4) severe roof damage and disrepair or dilapidation with obvious dry rot. Ms. Kamcheff testified that during the separate criminal proceedings against Diane Miller for nuisance violations at the same property, the judge asked City staff to issue an Order to Correct before proceeding with issuing criminal citations for the nuisance. In Diane Miller Unfit Building ng July 15, 2009 Page 4 of 14 response to this request, an Order to Correct was mailed to Diane Miller on April 14, 2009, and posted on the subject property. Ms. Kamcheff testified that she visited the site that morning, June 18, 2009, for a re - inspection, and found that no visible actions had been taken to correct problems noted with the house. Pictures were taken of the house from the public right-of-way and entered into the record, which showed that the house is in considerable disrepair with a failed roof, open entry places in the roof which allow water to enter into the house, rotted exposed beams, poorly maintained siding, a sagging exterior wall, and boarded up windows. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: The official file, including copies of the formal complaint issued by the Renton Building Official, records of the actions taken by Renton Code Enforcement, photographs of the site, and building and title reports for the property. Exhibit No. 2: Photographs provided of the inside of the house. Ms. Kamcheff was then cross-examined by Mr. Davis. Responding to Mr. Davis's questions, she confirmed that phone calls requesting information about the April 14, 2009, Order to Correct were not returned. Mr. Davis noted that the letter including the Order to Correct was received by the defendant ten days after it was sent. Mr. Davis then entered the following exhibit into the record: Exhibit No. 3: Letter from Raymond Ejarque concerning a request for information about the April 14, 2009, Order to Correct sent to Diane Miller. The Director asked the City Attorney, Mr. Barber, if the Order to Correct was an official part of the Unfit Building regulations in Renton Municipal Code. Mr_ Barber stated that the Unfit Building regulations for Renton do not include any requirements or discussion of Orders to Correct. Larry Meckling, Renton Building Official, testified that he had inspected the interior of the building on August 7, 2008, with the group entering the site under the approved search warrant. He reported finding that the house was beyond disrepair, with numerous failing systems. The floor system had failed, and was missing in many areas. The roof system had failed, the supporting walls were failing or damaged, and much of the house utilities, such as plumbing and electrical, were damaged or missing. There were extensive signs of moisture related deterioration. The roof had several holes, and it was apparent that the roof had been damaged extensively for years. The structure Diane Miller Unfit Building Hear v July 15, 2009 Page 5 of 14 was not habitable, and in violation of many City building codes. The structure is a safety and health hazard due to potential structural hazards. Mr. Meckling further testified that the cost of repairing the structure would far exceed 50% of the value of the structure. The house would have very limited salvage value, and did not appear to be worth repairing. His recommendation was to demolish the building. Mr. Davis then cross-examined Mr. Meckling. In response to questions, Mr. Meckling responded that he was in the house for less than one hour, and did not take any photos at that time. Donna Locher, City of Renton Code Compliance Inspector, testified that she had sent prepared Unfit Building Complaint notices on May 26, 2009, and had posted said notice on the subject house on the right side of the front door. Declarations to this effect are included in the official project file, Exhibit 1. The Director then asked if anyone in the audience wished to testify. Gary Palmer testified that he has lived at his current residence for 49 years, about a half block from the subject property. He stated that the house has been in disrepair for about 20 years, and detracts from the neighborhood's property values. The roof is collapsed and the front of the house is in disrepair. Cameron McLaughlin, 17003 - 125th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058, testified that he lives 2 doors away from the subject property. When he purchased his home a year ago he assumed that the problem would be corrected. Neighbors have told him that the house had been in this condition for 19 years. The roof is collapsed and continues to sag. He requests that the problem be fixed, that the house is a blight on the neighborhood. Carolyn Norris, 12515 SE 171'C St, Renton, WA 98058, testified that she lives one block away, having moved here in 2000. The subject house was in awful shape at that time. She is appalled at the condition of the subject house. The condition of the subject house has not been repaired or improved since then. She complained that the City's process for abatement of the problem house takes too long. Mr. Davis then noted several perceived problems with the proceedings. The concerns included the complaint notice not being served directly to Diane Miller, objections to Exhibit 1 being entered into the record, objections to the Order to Correct wording, concerns that the complaint was unclear and the evidence insufficient. He further noted some potential confusion with conflicting requests to demolish the house and to repair the house. Diane Miller Unfit Building ing July 15, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Mr. Barber responded that proper notice had been served, including an amended complaint to match the evidence presented in the City's case. The house is currently unfit for human habitation and presents a potential hazard for fire service response. In response to a request from Mr. Davis for a copy of the project file entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1, City staff provided a copy of the project file to Mr. Davis. Mr. Miller, co-owner of the property at 16855 - 125th Ave SE, Renton, Washington, then testified. He stated that the photos entered into the record as Exhibit No. 2 were taken to represent the interior conditions of the building in March 2008, and were taken in approximately December 2008 or January 2009. Mr. Miller explained that the house in question had been a rental property. In the early to mid-1990's he had to evict the tenant from the house. At that time he noted considerable water damage and roof damage to the house. When he began repairs to the roof, he found more structural damage to other parts of the building. He elected to cease repair of the roof to deal with the other damaged areas of the building. He placed a tarp over the roof as a temporary measure. He then proceeded to strip all of the interior walls and eventually gutted the interior of the house. The entire flooring was removed to get to the rotted floor joists. He kept the building secure from entry in response to code enforcement actions taken by King County staff. He started to install bracing for the rotted areas of the building, but stopped further repair when the abatement proceedings were initiated. Mr. Miller stated that the house was in serious disrepair, and that he was attempting to repair the structure. He had gutted the interior of the structure, and started work on replacing some of the floor joists. He invested considerable money in lumber for the repairs, some of which was in the structure, and the rest stored elsewhere off site. He had been delayed in completing the desired repairs due to limited funds and health issues. Mr. Barber then cross-examined Mr. Miller. In response to Mr. Barber's questions, Mr. Miller acknowledged that the subject house was not his residence. Mr. Miller stated that he visited the subject property frequently, but not on a daily basis. He has been aware of the concerns of the neighbors about the house condition for about 18 months. Mr. Miller stated that he does not intend to contract out the repair work for this house, and intends to proceed with the work himself. Following a short break, Mr. Barber continued with the cross-examination of Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller confirmed that he is married to the defendant in this hearing, Diane Miller, and was married March 18, 1966_ The prior Unfit Building hearing on this subject house was directed against Mr. Miller, and he testified that he had not discussed those proceedings with Diane Miller at that time. The complaint notice for this particular Diane Miller Unfit Building Hear...o July 15, 2009 Page 7 of 14 hearing was delivered to Mr. Miller, who testified that he provided the notice directly to Diane Miller. He further testified that Ms. Miller was aware of this hearing, and had elected to hire Mr. Davis to represent her interests at this hearing. Under continued cross-examination, Mr. Miller testified that he had not applied for or obtained any building permits for repair of the subject house. He has not proceeded with further repair of the damaged house because of uncertainty created by the ongoing abatement process. He continues to prefer to repair the house rather than demolish the building. The Director called for further testimony regarding this unfit building complaint. