Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutle ltr & decision Denis Law Mayor City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC August 14, 2018 Mr. Hoa Le 1812 Elma Av NE Renton, WA 98059 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Case No.: CODE-18-000224 Dear Mr. Le: Attached is your copy of the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated August 14, 2018 in the above- referenced matter. If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /47-:/1 son A. Se Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, Code Compliance Inspector Kevin Louder, Code Compliance Inspector 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: CODE18-000224 ADDRESS: 4526 ne 4TH St Renton, WA 98059-5005 PROPERTY OWNER: Hoa Le 1812 Elma Ave NE Renton, WA 98059 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation INTRODUCTION Hoa Le has been charged with four violations of Renton's Municipal Code for the actions of his tenants for property he owns at 4526 ne 4TH St. The violations are for the most part not contested by Mr. Le and are sustained except for Violation No. 4, since wood chips are too small to qualify as"bulky" waste. However, as acknowledged by Ron Shuey,the City's representative„ Mr. Le's property manager has made a good faith effort to cooperate with the City to compel Mr. Le's tenant to abate the violations. Given these efforts, Mr. Shuey testified it would be reasonable to suspend the $750 fines accruing from the three violations pending the successful eviction of the tenants. Consequently, a fine of$750 in fines is imposed for the code violations of this appeal, but those fines shall be suspended for three months through November 30, 2018. If Mr. Le has successfully evicted his tenants by this date, the $750 in fines shall be deemed waived. Ron Shuey shall have authority to extend the November 30, 2018 deadline to the extent that Mr. Le demonstrates that additional time is reasonably necessary to complete the eviction process. Suspension of the fines is also contingent upon Mr. Le showing proof to Mr. Shuey that he has filed an eviction action with a court of jurisdiction by August 31, 2018. HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on August 16, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, Mason County Commissioner's Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Code Enforcement Decision - 1 TESTIMONY Ron Shuey, Renton Code Enforcement Officer, presented some photographs taken the morning of the appeal hearing as Ex. 11. Mr. Shuey noted that the code enforcement action was initiated by complaint. The property was alleged to be operating a tree removal business at a residence. The residential property was also covered in wood chips and was used to store cars and commercial equipment. Mr. Shuey issued a Warning of Violation and sent it by mail and email. Within 24 hours he received a response from the property manager. Mr. Shuey noted he typically only deals with the property owner (represented by the property manager in this instance) as opposed to the tenants. On 5/23 he took some photographs to see how things were going. He emailed the property manager to let her know there had been no real change with the property other than the removal of two or three cars. All commercial vehicles, stump grinder, bob cat and commercial equipment were still on the property. The property manager assured Mr. Shuey that she would talk to the tenants about either cleaning up the property or face eviction. Mr. Shuey agreed to give the property manager additional time to try to work something out. On June 8 Mr. Shuey drove by again and everything was pretty much the same as it had been before. Mr. Shuey then issued a Finding of Violation. The finding alleged operating a business without a business license, which Mr. Shuey had verified at the website, junk vehicles by virtue of being unlicensed or clearly inoperable from right of way observation, parking in excess of maximum authorized vehicles and storage of bulky waste due to wood chips. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Shuey noted that the bulky waste charge was based upon the wood chips and tree remnants. The front yard used to be a nicely maintained yard with lawn and circular drive. Now it's completely covered in wood chips. The driveway was probably gravel. In a drive by inspection on the day of the hearing, Mr. Shuey counted ten vehicles on the property. Wood chips were still all over the property. Mr. Le, Appellant, stated he "agreed with all the violations." He wasn't aware that as property owner he could be fined for the actions of his tenants. He believes that the person responsible for the violation should pay for it, especially the business license violation. He inquired how he could know whether or not a business is being operated without a license by his tenants.Mr.Le requested reduction of the fines since he was just the property owner. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Le noted that his property manager did contact the tenant upon first hearing from Mr. Shuey and that the manager tried to persuade the tenant to comply. The property manager, Cindy Ginsburgh, testified that she did not disagree with the alleged violations. She tried to get the tenants to comply via email and phone calls. The tenants assured her they were working on the violations but there were no results. On the day that Mr. Shuey issued the Finding of Violation, Ms. Ginsburgh had a ten day eviction notice served upon the tenants. The eviction process can sometimes take a long time. In response to examiner questions, Ms. Ginsburgh stated that she forwarded the Warning of Violation to the tenants by email on the date she received it from Mr. Shuey. Ms. Ginsburgh was not able to state when she contacted the tenant next after the Warning of Violation, except to state that communications were frequent. Ms. Ginsburgh did check on the property between the Warning of Violation and Finding of Violation but did not see much improvement. Mr. Shuey noted that Ms. Ginsburgh has been very cooperative and done what she could to get the tenants to comply. Mr. Shuey had advised Ms. Ginsburgh that he would put the code enforcement Code Enforcement Decision-2 process on hold if Ms. Ginsburgh initiated eviction, but when she didn't do so Mr. Shuey issued the Finding of Violation. Mr. Shuey stated he would be agreeable to an order suspending fines contingent upon the appellant initiating eviction within a couple weeks of the hearing and completion of eviction within six months. EXHIBITS The 10 exhibits identified in the City of Renton Exhibit List,CODE 18-000224 were admitted into the record at the June 25, 2018 hearing. A packet of eleven photographs plus website information taken that morning were presented by Mr. Shuey were admitted as Ex. 11. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The violation site is located at 4526 ne 4TH St, Renton. The site in question is a single family residence owned by Hoa Le, 1812 Elma Ave NE, Renton, WA 98059. 2. Chronology. Rob Shuey, Renton Code Enforcement Officer, first received a complaint about the subject property on April 19,2018. He issued a Warning of Violation on April 20, 2018 detailing five code violations, four of which comprise the violations of the Finding of Violation subject to this appeal. He consulted with Mr. Le's property manager, who assured Mr. Shuey she would work with the tenants to compel compliance. The Warning of Violation required abatement by May 23,2018. Mr. Shuey did a site visit on May 23, 2018 and found four of the five violations still remained. He again consulted with the property manager and extended the compliance date an additional two weeks. Mr. Shuey inspected the property again on June 7, 2018 and found the property still in noncompliance with four of the five regulations identified in the Warning of Violation. Mr. Shuey issued a Finding of Violation alleging the four code violations on June 8, 2018. 3. Violations. Factual findings specific to the four violations alleged in the June 8, 2018 Finding of Violations are addressed below. All findings are for violations located upon the subject property on June 8, 2018. Mr. Le didn't contest any of the facts underlying the findings below: Violation I Operating without a Business License: Mr. Le's tenant was operating a business without a business license. The name of the business was Norwest Tree Services. Mr. Shuey determined the business was operating at the site based upon a webpage advertisement for the service. He determined the business did not have a business license by searching City business license records. Violation 2 Junk Vehicles —Private Property: The following vehicles were on the subject property on June 8, 2018: A 1997 Apollo 25 foot Vessel License WN 121 DU(Expired 06- 30-10), a 2004 Vermeer Brush Chip Trailer license 10721AB (Current), a 1996 Ford Pickup license C07507F (Expired 12-04-17), a 1999 International 4000 Truck license B08929E (Expired 12-04-17), a 2008 BMW 535 License BHL3920 (current), a 1996 Chevrolet Pickup license B94700U(current),a 2007 Ford Pickup license C30747J(expired 04-05-18),a 1995 GMC Topkick Truck license C 77181L(current),a red colored twin axle car hauling trailer(make,model and license unknown),a white Isuzu Cargo Truck GVWR 14,000 (license unknown), a white International 4700 Cargo Truck (license unknown), a Code Enforcement Decision-3 Bobcat Skid-Steer Loader (Commercial Equipment), a Vermeer Stump Grinder (Commercial Equipment),a Covered Utility Trailer(Make, Model and License Unknown). Violation 3 Parking Over Four Vehicles in Residential Zone: More than four vehicles were parked on the subject property as described for Violation 2. The vehicles were not parked within enclosed buildings since they were visible to Mr. Shuey from the public right of way and he noted seeing more than ten in plain view as outlined for Violation No.2 above. Violation 4 Bulky Waste on Private Property. Wood chips generated from on-site tree business were spread throughout entire front of property, including former driveway and yard. 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. Zoning. According to the City's COR map posted at its website,the zoning of the subject property is Commercial Arterial (CA). 3. Owner Responsibility for Tenant Actions. Mr. Le questioned why he is being made responsible for the actions of his tenants, in particular for the tenant's operation of a business without a business license. RMC 1-3-2(B)(l0) defines a "violator" to include any owner of property where a code violation exists. RMC 1-3-2(C)(2)authorizes the City to issue a Finding of Violation against any violator. Taken together, RMC 1-3-2(B)(10) and 1-3-2(C)(2)authorize the City to hold property owner's responsible for any violations committed on the owner's property. However, upon appeal the hearing examiner has the authority to reduce fines to the extent that justice requires, such as in circumstances where the owner could not have been reasonably aware of a violation or where the owner has limited control over the violation. See RMC 1-3- 2(F)(1)(fines may be levied "up to" $250). That is why ultimately the fines of this case may be waived in their entirety if Mr. Le engages in a reasonable effort to evict his tenants since they have failed to cooperate with him in abating the violations subject to this appeal. 4. Code Violations: As identified in Finding of Fact No. 3,the code sections allegedly subject to each violation are as follows: Violation 1: RMC 5-5-3(1). Violation 2: RMC 6-1-3 Violation 3: RMC 4-4-080(F)(10) Violation 4: RMC 8-1-4(E) The code sections cited above are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. Code Enforcement Decision-4 Violation 1 RMC 5-5-3(A)(3) Operating a Business Without a Business License: No person shall engage in Business unless such Business is authorized by a valid City of Renton general business license... 5. Violation 1 Sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the tenant of the subject property was operating a business without a business license on June 8, 2018. The Finding of Violation does not accurately quote from the text of the on-line City business license regulations, but the code violation is clear under both the language of the Finding of Violation as well as that of the provision quoted above. Violation 2 RMC 6-1-3 Junk Vehicles: The storage, maintenance or retention ofjunk, wrecked, dismantled or an apparently inoperable vehicle, vehicle hulk, or any parts thereof on private real property in the City is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and subject to abatement in accordance with this Chapter and RMC 1-3-3, as now worded or hereafter amended. RMC 6-1-2 Junk Vehicle Definition: A vehicle that meets at least three of the following requirements: (1)a vehicle that is three years old or older; (2)a vehicle that is extensively damaged, such damage including but not limited to any of the following: a broken window or windshield, or missing wheels, tires, motor, or transmission; (3) a vehicle that is apparently inoperable; (4) a vehicle that has an approximate fair market value equal only to the approximate value of the scrap in the vehicle's current condition; or (5) evidence of inoperability or damage that includes, but is not limited to, any buildup of debris that obstructs use, or a flat or missing tire or tires, or a nonfunctional motor or transmission, or missing bumpers, or missing license plates, or expired vehicle license plate tabs. RMC 6-1-2 Inoperable Definition: A vehicle that is apparently not functioning or is inoperative or cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads or highways. 6. Violation 2 Sustained for Vehicles with Expired Tabs. The vehicles identified in the paragraph below as having expired tabs are concluded to qualify as junk vehicles that were stored on private property on June 8, 2018 in violation of RMC 6-1-3. Under the definitions above, a vehicle qualifies as a junk vehicle and is thus barred from storage on private property include vehicles with expired tabs. That is the only basis for concluding a vehicle qualifies as a prohibited junk vehicle from the observations reported by Mr. Shuey. The vehicles he identifies as having expired tabs in Finding of Fact No. 3 are the 1997 Apollo 25 foot Vessel License WN121DU (Expired 06-30-10), a 1996 Ford Pickup license C07507F (Expired 12-04-17),a 1999 International 4000 Truck license B08929E(Expired 12-04-17),and a 2007 Ford Pickup license C30747J (expired 04-05-18). Sometimes the state of