Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 - Findings and Decision of Hearing Examiner and Violation Notice and Order - Pak Jae C / Lee Nancy A - 20151123000177Return Address: CITY CLERK CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 1111111 1111 11 1111 11 11 111 1 20151123000177 CITY OF TUKWIL MISC 77.00 PAGE -001 OF 005 11/23/2015 08:52 KING COUNTY, WA B A Please print or type information WASHINGTON STATE RECORDER'S Cover Sheet (RCW 65.04) Document Title(s) (or transactions contained therein): (all areas applicable to your document must be filled in) l Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner 2. 3. 4. Reference Number(s) of Documents assigned or released: Additional reference #'s on page of document Grantor(s) Exactly as name(s) appear on document l City of Tukwila 2. , Additional names on page of document. Grantee(s) Exactly as name(s) appear on document 1 Jae C. Pak 2. Nancy A. Lee Additional names on page of document. Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot, block, plat or section, township, range) Riverside Park ADD Additional legal is on page of document. Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number ❑ Assessor Tax # not yet assigned 13 4400-0040 The Auditor /Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or completeness of the indexing information provided herein. "I am signing below and paying an additional $50 recording fee (as provided in RCW 36.18.010 and referred to as an emergency nonstandard document), because this document does not meet margin and formatting requirements. Furthermore, I hereby understand that the recording process may cover up or otherwise obscure some part of the text of the original document as a result of this request." Signature of Requesting Party Note to submitter: Do not sign above nor pay additional $50 fee if the document meets margin /formatting requirements FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA In the Matter of the Appeal of File number: JAE PAK RFA11 -017 From a Violation Notice and Order issued By the City of Tukwila Code Enforcement Officer Introduction The City Code Enforcement Officer issued a Violation Notice and Order to Jae Pak Kerr, for violation of the Tukwila Municipal Code. Mr. Pak filed an appeal. A hearing on the appeal was held before the Tukwila Hearing Examiner on July 31, 2012. Appearing at the hearing were the Appellant, Jae Pak, pro se; and the City, by Kathy Stetson, Code Enforcement Officer. For purposes of this decision, all section numbers refer to the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC or Code) unless otherwise indicated. After due consideration of the evidence elicited during the hearing, the following shall constitute the findings of fact, conclusions, and decision of the Hearing Examiner on this appeal. Findings of Fact 1. The subject property is addressed as 5724 Pamela Drive South in Tukwila, WA. The property is owned by Jae Pak and Nancy Lee. 2. The owners purchased the property in 2008. At some time after purchase, the owners constructed a detached shed in the north yard of the property, and added an attached shed to the east side of the house. 3. On January 27, 2011, Building Inspector Carol Martin posted a stop work notice at the subject property for construction without valid building, electrical and other permits required by the City's Codes. The stop work notice was mailed to the property owner on February 1, 2011. The construction included a detached shed which was connected to the house by a lean-to roof, and an attached shed on the side of the house. 4. The stop work notice required the owner to submit an application for a building permit within 15 days of the notice. RFA11 -017 Page 2 of 4 5: " The property owner requested that the compliance date be extended to April 4, 2011,, and the City agreed to the extension. The owner submitted a permit application (application D11 -113) for both sheds and the roof on April 25, 2011. 6. The City issued a correction letter to the owner dated May 6, 2011. Ex. F. The letter included a May 4, 2011 memo from the City Building Division which identified several corrections that needed to be made before permit D11 -113 would be issued. The corrections included removal of the shed within the required setback area, and drawings showing that that the attached shed and roof complied with code requirements. 7. Plans were submitted for permit application D11 -113 in July 2011, which showed the new attached shed and showed the detached shed to be demolished and replaced with a new covered patio. The permit was approved subject to inspection. 8. The City issued a letter dated October 6, 2011 to the owner, advising that permit D 11-113 had not been issued by the City Permit Center. The letter stated that the permit application would expire on October 22, 2011, unless a written request for an extension was submitted at least 7 days before that date. 9. On October 17, 2011, . the City issued permit D11 -113 subject to inspection. On December 20, 2011, an inspection was conducted by City Inspector Martin. The owner did not allow the inspector to enter the building to view the interior of the attached shed. The inspector's report identified several corrections, including removal of the shed, applying for an electrical permit for the attached shed (addition), obtaining a new inspection card, and providing access to the addition in order to conduct an inspection of the addition. Of particular concem to the City is that the attached shed is being used for occupation in violation of safety codes. 