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The Director noted Mr. Davis's earlier requests to dismiss the case based on procedural concerns, and with the lack of advanced access to the official file. The Director noted that the requests for dismissal are insufficient and therefore denied. The official file is public record and has been available to the defendant to review at any time. However, the Director is willing to allow for additional time for the defendant's legal counsel to review the record and provide written comment to the Director prior to initiating the final decision process. The record for this hearing was extended until Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 5.00 p.m. for additional written testimony. The hearing was closed at 3:38 p.m. Prior to the official closing of the record, Mr. Davis submitted additional information requesting dismissal of the complaint. The issues raise in this motion were procedural in nature. The specific issues listed for grounds to dismiss the complaint were: (a) The exhibits entered into the record, including the official project file, can not be considered as evidence; (b) oaths must be administered separately; (c) the definition of unfit building is too vague; (d) the building should be ordered to be repaired, not demolished; (e) the City did not follow proper procedures for the order to correct; and (f) the search warrant is defective due to the vagueness of the code. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Director now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: 1. The City of Renton issued an unfit building complaint to the property co-owner, Diane Miller, for the house located at 16855 125"' Ave SE in Renton, Washington. This complaint was sent to the property owner on May 26, 2009. The complaint included notice of the mandated hearing before the Director, scheduled for June 18, 2009, at Renton City Hall, 7th floor, at 1:00 p.m. Diane Miller was mailed the unfit Diane Miller Unfit Building Ong July 15, 2009 Page 8of14 building complaint by first class mail and certified mail on May 26, 2009. The complaint was posted on the subject property on May 26, 2009. The complaint was served to Robin Miller, the husband of Diane Miller, by Officer Gould on May 28, 2009. Robin Miller testified in the hearing that he personally delivered the notice to Diane Miller regarding the scheduled hearing and associated date. 2. An official records file for the unfit building investigation and issuance of a complaint for 16855 - 1251h Ave SE, Renton, Washington, was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The file contains copies of the formal complaint issued by the Renton Building Official, records of the actions taken by Renton Code Enforcement, photographs of the site, and building and title reports for the property. 3. The subject structure is located at 16855 - 1251h Ave SE. The legal description for the property is Lot 27, Block 1, Cascade Vista, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 60, pages 33 through 35, records of King County, Washington. Robin Miller testified in the hearing that he was the co-owner of the property in question. Diane Miller, co-owner of the property, was not present at the hearing, and was represented by her attorney, Kirk Davis. 4. Records indicate that King County Code Enforcement sent correction notices to the property owner regarding building code violations with the house in 2006 and 2007. Under County regulations, the structure was required to be secured from entry and not to be occupied. 5. The property was part of the Benson Hill annexation area, which was annexed to the City of Renton on March 1, 2008. The house at this location was reported to the City by neighbors as being abandoned and in a state of near collapse. The neighbors have reported to City staff that the house has been vacant for over ten years. Neighbors testified in the hearing that the house had been in a state of disrepair for many years, including a collapsed roof and severely damaged front portion of the exterior of the house. 6. Investigation by City staff concluded that the house was in serious disrepair, with a failed roof, numerous holes in the roof, and a sagging supporting wall. A search warrant was obtained to allow for inspection of the interior of the house. The house was searched by City staff on August 7, 2008. The interior of the building was gutted and in considerable disrepair. There were extensive signs of moisture deterioration. Numerous structural failures were noted, including missing or damaged sections of the floor system, supporting walls, and utility systems. The roof had numerous failures and holes, which have allowed water to enter the interior of the house. The holes also provide potential entry to the structure by vermin. Diane Miller unfit Building hear—,, July 15, 2009 Page 9 of 14 7. The City of Renton Building Official testified that the repairs that would be needed to bring the house into compliance with current building codes would be extensive, with everything above the foundation needing repair or replacement. He further testified that the cost of repairs would far exceed 50% of the value of the current structure, based on its assessed value for tax purposes. King County tax records for 2008 list the value of improvements on this property at $69,000.00. 8. The property owner testified that he has been working on repairing the house, and has made a significant investment in lumber for the repairs. Repairs have started on some of the floor joists. He has been delayed in completing repairs by financial and health reasons. He received notice from King County, prior to annexation to Renton, of building violations with the house, and complied with King County regulations by securing the building from entry. 9. Based upon the information provided by the City investigation, it was City staff's determination that the house was an unfit structure as defined in RMC 1-3-5. 10. The property owner does not want to demolish the house, preferring to restore the house to a habitable condition through a personal repair project. CONCLUSIONS: A building is determined to be an unfit building if it meets the following definition from RMC 1-3-4.A.11.c(22): Any structure, which has been damaged by fire, weather, earth movement, or other causes, and which is not fit for occupation, and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days, or where the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure once repaired, or such a damaged structure whose owner shows no intention on completing such repairs within 90 days. Included within this definition shall be any dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing hazards of fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Renton. RMC 1-3-5.B.2 provides the standards to be followed in substance by the Director or the Hearing Examiner in ordering repair, vacation, or demolition. These standards are as follows: 1. If the unfit building can reasonably be repaired so that it will no longer exist in violation of the terms of this chapter, it shall be ordered repaired by the Director or, on appeal, by the Hearing Examiner. Diane Miller Unfit Building ing July 15, 2009 Page 10 of 14 2. If the unfit building is in such condition as to make it dangerous to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of its occupants, neighbors or the general public, it shall be ordered to be vacated by the Director or, on appeal, by the Hearing Examiner. 3. If the unfit building is fifty percent damaged or decayed or deteriorated in value it shall be demolished. Value as used herein shall be the valuation placed upon the building or structure for purposes of general taxation. 4. If the unfit building cannot be repaired so that it will no longer exist in violation of the terms of this chapter it shall be demolished. 5. If the unfit building is a fire hazard, existing or erected in violation of the terms of this chapter or any other ordinance of the City of Renton or the laws of the state of Washington, it shall be demolished, provided the fire hazard is not eliminated by the owner within a reasonable time. DECISION — MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. The procedural issues listed do not have sufficient merit or weight to warrant dismissal of the complaint. Review of the record indicates that the City followed all the legal requirements for the Unfit Building process. The motion included six items of concern, which are addressed as follows: (a) The exhibits entered into the record, including the official project file, cannot be considered as evidence: The project file was entered into the record during the hearing by City staff, and can properly be considered as evidence in this decision. (b) Oaths must be administered separately: It is standard procedure in all City of Renton administrative hearings to administer the oaths to all witnesses collectively at the beginning of the hearing. (c) The definition of unfit building is too vague: Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 1-3-5F.3 provides the specific criteria used for identifying an unfit building. This criteria is the same as listed in RCW 35.80.030. (d) The building should be ordered to be repaired, not demolished: The standards to be applied for unfit buildings are listed in RMC Section 1-3-58.2 and are those used in the Directors final decision on this matter. The City is authorized to require demolition of unfit buildings by RCW 35-80-030(d). (e) The City did not follow proper procedures for the Order to Correct: The Unfit Building regulations for the City of Renton, listed in RMC 1-3-5, do not include any requirements for an "order to correct". The City staff elected to send an "order to correct" as an additional courtesy to the property owner to encourage voluntary compliance with City codes. The unfit building complaint process does not require an Order to Correct, and cannot be compromised by any portion or wording of the order to correct process. (f) The search warrant is defective due to the vagueness of the code: There is nc evidence that the code is vague in regards to either nuisance requirements or • Diane Miller Unfit Building Heari..o July 15, 2009 Page 11 of 14 unfit building regulations. Much of the evidence presented in this complaint hearing, including testimony from the property owner, was separate from any information provided by the search warrant process. DECISION — UNFIT BUILDING COMPLAINT: 1. The abandoned house located at 16855 - 125th Ave SE in Renton, Washington, is hereby determined to be an Unfit building. The building has been abandoned for at least ten years or longer according to statements presented at the public hearing and made to City staff by neighbors of the property. There is currently no utility or electric service to the house. The building is in a state of severe disrepair, including a failed roof and exposure of the interior of the house to the elements via holes in the roof. The house is in a condition of dilapidation and potential structural failure. The interior of the house is gutted, including parts of the floor, plumbing system, and electrical system. City staff testimony indicates that the magnitude of the repairs necessary to restore this building to compliance with applicable building codes would exceed 50% of the assessed valuation for the building. 