Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlam lt2 � Denis Law Mayor � City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC October 31, 2016 Kha Lam 2618 NE 24th Court Renton, WA 98056 Re: Hearing Examiner Decision, FOV#: 16-000275 Dear Mr. Lam: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated October 31, 2016, in the above referenced matter. The Hearing Examiner has ruled to give you a fine reduction of$100.00. The City will send your check separately. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, � d � ason 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 Finance 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#: CODE16-000275 ADDRESS: 2618 NE 24t" Court Renton, WA 98056-8373 PROPERTY OWNER: Kha Lam 2030 Glennwood Ave NE Renton, WA 98056 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation request for fine reduction RULING: Fine reduction granted in part; $100 refund due property owner. SUMMARY Mr. Lam is due a refund of$100, which is 1/3 of the third Finding of Violation for his case. The sole Finding of Violation subject to this appeal is a third Finding of Violation for violation of Section 302.4 of the International Property Maintenance Code. Section 302.4 prohibits weeds and grass from growing over one foot in height. Mr.Lam only filed a timely appeal of the third Finding of Violation,so the examiner legally only has the authority to address the third Finding of Violation in this appeal. Mr. Lam did not contest the validity of the third Finding of Violation but rather only argued for a reduction in fines. Mr. Lam's arguments were compelling. Mr. Lam had to deal with a difficult tenant who lied and consistently failed to abate the overgrown weed violation despite repeated contacts from Mr. Lam. Ultimately, Mr. Lam managed to get rid of the tenant (albeit voluntarily on behalf of the tenant) and abate the violations in a 2.5-month period. This is not too unreasonably long when dealing with a landlord-tenant situation. The City noted that Mr. Lam made no effort to contact city staff to resolve the situation. However, nothing in the Finding of Violation or even Warning of Violation forms encourages or directs a property owner to contact city staf£ Given these circumstances and the fact that Mr. Lam has also paid for the first and second Findings of Violation, a modest one-third reduction for the third Finding of Violation is merited. HEARING Code Enforcement Decision- 1 The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on September 27, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Rob Shuey, Renton Code Enforcement Officer, summarized the violations. Mr. Shuey received no response on any of the findings of violation until he mailed out the third�nding of violation, at which point a representative of the owner stated he was hiring someone that week to clean up the property. The violations were finally abated after two warnings and three findings of violation. In response to inquiries from the examiner as to whether staff supported any reduction in fines, Mr. Shuey noted that the case took 6-10 hours because the property owner was so unresponsive. If the property owner had made a greater effort at cooperating it would have only taken 30 minutes to resolve the situation. Mr. Lam testified he just didn't know what to do. During the violations,he was leasing the subject property to a tenant. When he contacted the tenant to abate the violations, the tenant would get angry and say he had taken care of the situation. Mr. Lam wasn't aware he could have contacted the city to discuss the situation and he would have called if he'd known. The tenant didn't pay rent on time and was almost always a month or two in arrears. When the tenant moved out Mr. Lam had to spend $10,000 repairing tenant damage, which is why he was slow in abating the violations. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Lam stated he contacted the tenant five or six times to abate the violations. Every time the tenant responded that he had cleaned up the property. He would then go check the property and find out it hadn't been cleaned up. Mr. Lam didn't appeal the first and second violations because he thought he would need a lawyer. EXHIBITS Ex. 1 Scheduling letter dated August 15, 2016 Ex. 2 Code Compliance Narrative dated August 2, 2016 Ex. 3 Code case activity report Ex. 4 July 22, 2016 letter from Lam to Hearing Examiner Ex. 5 Finding of Violation dated July 12, 2016 Ex. 6 $500 receipt of payment for fines Ex. 7 Warning of Violation dated May 10, 2016 Ex. 8 Three 8x11 photographs taken on May 10, 2016 Ex. 9 May 24, 2016 letter from rob Shuey to Property Owner Ex. 10 Finding of Violation dated June 9, 2016 Ex. 11 Three 8x11 photographs taken June 9, 2016 Ex. 12 June 29, 2016 Finding of Violation Ex. 13 Five 8x11 photographs for"FOV-2" Ex. 14 July 12, 2016 Finding of Violation Ex. 15 Three 8x11 photographs taken on July 12, 2016 Ex. 16 USPS tracking document for each Finding of Violation Code Enforcement Decision-2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Site and Owner. The site is located at 2618 NE 24th Ct,Renton. The site is owned by Kha Lam and was leased to a tenant during the times that Mr. Lam was cited with the code violations that are the subject of this appeal. 2. Penalties. This appeal is a mitigation request for the fines imposed by the second and third Finding of Violation issued June 29, 2016 and July 12, 2016 respectively. The third Finding of Violation noted that penalties for the second and third Finding of Violations were due 10 days from the date of issuance. The third Finding of Violation identified the penalties as $200 for the second Finding of Violation and $300 for the third Finding of Violation for a total of$500. Mr. Lam appealed the third Finding of Violation by letter dated July 22, 2016, Ex. 4. Mr. Lam has already paid the $500 fine. See Ex. 6. Mr. Lam did not timely appeal the first or second Findings of Violation. 