damage shown in the photograph of a vehicle is enough to establish that vehicle as a junk vehicle under the criterion above, however the limited June 8, 2018 photographs (the violation date) do not show any such damage. Violation 3 RMC 4-4-080(F)(10) Maximum Parking for Residential Uses — Detached Dwellings Outside of Center Downtown Zone: ...A maximum of 4 vehicles may be parked on a lot, including those vehicles under repair and restoration, unless kept within an enclosed building... Code Enforcement Decision-5 7. Violation 3 Sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, more than four vehicles were parked outside on June 8, 2018 in violation of RMC 4-4-080(F)(10). Mr. Le correctly points out that the subject property is not zoned residential, but RMC 4-4-080(F)(10) expressly applies to residential "uses,"not residential "districts." The single family home as depicted in the exhibit photographs is for a residential use, although the property is also concurrently being used for a home business. Violation 4 RMC 8-1-4(E) Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for any person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, except for any licensed ancillary disposal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an area zoned for the collection or disposal of bulky waste. RMC 8-1-2 Bulky Waste Definition: BULKY WASTE: Large items of solid waste, including but not limited to items such as furniture; large household appliances, including but not limited to refrigerators,freezers, ovens, ranges, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, washing machines, or clothes dryers;junk vehicles, vehicle hulks or any parts thereof as defined in RMC 6-1-2, as now worded or hereafter amended;and any other oversized solid wastes which would typically not fit into or be permitted for collection as garbage in garbage cans. 8. Violation 4 Reversed. Violation 4 is not sustained because the wood chips do not qualify as"bulky waste." Although the chips in toto certainly qualify as"large" in volume,the definition contemplates "items" of solid waste that are individually large in scale, such as furniture and appliances. Wood chips do not individually qualify as "large" items. None of the examples in the "bulky" waste definition are small items that collectively are large in volume. They are all large individually and would be commonly understood as"bulky." No one commonly understands an individual wood chip to be "bulky." The wood chips much more easily qualify as unlawful storage of garbage or yard waste under RMC 8-1-4(C), but that is not the provision referenced in the Finding of Violation. FINES Fines are governed by RMC 1-3-2(F)(l)', which imposes a penalty of"up to" $250 per violation. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 3,the"up to" language grants the examiner some discretion in the levying of fines in the interest of justice. As testified by Mr. Shuey, Mr. Le's property manager has been very cooperative with the City and has made some good faith effort in attempting to secure compliance from the tenants of the subject property. For these reasons, Mr. Shuey's The Finding of Violation correctly identifies that RMC 5-5-3(G)requires a"minimum"penalty of$250 for operating without a business. This provision is construed as applying only to business owners operating without a business. The liability of Mr.Le for the actions of his tenants originates from his status as a property owner under Chapter 1-3 RMC. Consequently,his liability for penalties is also construed as subject to Chapter 1-3 RMC, specifically the discretion authorized under the"up to" language of RMC 1-3-2(F)(1). Code Enforcement Decision -6 concurrence with waiver of fines if Mr. Le evicts his tenants within a reasonable amount of time is adopted by this decision. DECISION Violation No. 1, 2 and 3 as identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are all affirmed and Violation No. 4 is reversed for the reasons identified in the Conclusions of Law. $750 in fines is imposed for the code violations of this appeal ($250 for each sustained violation)but those fines shall be suspended for three months through November 30, 2018. If Mr. Le has successfully evicted his tenants by this date, the $750 in fines shall be deemed waived. Ron Shuey and/or his designee shall have authority to extend the November 30, 2018 deadline to the extent that Mr. Le demonstrates that additional time is reasonably necessary to complete the eviction process. Suspension of the fines is also contingent upon Mr. Le showing proof to Mr. Shuey and/or his designee that he has filed an eviction action with a court of jurisdiction by August 31, 2018. Decision issued August 14,2018. Phi A.Olbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days,as required by the Land Use Petition Act,Chapter 36.70C RCW: Code Enforcement Decision -7