2. The City's purpose for adopting its Unfit Building regulations, as authorized by RCW 35.080, are stated in RMC Section 1-3-5A. It is important in understanding this decision, and the City's action in this case, to review the City Councils' intentions as adopted and expressed in this purpose statement which reads as follows: "Purpose: It is found that there exists in the City of Renton dwellings that are unfit for human habitation and buildings and structures that are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents or other calamities, inadequate ventilation, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions that are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents. It is further the purpose of this section to provide a means of demolishing structures heavily damaged by fire, weather, earth movement or other causes, which have been allowed to sit in the damaged condition without repair for on extended period of time as set forth in this ordinance." Robin Miller, the property co-owner, has stated his preference to repair the house, rather than demolish the uninhabitable structure. However, the house has been in a state of considerable disrepair for many years, perhaps as long as twenty years. The burden placed upon the neighbors by this blighted condition must be considered in the decision to require demolition of the structure instead of continuing to wait for repairs to be completed by the property owners. Robin Miller, property co-owner, has made no commitment or offer to a specific schedule of repair. Further, he has not requested or obtained any type of building permits over the many years to make repairs. The City's Building Official testified that the current structure is in such a Diane Miller Unfit Buildin ing July 15, 2009 Page 12 of 14 damaged state of repair that the cost to repair the structure to current building codes exceeds 50% of the valuation of the house. No evidence was provided by the defendant's lawyer or the defendant's husband, co-owner Robin Miller, to contradict this testimony. The subject structure meets the criteria listed in City code for demolition. 3. The corrective action required for the abandoned house, located at 16855 - 125t' Ave 5E, is demolition. The property owner is to obtain necessary demolition permits from the City of Renton within 60 days of the issuance of this decision and complete removal of the structure within 90 days of the issuance of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, the demolition permit must be obtained by the owner on or before September 15, 2009, and the building must be demolished by October 15, 2009. 4. The property owner must pay the City of Renton the fees and costs assessed under RMC 1-3-5.H, which include staff and legal costs associated with this unfit building complaint. The amount now due to the City is $5,361,26, and is itemized as follows: $1,500.00 Per RMC 1-3-5 for Abatement Following the Hearing $ 36.82 Mailing costs and King County fees $ 759.81 Code Compliance Costs $ 2,714.63 Police Officer Costs 350.00 Attorney Fees $ 5,361.26 Total This amount is to be paid within 90 days of the issuance of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, these fees and costs must be paid to the City of Renton on or before October 15, 2009. If these fees and costs are not paid to the City by October 15, 2009, they may be assessed by the City of Renton against the real property as a lien. 5. The property is to remain vacated and secured pending demolition of the house. Following demolition of the house the area shall be cleared of all debris and unsuitable fill materials then filled and hydro -seeded or sodded for permanent restoration of the site. 6. If the conditions of this decision are not completed by October 15, 2009, the City of Renton may proceed with abatement of the unlawful condition. An additional fee of $3,000.00 will be assessed at that time. All costs and expenses incurred by the City in the abatement of this unfit building may be assessed against the real property as a lien unless paid. Actual costs shall include, but are not limited to, the costs of staff time, including overhead, contracted engineering fees or consultant fees, costs of •' Diane Miller Unfit Building Hean _ July 15, 2009 Page 13 of 14 demolition, removal and restoration, and any attorney's fees incurred in having the structure declared an unfit building. 7. The owner has the right to -appeal this decision to the City of Renton Hearin Examiner within 30 days from the date of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, an appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. August 17, 2009. Such an appeal must be flied in writing with the City Clerk accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. The written appeal must set out the reasons the owner believes the findings or order of the Director to be erroneous. S. Unless the property owner appeals this decision within the 30 days from the date of this decision or complies with this order, the City shall have the power, without further notice or proceedings, to vacate and secure the building and do any act required of the owner in the order of the Director, and to charge any expenses incurred thereby to the owner and assess them against the property. 9. If no appeal is filed, a copy of this order shall be filed with the auditor of King County, Washington, and shall be a final order. ORDERED THIS 15TH day of July 2009. / Ll��x L c NEIL WATTS, DIRECTOR (Parties of Record and attached exhibits may be viewed in the City Clerk's office along with the official decision.) Diane Miller Unfit Suildin ing July 15, 2009 Page 14 of 14 TRANSMITTED THIS 15T" day of July 2009 to the following: Diane Miller (Decision sent by Certified Mail and First Class Mail) 1814 5E 21" PI Renton, WA 98055 Mayor Denis Law David Pargas, Renton Fire Dept. Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Larry Meckling, Building Official Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Kevin Milosevich, Police Chief Charles Karlewicz, Renton Police Dept. Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Renton Reporter Robin Miller Parties of Record Kirk C. Davis UNFIT DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES HEARING BEFORE THE DIRECTOR CITY OF RENTON FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE DIRECTOR OWNER: Diane Miller 1814 SE 215t Place Renton, WA 98055 LOCATION: 16855 — 125th Avenue SE, Renton, WA FU CONY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 27, Block 1, Cascade Vista, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 60, pages 33 through 35, records of King County, Washington SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Director determined the appropriate disposition of the building located at 16855 - 125th Avenue SE, in response to the City of Renton Building Official's unfit building complaint, declaring the building an unfit building per Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 1-3-5. PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the City's written request for a hearing, and examining available information on file, the Director conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: MINUTES The following minutes are a summary of the June 18, 2009 hearing. The legal record is recorded on CD. The hearing opened on Thursday, June 18, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Director. Parties -present, Mark Barber, City Attorney Marilyn Kamcheff, Renton Code Compliance Inspector Larry Meckling, Renton Building Official Paul Baker, Renton Lead Code Compliance Inspector Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Inspector Darren Wilson, Renton Code Compliance Inspector Robin Miller, husband of defendant Diane Miller Unfit Building H_ July 15, 2009 Page 2 of 14 Kirk Davis, attorney for the defendant Gary Palmer, resident Donna Palmer, resident Carolyn Norris, resident Cameron McLaughlin, resident The Director opened the hearing, explained the structure and procedures of the hearing, and asked all parties wishing to testify to take an affirmation. The Director addressed the defendant's attorney's request for continuance of the hearing by granting the defendant's attorney, Mr. Davis, the opportunity to explain why a continuance should be granted. Mr. Davis stated that he was a late entrant into these proceedings, that the defendant's prior attorney's attempts to obtain clarification of an order to correct for the property were not successful, and that the criminal proceedings against Ms. Miller on a nuisance violation for this property had been dismissed. The City's Attorney, Mark Barber, opposed the motion because the defendant had received sufficient notice of the hearing and that the late securing of new legal counsel was not relevant to the timing of the hearing. The Director noted that the hearing had been properly scheduled and noticed to the many parties involved with the unfit building complaint. This included