Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHo Decision Ltr � Denis Law Mayor � City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC September 29, 2016 Harvey Ho 11128 Rainier Av S Seattle, WA 98178 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision, FOV#: 16-000416 Dear Mr. Ho: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated September 27, 2016, 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 Attachment cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Tim Lawless, Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey, 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: CODE16-000416 ADDRESS: 900 S. 3�d St. Renton, WA 98057-2710 PROPERTY OWNER: Harvey Ho 11128 Rainier Ave S Seattle, WA 98178 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton Hearing Examiner TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation RULING: Appeal Denied; All Fees Sustained INTRODUCTION Mr. Ho has appealed a July 8, 2016 Finding of Violation for a fourth violation of RMC 4-6- 040(I)(4) for owning a sewer line that is openly leaking raw sewage. The appeal is denied and the Finding of Violation is sustained. Mr. Ho asserts that he should not have to pay the fines because delays in correcting the problem were caused by his contractor and a neighboring property owner caused the leak. Neither of these circumstances justifies any reduction in fines. A sewer leak is a serious health hazard. It is incumbent upon any property owner with a sewer leak to correct the problem immediately. The City waited twelve days before issuing its first Finding of Violation against Mr. Ho. Prior to the first Finding of Violation, the City staff had met with Mr. Ho in more than one meeting and Mr. Ho had been advised he needed to repair the leak. By the time the fourth Finding of Violation was issued, which is the Finding of Violation subject to this appeal, sewage had been leaking onto Mr. Ho's property for 23 days. Mr. Ho also appeared to believe that his appeal of the July 8, 2016 Finding of Violation also applied to three previous Findings of Violation for the same sewer leak. It does not. As determined in this decision, the July 8, 2016 Finding of Violation as well as the three previous Findings of Violation were all properly served upon Mr. Ho by emaiL The Findings of Violation all have appeal rights clearly marked on their back side. Since Mr. Ho failed to file a timely appeal of the first three Findings of Violation, the examiner has no jurisdiction to review their validity. Code Enforcement Decision - 1 HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on August 16, 2Q16, at lO:OQ a.m. at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, Mason County Commissioner's Chambers, 1055 Sauth Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Tim Lawless, Code Enfarcement Officer, testified that the broken sewer pipe and associated sewage leak was discovered on Mr. Ho's property on June 15, 2016. In response to exarniner questions, Mr. Lawless clarified that the broken sewer lines are private and not part af the public sewer system. Mr. Ho testifred that he had promptly hired a contractor ta fix the sewage leaks, but that he couIdn't cantrol how Iong it toak the contractor to finish the work, He said he made attempts to taIk to City staff about his efforts to resotve the situation. Ne noted that the cause of the pipe rupture on his property was from activities an neighboring property. Mr. Ho noted that the repairs have been completed. Mr. No stated he didn't receive letters from the City. Mr. Lawless noted that enforcement documents were not mailed ta Mr. Ho but rather emailed because the City was unable to find a valid mailing address for him. In respanse to examiner questions, Mr. Lawler clarified that the Finding of Violation under appeal only covers the Iast $300 violation. The Findings of Violation identify att violations subsequent ta the third violation as "Third Vialation". The time between first natification and repair was approximately a manth. Raw sewage was leaking from the pipes. EXHIBITS Ex. 1 Finding of Violatian dated July 8, 2016r Ex. 2 Scheduling]etter dated July 29,2016 Ex. 3 July 8, 2016 Photograph of outdoor plumbing Ex. 4 July 8,2015 Photagraph af outdoor plumbing Ex. 5 July 8, 2416 Photagraph of dirt Ex. 6 July 8, 2016 Photagraph of plurnbing Ex. 7 Code Activity Report Ex. 8 June 15,2016 photograph plumbing and exposed sewage Ex. 9 June 15, 2016 photograph plumbing and exposed sewage Ex. 10 July 8, 2q16 Finding of Vialation signed appeal FINDINGS OF FACT i The issuance date listed at the top of the Finding of Vialation is typed in as lune 27,2016. However,the signature date is July 8,2016. Since it's clear that the Finding of Viotation wasn't issued until July 8,201 b, it is referred to in this decision as the Ju(y$,2016 Finding of Violation. Code Enforcement Decisian-2 1. The subject property is located at 900 S. 3ra St.. The site in question is largely undeveloped, apparently the former site of a building that burnt to the ground. Harvey Ho, Appellant, owns the subject property. 