3. Code Basis of Violation. The second and third Findings of Violation are based upon RMC 4-5-130(B)(16), Section 302.4 of the International Property Maintenance Code. This provision limits weed and lawn growth to a maximum height of 12 inches. Photographs taken for the third Finding of Violation, Ex. 15, clearly show lawn and/or weeds greater than 12 inches in height. It is determined that the subject property did have weed and/or lawn more than 12 inches in height on July 12, 2016. 4. Basis of Miti�ation Reauest. Mr. Lam asks that the fees be reduced because he did what he could to abate the violation. He was first apprised of the violations on the subject property by a Warning of Violation issued May 10, 2016 and a second Warning of Violation issued on May 24, 2016. The first Finding of Violation was issued on June 9, 2016. Mr. Lam failed to comply with the compliance dates set in each of the two Warnings of Violation. Mr. Lam contacted his tenant five or six times in attempts to have his tenant abate the violation. Each time his tenant stated he had taken care of the problem. The tenant was also constantly in arrears in rent and eventually voluntarily vacated the residence. When the tenant finally vacated the residence Mr. Lam had the violation abated along with $10,000 in repairs for damage caused by the tenant, apparently shortly after he filed his appeal on July 22, 2016. Mr. Shuey testified that he did not support any reduction in fees because Mr. Lam had never bothered to contact him and that it took several months to abate. Mr. Lam states that he wasn't aware that he had to contact Mr. Shuey. The Warnings of Violation and Findings of Violation did not identify that Mr. Shuey was to be contacted. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authoritv of Examiner: The "Administrator" has the authority and jurisdiction to consider requests for mitigation of fees imposed via a Finding of Violation under RMC 1-3-2(G). RMC 1- 3-2(B)(1) defines the "administrator" as the department administrator or designee. The hearing examiner in this mitigation hearing is acting as the designee of the department administrator. 2. Code Violation: The Finding of Violation of this case (Ex. 3) is based upon the violation of Renton Municipal Code regulations, specifically RMC 4-5-130(B)(16). The applicable criteria Code Enforcement Decision-3 are quoted below in bold and italics with accompanying Conclusions of Law that apply those criteria to the Findings of Fact made above. International Propertv Maintenance Code Section 302.4 as amended bv RMC 4-5-130(B)(3): Weeds:All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in e�cess of twelve inches in height on development property or twenty four inches (24') in height on vacant land. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs;provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. Upon failure of the owner or agent having charge of a property to cut and destroy weeds after service of a Finding of Violation, they shall be subject to the provisions of RMC 1- 3-2, Civi!Enforcement of Code. 3. Violation of third Findin� of Violation Affirmed. The violation for the third Finding of Violation is affirmed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 3 of this decision,weeds and/or lawn exceeded 12 inches in height on the subject property on the violation date of the third Finding of Violation, July 12, 2016. 4. Penalties of Second Notice of Violation Bevond Scoae of Aoneal. RMC 1-3-2(H)requires an appeal of a finding of violation to be filed within 10 business days of the date of the Finding of Violation. Mr. Lam did not file any appeal of the second Finding of Violation within 10 business days of its issuance. Case law is clear that land use decision (which include code enforcement decisions) cannot be challenged if not timely appealed. See Chelan Counry v. Nykreim, 146 Wash.2d 904, 934, 52 P.3d 1 (2002). Consequently, the only fines that can be considered by the examiner are those imposed for the third Finding of Violation,totaling$300. 5. Miti�ation Justified. Mitigation of the fines is justified in this case because Mr. Lam did take some reasonable effort to abate the violation. RMC 1-3-2(I)provides that"the penalties shall be considered based on the nature of the offense, the impact on the neighboYs, neighborhood, or community and the need to discourage such conduct, inactivity or neglecP'. As far as the seriousness of the offence,the code violation is primarily aesthetic although overgrown vegetation can serve as a breeding ground for rats and other vermin. Reduction of$100 is justified for the reasons identified in the summary of this decision because the full imposition of penalties of this case will not further"discourage"the overgrown weed violation. With a$100 reduction,Mr. Lam will still be paying $500 of the total $600 in fines. The $100 reduction recognizes that Mr. Lam did make several attempts to abate the violation and ultimately did abate it but also that he should have acted more quickly. DECISION Mr. Lam is entitled to a $100 refund of the $300 in penalties he paid for the third July 12, 2016 Finding of Violation. Code Enforcement Decision-4 DATED this 31 St day of October, 2016. �� �--�'�--�f' _��_.-..--�... Ph�"A.Ulbrechts Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Anneal to Suaerior 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-5