the defendant, the City staff in attendance at the hearing and the neighbors in attendance at the hearing. Finding insufficient grounds for continuance of the hearing, the Director denied the continuance request by the defendant's legal counsel. The Director noted that the defendant, Diane Miller, was not in attendance at the hearing. When queried, no response was provided by either the defendant's reported attorney or her husband, Robin Miller, who was in attendance at the hearing. Marilyn Kamcheff, Code Compliance inspector, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, Washington 98057, provided testimony outlining the history of the investigation for this site, results of the site investigation, results of the title search on the property, and City staff's recommendation on disposition of the building. A complaint was received by the Renton code compliance group on March 5, 2008, of an abandoned house at 16855 - 125ts Ave SE_ The house was reported to be quite a dump, vacant for many years, with the roof falling in and rats reported on the site. Ms. Kamcheff visited the site on March 11, 2008, and found the house to be in considerable disrepair. The house was abandoned, with a roof that was partially collapsed. Several holes were observed in the roof, allowing for entry of water and potential vermin. There was green frayed material secured along the roofline covering the gutter area with exposed roof beams that had obvious dry rot. The two front windows were boarded up with plywood. The wall between the windows was sagging. An Order to Diane Miller Unfit Building, ring July 15, 2009 Page 3 of 14 Correct was issued and mailed to Robin Miller on March 18, 2008. The compliance date was set as April 23, 2008. No response was noted by the City prior to the compliance date. On May 12, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff was able to talk with Robin Miller, owner of the property, about the problem and the need to correct the situation. Mr. Miller said he was in a state of shock over the City's requirements to bring the property into compliance with City of Renton codes. Mr. Miller argued that the condition of the house was such that he could repair it. On May 15, 2008, Mr. Miller brought a letter to Ms. Kamcheff refuting the charges as listed in the Orders to Correct. During this discussion, he stated his desire to repair the house. He indicated that he would like to have an additional 60 days to continue work on the house. On May 20, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff sent a letter to Mr. Miller that listed the City's requirements for the violations listed on the earlier Order to Correct. The letter granted Mr. Miller additional time to work on his property. His new compliance date was July 15, 2008. On July 16, 2008, Ms. Kamcheff conducted an inspection of the site. She found that the house was still in a dilapidated condition. It was apparent that there had been no work done on the house. On July 17, 2008, a notice and order was mailed to Robin Miller advising him of the City's intention to abate this house. This notice and order was cancelled on July 29, 2008. Mr. Miller was mailed notice that the notice and order was cancelled, along with the associated hearing date. On August 21, 2008, an Amended Complaint for Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures was sent to the property owner, Robin Miller, by registered mail. The complaint stated that the house located at 16855 - 125th Ave SE was an unfit building as set forth in RMC 1-3-5. The complaint states that a Renton code compliance inspector inspected the dwelling, and found the dwelling unfit, substandard, and unfit for use as a dwelling in that it lacked the components of a livable dwelling, and that it is unfit for use as a building or structure, in that it had the following conditions: (1) no sanitary sewer service; (2) no water service; (3) no electrical service; and (4) severe roof damage and disrepair or dilapidation with obvious dry rot. Ms. Kamcheff testified that during the separate criminal proceedings against Diane Miller for nuisance violations at the same property, the judge asked City staff to issue an Order to Correct before proceeding with issuing criminal citations for the nuisance. In Diane Miller Unfit Buifding... aring July B, 2009 Page 4 of 14 response to this request, an Order to Correct was mailed to Diane Miller on April 14, 2009, and posted on the subject property. Ms. Kamcheff testified that she visited the site that morning, June 18, 2009, for a re - inspection, and found that no visible actions had been taken to correct problems noted with the house. Pictures were taken of the house from the public right-of-way and entered into the record, which showed that the house is in considerable disrepair with a failed roof, open entry places in the roof which allow water to enter into the house, rotted exposed beams, poorly maintained siding, a sagging exterior wall, and boarded up windows. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: The official file, including copies of the formal complaint issued by the Renton Building Official, records of the actions taken by Renton Code Enforcement, photographs of the site, and building and title reports for the property. Exhibit No. 2: Photographs provided of the inside of the house_ Ms. Kamcheff was then cross-examined by Mr. Davis. Responding to Mr. Davis's questions, she confirmed that phone calls requesting information about the April 14, 2009, Order to Correct were not returned. Mr. Davis noted that the letter including the Order to Correct was received by the defendant ten days after it was sent. Mr. Davis then entered the following exhibit into the record: Exhibit No. 3: Letter from Raymond Ejarque concerning a request for information about the April 14, 2009, Order to Correct sent to Diane Miller. The Director asked the City Attorney, Mr. Barber, if the Order to Correct was an official part of the Unfit Building regulations in Renton Municipal Code. Mr. Barber stated that the Unfit Building regulations for Renton do not include any requirements or discussion of Orders to Correct. Larry Meckling, Renton Building Official, testified that he had inspected the interior of the building on August 7, 2008, with the group entering the site under the approved search warrant. He reported finding that the house was beyond disrepair, with numerous failing systems. The floor system had failed, and was missing in many areas. The roof system had failed, the supporting walls were failing or damaged, and much of the house utilities, such as plumbing and electrical, were damaged or missing. There were extensive signs of moisture related deterioration. The roof had several holes, and it was apparent that the roof had been damaged extensively for years. The structure Diane Miller Unfit Building l rig July 15, 2009 Page 5 of 14 was not habitable, and in violation of many City building codes. The structure is a safety and health hazard due to potential structural hazards. Mr. Meckling further testified that the cost of repairing the structure would far exceed 50% of the value of the structure. The house would have very limited salvage value, and did not appear to be worth repairing. His recommendation was to demolish the building. Mr. Davis then cross-examined Mr. Meckling. In response to questions, Mr. Meckling responded that he was in the house for less than one hour, and did not take any photos at that time. Donna Locher, City of Renton Code Compliance Inspector, testified that she had sent prepared Unfit Building Complaint notices on May 26, 2009, and had posted said notice on the subject house on the right side of the front door. Declarations to this effect are included in the official project file, Exhibit 1. The Director then asked if anyone in the audience wished to testify. Gary Palmer testified that he has lived at his current residence for 49 years, about a half block from the subject property. He stated that the house has been in disrepair for about 20 years, and detracts from the neighborhood's property values. The roof is collapsed and the front of the house is in disrepair. Cameron McLaughlin, 17003 - 125th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98058, testified that he lives 2 doors away from the subject property. When he purchased his home a year ago he assumed that the problem would be corrected. Neighbors have told him that the house had been in this condition for 19 years. The roof is collapsed and continues to sag. He requests that the problem be fixed, that the house is a blight on the neighborhood. Carolyn Norris, 12515 SE 171't St, Renton, WA 98058, testified that she lives one block away, having moved here in 2000. The subject house was in awful shape at that time. She is appalled at the condition of the subject house. The condition of the subject house has not been repaired or improved since then. She complained that the City's process for abatement of the problem house takes too long. Mr. Davis then noted several perceived problems with the proceedings. The concerns included the complaint notice not being served directly to Diane Miller, objections to Exhibit 1 being entered into the record, objections to the Order to Correct wording, concerns that the complaint was unclear and the evidence insufficient. He further noted some potential confusion with conflicting requests to demolish the house and to repair the house. Diane Miller Unfit Building , ring July 15, 2009 Page 6 of 14 Mr. Barber responded that proper notice had been served, including an amended complaint to match the evidence presented in the City's case. The house is currently unfit for human habitation and presents a potential hazard for fire service response. In response to a request from Mr. Davis for a copy of the project file entered into the record as Exhibit No. 1, City staff provided a copy of the project