Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHearing Examiners DecisionCode Enforcement Decision - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: FOV#: CODE21-000182 VIOLATION SITE ADDRESS: 1606 Glennwood Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 PROPERTY OWNER: Radwan Faraj PO Box 1332 Mercer Island, WA 98040-1332 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Finding of Violation. RULING: The two violations are sustained. The record will be left open for a neighbor to be heard on the setting of the fine as outlined in the Summary and Decision sections below. An addendum to this Decision will be issued after hearing from the parties on the amount of the fine. SUMMARY Radwan Faraj appeals a Finding of Violation (FOV) issued on July 15, 2021 asserting two code violations and imposing $250 in fines for each violation. Violation No. 1 is for storage of an unlicensed vehicle on residentially zoned property in violation of RMC 4-4-085D2. Violation No. 2 is for improper storage of garbage cans at a single-family residence in violation of RMC 8-1-4K. Both violations are sustained. Prior to imposing any fines, Daniel Goldman will be given the opportunity to speak about the history of problems associated with the violation site. Mr. Goldman may email his comments to City Clerk’s Office at CMoya@rentonwa.gov if done so prior to 5:00 pm, November 8, 2021. The City may, if it chooses, provide a response by 5:00 pm, November 13, 2021. Mr. Faraj may respond by 5:00 pm, November 15, 20211. The responses and replies shall also be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office. An addendum to this Decision will be issued after hearing from the parties on the amount of the 1 Mr. Goldman submitted numerous emails after the hearing requesting an opportunity to speak. The Examiner is not allowed to consider unauthorized communications about a case after the close of the hearing. See RCW 42.36.060. To avoid violating RCW 42.36.060, none of Mr. Goldman’s emails were reviewed or considered except for his request to be heard. Code Enforcement Decision - 2 fine. HEARING A hearing was held on Mr. Faraj’s FOV appeal on October 19, 2021 virtually using the Zoom application. TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript has been prepared of the hearing to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-8 identified in the City’s exhibit list were entered into the record during the hearing. Four additional photographs were admitted during the hearing as Exhibit 9. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Violation Site. The violation site is located at 1606 Glennwood Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055. The site is owned by Mr. Faraj. 2. July 15, 2021 Finding of Violation. Mr. Faraj appeals an FOV issued against him dated July 15, 2021. The July 15, 2021 FOV alleges two code violations at the violation site: (1) improperly stored unlicensed vehicle in violation of RMC 4-4-085D2; and (2) improperly stored garbage cans in violation of RMC 8-1-4K. 3. Unlicensed Vehicle. An unlicensed motor vehicle, a black Audi WA License BOK8977, was stored on the driveway in open view at the violation site on July 13, 2021. According to the compliance narrative, Ex. 2, staff verified on that date that the Audi’s license had expired as of March, 2020. Mr. Faraj does not deny that this violation occurred. 4. Garbage Cans. Garbage cans were stored in open view along the driveway and between the Audi and the street on July 13, 2021. The compliance narrative, Ex. 2, notes that the garbage cans were located along the driveway and in front of the Audi on June 4, 2021 and that the cans “remain in violation” on July 13, 2021. The July 13, 2021 photographs accompanying the FOV, Ex. 5, show the garbage cans at the end of the driveway and directly adjacent to the sidewalk. In the photos the garbage cans are in plain view from the adjoining public street and do not adjoin the single-family residence or any other structure of the violation site. Ms. Locher testified that she observed the garbage cans placed “along the front of the property” on July 13, 2021. From the July 13, 2021 photographs it is clear that the garbage cans were not placed “curbside” on the sidewalk for pick up since they were not placed on the sidewalk or any point further away from the violation property. Ms. Locher was not able to identify what day of the week the garbage cans are emptied for disposal. However, she did note that it was not July 13, 2021 because if that were the case she would have seen numerous other garbage cans in the surrounding area placed along the street for pick up as well and those cans were not present. Ms. Code Enforcement Decision - 3 Locher did not identify whether it could have been within 24 hours of garbage collection time at the time she observed the garbage cans on July 13, 2021. However, she testified there were not many other garbage cans placed at the curb at the time so it is further determined that more likely than not the garbage cans were found to be placed by Ms. Locher along the driveway more than 24 hours before or after garbage collection. From the photographs of Ex. 5 it is also determined that the violation site is developed with a single-family home. 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. 2 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. Violation No. 1: Unlicensed Vehicle on Residentially Zoned Property (RMC 4-4- 085(D)(2)): It is unlawful for any person to keep, store or park, or to permit any other person to keep, store or park, any disabled vehicle or boat, or unlicensed vehicle or boat, on any residentially zoned property within the City unless that vehicle or boat is stored and parked outside public view within a fully enclosed building at all times. Vehicles and boats which are kept on site and outside of an enclosed building shall be operational and currently registered. 