Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLam decision & ltr Denis Law Mayor R City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC May 16, 2018 Mr. Stanley Lam 5210 NE 8th Place Renton, WA 98058 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision - Code Compliance Violation Code Case No: CODE-18-000071 Dear Mr. Lam: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated May 15, 2018, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector Sandra Pedersen, Finance 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov 1 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION—APPEAL OF FINDING OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT (CODE18-000071) Appellant: Stanley Lam Central Highlands Plaza Apts 5210 NE 8j'PI Renton, WA 98059 Alleged Violation: No building permit. Location of Violation: 205 Logan Ave S Renton, WA 98057-2018 Public Hearing: April 10, 2018 Decision: Finding of Violation sustained; $250 fine due by June 22,2018. Corrective action (submission of demolition permit application)due by May 31,2018. SUMMARY OF DECISION This decision constitutes a final decision on the appeal of a Finding of Violation as well as an Order to Correct as defined in RMC 1-3-2(B)(6). The Appellant has been charged with being in control of property that has been improved without required building permits as required by RMC 4-5-060. The violation is sustained. Payment of the $250 fine is due by June 22, 2018. Corrective action (submission of demolition permit application) is due by May 31, 2018. Failure to meet the deadlines for corrective action may subject Appellant to criminal prosecution for incarceration and additional fines. SUMMARY OF HEARING TESTIMONY Rob Shuey,Renton Code Compliance Inspector,stated that the City was approached by a tenant of an apartment that had been constructed without permits.The building had no smoke detectors,didn't meet code for habitability,and electrical was installed without permits. Mr. Shuey entered the tenant's apartment with permission and took photographs. It became clear that a section of the first floor of the north side of building had been remodeled into apartments from storage or service space. The property had previously been a tire shop.A bathroom had been built that did not meet codes.This was the reason for an initial Warning of Violation. Mr. Shuey acknowledged that Mr. Lam had been very forthcoming. There had been a church in the property that was not supposed to be there,and they had placed the tenant who is still living there into one of the apartments.Mr.Lam went out with Mr.Shuey and the plan's examiner to get an idea of what the city would expect for bringing the property under code compliance. However,last time Mr.Shuey spoke to Mr.Lam,there was still a tenant residing in one of the apartments.As far as Mr.Shuey can tell,nothing has been changed to bring the building up to code. Mr.Lam stated that he has two issues in getting the property up to compliance: Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 2 First,he is still in the process of evicting the tenant living in Unit B. The tenant had been invited to live there by the church. Mr.Lam told the church to tell the tenant to move out of the unit,but the tenant did not,and Mr.Lam is trying to do an eviction. Second,he got a notice from the city for a violation. The remodeling was not done by Mr.Lam or the property owner.When he started managing the building,the remodel was already in the building, so he doesn't know if there is a permit. The city inspector has told him it is not permitted,but he didn't know and will try to make a correction if that is the case.He is currently unable to make corrections or changes because the tenants are still there. Mr. Lam stated that he did reach out before the hearing to Mr. Shuey who told him he had to go through the court to get permission from the Hearing Examiner to get the tenant out of the building,so he could do the work.Mr.Lam explained that he and the city inspector have both tried talking to the tenant to get them to move out,but the tenant has not done so. Mr.Lam confirmed that this is the same tenant that the church brought in.Mr.Lam visited the second floor the previous week and most of the furniture was gone except the bedroom still had a bed. Mr.Lam says he saw that people are still living there; the heating is still being used and the bed still there.Mr. Lam confirmed that he uses an eviction company called LT Service, who sent a 20-day eviction notice to the tenant. He stated that the notice was for the end of March,the 30th or 31st. In addition, he sent an email to the eviction company telling them to move forward. They replied and said that they were working on it. The Examiner noted that Mr.Lam appears to have a pattern of problems with evicting tenants as he provided a similar defense in another hearing with the Examiner. Mr. Lam explained that the last tenant was just a bad tenant,but this circumstance is different because the church placed the tenant. He did not invite the tenant, so it is not in his control. The church has moved out but the tenant in Unit B has not. Mr. Shuey explained that the building was rented to an entity and either the entity or someone previously did work inside the building without a permit.Two illegal apartments were created,and the first floor was finished.He contends that whether the tenant leaves is irrelevant.It doesn't stop Mr.Lam from applying for permits to bring the properties into compliance.The work should have been started long ago but it has not. Mr. Lam denied knowing that the property was illegally remodeled. He stated that they had no idea that the space had been remodeled nor what occurred before he was managing the property. If he had knowledge that remodeling was occurring, he would have told them to stop. Mr. Shuey stated that he and his associates had been in the building and the last permit that they issued was for(he thinks) a tire shop and when they entered the building at that time it looked nothing like it does now.He argued that even if the owner is unaware of his tenant doing work to the property they have responsibility for what happens in the building. Mr. Shuey requested that the Examiner set a timeline to get the process going as part of his decision.Examiner replied in the affirmative and stated that deadlines set by his decision are not met then it is a criminal offense. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-9 as identified in the City's exhibit list were admitted into the record during the April 10,2018 hearing. In addition,three photographs taken by Mr. Shuey on April 10,2018 were admitted as Exhibit 10. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Property Manager. Stanley Lam manages the subject property. 2. Property. The subject property is located at 205 Logan Ave S. The property is developed with a commercial building. 3. Finding of Violation. A Finding of Violation("FOV")was issued to Mr.Lam on March 1,2018. The FOV asserts that residential tenant improvements have been made to a commercial building on the subject Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 3 property without a building permit as required by RMC 4-5-060. 4. Appeal. Mr. Lam filed an appeal of the FOV on March 9, 2018. 5. Tenant Improvements. It is determined that tenant improvements were constructed without building permits on the subject property. It is uncontested and the City's code inspector personally observed the tenant improvements located at the subject property. Ex. 2 and Shuey hearing testimony. The improvements have been photographed. See Ex. 8 and 9. The improvements are composed of two apartments located on the second floor of the northwest corner of the building and finish work on the first floor of the northwest corner of the building. 6. Compliance History. The violations were first brought to the attention of the City by one of the tenants of the illegally constructed apartments, who had concerns over mold, a water leak and fire safety. Upon investigation of the subject property in response to the complaint,the City ascertained that the NW portion of the commercial building had been converted into two apartments without required building permits. Mr. Lam was first contacted about the violation on February 7,2018 by telephone and a Warning of Violation was also issued that day for the building permit violations. The Warning of Violation required Mr.Lam to apply for building permits within ten calendar days of the date of the Warning of Violation. Mr. Lam had not applied for building permits by March 1, 2018 so on that date the City issued the FOV, the subject of this appeal. The FOV required Mr.Lam to apply for a demolition permit within ten days of the date of the FOV. As of the date of the hearing on April 10, 2018, Mr. Lam had not yet applied for any demolition permit. Mr. Lam noted he is in the process of evicting the tenant and is unable to take corrective action until he does so. This is the second FOV appealed by Mr. Lam involving property managed by Mr. Lam. In the first FOV, Case No. 17-000466, Mr. Lam was charged with unauthorized land use, junk vehicle and bulky waste violations of a tenant. In that case as well Mr. Lam asserted that he was unable to undertake corrective action before completing eviction of the tenant. In that case the City advised Mr.Lam of compliance issues over a two-year period from the(at the time)current tenant and a prior tenant. For those reasons,the fines were not reduced for that appeal on the basis of lack of tenant control. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-3-2. 2. Code Violation: The code violations identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-5-060(E1(1)): 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by the Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 4 3. Appellant in Violation. The Appellant has violated RCW 4-5-060(E)(1). As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5,tenant improvements comprising an alteration of the commercial building on the subject property occurred without a building permit. Mr. Lam is not the owner of the property, but he qualifies as a "violator" who is responsible for code violation on the subject property. RMC 1-3-2(B) defines a"violator"to include any person in control or owner's agent of property. RMC 1-3-2(C)(2)(a) authorizes the issuance of an FOV against any "violator" upon discovery of a civil code violation. 4. No Bases for Mitigation of Fines. There is no bases for reducing the fines of the FOV. Mr.Lam asserts that he was unable to take corrective action because he was in the process of evicting the tenants. However,Mr. Lam did not need to evict the tenants in order to take the corrective action, which was to apply for demolition permits. Even if he did need to access the property to apply for the permits,there is no evidence to suggest that his tenants would have denied him access. The tenants granted access to the City's code inspector to review the property and likely would have been more than willing to grant access to Mr. Lam to review the improvements in order to acquire building permits for the improvements,which was the corrective action required for the earlier Warning of Violation. DECISION The Finding of Violation (CODE18-000071) is sustained, and the appeal is denied. The full $250 in fines, as authorized by RMC 1-3-2(F)(1), remains due and owing to the City of Renton by June 22, 2018. ORDER TO CORRECT The 10-day demolition permit application deadline set in the corrective action of the Finding of Violation (CODE18-000071) is extended to May 31, 2018. All other deadlines and requirements set by the corrective action remain in effect. In lieu of a demolition permit,the Appellant is authorized to apply for building permits to bring the existing improvements up to code if that can be done consistent with applicable building and zoning code standards PROVIDED that all deadlines applicable to a demolition permit shall still apply. The deadlines set by this decision may be extended by City code inspectors as necessary for just cause. Failure to correct as ordered shall subject the Appellant to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-3- 2(F)(2). Failure to comply with an Order to Correct can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties for a misdemeanor are 90 days in jail and$1,000 in fines. DATED this 15th day of May, 2018. Phi A.Olbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.