Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMahjar Decision Ltr � Denis Law Mayor � City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC September 29, 2016 Hossein Savour Mahjar Sharam Family Trust II P.O. Box 2401 Kirkland, WA 98083 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision, FOV#: 16-000319 Dear Mr. Mahjar: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated September 29, 2016, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, �a ,�� C ,,/�' 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: FOV#: CODE16-000319 ADDRESS: Trust II 303 Park Ave N. Renton, WA 98057-5716 PROPERTY OWNER: Hossein Savour Mahjar Sharam Family Trust II Kirkland, WA 98083 Seattle, WA 98115 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation RULING: Appeal Sustained in Part; $400 of $600 fines due fifteen days from the date of this decision. INTRODUCTION Mr. Mahjar has been charged with violating (1) Renton Municipal Code (" RMC") 8-1-3(I), which prohibits overflowing dumpsters, (2) RMC 6-14-19, which reyuires the owner of property to maintain the premises free of litter; and (3) RMC 8-1-4(E), which prohibits the storage of bulky waste. The violations of RCW 8-1-3(I) and RMC 8-1-4(E) are sustained. The violation of RMC 6-14-19 is reversed because the incorrect code enforcement process was used for this provision. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 2, RMC 1-3-2(A)(1) identifies a detailed list of code provisions subject to the "Finding of Violation" code enforcement process. RMC 6-14-19 is not one of those code provisions. RMC 6-14-22 provides that violations of Chapter 6-14 RMC shall be pursued as infractions subject to RCW 7.80.120 and the penalties of RC W 70.93.060. The violation site, an apartment complex, has been the source of literally dozens of violations over the last several years. Even at the appeal hearing Mr. Mahjar made no assurance that the violations would end. Mr. Mahjar's defense appears to be entirely based upon the premise that third parties, i.e. persons living off-site, are responsible for the overflowing dumpsters. As the owner of the violation site, Mr. Mahjar is responsible for maintaining his property in a sanitary condition. If the violations on his property are repeatedly caused by third parties, it is up to Mr. Mahjar to implement measures to prevent the violations from occurring, such as securing the dumpster with locks or fencing, or increasing the capacity of the dumpsters. Code Enforcement Decision- 1 HEARING The appeal hearing was held on August 23, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Tim Lawless, Renton Code Enforcement Officer, went over the code enforcement chronology. He noted that for the past two years he's received about six complaints every other month regarding the overflowing dumpster. Bonita Perez, apartment manager for Appellant, noted that she takes care of the overflowing garbage as soon as she can. A lot of times the overflowing garbage is due to persons living off- site dumping their garbage at the dumpster. She has called the police over this issue. The examiner asked if part of the problem was that the dumpster was of inadequate size and whether the problem could be solved by getting a second or larger dumpster. Ms. Perez stated that would be up to the owner. In response to examiner questions Ms. Perez noted that at times the dumpster is fine and at other times there are problems. Sometimes people will drop off washers and dryers or other items that just don't fit in the dumpster. The apartments have few vacancies, so overflowing garbage doesn`t appear to be attributable to fluctuations in vacancy rate. The problem appears to come from off-site residents dumping their garbage at the dumpster. EXHIBITS Ex. 1 Scheduling letter for July 29, 2016 Ex. 2 Finding of Violation No. 2 dated June 14, 2016 Ex. 3 Code case activity report dated May 26, 2016 Ex. 4 Finding of Violation dated June 24, 2016 Ex. 5 Finding of Violation dated June 10, 2016 Ex. 6 Code case activity report dated November, 2014 Ex. 7 Warning of Violation dated November 19, 2014 Ex. 8 Code case activity dated August 29, 2014 Ex. 9 Order to Correct dated August 29, 2014 Ex. 10 Code case activity report dated June 7, 2013 Ex. 11 Order to Correct dated June 7, 2013 Ex. 12 November 19, 2014 photograph of dumpster with sofa Ex. 13 December 2, 2014 photograph of dumpster with trash and mattresses next to it Ex. 14 December 2, 2014 photograph of dumpster with trash and wood products next to it Ex. 15 January 27, 2015 photograph of dumpster with overflowing trash Ex. 16 January 27, 2015 photograph of pile of garbage Ex. 17 May 24, 2016 photograph of overflowing dumpster Ex. 18 May 24, 2016 photograph of trash and wood products Ex. 19 June 13, 2016 photograph of dumpster with trash next to it Ex. 20 June 25, 2016 of overflowing dumpster with trash surrounding it Ex. 21 July 2, 2015 photograph of dumpster with trash next to it. Code Enforcement Decision -2 Ex. 22 July 5, 2016 photograph of dumpster with trash next to it. Ex. 23 July 7, 2016 photograph of dumpster with overflowing trash Ex. 24 August 27, 2014 photograph of dumpster with overflowing trash Ex. 25 August 28, 2015 photograph of dumpster with overflowing trash Ex. 26 October 28, 2014 photograph of dumpster with trash Ex. 27 November 19, 2014 photograph of dumpster with trash FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The violation site is located at an apartment complex at 303 Park Avenue, Renton. The site is owned by Hossein Savour Mahjar on behalf of the Sharam Family Trust II. 2. The violation site has a dumpster used by tenants to dispose of their trash. Dozens of complaints have been filed with the City of Renton over the last couple of years regarding overflowing trash at the dumpster, in addition to exposed trash and bulk waste located beside the dumpster and other areas at the violation site. The exhibits admitted into the record document overflowing trash at the dumpster on November 19, 2014; December 2, 2014; January 27, 2015; May 24, 2016; June 13, 2016; June 25, 2016; July 2, 2016; July 5, 2016; July 7, 2016; August 27, 2015 and October 28, 2014. The record contains an Order to Correct as far back as June 7, 2013. See Ex. 11. 