Resolution 7109 - Laserfiche WebLink

4 Seterus, Inc. is servicing the loan on the property. Seretus Inc. does not own the property, the two unlicensed vehicles would not be removed from the property; bids would be requested to remove discarded items from the property. Officer Keirsey sent notification to Seterus, Inc. of conditions on the property that were in violation of City ordinance. (Exhibit#12, Email from Danielle Wasmer dated March 10, 2016) (Exhibit#13, Notice Letter dated March 10, 2016) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Keirsey) 9. On March 21, 2016, Ms. Wasmer contacted Officer Keirsey to inform her that at the time of the visit, a contractor hired to remove the discarded items from the property thought that the residential structure on the property was occupied because someone was inside the residential structure and therefore would not remove the discarded items in the yards. (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Keirsey) 10. On March 21, 2016, Officer Keirsey reinspected the property and observed and photographed that at the time of the visit, the residential structure was secured and appeared to be unoccupied. She observed that discarded items and unlicensed vehicles remained in public view on the property. (Exhibit#2a-2f, Inspection Photos dated March 21, 2016) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Keirsey) 11. On April 6, 2016, Officer Keirsey reinspected the property and observed and photographed the discarded items remained on the front porch of the residential structure and rear yard of the property. The Chevy pickup truck had been removed from the rear yard but an unlicensed Toyota Celica remained parked on site. Respondent Fowler was inside the condemned residential structure and informed Officer Keirsey that he was there to remove items. Officer Keirsey observed household items, food and drink containers inside the residential structure. The structure remained without water and electrical service. (Exhibit#1a-1f, Pre- Inspection Photos dated April 6, 2016) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Keirsey) 12. The City provided the Respondents with an opportunity to correct the conditions that were in violation of sections of the EMC, provided a corrective action date of March 21, 2016 to abate nuisance violations and provided notice of the date, time and place of this hearing. The Respondents failed to appear at the hearing. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Violations Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction: , Pursuant to Chapter 1.20 EMC or any Everett Municipal Code (EMC) provisions that identify Chapter 1.20 EMC for enforcement, the Violations Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold the hearing and issue the decision. EMC §1.20.020