10. On May 2, 2012, a permit expiration notice was mailed to the owner, setting a permit expiration date of June 17, 2012. Permit D11 -113 expired on June 17, 2012. 11. On June 22, 2012, the City Code Enforcement staff issued a Violation Notice and Order for construction without a permit. The Notice set a compliance date of July 9, 2012, to remove the construction installed without a permit. 12. The owner submitted a letter of appeal to the Code Enforcement division on July 9, 2012. It is not clear from the record whether the letter of appeal was filed within 10 calendar days of service or receipt of the Notice. However, the City scheduled the hearing before the hearing examiner.' 13. At hearing, the property owner noted that he had not allowed the City inspector to enter the addition for her inspection, because there is a tenant occupying that area. He SMC 8.45.090 provides that a person may appeal the notice "by requesting such appeal within ten calendar days after receiving or otherwise being served with the Notice pursuant to TMC 8.45.050." The City's staff report states that the appeal was not received within the 10 -day period, but the City "agreed to hold the hearing in an effort to achieve compliance;" Ex. 1, page 3. RFAl1 -017 Page 3 of 4 stated that he needed to be able to schedule such an inspection in advance. He also noted that he had stopped construction since receiving the first notice from the City, and that because of financial hardship, he wanted the City to set "the project aside." The owner's tenant testified that he is currently unable to afford to pay the owner rent, and would be homeless if he could not live in the owner's house: The owner's brother also testified that he had observed other structures in the neighborhood that did not appear to comply with the required setbacks, and asked why the owner was being required to comply with the setbacks. 14. TMC 8.45.030(A) provides it "is unlawful for any person to initiate, maintain, or cause to be initiated or maintained, the use of any structure, land or property within the City without first obtaining the permits or authorizations required for the use by the applicable provisions of any of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 15. TMC 16.04.020(1) adopts certain codes by reference, including the International Building Code (IBC) and the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). 16. IBC Section 105.1 is set forth in Ex. M. 17. IPMC section 108.1.5 is set forth in Ex. N. Conclusions 1. The detached shed and lean-to roof, and the attached shed were constructed by the property owner without obtaining required permits from the City. 2. Permit D11 -113 has expired and the work described in that permit has not taken place. 3. As of the date of the issuance of the June 22, 2012 Violation Notice and Order, the property owner had failed to remove the sheds and roofs that were constructed without permits. As of the date of hearing, the owner had not brought the property in compliance. 4. The owner thought that other properties nearby were not in compliance with the Code's setback requirements. Even if other properties do not observe the required setbacks (either because they are legally nonconforming or because they are in violation of the Code), the City cannot simply disregard the setback requirements. 5. The property owner's financial difficulties, and his desire to help his tenant, do not allow the City to waive the Code requirements, including standards that are intended to ensure the safety of occupants. Because the structure has been built and maintained in violation of the Code, the Order and Notice must be affirmed. 6. The Order and Notice will be affirmed and the relief sought by the City should be ordered. RFAl1 -017 Page 4 of 4 Decision The June 22, 2012 Violation Order and Notice issued to Nancy Ann Lee and Jae Cheri Pak is hereby SUSTAINED. Compliance shall be achieved not later than 30 days from the date of this decision. 1. Remove the detached shed and roof. 2. Remove the attached shed and roof unless within 30 days of this decision, the owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that all applicable City requirements and codes are met with regard to this addition. 3. Dispose of demolition materials in compliance with City regulations. If compliance is not achieved within 30 days, a $500.00 per day fine shall be assessed for each day until compliance is achieved. If compliance is not achieved within 30 days, TMC 8.45.105 allows the City to abate the Code violations. Entered this 8th day of August, 2012. Exhibits: Anne Watanabe Hearing Examiner July 31, 2012 Staff Report with Attachments A -T: CONCERNING FURTHER REVIEW TMC 8.45.090.E provides that: "The decision of the Hearing Examiner shall be final and conclusive unless appealed. In order to appeal the decision of the Hearing. Examiner, a person with standing to appeal must file a land use petition, as provided in RCW 36.70C (Land Use Petition Act), within 21 days of the issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision. The cost for transcription of all records ordered certified by the superior court for such review shall be borne by the appellant."