2. A faulty sewer connection from a private sewer line was discovered on the subject property around June 15, 2016. Raw sewage leaked from this connection as depicted in Ex. 8 and 9. City staff inet with Mr. Ho on more than one occasion to discuss correction of the problem. After these meetings did not result in any repair of the leak, Renton Code Enforcement Officer Tim Lawless mailed the first Notice of Violation to Mr. Ho on June 27, 2016 alleging violation of RMC 4-6-040(I)(4). The Finding of Violation contains a certification from Mr. Lawless that he first sent a Warning of Violation. The Finding of Violation was returned to Mr. Lawless as undeliverable, apparently because the address of the subject property was not a valid mailing address. Mr. Lawless than emailed Mr. Ho a copy the first Finding of Violation along with a second Finding of Violation dated June 28, 2016 on June 28, 2016. Mr. Ho called Mr. Lawless the next day inquiring why he was receiving two Findings of Violation. From this phone call and the code activity report, Ex. 7, it is determined that Mr. Ho received the June 27, 2016 and June 28, 2016 Finding of Violations on June 28, 2016 by email. A third Finding of Violation was emailed to Mr. Ho on June 28, 2016 and a fourth Finding of Violation on July 8, 2016. Mr. Ho appealed the July 8, 2016 Finding of Violation, which is the subject of this appeal. 3. As established by the testimony of Mr. Lawless and the Ex. 8 and 9 photographs, Mr. Ho had exposed private sewer lines on his property leaking raw sewage on June 15, 2016. Mr. Lawless testified and the code activity report confirms that this leak had not been repaired on July 8, 2016, the violation date for the fourth Finding of Violation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authoritv of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violation as provided in RMC 1-3-2. 2. Service of Violation Notices. Mr. Ho claimed he had not received "letters" regarding the sewer violations. It is determined that service of all four Findings of Violation was proper. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 2, City staff were unable to acquire a valid mailing address for Mr. Ho so they emailed all four Findings of Violation instead. RMC 1-3-2(B)(8) allow service of code enforcement documents by "electronic transmission". From the record it is clear that the email address used by Mr. Lawless was correct since Mr. Ho acknowledged receipt of the first two Findings of Violation the day after he received them by leaving a voicemail with Mr. Lawless regarding them. 2. Code Violation: The Finding of Violation of this case (Ex. 1) is based upon the violation of Renton Municipal Code regulations, specifically RMC 4-6-040(I)(4).. The applicable code provision is quoted below in bold and applied via accompanying Conclusions of Law. RMC 4-6-040(I)(4): Maintenance Requirements and Discharge Prohibitions: The owner shall operate and maintain the private sewage disposal facilities in a sanitary marrner at all times, at Code Enforcement Decision-3 no expense to the City. No septic tank or cesspool shall be permitted to discharge to any public sewer or natural outlet. 4. Violation Affirmed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, private sewer lines on Mr. Ho's property were leaking raw sewage. Such a condition does not qualify as operating private sewage disposal facilities "in a sanitary manner" and constitutes a violation of RMC 4-6- 040(I)(4). 5. Cause Irrelevant. Mr. Ho noted that the cause of the leak on his property was due to something that occurred on someone else's property. The cause in this regard is irrelevant. RMC 1-3-2(B)(10) defines a violator as including the property owner. RMC 1-3-2(E) authorizes the issuance of Findings of Violations against all violators. Had Mr. Ho repaired the leak in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. within less than five days), the external cause of the leak may have been applied as a mitigating factor to reduce the fines. However, since at least 23 days had elapsed without repair by the issuance of the subject Finding of Violation, there are no mitigating factors justified for this appeal. DECISION The July 8, 2016 Finding of Violation is sustained and Mr. Ho's appeal is denied. The $300 fine for that Finding of Violation remains due and owing if not already paid. Decision issued September 27, 2016. ��. �--��-yP ��....�'`�__---'�---- Ph►TTi A.Ulbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Aaneal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Code Enforcement Decision-4