3. The City issued a first Finding of Violation on May 24, 2016 for the overflowing dumpster, bulk waste and litter outside a collection receptacle, based upon violation of RMC 8-1- 3(I), RMC 6-14-19 and 8-1-4(E). The first Finding of Violation was not appealed. 4. The City sent a second Finding of Violation for the overflowing dumpster, bulk waste and litter outside a receptacle on June 14, 2016. The June 14, 2016 was appealed by Mr. Mahjar on June 22, 2016. The June 14, 2016 Finding of Violation is the subject of this appeal. 5. The "investigation date" listed on the June 14, 2016 Finding of Violation is June 13, 2016. In the absence of any other information on the Finding of Violation identifying the alleged violation date, the violation date is construed as the investigation date, June 13, 2016. Exhibit 19 identifies that on June 13, 2016 there was litter located outside and adjacent to the dumpster. Exhibit 19, the only photograph for the June 13, 2016 violation date, does not show whether the dumpster itself is overflowing and does not show anything that would readily qualify as a large item of solid waste. Apparently, only the backside of the dumpster is visible and it's unclear if the dumpster is overflowing. However, the code case activity report dated May 26, 2016, Ex. 6, notes that the dumpster was overflowing and that bulky waste was located on the violation site on June 10, 2016 and June 13-16, 2016. The Appellant did not contest the assertions made by staff and in fact essentially admitted them to be true by noting that third parties were often responsible for the litter, overflowing dumpster and bulky waste. From these circumstances and the repeated and well documented pattern of prior violations of the same nature, it is determined that on June 13, 2016 the violation site contained litter and large items of solid waste on the ground located outside private receptacles for collection and also that there was a dumpster with overflowing garbage. Code Enforcement Decision -3 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. Code Violation: The Finding of Violation of this case (Ex. 2) is based upon the violation of Renton Municipal Code regulations, specifically RMC 8-1-3(I) and RMC 6-14-19. RMC 1-3- 2(A)(1) provides that violations of Chapter 8 RMC shall be subject to the code enforcement process (Finding of Violation process) of Chapter 1-3 RMC. However, Chapter 6-14 RMC is not subject to the Finding of Violation code enforcement process of Chapter 1-3 RMC. Chapter 6-14 RMC is not listed in RMC 1-3-2(A)(1) as enforceable through the Finding of Violation process. In fact, RMC 6-14-22 provides that violations of Chapter 6-14 RMC shall be pursued as infractions subject to RCW 7.80.120 and the penalties of RCW 70.93.060. RMC 8-1-3(I) is quoted below in bold and italics and Conclusion of Law No. 3 applies it to this appeal. RMC 8-1-3(I): Number of Cans; Condition: Sufficient garbage cans must be provided for the collection of all garbage as defined in this Chapter. All garbage cans, detachable co�tainers, recycling bins or yard waste carts shall be kept tightly covered and in good and scznitary condition for garbage and recyclables storage and handling, and garbage cans, detachable containers, recycling bins, or yard waste carts which leak or have jagged edges or holes shall not be used. The Solid Waste Coordinator, independently or at the request of the City's collection contractor, shall determine whether or not the condition of any garbage can, detachable container, drop box, recycling bin, or yaYd waste cart is satisfactory for use. 3. The overflowing dumpster violation and $200 penalty is affirmed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, on June 13, 2016 the violation site contained a dumpster with overflowing garbage. In this condition, the dumpster is not "tightly covered and in good and sanitary condition" as required by RMC 8-1-3(I) as quoted above. Further, since this is a second Finding of Violation as for violation of RMC 8-1-3(I) as outlined in Finding of Fact No. 3 and 4, a $200 penalty was validly imposed as authorized by RMC 1-3-2(P)(2), which authorizes a$200 penalty for a second violation. RMC 8-1-4(E): Unlawful Storage of Bulky Waste: It shall be unlawful for arry person in the City to store, maintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, except for any lice�sed 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 8-1-42(De�nitions): 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. Code Enforcement Decision-4 4. The bulky waste violation and $24Q penalty is affirmed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, on June 13, 2016 the violatiot� site contained large items of solid waste. 5. Third Partv Causatian lrrelevant. The Appellant's only defense ta the averflowing dumpster violation appears to be that at least some of the garbage is dumped withaut authorizatian by persons who live aff-site. The responsibility of third parties is not relevant to whether or not a violation has occurred. RMC 1-3-2(E) autharizes the City to issue a Finding of Violation against a "vialator" once a code violation is found to occur. RMC 1-3-2(B) defines a "violator"ta include the owner of the violation site. In this case the Appellant owns the violation site and as a consequence the City is authorized to hold him responsible for the durnpster violation by issuance of a Finding of Violation against him. DECISION The $200 penalties for a second violation of RMC 8-1-3(I) and RMC 8-1-4(E) are affirmed. The $200 penalty for a second violation of RMC 6-14-19 is reversed and no penalty is due for that vialation. As required by RMC 1-3-2(E)(4), the $400 in penalties that still apply must be paid to the City of Renton within I S days af the date of this decisian. Decision issued September 29, 2016. �: ���;--�' ��-�----.. i�har,n.t�it��nu Hearing Examiner NQTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Gourt. An appeal af the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Caurt within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Code Enforcement Decision- 5