file to Mr. Davis. Mr. Miller, co-owner of the property at 16855 - 1251h Ave 5E, Renton, Washington, then testified. He stated that the photos entered into the record as Exhibit No. 2 were taken to represent the interior conditions of the building in March 2008, and were taken in approximately December 2008 or January 2009. Mr. Miller explained that the house in question had been a rental property. In the early to mid-1990's he had to evict the tenant from the house. At that time he noted considerable water damage and roof damage to the house. When he began repairs to the roof, he found more structural damage to other parts of the building. He elected to cease repair of the roof to deal with the other damaged areas of the building. He placed a tarp over the roof as a temporary measure. He then proceeded to strip all of the interior walls and eventually gutted the interior of the house. The entire flooring was removed to get to the rotted floor joists. He kept the building secure from entry in response to code enforcement actions taken by King County staff. He started to install bracing for the rotted areas of the building, but stopped further repair when the abatement proceedings were initiated. Mr. Miller stated that the house was in serious disrepair, and that he was attempting to repair the structure. He had gutted the interior of the structure, and started work on replacing some of the floor joists. He invested considerable money in lumber for the repairs, some of which was in the structure, and the rest stored elsewhere off site. He had been delayed in completing the desired repairs due to limited funds and health issues. Mr. Barber then cross-examined Mr. Miller. In response to Mr. Barber's questions, Mr. Miller acknowledged that the subject house was not his residence. Mr. Miller stated that he visited the subject property frequently, but not on a daily basis. He has been aware of the concerns of the neighbors about the house condition for about 18 months. Mr. Miller stated that he does not intend to contract out the repair work for this house, and intends to proceed with the work himself. Following a short break, Mr. Barber continued with the cross-examination of Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller confirmed that he is married to the defendant in this hearing, Diane Miller, and was married March 18, 1966. The prior Unfit Building hearing on this subject house was directed against Mr. Miller, and he testified that he had not discussed those proceedings with Diane Miller at that time. The complaint notice for this particular Diane Miller Unfit Building ing July 1S, 2009 Page 7 of 14 hearing was delivered to Mr. Miller, who testified that he provided the notice directly to Diane Miller. He further testified that Ms. Miller was aware of this hearing, and had elected to hire Mr. Davis to represent her interests at this hearing. Under continued cross-examination, Mr. Miller testified that he had not applied for or obtained any building permits for repair of the subject house. He has not proceeded with further repair of the damaged house because of uncertainty created by the ongoing abatement process. He continues to prefer to repair the house rather than demolish the building. The Director called for further testimony regarding this unfit building complaint. There was no one else wishing to speak, and no further comments from staff. The Director noted Mr. Davis's earlier requests to dismiss the case based on procedural concerns, and with the lack of advanced access to the official file. The Director noted that the requests for dismissal are insufficient and therefore denied. The official file is public record and has been available to the defendant to review at any time. However, the Director is willing to allow for additional time for the defendant's legal counsel to review the record and provide written comment to the Director prior to initiating the final decision process. The record for this hearing was extended until Thursday, June 25, 2009, at 5:00 p.m. for additional written testimony. The hearing was closed at 3:38 p.m. Prior to the official closing of the record, Mr. Davis submitted additional information requesting dismissal of the complaint. The issues raise in this motion were procedural in nature. The specific issues listed for grounds to dismiss the complaint were: (a) The exhibits entered into the record, including the official project file, can not be considered as evidence; (b) oaths must be administered separately; (c) the definition of unfit building is too vague; (d) the building should be ordered to be repaired, not demolished; (e) the City did not follow proper procedures for the order to correct; and (f) the search warrant is defective due to the vagueness of the code. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Director now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: The City of Renton issued an unfit building complaint to the property co-owner, Diane Miller, for the house located at 16855 125tn Ave SE in Renton, Washington. This complaint was sent to the property owner on May 26, 2009. The complaint included notice of the mandated hearing before the Director, scheduled for June 18, 2009, at Renton City Hall, 7th floor, at 1:00 p.m. Diane Miller was mailed the unfit Diane Miller Unfit Bufldinb _wring July 15, 2009 Page 8 of 14 building complaint by first class mail and certified mail on May 26, 2009. The complaint was posted on the subject property on May 26, 2009. The complaint was served to Robin Miller, the husband of Diane Miller, by Officer Gould on May 28, 2009. Robin Miller testified in the hearing that he personally delivered the notice to Diane Miller regarding the scheduled hearing and associated date. 2. An official records file for the unfit building investigation and issuance of a complaint for 16855 - 125th Ave SE, Renton, Washington, was entered into the record as Exhibit #1. The file contains copies of the formal complaint issued by the Renton Building Official, records of the actions taken by Renton Code Enforcement, photographs of the site, and building and title reports for the property. 3. The subject structure is located at 16855 - 125th Ave SE. The legal description for the property is Lot 27, Block 1, Cascade Vista, according to plat thereof recorded in Volume 60, pages 33 through 35, records of King County, Washington. Robin Miller testified in the hearing that he was the co-owner of the property in question. Diane Miller, co-owner of the property, was not present at the hearing, and was represented by her attorney, Kirk Davis. 4. Records indicate that King County Code Enforcement sent correction notices to the property owner regarding building code violations with the house in 2006 and 2007. Under County regulations, the structure was required to be secured from entry and not to be occupied. 5. The property was part of the Benson Hill annexation area, which was annexed to the City of Renton on March 1, 2008. The house at this location was reported to the City by neighbors as being abandoned and in a state of near collapse. The neighbors have reported to City staff that the house has been vacant for over ten years. Neighbors testified in the hearing that the house had been in a state of disrepair for many years, including a collapsed roof and severely damaged front portion of the exterior of the house. 6. Investigation by City staff concluded that the house was in serious disrepair, with a failed roof, numerous holes in the roof, and a sagging supporting wall. A search warrant was obtained to allow for inspection of the interior of the house. The house was searched by City staff on August 7, 2008. The interior of the building was gutted and in considerable disrepair. There were extensive signs of moisture deterioration. Numerous structural failures were noted, including missing or damaged sections of the floor system, supporting walls, and utility systems. The roof had numerous failures and holes, which have allowed water to enter the interior of the house. The holes also provide potential entry to the structure by vermin. Diane Miller Unfit Building _firing July 15, 2009 Page 9 of 14 7. The City of Renton Building Official testified that the repairs that would be needed to bring the house into compliance with current building codes would be extensive, with everything, above the foundation needing repair or replacement. He further testified that the cost of repairs would far exceed 50% of the value of the current structure, based on its assessed value for tax purposes. King County tax records for 2008 list the value of improvements on this property at $69,000.00. 8. The property owner testified that he has been working on repairing the house, and has made a significant investment in lumber for the repairs. Repairs have started on some of the floor joists. He has been delayed in completing repairs by financial and health reasons. He received notice from King County, prior to annexation to Renton, of building violations with the house, and complied with King County regulations by securing the building from entry. 9. Based upon the information provided by the City investigation, it was City staffs determination that the house was an unfit structure as defined in RMC 1-3-5. 