Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-2026 - Hearing Examiner Decision OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT AND DECISION – APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND ORDER TO CORRECT (CODE 24-000663) Appellant: Victor Jonathan Chaname 16561 116th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-5240 Alleged Violation: No building permit for accessory structure; Parking on Unauthorized Surface; Operating Contractor Office in Residential Zone Location of Violation: 16561 116th Ave SE Renton, WA 98058-5240 Public Hearing: June 16, 2026 Decision: Notice of Violation sustained on 2 of 3 violations; $500 of $750 fine sustained and due September 1, 2026. Corrective action: File timely construction permits; remove construction equipment, vehicles and materials or acquire permits for on-site development that necessitate the equipment and materials. OVERVIEW Victor Chaname has appealed a Notice of Violation and Order to Correct Fourth Notice (NOV) alleging three code violations. Specifically, the NOV alleges that Mr. Chaname built an accessory structure without a required building permit; that he parked vehicles on unauthorized surfaces; and that he operated a contractor’s office on his property in violation of the R-8 zoning district. The building permit and unauthorized parking violations are sustained. The contractor officer violation is not sustained due to a technical error in the NOV. The NOV incorrectly uses a definition for a contractor’s office that didn’t apply to the property on the only valid NOV date of violation. Although Mr. Chaname managed to avoid a finding of violation for that technical reason, he should be aware that operating a contractor’s office or yard on his property is illegal. He cannot store equipment or materials on his property that are part of his contractor business. If he does so the City can still issue more Notices of Violation for with daily $250 fines. Mr. Chaname’s primary defense for the parking and contractor office/yard violations is that the construction equipment and materials on his property are used for on-site improvements. It is plausible that much of the vehicles, equipment and construction materials on his property are part of on-going on- Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 2 site construction activities. Less restrictions apply if the materials and equipment are used for on-site development. However, there is an important caveat for the parking violation. The motor vehicles can only be located on the grass and dirt portions of the property if they are used for development authorized by a “valid City-issued permit.” See RMC 4-44085D3. The large amount of broken concrete and mounds of dirt shown in the City’s photographs strongly suggests that Mr. Chaname should have been operating under a clearing and grading permit and potentially a demolition permit as well. If Mr. Chaname acquires the necessary permits, he should have much less trouble in leaving construction vehicles, equipment and materials on his property. If the development on his property isn’t significant enough to trigger any permit requirements, then it likely doesn’t necessitate any parking off approved surfaces or involve an extensive amount of construction related items that would suggest the operation of a contractor’s yard. Mr. Chaname’s contractor yard violation is only dismissed because the City used an outdated “construction/contractor yard” definition for the NOV. Had the City used the correct definition, Mr. Chaname likely would have been found in violation for using the violation site as a construction/contractor yard. The primary problem with the contractor yard violation date is that only one violation date listed in the NOV is valid. The NOV lists the violation dates as 10/07/24, 12/10/24, 12/19/24, 2/2/26, 2/9/26, 3/11/26 and 4/13/26. Mr. Chaname has already been charged for all those violation dates except for 4/13/26 in the 3rd NOV, dated 3/16/26 (Ex.7). The city can’t repeatedly charge Mr. Chaname for the same violation date. The NOV violation dates other than 3/16/26 are already established as committed under the 3rd NOV because Mr. Chaname didn’t appeal the third NOV. There is no need to revisit those violation dates in the NOV under appeal.1 Given the above, the only violation date that can be subject to the NOV is the 4/13/26 violations. The “construction/contractor yard office” definition used in the NOV was repealed by Ordinance No. 6185, which became effective on March 10, 2026 (five days after publication). The repealed definition prohibited a combined contractor office and yard to be located on the violation site. The currently applicable definition makes it a violation to have either an office or a contractor yard on the violation site. Mr. Chaname established that his contractor office is located in Seattle. The City didn’t dispute that there was no office at the violation site. There is no evidence suggesting such a use. Mr. Chaname relied upon the incorrect definition in the NOV to establish that his use didn’t meet that definition in part because he didn’t have an office at his violation site. HEARING TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-9 identified in the City’s Exhibit List were admitted during the June 16, 2026 hearing. A June 23, 2026 email from “Lila badboyz “ on behalf of Mr. Chaname along with four attachments was 1 It is acknowledged that the 3rd NOV didn’t assess any fine for the “construction/contractor’s office” definition. It is an open question whether a violation can be charged in one NOV and its fine for the same day of violation deferred to another NOV. In this case the NOV under appeal doesn’t identify that it’s seeking a fine for a prior established violation under an offense that has since been redefined. Given that Mr. Chaname will still be liable for $500 in fines because of this decision, the ambiguities of this situation will be resolved in his favor and no fine will be assessed for Violation No. 3. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 3 admitted post-hearing. Three more photographs on a June 30, 2026 email from Lila badboyz are also admitted. A video from an email from Mr. Chaname dated July 7, 2026 was admitted. The City’s July 16, 2026 response was admitted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant. Victor Jonathan Chaname, 16561 116th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058-5240 2. Property. 16561 116th Ave SE, Renton, WA 98058-5240. 3. Finding of Violation. The NOV was issued to Mr. Chaname on April 13, 2026. The NOV asserts three violations: (1) No building permit for accessory structure (RMC 4-5-060E); Parking on Unauthorized Surface (RMC 4-4-085.D.3); Operating Contractor Office in Residential Zone (RMC 4-2-060.N). 4. Appeal. Mr. Chaname filed the subject appeal on April 21, 2026. 