3. Violation Found. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3, the violation site was used to store an unlicensed vehicle in plain view on July 13, 2021. The City of Renton Zoning Map identifies the property zoned as R-8, which qualifies it as residentially zoned. It is concluded that as owner of the violation site, Mr. Faraj, was in violation of RMC 4-4-085(D)(2) on July 13, 2021. Violation No. 2: Unlawful Placement of Garbage Cans; RMC 8-1-4K: Unlawful Placement and Removal of Garbage Cans, Recycling Bins and Yard Waste Carts: It shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single-family residence to place garbage, recyclables, or yard waste at the curbside for collection by the City’s collection contractor more than 24 hours prior to the regular collection date for his or her single-family residence. It shall also be unlawful for a person residing in a single-family residence to leave garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at the curbside more than 24 hours after collection by the City’s collection contractor. Further, it shall be unlawful for a person residing in a single-family residence to maintain, place or store any garbage cans, recycling bins or yard waste carts at a location other than adjacent to the residential structure or within a fully enclosed building or garage. 4. Violation Found. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, on July 13, 2021 garbage cans were stored outside a fully enclosed building or garage and were not stored adjacent to the single family home or any other structure of the violation site. From these facts it is concluded that the garbage cans were stored on that date in violation of RMC 8-1-4K. RMC 8-1-4K does authorize garbage cans to be stored “curbside” up to 24 hours before and after garbage collection. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 4, the garbage cans likely do not qualify as Code Enforcement Decision - 4 placed “curbside” since they’re not located on the sidewalk or any point further from the violation site. Further, even if the storage location qualifies as “curbside,” more likely than not the garbage cans were stored “curbside” more than 24 hours prior to or after collection at the time the violation was observed by Ms. Locher. RMC 1-3-2E3f: Imposition of Fines: The fines for a committed Finding of Violation shall be considered based on the nature of the offense, the impact on the neighbors, neighborhood, or community and the need to discourage such conduct, inactivity or neglect. The Administrator is authorized to impose fines up to and including the maximum fines, or to mitigate the fines, as the Administrator sees fit based on the criteria herein. The payment of a fine does not prevent the City from asserting that the violation continues to exist or from asserting that a new violation has been found. RMC 1-3-2F1: Finding of Violation: A committed Finding of Violation, as described in this section, is a civil code violation, and Violator(s) may be issued a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Nothing in this section is intended to limit or prevent the pursuit of any other remedies or penalties permitted under the law, including criminal prosecution. The payment of a fine pursuant to this section does not relieve a potential Violator of the duty to correct the violation as requested by the CCI or as ordered by the Administrator. 5. Neighbors Allowed to Speak. As identified in the quoted provisions above, the maximum fine that can be assessed against Mr. Faraj for the two FOV violations is a total of $500. The exhibits submitted by Ms. Locher provided a detailed accounting of prior warnings given to Mr. Faraj and the complaint history of the property. All of that information is pertinent to the factors considered in setting the fines for this case and additional information is likely not necessary. However, Mr. Goldman, a neighbor, has expressed a strong desire to address the impacts the violation site has had on his neighborhood. Given that impacts to the neighbors is a relevant consideration to setting the amount of the fine, Mr. Goldman will be allowed to submit written comment addressing neighborhood impacts prior to the setting of the fine. DECISION All violations in the July 15, 2021 FOV are sustained. Prior to the setting of the fine Mr. Goldman is authorized to submit written comment on the impacts of violation site code violations to his neighborhood. Mr. Goldman may email his comments to City Clerk’s Office at CMoya@rentonwa.gov if done so prior to 5:00 pm, November 8, 2021. The City may, if it chooses, provide a response by 5:00 pm, November 13, 2021. Mr. Faraj may respond by 5:00 pm, November 15, 2021. The responses and replies shall also be emailed to the City Clerk’s Office. Decision issued October 30, 2021. Hearing Examiner Code Enforcement Decision - 5 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 of issuance of the final decision, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. This decision shall not be deemed issued for purposes of appeal until the addendum setting the fine is issued. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 11 Appendix A October 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript Faraj Code Compliance Hearing -- CODE21-000182 Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Great. All right. We're back on the record now on code 21/000182, we just took a 10 minute recess to see if Mr. Faraj had a chance to join us. And he has, so let me go over the hearing process today, the city has the burden of proof. So I will go first and explain what the alleged violations are and the evidence they have to back that up. All city witnesses will be cross examination. Mr. Faraj, if you have any questions you want to ask, whenever anyone testifies you, you have that right. Once the city's done presenting their side, then Mr. Faraj you'll have a chance to present your side, your testimony will be under oath. And also you'll be subject to cross examination by the city. And then again, since the city has the burden of proof, they then get to provide any rebuttal evidence that they find necessary. So, Mr. Faraj, you have any questions about what we're doing here today, or what's going on? Cindy: Oh, I muted everyone. I'm sorry. Press your unmute button. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Ms. You'll need to press here. Now. There we go. We can hear you now. Okay, go ahead. Mr. Faraj: Yes. Yes. I understand. Yes. Okay. Can you hear me? Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Yes. Can hear you now. Yeah. Yeah. Did you have any questions about anything or no? Mr. Faraj: No. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Good. Great. All right. Let's move on to Ms. Locher then she's the city's code enforcement officer by state law. I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's presented during the hearing. I can't consider anything else. I haven't talked Ms. Locher or anyone else about this case or seen anything except for exhibits one through which Mr. Faraj should have received a copy in the mail or by email. I see. Exhibit one is the code compliance code narrative two are some inspection requests. Exhibit three is a warning violation. Four, another warning violation. Five is the finding of violation that you appealed. Six is email for Renton police, officer seven, or appeal documents. And then eight is complaints basically from Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 11 citizens. Ms. Faraj Did you receive a copy of these? Have you seen these before? Let me I'll share a screen. So you know what? Oh, Cindy, can you have me enable me to share a screen? Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: You're muted by the way, Cindy. Cindy: Okay. I just, I am adding you as co-host. Go ahead. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Let me put that up. Okay, Mr. Faraj, you should see now the exhibits I was talking about, have you received those documents in the mail or by email? Cindy: And you're still muted. I've muted everyone because there's background noise. Sorry. Okay. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Mr. Faraj you need to unmute yourself. Sorry about that. Mr. Faraj: Yeah. Okay. I'm mute. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Have, have you received these documents Mr. Faraj? Mr. Faraj: Yes. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Did you have any objection to entry the record? Mr. Faraj: Give me just a minute. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Sure. Mr. Faraj: Yeah, Is it only two violations that we're about? Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Let me check here. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 11 Mr. Faraj: These exhibits. I am little confused. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Let me check here. It's one. Yeah. That's two. Is that correct? Ms. Two violations the parking and the garbage cans? Ms Locher: No, let see. Sorry. I was just going through my stuff. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Is it appeal of the July 15th finding violation? Isn't it? Ms Locher: Yes. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Yeah. Ms Locher: Oh, here we go. July 15 was vehicles and Garbage can. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. So yeah, just those two, Mr. Faraj Mr. Faraj: Okay. So these exhibits are not all of them related to those two violations. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: That is correct. And Ms. Locher what's the purpose of all the other complaints you put into the record? Ms Locher: These are the amount of complaints that we've received from 2019 to 2021. The vegetation has been off and on in violation. However, at the time I wrote the finding on July 15th, it was known. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah. Since, if I find that the two violations did occur, the past code compliance issues of the property are relevant to setting the amount of fine. So I'll admit all the documents and Mr. Faraj then have an opportunity to talk about those prior violations. If you want, they don't play a significant role in setting the amount of the fine, but, they just got to show just the history of issues with the property. So I'm going to admit exhibits one through eight and Ms Locher let me, I'm going to swear you in at this point, just raise your right hand. You swear, affirm to the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 11 Ms Locher: I do. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. All right. Go ahead. Ms Locher: Okay. Well, this property has, as I said, been in and out of compliance off and on since 2019, the appeal form is the first acknowledgement from Mr. Faraj that I have a received, I've had no communication with him in the past. And probably before. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Sorry, was that Mr. Faraj? Mr. Faraj: I've talked to her before. I've talked to Ms. Locher before on the. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Yeah. When, when y'all have an opportunity to speak and you can, you can detail those conversations when, when she's done doing her presentation. So, all right, Ms. Locher Go ahead. Ms Locher: Okay. Well, I have not had any, let, let me rephrase that. I have not had any communication with Mr. Faraj on this current code case. We started this on May 3rd, and we started out with grass and weeds over the sidewalk and on the property. We also had disabled or unlicensed vehicles in the driveway and unlawful storage of garbage cans on the property. By the time we got to the last finding, we were down to the garbage cans and the vehicles. City code states that all vehicles must be licensed and operable on the property, or they must be brought into comply and be licensed and made operable or stored in enclosed building, such as a garage. Garbage cans can be put out 24 hours before garbage service pickup and must be removed 24 hours after the garbage has been picked up. The garbage cans consistently have been along the sidewalk area and pulled back onto the property, which is why after the different findings were issued, or excuse me, the warnings were issued. I issued a finding a violation for a vehicle that was unlicensed, inoperable and for the garbage cans, because they had not removed at that time. Ms Locher: Let me just see, give one minute to describe my finding. So the finding that we are appealing today at the time of my inspection, there was a black Audi Washington licensed BOK 8977 that was currently unlicensed and had not moved since the prior warnings were issued. And again, the garbage cans were placed along the front of the property and on the property as total house. And throughout this case, I received a complaint from a police officer who my emailed back and said that we'd had ongoing complaints on this property for quite some time. Ms Locher: The other thing I did was contact section eight because this house is on section eight and asked them to check on the property because in order to be a section eight house, you have to keep the property in Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 11 compliance with city codes at all time. And they told me that they would look into that from their perspective. So I went out yesterday and looked at the property. I don't know if you all got exhibit nine that I sent to Cindy, but we've got vegetation that's well, I guess I can't address that because that's not under this finding, but there will be other things addressed on this property after this hearing. And that's what I have right now. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Let me I'm [inaudible 00:11:32] photographs you have for this filing a violation. Oh, can you enable me to screen again? Cindy: I put you as cohost. Sorry. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay, great. So let's see. The filing violation is the investigation date is July 15th. The photographs that were taken on the 13th. So was the investigation done the 15th or the 13th or both Ms Locher: The 13th. It was, the investigation was done on the 13th. The finding was issued later in, and this is something that we've discussed in the notes that we are currently doing is putting the date of investigation versus the date that we write the finding. And this photo here, you can see the van and the Audi is just to the left of it. It's cans and the vegetation. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: So it's the Audi, the one that's cited as inoperable, is that correct? Ms Locher: Correct. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: And that's because it's unlicensed. Ms Locher: It's unlicensed. It has not moved since the beginning of the case. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. And the garbage cans there, is it a violation of code for it to be located there? Was it, or is it I can put it on the sidewalk? Sometimes Ms Locher: It's both. They're supposed to be up against the house. Sometimes they park them along. I guess you don't park a garbage can, but they put garbage cans along the fence line, which is okay. It's not exactly the code, but it's not exactly against code either. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 11 Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. Let's see here. What, what are these pictures of, or how do they relate to the finding's violation? Ms Locher: These pictures don't they were supplied by the requester. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Oh, I see. Okay. Okay. All right. Got it. Ms Locher: They were just showing off this photo right here that you're showing. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. All right. And Mr. Faraj, do you have any questions to Ms. Locher? Mr. Faraj: So the garbage can violation is not really a violation is what I'm hearing from Ms. Locher? Ms Locher: No, it is a violation when they're up against on the sidewalk in front of the house, in the driveway, that is a violation. Mr. Faraj: Okay. Did you see the neighbors, how they were parking their garbage cans? Ms Locher: I see all kinds of things out there. When, I'm in the field. I go off of the complaints I receive and I follow up only the complaints I receive, unless I, I see a huge violation, then I will address it. But no, I did not observe the neighbors parking the garbage cans. Mr. Faraj: Yeah. I didn't see anything different. As far as the garbage cans there where they're parked different than for example, right across the street, the two neighbors across the street or several other neighbors, they were in the driveway in line with each other, as you can see in the picture there. So I'm not sure how that's a violation since you're saying it's not against, it's not following city code. It's not against city code is it what you're saying. Ms Locher: No, I'm saying it is against to have them along the sidewalk in the front. They're supposed to, according to code, be adjacent to the residential structure or within a fully closed building or garage. So there was a couple times that your tenants did move the garbage cans away from the sidewalk area, the driveway area. So then they were not in violation, but for the majority of the times I visited the property, they were in violation. