Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAdams Decision Denis Law Mayor � � _._ _ _ _ City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC July 31, 2017 Monique Adams 1781198th Avenue South Renton, WA 98055 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Case No.: CODE-16-000518 (Sanitary Drainage System) Dear Ms. Adams: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated July 31, 2017, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Megan M. Gregor, CMC Deputy City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Tim Lawless, 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 OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT, DECISION AND REOUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION—APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION (CODE16-000518) Appellant: Monique Adams 17811 98t"Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Alleged Violations: IPMC 506.1, IPMC 506.2 Location of Violation: 17811 98th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Public Hearing: July 25, 2017 at Renton City Hall. Decision: IPMC 501.1 Violation sustained. $250 in fines due from Ms. Adams within 30 days of the issuance of this decision as required by RMC 1-3-2(C)(2)(c). SUMMARY OF DECISION One of the two violations of the International Property Maintenance Code("IPMC")alleged in the Notice of Violation and Order to Correct is sustained. The $250 fine is also sustained. The record establishes that the appellant does not have her plumbing connected to an approved private sewage disposal system as required by IPMC 506.1 because that septic system has been altered without required permits. The appellant is ordered to take immediate action to acquire approval of all required permits for modifications made to her septic system by August 14, 2017. At the least, such immediate action shall be composed of scheduling a meeting with Mr. Shuey and/or other officials specified by Mr. Shuey for the appellant to identify what modifications have been made to the system and for the City to identify what actions will be necessary to acquire required permits. The appellant shall then take all actions required to obtain the permits pursuant to a reasonable schedule set by Mr. Shuey. In the alternative, the appellant can connect her plumbing to the public sewer system, also pursuant to a schedule set by Mr. Shuey. Failure to take immediate action and to comply with the schedule set by Mr. Shney as required by this Decision is subject to penalties of up to 90 days in jail and fines up to $1,000. The alleged violation of IPMC 506.2 is not sustained. Violation of IPMC 506.2 requires a finding that there is a leak in a plumbing stack, vent or waste and sewer line. Although the record establishes the existence of a leak,the evidence does not establish that the leak arises from any of the required plumbing fixtures. In fact, in his documentation the code enforcement officer theorized that the leak originated from a loose septic tank lid,which if correct would not qualify as a violation of IMPC 506.2. Since the corrective Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 2 action required by this Decision must address sustained violations, there is no basis to require that the appellant fix the leak as required by the subject Notice of Violation and Corrective Action. Corrective action is limited to remedying the sustained violation,which is acquiring required permits for unauthorized modifications to the septic tank. It is anticipated that going through the required permit review will result in the fixing of any leaks as requested by the City, but this is not guaranteed. The appellant is warned that should the septic system continue to leak after obtaining all required permits,the City will likely still have the authority to impose additional fines by citation to more directly applicable code violations (as was done in the Warning of Violation). SUMMARY OF HEARING TESTIMONY Staff Presentation In response to examiner questions, Ron Shuey, City of Renton code enforcement officer,testified that his determination that the septic system of Ms. Adams was leaking was based upon the Notices of Violation issued by King County and the foul septic odors he smelled when he did a site inspection. EXHIBITS The seven exhibits identified in the staff exhibit list were entered into the record at the July 25, 2017 hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A�pellant/Propertv Owner. The appellant and property owner is Monique Adams 17811 98th Ave SE., Renton, WA 98055. 2. PropertX. The property subject to this appeal is located at the appellant's residence, 1781 1 98th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98055. 3. Leakin� Septic Svstem. It is determined that the appellant's septic system is leaking sewage gas and/or waste and that modifications have been made to the system without required permit approval(s). This determination is based upon (1)findings by the Seattle-King County Department of Public Health("King County") that the appellant's septic system was subject to unpermitted work and that the system was discharging sewage upon the appellant's property,(2)neighbor complaints of septic odors originating from the appellant's property, and (3) verification of the odors from Ron Shuey, a City of Renton code enforcement officer. In 2016 King County notified the City of Renton that after inspection it had determined that unpermitted work had been performed on the appellant's septic system. King County issued the appellant a Notice of Violation dated June 1, 2016 based upon the unpermitted work. A King County inspection was done in response to neighbor complaints of foul odors originating from the septic system. The Notice of Violation identified a "perforated PVC pipe" attached to the septic tank that was not identified in any prior septic design application. Neighbors subsequently complained about the odors to Mr. Shuey. Mr. Shuey inspected the septic system on November 29,2016. The septic system was covered with dirt and leaves so Mr. Shuey was unable to verify the physical appearance of any leaks. Mr. Shuey also did not have the tools Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 3 or protection to open the septic lid. However, he did immediately confirm there was a foul odor coming from the system as soon as he entered the appellant's yard. The City subsequently received a copy of another Notice of Health Code Violation from King County dated February 21, 2017 directed at the appellant. The Notice of Health Code Violation stated that King County had determined that unpermitted work had been done on the septic system and that the system was discharging sewage upon the ground surface of the appellant's property. Mr. Shuey testified that four or five thousand dollars in fines has been imposed against Ms. Adams by King County for failing to repair her septic system and to acquire permits for the work done on the septic system within the time frames set by the Notices of Health Code Violation. 