HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM2014-00071 Szamosfalui Appeal Decision
1Χ
JEFFERSON COUNTY
621 Sheridan Street
Port Townsend, WA 98368
OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
JEFFERSON COUNTY
REPORT AND DECISION
FILE NO.:
COM14-00071
APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE NOTICE OF
VIOLATION AND ORDER OF ABATEMENT
APP ELLANT:
Janos Szamosfalui
415 Lakeview Road, Unit F11
Lynnwood, WA 98087-2164
DCD STAFF: Debra Murdock, Code Compliance Coordinator
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
Appeal of Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement.
SUMMARY OF DECISION: Appeal denied.
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the Jefferson County Department of Community Development Staff Report
and examining available information on file with the application, the Examiner conducted a
public hearing on the request as follows:
The hearing was opened on February 25, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.
Parties wishing to testify were sworn in by the Examiner.
2Χ
The following exhibits were submitted and made a part of the record as follows:
SEE ATTACHED INDEX LIST
The Minutes of the Public Hearing set forth below are not the official record and are
provided for the convenience of the parties. The official record is the recording of
the hearing that can be transcribed for purposes of appeal.
DEBRA MURDOCK appeared, presented the Staff Report, and introduced a power point
presentation. The violation began in 2014 and a complaint against the previous owner was
filed in May 2014. The previous owner, Michael W aldron, was sent a violation notice, and
as a result entered into a compliance agreement with the County to clean the site by 2015.
However, Mr. W aldron failed to do so and the County issued a violation notice. On
December 12, 2017, the appellant acquired the property in a tax foreclosure sale.
However, he took ownership of the property subject to the existing violation. On February
1, 2018, the County issued a Notice and Order of Correction to the appellant, but received
no response. She then reviewed the history of the site. They have worked on the violation
since January, 2020, and it is still unresolved. On January 21, 2020, the appellant filed an
appeal of the Notice of Violation. She referred to the definitions of public nuisance in both
the Jefferson County Code and RCW. The appellant’s parcel contains a building nuisance,
a salvage nuisance, and an attractive nuisance. The conditions also meet the definition of
nuisance in RCW 7.48.120. She then discussed each violation with accompanying
photographs. The appellant is aware of the condition of the property and is responsible for
its condition even if he did not cause it. Staff agrees that the property conditions were
caused by the previous owner. However, they are still the appellant’s responsibility.
AUSTIN WATKINS, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, appeared and referred to Section
8.90.140 of the code.
JANOS SZAMOSFALUI, appellant, appeared and testified that he purchased the property
while he was working at Port Ludlow. He agreed to clean it up, but his job ended and he is
now unemployed. He paid $10,000 for the property. He worked at Port Ludlow for six
months after the purchase, and he then had a job in Redmond that ended in July. His job
is testing software and hardware. He should be able to get something done in four to five
months. He does not disagree with the Staff Report and photographs.
No one spoke further in this matter and the Examiner took the matter under advisement.
The hearing was concluded.
NOTE: A complete record of this hearing is available in the office of Jefferson
County Department of Community Development.
3Χ
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND DECISION:
FINDINGS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has heard testimony, admitted documentary evidence into
the record, and taken this matter under advisement.
2. This appeal is exempt from review pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA).
3. Proper notice was provided pursuant to the Jefferson County Code (JCC).
4. Appellant Janos Szamosfalui has a possessory ownership interest in a parcel of
property located at 111 West Price Street, Port Hadlock (Parcel Number
961805605). The parcel overlooks Chimacum Creek. Improvements on the parcel
include a dilapidated mobile home and foundation that are in danger of collapsing
into Chimacum Creek. Numerous inoperable vehicles are located on the site as
well as salvage materials and garbage.
5. The parcel has a long history of violations that began in May, 2014, with a complaint
submitted to the Department of Environmental Public Health (EPH) regarding a
septic system violation. Upon inspection EPH found a collapsing mobile home
structure and evidence of a “squatter camp”, illegal burning, junk vehicles, and a
dilapidated shed filled with solid waste. The property owner at the time, Michael
Waldron, was responsible for the condition of the property.
6. Commencing in June, 2014, the County attempted to require the property owner to
correct the violations and executed a Compliance Agreement with Mr. Waldron to
clean the parcel by July, 2015. However, Mr. Waldron did not comply with the
agreement, and in October, 2016, EPH issued Mr. Waldron a solid waste infraction
notice for solid waste violations that Mr. Waldron challenged. The infraction was
upheld.
7. In December, 2017, the property went into tax foreclosure and on December 12,
2017, appellant Janos Szamosfalui acquired the parcel.
8. While appellant did not create the property’s condition, Section 8.90.050(37) JCC
provides that the person responsible for the nuisance is “the lessor, owner,
tenant…” Thus, appellant is responsible for the condition of the parcel.
9. The County issued appellant a Notice and Order to Correct Violations on February
1, 2018. However, appellant did not respond to the County. Subsequent to
issuance of the Notice, compliance efforts include the following:
4Χ
A. April 23, 2018, EPH issued Infraction Number 33379 to appellant alleging
solid waste violations.