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 11 Mr. Faraj: They were along the sidewalk. Cause I don't correct. I see only one picture that shows them right on the street. But I think that's because when the garbage was picked up on that day, that's why they were there. Of course I'm not there all the time. And by the way, I'm not the tenant, I'm the landlord. And, so I'm not there all the time. So all I'm seeing is the pictures at this point. And I'm assuming the one picture you showed where they were in the driveway. They're not exactly on sidewalk. So I'm confused about that. Ms Locher: They don't have to be on the sidewalk to be in violation. Mr. Faraj: Okay. And, and that's what I'm saying. If you see the neighbors, I don't see any different as far as plenty of neighbors that are parking, that are garbage cans on the driveways, not too far from the sidewalk. Ms Locher: Okay. And I understand, I understand that you may have seen that, but that's not what's in question here. The neighbors, what we're here for is your property. And I know you said you were not the tenant, you are the property owner, which makes you responsible for your property and your tenants Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: And miss. Well, quick question from me. What date is garbage pickup day for this area Ms Locher: That I don't know right off the top of my head, but I have been out there probably every day of the week and noticed the garbage on this date. It was just the garbage containers out front. Sometimes there was garbage, scattered all over the sidewalk or along the, side of the property. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: So, but it is possible the 13th, when you took the picture could have been a garbage pickup phase, is that right? Ms Locher: It could have, but I did not see any other garbage cans out on the street, which usually indicates I will hold off. If I see that there's, multiple garbage cans out there, because then I do assume that it is garbage day because everybody has their containers. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Got it. Mr. Faraj, do you have any questions? Mr. Faraj: Well, not questions, but I mean I would say that the property, as far as the, what we're questioning here, these two violations is in compliance. We, the vegetation has been cut in the front yard and off the Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 11 sidewalk. And I actually, you can see the pictures of those that, that were submitted from, I think it was yesterday and those exhibits from yesterday. Ms Locher: Yeah. The ones that I submitted, yes. I would agree with you. The front yard has been packed. However, the backyard is sterile, severely overgrown. It's a little bit hard to tell from the photos, but it's still overgrown and there's also vegetation overgrowing onto the roof area as well. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: And Ms. Locher did you, the photographs you for exhibit nine admitted into the record as well, is that correct? Ms Locher: Yes. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Let me share that screen. There we go. And Mr. Faraj, you got a copy of these, right? Mr. Faraj: Yes. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. This is exhibit nine. Did you have any objections over? This is exhibit nine. Okay. Well photographs is exhibit nine. All right. And Mr. Faraj do you have any comments upon it to make? Mr. Faraj: Again, this is in compliance now, as far as what we're discussing today. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Let, let swear again, first quick, Mr. Faraj let me swear you in quick, just raise your right hand. Swear. Affirm. Tell the truth. Nothing but truth in this proceeding. Mr. Faraj: I do Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Yeah, I do. Yeah. Okay, great. Go ahead. Mr. Faraj: I do. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: All right. Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 11 Mr. Faraj: So I've been, working hard to get the tenant. She's a little difficult to work with as far as getting her to, clean up the property and so forth. And it is a slow process, but she is coming around, getting things done. She did actually comply with everything that we're talking about today. As far as the garbage cans, they were, close to the house as close to the house as, as possible. And that's my understanding of, of how it could be in compliance. And then again, she, the vegetation is cut in the front yard and, and, but as far as the backyard, we're, it is, I'm still working on that. And it is a process that I may need to get, hire some help to get that done because the Blackberry Bush is a little difficult to cut rather than just a front yard, cutting the lawn as far as, getting more. It's not as simple as that. And again, it, it should be compliance within a few weeks. Okay. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: All right, Ms. Locher, do you have any questions for Mr. Faraj? Ms Locher: It was my understanding that the current tenant was going to be removed from the house that Rented housing authority was not paying her vouchers for her to stay there any longer. And they were having to trouble getting ahold of her. So can you confirm or deny that if you know the answer? Mr. Faraj: Yeah. They told me that they couldn't reach her and that's after trying to get ahold of somebody there and finally got hold of, I think it was that person's name, gentleman's name, but I gave him the number cause she changed her number and apparently they didn't have her current number. So I gave her number, I think actually it was a lady that I talked to and forgetting her name, but anyway, she called her and, and they're in contact? They got her number. Ms Locher: Okay. And do you understand that section eight? You have to keep the property in compliance with all city codes at all times? Mr. Faraj: Yes. Ms Locher: Okay. So right now you're in violation of section eight housing as well, and I've been in contact with them and I will continue