5. Hearing. A hearing on the appeal was held on June 16, 2026. Mr. Chaname noted during the hearing that he hadn’t received a copy of Exhibits 7-9. The Examiner left the record open through July 23, 2026 for Mr. Chaname to comment on Exhibits 7-9. Mr. Chaname emailed a response on June 22, 2026 with additional evidence on June 30, 2026 and July 7, 2026. The emailed a final response on July 16, 2026. 6. Violation No. 1: unpermitted construction. It is undisputed that a shed-like structure covered in plastic and tarps has been constructed on the violation site without any building permit. Ms. Locker, the City’s lead code compliance officer, has verified that no building permit has been issued for the structure. Two pictures taken on April 13, 2026 show the structure to be well over 200 square feet with wood framing. Mr. Chaname testified that the structure is a Home Depot metal 12 by 20. Tr. 23. The photographs show what appears to be a wood face. However, the internal framing could be metal. 7. Violation No. 2: Driveway Parking. As confirmed by Mr. Chaname, the only developed driveway on this property is in front of the garage at the violation site. Ex. 8 Photographs from April 13, 2026 show a white commercial van and a grey van not parked on the driveway. The white van is parked on a newly cleared area and the grey van appears to be parked on the side of the home on a lawn or gravel area. A recreational vehicle is also shown parked on dirt and grass in an Ex. 8 April 13, 2026 photograph. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-10-3C5. Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 4 2. Code Violation: The code violation identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 is quoted below and applied to this appeal via a corresponding conclusion of law. Violation No. 1: Construction Without Building Permit RMC 4-5-060(E)(1)): 105.1 Required. Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building or structure, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by the Construction Codes and the Construction Administrative Code, or to cause any such work to be done, shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. 3. Violation Sustained. The violation is sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, an accessory structure has been built on the violation site without a building permit. No exception to building permit requirements is evident from the record. Violation No. 2 -- Impermissible Parking Locations RMC 4-4-085.D.3; Except for recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles being used for development activity pursuant to a valid City-issued permit, all motor vehicles shall be parked on a lawfully established driveway or an approved impervious surface. A separate violation of this Section shall be deemed to have occurred when, after issuance of a citation, twenty four (24) or more consecutive hours passes and the offending vehicle remains in an impermissible location, regardless of whether or not the vehicle has been relocated from the original location. For the purpose of this Section, driveways consisting of compacted dirt and/or gravel established prior to the effective date of this Section shall be considered a permissible parking location. 4. Violation Sustained. The violation is sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 7, at least three vehicles were parked on grass and/or dirt on April 13, 2026. Violation No. 3: Operating Contracting Office and Storage in Residential Zone RMC 4-2-060 prohibits “construction/contractor’s yard” in the R8 zone. RMC 4-11-030VV: Construction/Contractor yard. An area with primarily outdoor storage for the construction and landscaping trades. Storage includes but is not limited to materials, such as woodchips, pavers, and lumber, and equipment, such as excavators and power tools. This definition includes related buildings or structures for uses such as offices and repair facilities. 5. Violation Reversed. The violation is reversed because the NOV provides an incorrect definition of a construction/contractor’s yard. The “construction/contractor office” definition was repealed by Ordinance No. 6185, which became effective on March 10, 2026. The violation dates listed in the NOV that precede March 10, 2026 were subject to the third Notice of Violation issued against Mr. Chaname on March 16, 2026. Mr. Chaname can’t be fined for the same day of violation more than once. Consequently, the violation dates that precede March 10, 2026 can’t be charged a second time and the Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 5 NOV construction/contractor definition used for violation dates after March 10, 2026 is inaccurate and can’t be applied. The change in the contractor/construction definition by Ordinance No. 6185 materially affected Mr. Chaname’s ability to defend himself. The definition that was repealed by Ordinance No. 6185 provided that a “construction/contractor office” office was prohibited in the R-8 zone. Under the “construction/contractor office" definition, the City had to prove that the violation site was used for both a contractor yard and an office for the contractor yard. Mr. Chaname seized upon the office requirement to base his defense upon the fact that his office is located in Seattle. Had the NOV included the correct definition, Mr. Chaname would have known that outdoor contractor storage alone would have been a violation. Under the current definition, the City doesn’t have to prove that Mr. Chaname is operating an office at the violation site. The City only has to prove that the violation site is used for outdoor storage of contractor business materials and/or equipment. The steel plate sign and the blue telehandler strongly suggest that if the City had used the correct definition, Violation No. 3 would have been sustained. DECISION The Notice of Violation and Order to Correct Fourth Notice (CODE 24-000663) is sustained on two f the three violations. The $750 fine imposed by the NOV is reduced to $500 since one of the violations with its $250 fine is reversed. The $500 fine is due September 1, 2026 or within timeframes approved by City staff. ORDER TO CORRECT Mr. Chaname shall complete the corrective action identified in the NOV for Violations 1 and 2 by September 1, 2026. Failure to correct as ordered may subject the Violator (Appellant) to criminal prosecution authorized by RMC 1-10-7A1. Failure to comply with an Order to Correct can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Per RMC 1-10-7A2, if a Violator is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the Violator shall serve no less than five (5) days in jail for the first conviction, no less than ten (10) days for the second conviction, and no less than thirty (30) days for any subsequent conviction. A Violator shall not be eligible for Electronic Home Detention or any other alternative to jail time. DATED this 28th day of July, 2026. Hearing Examiner Appeal of Finding of Violation Page 6 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW.