Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStockman Decision � Denis Law Mayor � City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC October 25, 2017 Mr. Henry Stockman 16551 106th Avenue SE Renton, WA 98055 Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision Code Case No: CODE-17-000218 Dear Mr. Stockman: I have attached the Hearing Examiner's Decision dated October 24, 2017, in the above referenced matter. If you have any questions or concerns, please fee� free to contact me. Sincerely, � � �i'���� ;/ Jason A. Seth, CMC City Clerk cc: Hearing Examiner Craig Burnell, Building Official Donna Locher, Code Compliance Inspector Tim Lawless,Code Compliance Inspector Robert Shuey,Code Compliance Inspector Sandra Pedersen, Finance 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF RENTON REPORT, DECISION AND REOUIRED CORRECTIVE ACTION—APPEAL OF NOTICES OF VIOLATION (CODE17-000218) Appellant: Henry Stockman 16551 106th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Alleged Violations: Operating a Home Occupation without a Home Occupation Permit and Posting Signs in Violation of Home Occupation Standards Location of Violation: 16551 106th Ave SE Renton, WA 98055 Public Hearing: September 12, 2017 at Renton City Hall. Decision: Appeal sustained. No violation found. No fines due. Appellant's business doesn't meet definition of home occupation. SUMMARY OF DECISION The appeal is sustained and no violation is found because the Appellant's business doesn't meet the definition of home occupation. The City's definition of home occupation requires that the business be conducted"entirely" within a home. Well over 90%of the Appellant's business is conducted outside the Appellant's home. The result of this decision does not necessarily operate in the Appellant's favor. Home occupations are usually authorized in residential zones to enable home owners to operate a business when they would otherwise be prohibited from doing so. In the absence of qualifying for a home occupation, the business operation is usually barred. Since the Appellant's operations don't qualify as a home occupation, he may not be authorized to conduct any part of his business at his home, which most significantly means he may not be authorized to park his business vehicles at his home or post any business signs on his property. Those are issues the Appellant will have to work out with City staff. SUMMARY OF HEARING TESTIMONY Donna Locher, City of Renton Code Enforcement Officer, presented the City's case. Ms. Locher noted that she had looked at the property last week and the business signs had been removed. In response to examiner questions about how she knew a business was being conducted within Mr. Stockman's home, Ms. Locher responded that the Department of Revenue lists the address of Mr. Stockman's home as the address for his business. She also noted that landscape trucks are parked at the residence. Ms. Locher stated she'd seen the landscaping trucks when she did inspections for the business signs. The property also fronts on a busy street and she often sees the trucks when she's driving by Mr. Stockman's home Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 2 when she's travelling to her home. When she spoke to Henry Stockman about the business, he never denied he was operating the business from his home. The examiner inquired how the business could be construed as being conducted"entirely"within the home as required by the definition. Ms. Locher noted that a home occupation is usually where the paper work and billing is done. She noted that the presence of the landscaping trucks makes it obvious that the Stockman home is the base of operations. Scott Stockman, Appellant, noted he purchased the subject property in 2012. He's been at the property for over five years. The signs were put up immediately after the house was purchased in 2012. Mr. Stockman couldn't understand why the signs are an issue know considering how long they've been up. He also noted that he doesn't run his business out of his home, he runs it out of his trucks. He doesn't believe he runs a home occupation business. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Stockman noted that the phone number on the signs at his home are for his cell phone. Mr. Stockman noted he works 8-10 hours per day away from his home and he does invoices maybe 1.5 hours per month in his home. He has three business trucks and he parks them on his driveway. Employees don't go to his home, they meet at the work sites. He gives employees paychecks by hand. In response to questions from Ms. Locher, Mr. Stockman acknowledged that an employee does go to this home to pick up one of his business trucks. All three trucks have landscaping signs on them. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1-13 identified in the City's exhibit list are admitted into the record. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A�pellant/Propertv Owner. The property owner is Henry Stockman, 16551 106th Avenue SE,Renton,WA 98055. The Appellant is Scott Stockman at the same address. 2. PropertX. The property subject to this appeal is located at 16551 106th Avenue SE, Renton, WA 98055. 3. Subject of A�peal. The Appellant appeals an FOV issued for allegedly conducting a home occupation without a home occupation license on the subject property on May 23, 2017. 4. Nature of Business. A landscaping business is partiaily operated from the subject property. The property was initially cited under the subject NOV due to the presence of two business signs posted on the property advertising a landscaping business. The Appellant acknowledges that he parks three business trucks at the subject property outside and those trucks also have signs advertising the landscaping business. The Appellant notes that he and other employees spend 8-10 hours per day doing landscaping work off-site. He spends about 1.5 hours per month doing billing in the residence of the subject property. Only one employee regularly visits the residence, to pick up one of the business vehicles. From this evidence it can be determined that only a very small portion of the subject business is operated within a dwelling or garage. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Hearing Examiner Jurisdiction. The hearing examiner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Notice of Violation as a designee of the Administrator of the Department of Community and Economic Development. Appeal of Notice of Violation Page 3 See RMC 1-3-2(B)(1)and RMC 1-3-2(E). As designee ofthe Administrator,the examiner is authorized to require corrective action for Findings of Violation that become final pursuant to 1-3-2(D)(2) 2. A�plicable Code provisions. The FOVs assert violation of RMC 4-9-090, which requires a home occupation license for home occupations. Applicable code provisions are quoted be(ow in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-9-090: A. DEFINITION.� Any commercial use conducted entirely within a dwelling or garage and carried on by persons residing in that dwelling unit which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling as a residence.... E. CITYBUSINESS LICENSE REQUIRED: A business license must be obtained from the Ciry Administrative Services Department. 3. Home Occupation Standards Don't Apply. The AppellanYs business doesn't meet the definition of a home occupation, so the standards applicable to home occupations, including the requirement for a business license,don't apply. As noted in the definition quoted above,to qualify as a home occupation,the business must be conducted "entirely within a dwelling or garage." As determined in the Findings of Fact herein, only a very small portion of the Appellant's business is conducted within a home. Since the business doesn't qualify as a home occupation, the home occupation regulations don't apply and there was no violation of those regulations as alleged in the subject FOV. However, in the absence of operating as a home occupation, the Appellant is likely barred from conducting any business operations from his home. Those issues are beyond the scope of this appeal and the Appellant shou(d work with City staff to ascertain what business activities, if any,are authorized at his residence. 4. Business Doesn't Oualifv as Nonconformin LJse. The Appellant's defense is based upon the fact that his signs have been in place since 2012. That issue need not be reached since his business doesn't qualify as a home occupation. If his business did qualify as a home occupation,the fact that the signs have been posted since 2012 would not work in the Appellant's favor. The City has been regulating home occupations since 1995. The Appellant's business would only qualify as a nonconforming use (more commonly known as grandfathered)if he had established his business prior to the 1995 adoption of home occupation regulations. In the absence of nonconforming use rights, the fact that the City has not enforced its regulations against the Appellant for a number of years does not excuse noncompliance. DECISION As determined in the Conclusions of Law above,the appeal is sustained and no violation is found. Decision issued October 24, 2017. � � � c�.:-��...—��......... � r . �.�- .�_.�.......�..�.��,....�_�___ Ph� A.Qlbrechts Hearing Examiner Appeal ofNotice of Violation Page 4 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.