to be in contact with them. And that's kind of a last resort when we have to keep going back to the same property continuously over months or even years and not get compliance. The other thing I wanted to mention is that your appeal was untimely, but I asked if we could go ahead and have it anyway so that we could have conversations about your property and how you intend to keep it clean in the future. Mr. Faraj: Yeah. You can call me at any time you have my phone number. Ms Locher: Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 11 No, I do not. Mr. Faraj: Don't you? Okay. Yeah, I've actually talked to you a couple of times and it was a friendly conversation. We agreed that the vegetation needs to be cut and off the sidewalk. That's the last conversation I had with you. Ms Locher: Okay. And I don't recall that, but that doesn't mean we did not have the conversation, but I guess the one reason I wanted to hearing too, is I want you to know that this is serious and that this property needs to be cupped up at all times. Not just when I send you a notice, because if the property is not in compliance from now on, I'm going to send you a finding with fines and I'm going to take it to my next step is to go to criminal court. And I don't want to do that. And I don't think you want to do that either, but continuously having to address the same property over and over again, the calls that we've had from police to that property are quite numerous. So as a property owner, I just hope that you understand that even though you don't live there, you are in control of the property. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: All right. Ms. Locher, did you have any other comments you wanted to make? I guess that was just your question and answer period. Did you have any evidence or comments you wanted to make on top of that? Ms Locher: No, I don't think so. I, at this point don't feel good waving the fines because it has been such an ongoing process for so long. I would like, a date for Mr. Faraj when he is going to have the property in compliance, if that's possible going forward. I think pretty much that's all I have. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Now I noticed in the code enforcement chapter, there's kind of a, it's separate from the finding of violation and the ruling on that. It's the administrator or designee, which could be me, can issue an order to correct. And if you don't follow the order to correct, that can be cited as a criminal violation except for the prosecutor, if they want to file that or not. And I, I think the code by basically, you know, either I could write that, add that to the decision or the city could do it separately after I issue the decision. I mean, have you been through that order, correct process before? Do you have any preferences to how that's done? Ms Locher: Yes, I do. I have been through that process. I do have a couple case says in criminal court right now. So I guess that's just up to you, I'm willing to do it or you can do it either way. I'm hoping that we won't get to that, you know? That point, but I'm willing to do it if I go back out there and see there's any problems with the property in the future. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. And Mr. Faraj, there, there was, you know, we do have in the record kind of a chronology of a lot of past problems with the property. And I fully understand that, there have been no formal findings Faraj (Completed 10/29/21) Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 11 made or determinations made on those. I mean, in general, do you deny that there have been issues with the property in the past, or it sounds like you said some things have been cleaned up. So that sounds to me like an acknowledgement that there were some, some problems there, but I was just kind of curious about your, your perception about the history of this property. Mr. Faraj: Yes. Yes, of course. You know, there's vegetation that goes and needs to be trimmed and cut and that's in the lease. And if she doesn't follow the lease, I'm willing to go ahead and follow the eviction process. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: Okay. Okay. So I understand that the order's correct. I was talking about is just simply, if I find the violations occurred, I can also tack onto that some requirements that, deadlines, that things be corrected. And then if they're not corrected within the deadlines, then the prosecuting attorney's office has the option of filing criminal charges. And of course, you know, there were talking jail time that, that kind of thing. And I just wanted to understand what that, what that means. It doesn't mean that the criminal charges be filed now or anything like that. It would still have to go through the attorney's office. And clearly, if I do put any, if I do go that route, I, I recognize you're the property owner, not the tenant. And, and of course you would need time to be able to evict the tenant or what have you, if they don't comply with your wishes. Hearing Examiner Olbrechts: So, if I file a violation and I require corrective action, it will take into consideration that you're not the tenant. And you know, that, that there're going to be some, some delays involved in terms of, regarding to tenant comply with the code. So anyway, I'll go ahead and close the hearing. I appreciate all your testimony today. I think the, vehicle violation looks to be very straightforward. I have to think just a little bit about the trash can one, because we don't have any clear evidence that you know, that the alleged day violation was a garbage pickup up there or not. So that, that could affect my ruling on that one. But anyway, thank you again. And we'll get that decision out within the next couple weeks. We're we're adjourned for this morning. Ms Locher: Thank you. Mr. Faraj: Sorry.