Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrasad Decision ltr Denis Law Mayor � � City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC November 21, 2016 Mahendra Prasad 340 15th Ave Seattle, WA 98122 Re: Code Compliance Violation Hearing, FOV#: 16-000385 Dear Mr. Prasad: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated November 18, 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 Sandra Pedersen, 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#: CODE16-000385 ADDRESS: 431 Smithers Ave S. Renton, WA 98056 PROPERTY OWNER: Mahendra Prasad 340 Sth Ave. Renton, WA 98122 REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Finding of Violation RULING: Finding of Violation sustained and fines reduced, $150 fine due and owing. SUMMARY Mr. Prasad contests a Finding of Violation issued for outdoor storage of bulk solid waste, overgrown lawn and weeds, and the storage of an inoperable vehicle. All three violations are affirmed. Fines are reduced from $300 to $150. It appears that Mr. Prasad had done what he could to abate the violations once he was made aware of them. Mr. Prasad claims that he didn't receive any warning letters prior to issuance of the Finding of Violation. His testimony on prior warnings was somewhat inconsistent. He initially claimed that the warnings were sent to the incorrect address, that the warnings were mailed to 340 15th Ave and he lives at 340 15th Ave East. However, when he signed the receipt for certified mail on his Finding of Violation, he wrote in his address as 340 15th Ave, not 340 15th Ave East. When the code enforcement officer pointed out that she had a receipt showing that the second warning letter was sent to Mr. Prasad's residence, Mr. Prasad stated that he had six tenants at his home and they all claimed to not have received it. The scheduling letter for the appeal hearing was mailed to 340 15th Avenue as opposed to 340 15th Ave East., yet it appears that Mr. Prasad received that letter since he appeared at the hearing. These inconsistencies do bring into question the veracity of Mr. Prasad's comments on receipt of warning letters, however there is room for a reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies and Mr. Prasad's testimony regarding his efforts to abate the violations was credible. Mr. Prasad testified that he had a difficult tenant residing at the violation site who refused to maintain the property despite requests from Mr. Prasad's son. By the time the Finding of Violation had been issued the tenant was three or four months in arrears in rent. Upon receiving the Finding of Violation Mr. Prasad immediately contacted the tenant Code Enforcement Decision- 1 again to take care of the yard and then expedited an on-going eviction effort to have the tenant removed within the next three weeks. Mr. Prasad subsequently abated all violations except the inoperable vehicle. Mr. Prasad attempted to have the vehicle towed but the tow operator refused to impound the vehicle upon learning that Mr. Prasad didn't own the vehicle. Given all these factors, it is determined that Mr. Prasad did undertake reasonable effort to abate the violations. He may or may not have received warning letters in advance of the Finding of Violation, but it was a first Finding of Violation and Mr. Prasad did ultimately abate the violation. A reduction in fines is warranted. The fines are cut in half to $150. HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on October 18, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers„ 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Donna Locher, Renton Code Compliance Officer, testified that the violation site is a rental property. On June 14, 2016 she did a site inspection and found bulky west stored out in the open composed of a hot water heater, plywood, tarp and an old door. Weeds and grass were over 12 inches in height. The violation site also had a black Saturn with license plates that had expired in April, 2015. The Ex. 2 photos show all violations. Ms. Locher determined the Saturn license plates were expired by reviewing Washington State Department of Licensing records. A Warning of Violation for the violations was issued on June 15, 2016, Ex. 4. On July 12, 2016 a site inspection revealed that all violations were still on the property. On July 13, 2016 Ms. Locher Ms. Locher sent a second letter to Mr. Prasad requesting compliance by July 28, 2016. On August 15, 2016 Ms. Locher did another site visit and saw that no violations had been abated. Mr. Locher then issued a Finding of Violation for $300, $100 for each of the three violations. Mr. Prasad filed an appeal on August 22, 2016. Mr. Prasad, property owner, testified that the violation site is a rental. Mr. Prasad was out of town when the code enforcement process began. In that time period Mr. Prasad's son attempted to have the tenant take better care of the property as required by the tenant's rental agreement. Mr. Prasad learned that the tenant was engaged in illegal activity such as identity theft. As a result Mr. Prasad evicted the tenant, but the tenant refused to move out and hadn't paid rent for four months by the time he finally left. Prior to the eviction the tenant wouldn't let Mr. Prasad's son enter the property to deal with the junk on the property. When Mr. Prasad returned to town in August, the tenant also refused to allow him to enter the property as welL Mr.Prasad said he didn't receive any of the letters as they were sent to the wrong address. The letters were sent to 340 15t" Ave and he lives at 340 15t" Ave East. Mr. Prasad only received the letters when they were sent certified mail. The first documentation he received was the Finding of Violation dated August 17, 2016. In response to questions from Ms. Locher regarding the fact that she had a USPS receipt showing that the second warning letter had been delivered to Mr. Prasad's home, Mr. Prasad answered that his home has six tenants and all of them stated they had not received the letter. He contacted the tenant of the violation site the first day he received the Finding of Violation and had the tenant evicted within three weeks. Mr. Prasad noted that all violations have been abated except for the vehicle. The tenant left the vehicle on the property. Mr. Prasad Code Enforcement Decision-2 called a tow truck operator to tow the vehicle but the operator refused to do so because the vehicle was not in Mr. Prasad's name. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-13 identified in the City's exhibit list were entered into the record during the hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Violation Site. The violation site is located at 431 Smithers Ave. S. The site in question is owned by Mahendra Prasad. During the violation period, Mr. Prasad leased the violation site to a residential tenant. 2. Violations. It is uncontested and established by a preponderance of evidence from the record that on August 15, 2016 (1) the violation site had grass and weeds at a height that exceeds twelve inches; (2) that a Black Saturn WA License # AHZ1149 with plates expired April 2015 was parked outdoors at the violation site; and (3) bulky solid waste composed of a hot water heater,plywood,tarp, door and wood was stored outdoors at the violation site. 3. Warnin�s. On June 15, 2016 the conditions identified in Finding of Fact No. 2 were present at the violation site. For these reasons, a Warning of Violation was mailed to Mr. Prasad at 340 15th Ave on June 15, 2016 with a compliance date of June 30, 2016. A July 12, 2016 site inspection revealed that none of the violations had been abated, so a warning letter was sent to Mr. Prasad on July 13, 2016 setting a compliance date of July 28, 2016. USPS tracking report, Ex. 7, identified the letter as delivered to Mr. Prasad on July 14, 2016. An August 15, 2016 site inspection revealed that none of the violations had been abated. As outlined in the Summary section of this decision, Mr. Prasad denying receiving the Warning of Violation and warning letter. 4. Findin� of Violation. Due to the failure to abate violations as required in the City's Warning of Violation and warning letter, the City issued a Finding of Violation on August 17, 2016 for violations observed at the violation site on August 15, 2016. The Finding of Violation alleged violation of International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.4 (overgrown weeds and grass); RMC 6-1-3(B) (outdoor storage of inoperable vehicle) and RMC 8-1-4(E) (outdoor storage of bulky waste). A $100 fine was assessed for each violation, totaling $300. Mr. Prasad filed a timely appeal on August 22, 2016. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authoritv 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. 4 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. International Propertv Maintenance Code Section 302.4 as amended bv RMC 4-5- 130(Bl(16): Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or Code Enforcement Decision- 3 . . _.-.... �i�1��1� plant growth in excess of twehle inehes in height on development property or tw�enty:four inehes (2�') in height on vacant land, All noxious weed.s shall be pr�hibited. Weeds shall be de�ned as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other thun trees or shrubs; provider�, hawever, this term shall not include czcltivated flo��ers and gardens. 3. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 2, the violation site cantained overgrown weeds and (awn exceeding 12 inches in height on August 15, 2016. Violatian No. 1 of the August 15, 2016 Finding af Vialation, Ex. 14, is affirmed. Junk Vehicle or Vehicle Hutks on Private Prapertv Re�ulated �RMC 6-1-3(B1): The storage, maintenance or retention of'junk, wrecked, dismantled or an apparently inoperable vehicle, vehicle hulk, or any parts thereof, on private real properry rn the City is hereby declared to be a public nuzsance and subject to abatement rn accordance with this Chapter and RMC 1-3- 3, as now worclec�or hereafter amended. 4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 2, the violation site contained an automobile with expired license plates an August 1S, 2016. RMC 6-1-2 defines an inoperable vehicle ta include vehicles that cannot be lawfully operated upon public roads. An automobile with an expired license cannot be operated upon pubiic roads. Violation No. 3 of the August i5, 2016 Finding of Violation, Ex. 10, is affirmed. RMC 8-1-4(E}: Unlawful Storage af Bulky Waste:It shall be unlawful for any person in the Ciry to store, mczintain, keep, retain, dump or accumulate bulky waste on private real property in the City, exeept for any licensed ancillary dispasal provider or licensed business in connection with bulky waste collection or disposal in an czrea zoned for the cc�ltection or disposal of bulky waste. RMC 8-1-42(Definitions). BLTLKY ilYAS7'E: Lurge items of sotid waste, including but not timited to rtems such as,furniture; large household appliances, including but not lrmited to re.f'rigerutors,fre�zers, ovens, ranges, stoves, c�'ishwashers, water heaters, u1ashing maehines, or elothes dryers;junk vehicles, velzicte hulks or any parts ther-eaf as de�ned in RM�b-1-2, as now �vorded r�r herea.f`ter amended; and any ather oversized solid wastes which would typically not�1 into ar be permitled,f'or collectron as garbage in gar�iage cans. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact Na 2, the violation site contained bulky solid waste composed af a hat water heater, plywood, tarp, door and wood on August 1 S, 2Q 16. All of these items were clearly solid waste as shown in the photographs of the record and nane of them could fit within garbage cans. The items thus qualify as bulky solid waste. Vialation No. 2 of the August 15, 2016 Finding of Violation, Ex. 10, is affirmed. DECISION The third Finding of Violation of the above-captioned case, issued August l7, 2016. The fines are reduced fram $300 to $150 for the reasons identified in the Summary section of this decisian. Decision issued Novernber 18, 2016. Code Enforcement Decision-4 �.:� ��.�.....� �'_.....-�. Ph]`A.C3lbrechts _ Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TGl APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner rmust be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 3b.70C RCW. Code Enforcement Decision- S