4. Warning of Violation. A Warning of Violation, Ex. 4, asserting that the leaking septic system violated IPMC 102.2 was issued to the appellant by the City of Renton on August 11, 2016. Ms. Adams failed to repair her septic system within 30 days of issuance of the Warning of Violation as required by the Warning. 5. Notice of Violation and Order to Correct. A Notice of Violation and Order to Correct, Ex. 7, was issued by the City of Renton to the appellant on June 20, 2017. The Notice of Violation asserted that the leaking septic system owned by the appel(ant violates IPMC 506.1 and 506.2. The Notice of Violation levied a fine of$250 for"[fJailure to maintain sanitary drainage system." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hearine Examiner Jurisdiction. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Notice of Violation as a designee of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development. See RMC 1-3-2(B)(1)and RMC 1-3-2(E). As designee of the Administrator,the examiner is authorized to require corrective action far Findings of Violation that become final pursuant to ]-3-2(D)(2) 2. A�p(icable Code provisions. RMC 4-5-130 adopts the International Property Maintenance Code("IPMC"). The subject Notice of Violation asserts violation of IPMC 506.1 and 506.2. Those IPMC provisions are quoted in bo(d below as follows: Violation No. 1 (IPMC 506—Sanitarv Draina�e Svsteml 506.1 General. Plumbing fixtures shall be properly connected to either a public sewer system or to an approved private sewage disposal system. 506.2 Maintenance.Every plumbing stack, vent, waste and sewer line shall function properly and be kept free from obstructions,leaks, and defects. 3. IPMC 506.1 violation sustained. The City has established that the appellant's septic system violates IPMC 506.1. As outlined in the findings of fact of this decision,unpermitted work was done to the subject septic system. As a septic system modified without required permit approvals,the septic system is not considered an"approved"private sewage disposal system under IPMC 506.1. Given that foul septic odors have been emanating from the subject property since the modifications were made and that Ms. Adams directed Mr. Shuey to the subject system as her septic system for Mr. Shuey's November 29, 2016 site inspection, it is reasonable to surmise that the subject system serves as the septic system for Mr.Adams' residence and that her plumbing is connected to it. Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 4 4. IPMC 506.2 violation not sustained. The City has not established that the septic system violates IPMC 506.2. As outlined in the Findings of Fact, the record clearly establishes that the subject septic system is leaking. However, there is no indication that the leak arises from a"plumbing stack, vent" or"waste and sewer line" as required by IPMC 506.2. The two violation notices issued by King County, Ex. 3 and 6, don't identify the source of the leak. In fact, Mr. Shuey told Ms. Adams that the leak either comes from a loose-fitting septic tank lid or a leaching area when he did his site inspection on November 29, 2016. A septic tank lid does not qualify as a plumbing stack, vent or waste and sewer line under IPMC 506.2. 5. $250 Fine Sustained. The $250 fine imposed by the Notice of Vio(ation is sustained. RMC 1-3-2(F)(1) authorizes penalties of up to$250 dollars per violation. Although only one of the two violations alleged in the subject Notice of Violation is sustained, only one violation is necessary to support the maximum fine. In this case the maximum fine is amply justified. The appellants' repeated failure to address the septic tank violations on her property is a health hazard and nuisance not only to herself but also other occupants of her property and surrounding residents. 6. Corrective Action Modified. The corrective action required by the Notice of Violation and Order to Correct is not directly related to the sustained vio(ation of IPMC 506.2 and cannot be sustained for that reason. The corrective action requires the appellant to"fix the broken septic system." The sole basis that the Notice of Violation has been sustained is because the appellant has made modifications to its septic system without approved permits. This determination was not based upon a finding that the septic system needs to be repaired. Whether a septic system needs to be repaired is not directly related to the requirements of IPMC 506.1. The violation is sustained on the basis that the appellant failed to acquire required permits for unauthorized modifications made to her septic system, which at the Least appears to be the installation of a perforated PVC pipe as identified in King County's Notice of Health Code Violation,Ex. 3. It is likely that going through the permit process will result in the repair of any leaks to the septic system,which is the goal of the City in this enforcement proceeding. The appellant should be aware that if acquiring necessary permits doesn't fix the leak, the City could still then issue additional Notices of Violation for failing to properly maintain her septic system as required by IPMC 102.2(as cited in the City's Warning of Violation but for unknown reasons not used in its Notice of Violation). DECISION As determined in the Conclusions of Law above, one of the two violations alleged in the Notice of Violation and Order to Correct issued on June 20,2017, Ex. 7, is sustained. The full $250 in fines,as authorized by RMC 1-3- 2(F)(1)remains due and owing to the City of Renton within 30 days of the date of this decision. The appellant shall correct the violation as detailed in the Summary of this decision,scheduling a meeting with Mr. Shuey by August 14,2017 and then following a schedule set by Mr. Shuey. Failure to correct as ordered shall subject the appellant to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-3-2(F)(2). Failure to correct can be charged as a misdemeanor. The maximum penalties for a misdemeanor are 90 days in jail and $1,000 in fines. Decision issued July 31, 2017. � ' �- �� �'��'.__�.��-- ......., -- Phi��tS Hearing Examiner Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 5 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 reyuired by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.