10. The property owner does not want to demolish the house, preferring to restore the house to a habitable condition through a personal repair project. CONCLUSIONS: A building is determined to be an unfit building if it meets the following definition from RMC 1-3-4.A.11.c(22): Any structure, which has been damaged by fire, weather, earth movement, or other causes, and which is not fit for occupation, and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days, or where the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure once repaired, or such a damaged structure whose owner shows no intention on completing such repairs within 90 days. Included within this definition shall be any dwellings which are unfit for human habitation, and buildings, structures, and premises or portions thereof which are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing hazards of fire, accidents, or other calamities, inadequate ventilation and uncleanliness, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions which are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Renton. RMC 1-3-5.B.2 provides the standards to be followed in substance by the Director or the Hearing Examiner in ordering repair, vacation, or demolition_ These standards are as follows: 1. If the unfit building can reasonably be repaired so that it will no longer exist in violation of the terms of this chapter, it shall be ordered repaired by the Director or, on appeal, by the Hearing Examiner. Diane Miller Unfit Building —wring July 15, 2009 Page 10 of 14 2. If the unfit building is in such condition as to make it dangerous to the health, morals, safety or general welfare of its occupants, neighbors or the general public, it shall be ordered to be vacated by the Director or, on appeal, by the Hearing Examiner. 3. If the unfit building is fifty percent damaged or decayed or deteriorated in value it shall be demolished. Value as used herein shall be the valuation placed upon the building or structure for purposes of general taxation. 4. If the unfit building cannot be repaired so that it will no longer exist in violation of the terms of this chapter it shall be demolished. 5. If the unfit building is a fire hazard, existing or erected in violation of the terms of this chapter or any other ordinance of the City of Renton or the laws of the state of Washington, it shall be demolished, provided the fire hazard is not eliminated by the owner within a reasonable time. DECISION — MOTION TO DISMISS The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied. The procedural issues listed do not have sufficient merit or weight to warrant dismissal of the complaint. Review of the record indicates that the City followed all the legal requirements for the Unfit Building process. The motion included six items of concern, which are addressed as follows. - (a) The exhibits entered into the record, including the official prolect file, cannot be considered as evidence: The project file was entered into the record during the hearing by City staff, and can properly be considered as evidence in this decision. (b) Oaths must be administered separately: It is standard procedure in all City of Renton administrative hearings to administer the oaths to all witnesses collectively at the beginning of the hearing. (c) The definition of unfit building is too vague: Renton Municipal Code (RMC) Section 1-3-5F.3 provides the specific criteria used for identifying an unfit building. This criteria is the same as listed in RCW 35.80.030. (d) The building should be ordered to be repaired, not demolished: The standards to be applied for unfit buildings are listed in RMC Section 1-3-58.2 and are those used in the Directors final decision on this matter. The City is authorized to require demolition of unfit buildings by RCW 35-80-030(d). (e) The City_ did not follow proper procedures for the Order to Correct: The Unfit Building regulations for the City of Renton, listed in RMC 1-3-5, do not include any requirements for an "order to correct". The City staff elected to send an "order to correct" as an additional courtesy to the property owner to encourage voluntary compliance with City codes. The unfit building complaint process does not require an Order to Correct, and cannot be compromised by any portion or wording of the order to correct process. (f) The search warrant is defective due to the vagueness of the code: There is no evidence that the code is vague in regards to either nuisance requirements or Diane Miller Unfit Building , _,ring July 15, 2003 Page 11 of 14 unfit building regulations. Much of the evidence presented in this complaint hearing, including testimony from the property owner, was separate from any information provided by the search warrant process. DECISION — UNFIT BUILDING COMPLAINT: 1. The abandoned house located at 16855 - 1251h Ave SE in Renton, Washington, is hereby determined to be an unfit building. The building has been abandoned for at least ten years or longer according to statements presented at the public hearing and made to City staff by neighbors of the property. There is currently no utility or electric service to the house. The building is in a state of severe disrepair, including a failed roof and exposure of the interior of the house to the elements via holes in the roof. The house is in a condition of dilapidation and potential structural failure. The interior of the house is gutted, including parts of the floor, plumbing system, and electrical system. City staff testimony indicates that the magnitude of the repairs necessary to restore this building to compliance with applicable building codes would exceed 50% of the assessed valuation for the building. 2. The City's purpose for adopting its Unfit Building regulations, as authorized by RCW 35.080, are stated in RMC Section 1-3-5A. It is important in understanding this decision, and the City's action in this case, to review the City Councils' intentions as adopted and expressed in this purpose statement which reads as follows: "Purpose. It is found that there exists in the City of Renton dwellings that are unfit for human habitation and buildings and structures that are unfit for other uses due to dilapidation, disrepair, structural defects, defects increasing the hazards of fire, accidents or other calamities, inadequate ventilation, inadequate light or sanitary facilities, inadequate drainage, overcrowding, or due to other conditions that are inimical to the health and welfare of the residents. It is further the purpose of this section to provide a means of demolishing structures heavily damaged by fire, weather, earth movement or other causes, which have been allowed to sit in the damaged condition without repair for an extended period of time as set forth in this ordinance." Robin Miller, the property co-owner, has stated his preference to repair the house, rather than demolish the uninhabitable structure. However, the house has been in a state of considerable disrepair for many years, perhaps as long as twenty years. The burden placed upon the neighbors by this blighted condition must be considered in the decision to require demolition of the structure instead of continuing to wait for repairs to be completed by the property owners. Robin Miller, property co-owner, has made no commitment or offer to a specific schedule of repair. Further, he has not requested or obtained any type of building permits over the many years to make repairs. The City's Building Official testified that the current structure is in such a Diane Miller Unfit Building F___ ing July 15, 2009 Page 12 of 14 damaged state of repair that the cost to repair the structure to current building codes exceeds 50% of the valuation of the house_ No evidence was provided by the defendant's lawyer or the defendant's husband, co-owner Robin Miller, to contradict this testimony. The subject structure meets the criteria listed in City code for demolition. 3. The corrective action required for the abandoned house, located at 16855 - 125" Ave SE, is demolition. The property owner is to obtain necessary demolition permits from the City of Renton within 60 days of the issuance of this decision and complete removal of the structure within 90 days of the issuance of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, the demolition permit must be obtained by the owner on or before September 15, 2009, and the building must be demolished by October 15, 2009. 4. The property owner must pay the City of Renton the fees and costs assessed under RMC 1-3-5.H, which include staff and legal costs associated with this unfit building complaint_ The amount now due to the City is $5,361.26, and is itemized as follows: $1,500.00 Per RMC 1-3-5 for Abatement Following the Hearing $ 36.82 Mailing costs and King County fees $ 759.81 Code Compliance Costs $ 2,714.63 Police Officer Costs 350.00 Attorney Fees $ 5,361.26 Total This amount is to be paid within 90 days of the issuance of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, these fees and costs must be paid to the City of Renton on or before October 15, 2009. If these fees and costs are not paid to the City by October 15, 2009, they may be assessed by the City of Renton against the real property as a lien. S. The property is to remain vacated and secured pending demolition of the house. Following demolition of the house the area shall be cleared of all debris and unsuitable fill materials then filled and hydro -seeded or sodded for permanent restoration of the site. G. if the conditions of this decision are not completed by October 15, 2009, the City of Renton may proceed with abatement of the unlawful condition. An additional fee of $3,000.00 will be assessed at that time. All costs and expenses incurred by the City in the abatement of this unfit building may be assessed against the real property as a lien unless paid. Actual costs shall include, but are not limited to, the costs of staff time, including overhead, contracted engineering fees or consultant fees, costs of Diane Miiler Unfit Building —aring July 15, 2009 Page 13 of 14 demolition, removal and restoration, and any attorney's fees incurred in having the structure declared an unfit building. 7. The owner has the right to appeal this decision to the City of Renton Hearin Examiner within 30 days from the date of this decision. Based upon a decision date of July 15, 2009, an appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. August 17, 2009. Such an appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk, accompanied by a filing fee of $75.00. The written appeal must set out the reasons the owner believes the findings or order of the Director to be erroneous. 8. Unless the property owner appeals this decision within the 30 days from the date of this decision or complies with this order, the City shall have the power, without further notice or proceedings, to vacate and secure the building and do any act required of the owner in the order of the Director, and to charge any expenses incurred thereby to the owner and assess them against the property. 9. If no appeal is filed, a copy of this order shall be filed with the auditor of King County, Washington, and shall be a final order. ORDERED THIS 15T" day of July 2009. NEIL WATTS, DIRECTOR (Parties of Record and attached exhibits may be viewed in the City Clerk's office along with the official decision.) Diane Miller Unfit Budding _-ring July 1s, 2009 Page 14 of 14 TRANSMITTED THIS 15T" day of July 2009 to the following: Diane Miller (Decision sent by Certified Mail and First Class Mail) 1814SE21"PI Renton, WA 98055 Mayor Denis Law Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison Charles Karlewicz, Renton Police Dept. Marty Wine, Assistant CAO Robin Miller Kirk C. Davis David Pargas, Renton Fire Dept. Larry Meckling, Building Official Kevin Milosevich, Police Chief Alex Pietsch, CED Administrator Renton Reporter Parties of Record DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HEARING EXAMINER PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2009 AGENDA COMMENCING AT 9:00 AM, COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7TH FLOOR, RENTON CITY HALL The application(s) listed are in order of application number only and not necessarily the order in which they will be heard. Items will be called for hearing at the discretion of the Hearing Examiner. PROJECT NAME: Lakeside Fairwood Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-079, ECF, SHPL-H, CAR PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting approval of a Short Plat for the subdivision of a 1.34- acre parcel into 8-lots for the eventual development of single-family residences with a tract for stormwater detention. The applicant is also requesting a Critical Areas Exemption in order to disturb a small Category 3 Wetland (610 sf on -site, 828 sf total). Additionally, a street modification for right-of- way less than 50-feet is being requested. The site generally slopes downward toward the center with a 6-foot landscape berm in the eastern portion of the site and a man-made slope of greater than 15% in the northwest corner of the site. The proposed project is in the Residential - 8 du/ac (R-8) zone and has a proposed density of 8.0 dwelling units per net acre. Lots range in size from 4,520 to 6,701 square feet. The site would be accessed from 116th Avenue SE via a new road. An existing house and garage are proposed to be removed. PROJECT NAME: Miller Unfit Dwelling Appeal PROJECT NUMBER: LUA09-097, AAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Appeal of the Administrative decision of the Development Services Director determing the abandoned house located at 16855 125`h Avenue SE as an unfit building. HEX Agenda 9-8-09.doc 0.7 1 Hearing Examiner Fred J. Kaufman Denis Law, Mayor August 20, 2009 Diane E. Miller 1814 SE 2151 Place Renton, WA 98055 RE: Findings & Order of Director, Neil Watts Appeal Unfit Dwelling, Building & Structures --- 16855 125`1' Ave SE, Renton Dear Mrs- Miller: This office has received your appeal letter on the above referenced matter. Please be advised that the appeal hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 8, 2009 to begin not before 10:00 a.m. The hearing will take place in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. The address is 1055 S Grady Way in Renton. If this office can provide any further assistance, please address those comments in writing, Sincerely, ;.. Fred J. Kaufman` Hearing Examiner City of Renton Encl; Copy of Appeal Letter cc: Larry Warren, City Attorney Mark Barber, SnAssistant City Attorney Neil Watts, Development Services Director Chip Vincent, Planning Director Jennifer Henning, Current Planning Manager Stacy Tucker, Development Services 1055 South Grady Way - Renton, Washington 98057 - (425) 430-6515 LTl ?! Is oaecr ro; i:m ; 50',:. ; Pe'(: ad r^-:aFe'na l ']i i°:�, —1 mnci Omar R ENTr C NT. YlN Notice of Appeal August 17, 2009 To: Office of the Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 S. Grady Way 98057 Subject of Appeal: Findings & Order of Director, Neil Watts, July 15, 2009 F(Y C'.LERK'9 ClF;`x, Re: Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures Hearing — 16855, 125t' Ave. SE, Renton, WA The undersigned hereby serves notice of intent to appeal the subject Findings & Order dated by Director Neil Watts on July 15, 2009. This appeal is based on the undersigned's belief that the subject Findings & Order are erroneous for specific reasons which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Lack of Due Process under Renton Municipal Code 2. Lack of Due Process under the Revised Code of Washington State 3_ Erroneous Findings of Fact 4. Erroneous Conclusions based thereon 5. Unreasonable Decision and Imposition of fees and costs based thereon Please find check #6816 (attached herewith) as payment in full of the requisite $75.00 filing fee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �r Diane E_ Miller 1814 SE 21'` Place Renton, WA 98055 Notice of Appeal — August 17, 2009 Page 1 of 1 LQ tL.'f,_v a'cv1 r4v. yr 13t r15Lid 1 J l1)166 I vo.,J � U�x.ni i�crtrr�v. ' 1 _ i SR08-0350 Cog-0279 NARRATIVE FOR COMPLAINT FOR UNFIT DWELLINGS, BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, RMC 1-3-5 VIOLATOR: Miller, Diane E. VIOLATION 16855 1251h Ave SE ADDRESS: Renton, WA PARCEL #: 1432400135 OWNER 1814 SE 21" PL ADDRESS: Renton, WA 98055 SUPPORTING Section 1: DOCUMENTS: Service Request: SR08-0350 Order to Correct: C09-0279 Delivery Confirmation #: 0300 1290 0008 1608 2486 Receipt & Acknowledgement Declaration of Service of Order to Correct Archive Photos — Exterior - 2008 Archive Photos — Interior - 2008 2009 Photos — April 14, 2009 May 26, 2009 Letters From: Lawyer Raymond W. Ejarque Section 2• Current Fee Charges Complaint For Unfit Dwellings, Buildings & Structures Declaration of Service Officer James Gould Declaration of Service: Posted on House — 5/26/09 by Donna Locher, 10:2 1 A.M. Mailed to Diane E. Miller Certified Mail Delivery Receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7858 Delivery Confirmation Receipt # 0300 1290 0008 1608 I625 Mailed to Robin D. Miller Certified Mail Delivery Receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7872 Delivery Confirmation Receipt # 1 0300 1290 0008 1608 1632 Receipts & Acknowledgements for Certified Mail Delivery and Delivery Confirmation letters Certified Mail Receipt Mailed to: Receipt & Acknowledgement Certified Mail Receipt: Receipt & Acknowledgement 7008 1300 0000 4988 7889 Dept. of King County Dept. of Records 7008 1300 0000 4988 7865 Mailed to King County Dept. of Development & Environmental Cover Letter to Parties of Record attached to Complaint for Unfit Building. The following were notified via First Class mail: Stephen Perkins 17103 125th Ave SE Renton, WA. 98058 Gary & Donna Palmer 17104 125Ih Ave SE Renton, WA. 98058 George Runne 16835 125th Ave SE Renton, WA. 98058 Patricia Schmidt 17309 125th Ave SE Renton, WA. 98058 Notice of Public Hearing Photos Taken 6/04/09 Section 3: King County Real Estate Tax Property Report Warranty Fulfillment Deed Renton Parcel Map Renton Utility Billing Record 2 Section 4: Documents/Robin D. Miller Citation Index C08-0182 Renton Municipal Court Docket, CR0047955 & CR0039568 King County Code Enforcement File RMC VIOLATION: 1-3-5, as Defined by 1-3-4 A 11 c 22: Unfit Dwellings are defined in Renton Municipal Code 1-3-4 A 11 c 22 as "Unfit or Abandoned Structure: Any structure, which has been damaged by fire, weather, earth movement, or other causes, and which is not fit for occupancy, and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days; or where the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure once repaired; or such a damaged structure whose owner shows no intention of completing or making substantial progress on completing such repairs within 90 days." A complaint concerning an unfit building at 16855 1251h Ave SE, parcel # 1432400135, was received on March 05, 2008. Service request SR 08-0350 was generated and assigned to Inspector Marilyn Kamcheff who made an on site inspection on March 11, 2008. This inspection confirmed that the building on the property is not fit for occupancy and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days. I observed the house on the property addressed at 16855 125th Avenue SE, parcel Number 1432400135, to be in a state of disrepair. There were shingles missing from the roof, rotted fabric tacked on the roof with wood strips, there was green frayed material secured along the roofline covering the gutter area with exposed roof beams that had obvious dry rot. There were two front windows boarded -up with plywood. The wall between the boarded windows was sagging. A review of the files regarding this property found the following: This property was annexed into the City of Renton on March 1, 2008. King County Department of Development and Environmental Services had served this property owner with complaints for "Hazard -Vacant Home Open to Entry, An Accumulation of Inoperable Vehicles Throughout Property. This file is in Section 4 of this report. My report follows: On April 14, 2009,1 revisited the Miller property and noted that the unfit building had not been improved, or changed. Pictures were taken at the time of the site inspection. These pictures show that there were shingles missing from the roof, rotted fabric tacked on the roof with wood strips, there was green frayed material