B. April 27, 2019, EPH conducted a site visit that revealed no progress in
correcting solid waste violations. EPH also noted that the mobile home was
now missing siding and the roof.
C. November, 2019, the County Code Compliance Coordinator (CCC) made a
site visit and noted multiple nuisance vehicles in the County right-of-way,
junk vehicles on the site, the dilapidated mobile home, and various attractive
nuisances.
D. A January, 2020, site visit determined that nuisance and code violations still
existed on the property. The County then issued a Notice of Violation and
Order of Abatement.
E. On January 21, 2020, appellant timely filed an appeal to said Notice.
10. Appellant testified that he does not challenge the description of the site by CCC
Debra Murdock, the photographs of the site contained in the Staff Report, nor
photographs in the power point presentation. Appellant agrees that a building
nuisance, salvage nuisance, and an attractive nuisance exist on the site as defined
by JCC 8.90.050(10)(46) and JCC 8.90.050(7).
11. Appellant testified that he purchased the property on December 12, 2017, at a tax
sale for $10,000 and that at the time was fully employed at Port Ludlow. He fully
intended to clean the property and eliminate the nuisances. However, shortly after
purchasing the property he lost his job at Port Ludlow and has not regained
employment. He anticipates that he will commence working again in four to five
months and requested additional time to abate the nuisances.
12. Staff’s analysis and argument as set forth on pages 3-6 of the Staff Report are
hereby adopted as the Examiner’s findings as if set forth in full herein.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction to consider and decide the issues presented
by this request.
2. Section 8.90.140(1) JCC authorizes the recipient of a Notice of Violation and Order
of Abatement to appeal said notice to the Hearing Examiner within 15 days of the
mailing. In the present case the appellant timely filed an appeal and the Examiner
conducted a hearing to consider the appeal in accordance with JCC 8.90.140(2).
Section 8.90.140(4) JCC grants the Examiner the authority to either affirm the
director’s notice, dismiss the notice, or modify the notice. In the present case, both
5Χ
staff and the appellant agree that the Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement is
accurate and that building, salvage, and attractive nuisances exist on the site.
3. Section 8.90/140 (4)(C) JCC authorizes the Examiner to assess monetary penalties
for the violations. In the present case staff recommends a civil penalty of $100 for
the building nuisance, $250 for the salvage nuisance, and $250 for the attractive
nuisance for a total of $600. Furthermore, since the Examiner is affirming the
Notice of Violation and Order of Abatement, the cost of the hearing, notice costs,
and staff time will be the responsibility of appellant. Finally, if Jefferson County
must clean the property, it will bill the appellant for the cost.
4. Section 8.90.140(4)(d) JCC sets forth five factors to consider in determining an
appropriate monetary penalty assessment. Findings on each factor are hereby
made as follows:
A. The first factor requires consideration of whether appellant responded to
notices and cooperated to correct the notice. Appellant did not respond to
notices sent by the County and has not cooperated in correcting any of the
violations set forth in the three notices.
B. Appellant appeared at the hearing.
C. The nuisance is a repeat violation, although the initial violation was issued to
the previous property owner.
D. The appellant has not shown due diligence or substantial progress in
correcting the nuisance.
E. Other factors relevant for consideration include the County staff’s multiple
site visits and notices to appellant without response. While appellant
testified that he is unemployed, such is no excuse for not responding to the
County and attempting to work with the County to resolve the nuisances on
the parcel. The appellant offered no explanation of why he made no
personal efforts to clean the property. Jefferson County staff spent
substantial time investigating the site and sending notices in an effort to
eliminate the nuisances.
5. Section 8.90.190 JCC authorizes monetary penalties of $100 for the first violation of
a building nuisance; $250 for the first violation of a salvage nuisance; and $250 for
the first violation of an attractive nuisance, for a total of $600. Considering the action
of previous owners of the parcel, this enforcement action constitutes the second
violation of all three nuisances. Therefore, staff’s recommendation of a $600
monetary penalty is appropriate. Section 8.90.140(4)(f) JCC requires the Hearing
Examiner to award cost recovery for all related nuisance and/or abatement
expenses including attorney fees and the cost of the hearing upon upholding of the
6Χ
Notice of Violation.
DECISION:
The appeal of Janos Szamosfalui is hereby denied. A monetary penalty in the amount of
$600 is hereby imposed. Jefferson County is hereby awarded cost recovery against
appellant for all related nuisance and/or abatement expenses including attorney fees, the
cost of the hearing, and all other costs. In accordance with JCC 8.140.090(6) appellant
shall have 30 days to abate the nuisance and bring the nuisance into compliance with the
terms of the JCC. If he does not, the County may perform the abatement required and bill
the cost to appellant in accordance with JCC 8.90.110, 8.90.190, and 8.90.200.
ORDERED this 12th day of March, 2020.
_____________________________________
STEPHEN K. CAUSSEAUX, JR.
Hearing Examiner