Before the

for Montgomery County, Maryland

• Background

• Findings of Fact

• Conclusions of Law

• Order

The above captioned appeal having come before the Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs for Montgomery County, Maryland ("the Commission"), pursuant to Sections 29-14A, 29-17, 29-18, 29-21, and 29-24 of the Montgomery County Code 1994, as amended, and the Commission having considered the testimony and evidence of record, it is therefore, this 28th day of August, 1998, found, determined, and ordered, as follows:

On August 4, 1998, the Department of Housing and Community Affairs (the "Department") issued notice to Russell and Ellen Carter (the "Appellants"), owners of 8802 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland (the "Property"), a licensed multi-family rental facility in Montgomery County, MD, that the Rental Facility License for the Property, License No. 017610, had been revoked as a result of their failure to correct 143 housing code violations. In response to the revocation notice, on August 8, 1998, the Appellants filed a formal appeal to the Montgomery County Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs (the "Commission").

The Appellants are seeking an order from the Commission reversing the Department's revocation of Rental Facility License No. 017610 for 8802 Glenville Road, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 29-24 of the Montgomery County Code, 1994, as amended ("County Code"), the Commission convened a public hearing on August 20, 1998. Present at the hearing and offering testimony and evidence were the Appellants and one (1) Commission witness, Rob Dejter, Inspector, Department of Housing and Community Affairs, Division of Code Enforcement. Without objection from the Appellants, the Commission entered into the record of the hearing the case file for the Property compiled by the Department, identified as Commission's Exhibit No. 1.

2. By a letter dated May 27, 1998, the Department issued the Appellants a Notice of Violation citing 143 violations of Chapter 26, "Housing and Building Maintenance Standards," of the County Code (the "Housing Code"), noted as a result of an inspection conducted on May 18, 1998, and ordered the Appellants to abate the violations within 45 days. The Notice of Violation also advised the Appellants that failure to correct the violations would result in the revocation of their Rental Facility License.

3. By a letter dated July 17, 1998, sent to the Appellants by certified and regular mail, the Department informed the Appellants that a reinspection of the Property had occurred on July 2, 1998, the results of which revealed a "...lack of substantial progress...had been made on correcting the housing code violations identified in the May 27, 1998 Notice of Violation." The Appellants were further advised of their right to file an appeal of the Notice of Violation with the Montgomery County Board of Appeals within 15 days, and failure to correct the violations by July 31, 1998, would cause the Department to initiate procedures to revoke their Rental Facility License. The Appellants did not appeal the Notice of Violation to the Board of Appeals.

4. By a letter dated August 4, 1998, sent to the Appellants by certified and regular mail, the Department's Acting Director, Joe Giloley, informed the Appellants that a reinspection of the Property on July 31, 1998, revealed that,"...all of the violations about which you were put on notice are still outstanding." and, "As a result of your failure to correct the housing code violations identified in my letters of May 27, 1998 and July 17, 1998, this letter serves as written notice that, effective August 15, 1998, your license to operate the above-referenced rental facility is revoked."   Acting Director Giloley's letter also advised the Appellants of their right to appeal his action to the Commission, which they did on August 8, 1998.

In response to the summons issued by the Commission, Inspector Dejter provided a videotape, entered into the record as Commission's Exhibit No. 2, and approximately 80 photographs, entered into the record as Commission's Exhibit No. 3, that he took at the Property during his July 31st inspection. The Commission finds that the videotape and the photographs fairly and accurately depict the condition of the Property on July 31, 1998.

6. The Appellants testified that when they purchased the Property in February 1997, they were under the impression, based on a letter from the Department dated February 5, 1997 (Appellants' Exhibit #1), sent to the former owner Mark Canter, that no housing code violations existed at that time. The Appellants also testified that they received the May 27, 1998 Notice of Violation, that the conditions described in that notice existed at the time of the inspection, that most of the violations had not been repaired or corrected as of the date of this hearing, and many violations pose a threat to the health and safety of the tenants.

7. The Appellants submitted into evidence a two-page work plan and timetable for the correction of the housing code violations (Appellants' Exhibit No. 2). The Commission finds this work plan to be inadequate and unrealistic based on the magnitude and scope of the work needed to bring the Property into compliance with the Housing Code, and the Appellants' testimony that they do not have the funds to make the repairs and attempts to secure a loan for that purpose have been unsuccessful.

9. The Property is in violation of the Housing Code and Chapter 29, "Landlord-Tenant Relations," of the County Code due to the outstanding code violations and lack of maintenance and needed repairs. Furthermore, their is no expectation that the Appellants have the resources or ability to bring the Property into compliance with the County Code.

2. The County also requires that landlords obtain a license to operate a Rental Facility in the County. The issuance of the Rental Facility License is conditioned, in part, on the property being in compliance with all applicable laws, including the Housing Code, and, "If an inspection indicates that a rental facility is not in compliance with all applicable laws, the Director may revoke the license or take other remedial action." (See Sec. 29-21(c) of Mont. Co. Code)

6. Pursuant to Section 29-17(a) of the County Code,"Any person who conducts or operates, attempts to conduct or operate, or permits the conduct or operation of a rental facility owned by him...after a license has been revoked...shall be subject to punishment for a class A violation as set forth in section 1-19 of chapter 1 of the County Code" and, "Each day that a person conducts or operates, attempts to conduct or operate or permits the conduct or operation of a rental facility owned by him in violation of this chapter, or fails to comply with any commission order...shall constitute a separate offense."

7. Pursuant to Section 29-17(b) of the County Code, "In addition to any criminal or other penalty herein provided, injunctive or other appropriate action or proceeding to correct any violation of this article may be instituted by the county attorney's office pursuant to the provisions of section 29-8, and any court of competent jurisdiction may issue restraining orders, temporary or permanent injunctions or other appropriate forms of relief." However, "...where any person chooses to cease the conduction or operation of a rental facility, no penalty will lie during the sixty-day period that tenants have to vacate the facility as specified in section 29-24."