secured along the roofline covering the gutter area with exposed roof beams that had obvious dry rot. There were two front windows boarded -up with plywood. The wall between the boarded windows was sagging. Vines have grown up through the gutters and what appears to be vines are extending out of the roof area. 3 A check of King County records listed the property owner as Robin D. Miller. Further investigation revealed that Diane E. Miller was also listed as property owner. An Order to Correct, C09-0279 was sent to Mrs. Diane E. Miller April 14, 2009, advising her of the unfit building and the corrective action as required under Renton Municipal Code 1-3-5. The property owner was allowed four (4) weeks to comply, until May 15, 2009. This Order to Correct was sent USPO Delivery Confirmation service, # 0300 1290 0008 1608 2486. A check of the Track and Confirm computer system offered on line by the USPO, noted that the Order to Correct was delivered to the mailing address of 1814 SE 2 1 " PL, Renton, WA, at 2:37 P.M. on April 15, 2009. May 01, 2009: A letter from the law offices of Raymond W. Ejarque was received. Along with this faxed letter was a letter dated April 24, 2009. Both Ietters were received for the first time on May 1, 2009. No response was generated for these letters. May 18, 2009: An on site inspection of the property was conducted. The unfit building with frayed tarps on the roof, shingles missing, vines growing through the gutters and roof, windows boarded up and walls sagging was the same condition that was observed on April 14, 2009. A Complaint for Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures document was prepared and forwarded to the City attorney for review. Once reviewed and approved by the City attorney the complaint was sent on May 26, 2009, to Diane E. Miller, Certified Mail, receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7858. Confirmed delivery at 2:16 P.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system. This document was also sent Delivery Confirmation, receipt # 0300 1290 0008 1608 1625. Confirmed delivery at 2:15 P.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system. The complaint was also sent to Robin D. Miller, Certified Mail, receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7872. Confirmed delivery at 2:16 P.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system. This document was also sent to Robin D. Miller, Delivery Confirmation, receipt # 0300 1290 0008 1608 1632. Confirmed delivery at 2:15 P.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system. Additional copses were sent to King County Records Auditor, certified mail receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7889. Confirmed delivery at 9:55 A.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system; King County Department of Development and Environmental Services, certified mail receipt # 7008 1300 0000 4988 7865. Confirmed delivery at 2:14 P.M. on May 27, 2009, via USPS computer Track & Confirm system. An additional copy was routed to the City of Renton Police Department to be served to Mrs. Diane E. Miller. A Declaration of Service was prepared and completed for these transactions. 4 Police Officer James Gould served the complaint on May 28, 2009, at 4 P.M. (1600 Hours) by leaving a copy of the complaint with Mr. Rabin D. Miller. The Complaint for Unfit Dwellings, Buildings and Structures, was posted at the property on May 26, 2009, at 10:21 AM. by Code Compliance Inspector Donna Locher. No further contact has been made with Mrs. Diane E. Miller. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. r" signed on (' in Renton, Washington (lnsp or's Signature) Service Request: SR08-0350 _ Inspector. Marilyn Kamcheff SR Opened: 03/05/2008 Next Contact With Requestor: Address 1 Location of Inquiry: 16855 125TH AVE SE REN Description: House is "quite a dump." Vacant "for many years." Roof falling in. Tagged trailer. Downed trees. Rats on property. Existing issue with King County Code Enforcement, ref# E07-00024 Requesting callback re: What can be done on this issue? 12/8/08 - Same Requestor - New Request Sometime over the weekend someone 'tagged' the house. Graffiti Owner lnf+drmation.- . Violatolr.Information Reclues6nr Infolnnation Name: MILLER ROBIN D Name: ROBIN D. MILLER Name: STEVE PERKINS Address: 1814 SE 21ST PL RENTON WA Phonel: 425-271-0959 Compny:1814 SE 21 ST PL Address: RENTON WA 98066 Compny: Address: Phonel: 425-271-0959 Phonel: 425-226-8448 Email: Email: Email: Date: April 14, 2009 Location of Violation: Owner(tax-payer) Issued To: Address: ORDER TO CORRECT F lf.f-. MIP*-Ii.7_P1:&," DIANE E MILLER DIANE E MILLER 1814 SE 21ST PL RENTON WA 98055 Service Request No. SR08-0350 Violation Index No. C09-0279 An inspection of the above premises revealed violations) of the City of Renton Municipal Code and Ordinances listed below. Compliance or corrective action must be completed by 05/15/2009. If voluntary compliance is not achieved, a Criminal Citation MAY be issued. The penalty for a Criminal Citation, upon a finding of guilt may be up to ninety (90) days in jail and up to a $1000.00 monetary fine. CODE SECTION CITED: DATE OF INVESTIGATION: DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION CORRECTIVE ACTION: Delivery Confirmation # 0300 1290 D008 1608 2486 Renton Municipal Code 1-3-5 03/11/2008 Unfit Building The building official has determined that the dwelling located at 16855 125th Ave SE, Renton, Washington, King County parcel number 1432400135 is unfit for use as a dwelling. The structure does not contain the necessary elements of a dwelling unit, that are separate living quarters with cooking, sleeping and sanitary facilities The Development Services Director has ordered the dwelling to be repaired. The City of Renton has adopted regulations governing Unfit Dwellings. Unfit Dwellings are defined in Renton Municipal Code 1-3-4 A 11 c 22 as "Unfit or Abandoned Structure: Any structure, which has been damaged by fire, weather, earth movement, or other causes, and which is not fit for occupation, and has been abandoned or unoccupied by lawful tenants for a period of 90 days; or where the cost of repair exceeds the value of the structure once repaired; or such a damaged structure whose owner shows no intention of completing or making substantial progress on completing such repairs within 90 days." Within thirty (30) days you are required to submit approved building plans for the repair of the dwelling unit. Within ninety (90) days from the date the plans are approved, construction and the required inspections shall be completed and approved. Or apply for a demolition permit to remove the structure. In the event you do not comply with the time periods described above or the unfit building cannot be repaired so that it no longer exist in violation, the dwelling unit shall be demolished. In the event the City of Renton completes the abatement of the unfit dwelling actually costs will be incurred. Those costs shall be assessed against the real property upon which such costs were incurred as a lien unless paid. An explanation of the cost is as follows: Costs: 1. Actual costs and expenses will be assessed in accord with the provisions of this section, including the cost of repairs, alterations, improvements, vacating and closing, removal, and/or demolition. Actual costs shall include the costs of staff time, including overhead, contracted engineering fees or consultants' fees, relocation assistance payments including interest and penalties, and any attorney's fees incurred in having the dwelling, building or structure declared unfit, in any hearing before the director or hearing examiner, or in Superior Court obtaining any warrant for entry or order of abatement. 2. The costs of abatement, repair, alteration or improvement, or vacating and closing, or removal or demolition, when borne by the City, shall be assessed against the real property upon which such costs were incurred as a lien unless paid. 3. Bids for demolition shall be let only to a licensed contractor. The contract documents shall provide that the value of the materials and other salvage of the property shall be credited against the costs of the demolition. The contract documents may require bidders to estimate the salvage value of the property and, by claiming the salvage, reduce the amount of his bid accordingly. Such bids may be let prior to the time for compliance or appeal but shall not be binding or accepted until the order for demolition is final. The building official shall have the authority to sign the contract on behalf of the City. 4. There shall be charged against the owner and assessed against the property of any boarded -up building an annual inspection fee of $250.00. Such fee shall be payable at the time the building becomes a boarded -up building. The hearing examiner or director shall order a refund of the proportional amount not due if the building is reoccupied or demolished. Subsequent annual fees shall be payable on or before the time the preceding annual fee has been exhausted. 5. In addition to actual abatement costs, the following administrative fees shall be assessed and collected in the same manner: a. Where abatement is accomplished prior to director hearing: $300.00; provided, the building official may waive these fees if abatement is complete 48 hours prior to a director hearing; b. Where abatement is accomplished subsequent to or less than 48 hours prior to a director hearing: $1,500; c. Where abatement is accomplished following breach of an agreement or understanding between a property owner and building official, director, or hearing examiner. $3,000; d. Where the abatement is accomplished by the City following hearing or default of the property owner: $3,000. Issued By: Marilyn Kamcheff Code Compliance Inspector Department of Community & Economic Development Development Services Division Phone No: 425-430-7269