Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRenton Decision - ChihabCode Enforcement Decision - 1 [Type here] BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: Code Violation Number: 19-000629 VIOLATION SITE ADDRESS: Parcel Number: 3295400120 PROPERTY OWNER: Hassan Chihab Cold Creek R/E Holdings REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Appeal of Finding of Violation RULING: Finding of Violation for Violations No. 1 sustained. $250.00 fine imposed. SUMMARY Mr. Hassan Chihab appeals an October 4, 2019 Finding of Violation alleging violation of RMC 4-5- 130B3 for overgrown weeds. The Finding of Violation is sustained along with tis $250 fine. HEARING The hearing was held on the alleged violations of this case on November 8, 2019 at the Renton City Hall Council Chambers, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. TESTIMONY Kevin Louder, Renton Code Compliance Officer, summarized the alleged violation. On October 3, 2019, Code Compliance received an inspection request from a resident of Tall Firs Condominiums about the vegetation on parcel number 3295400120located in Renton Washington. The parcel is vacant land. On October 4, 2019, Mr. Louder went out to parcel number 3295400120. Mr. Louder observed weeds in excess of 24 inches on the vacant lot. Mr. Louder photographed the weeds from the public right of way. Mr. Louder testified these were weeds he observed on the property, not trees or shrubs. Code Enforcement Decision - 2 [Type here] A Warning of Violation and a Finding of Violation Code 18-000460 for the same violation had previously been issued on the same parcel. The ownership of the property had not changed so Mr. Louder issued a Finding of Violation to the owner of the property under Cold Creek R/E Holdings, Mr. Hassan Chihab. Mr. Louder has experience as a Code Compliance Officer viewing numerous violations and observing them on site. This experience includes making visual determination if vegetation is a weed and if it is taller than allowed by statute. On parcel number 3295400120, Mr. Louder was able to ascertain that the vegetation he observed were weeds over 24 inches in height. Mr. Chihab appealed the prior Finding of Violation, Code 18-000460.His appeal, however, was not timely filed so his appeal was dismissed. The city's position is that the owner of the property was aware of the violation. The full penalty should be paid as the property ownership has not changed since the Warning of Violation and Finding of Violations were issued in Code 18-000460. Code 18-000460 was ultimately closed due to compliance on September 24, 2018. Mr. Chihab is again out of compliance with the same offense on October 4, 2019. Mr. Chihab testified that he received a warning first for the 2018 violation. He wants to know why he wasn’t given a warning first for this violation. Mr. Chihab wants to know how Mr. Louder determined the height of the violation. Mr. Chihab wants proof that these are in fact weeds. Mr. Chihab believes the cities pictures depict trees, not weeds. Mr. Chiban provided photographs into evidence that he explained looked like tree roots were breaking the ground. Mr. Chiban does not believe these are weeds and does not acknowledge that he is in violation, Mr. Chihab presented a photograph and testified that another property had a code violation of the same kind had and apparently have not been cited. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Appeal Request Received 10-11-19 Exhibit 2: Renton Code Compliance Narrative Exhibit 3: Warning of violation with Return Receipt from CODE 18-000460 Exhibit 4: Finding of Violation with Appeal Denial letter from CODE 18-000460 Exhibit 5: King County Tax Assessor Ownership Information Exhibit 6 10-4-2-19 Inspection Photographs Exhibit 7: Finding of Violation of Code 19-000629 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The violation site is located on parcel number: 3295400120. The site in question is owned by Code Enforcement Decision - 3 [Type here] Hassan Chihab, Cold Creek R/E Holdings. This site is a vacant lot 2.A Finding of Violation was issued on October 4, 2019 for the violations of this appeal. That Finding of Violation is the subject of this appeal. Mr. Chihab has not abated the violation. 3.The Code Compliance History includes a Warning of Violation and a subsequent Finding of Violation that was issued previously to Mr. Hassan Chihab in 2018, under Code 18-000460. The 18-000460 Finding of Violation was also for a vegetation violation. Mr. Chihab’s appeal of the Finding of Violation was untimely so his appeal of the 18-000460 Finding of Violation was dismissed. 4.The Code Violation 18-000460 was ultimately closed on September 24, 2018 due to compliance. 5. On October 4, 2019, in response to a code complaint, Mr. Louder went out to parcel number 3295400120. Mr. Louder observed a vegetation violation of weeds in excess of 24 inches on the vacant lot. Mr. Louder photographed the violation from the public right of way. Mr. Louder testified these were weeds he observed on the property, not trees or shrubs. 6. Mr. Louder has experience as a Code Compliance Officer viewing numerous violations and observing them on site. This experience includes making visual determination if vegetation is a weed and if it is taller than allowed by statute. For parcel number 3295400120, Mr. Louder was able to determine the vegetation he observed included weeds. Further, that the weeds he observed were higher that 24 inches, based on his visual observation and on a measuring stick that was used. 7. Although there also may be trees and shrubs on this vacant parcel of land, Mr. Louder issued the Finding of Violation based on the weeds he observed on the property. The photographs submitted by the City of Renton confirm the presence of weeds in excess of two feet in height, especially in proximity fence depicted on the left side of the photographs CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violations as provided in RMC 1-3-2. 2. Code Violation: The code violations identified in Finding of Fact No. 3 are quoted below and applied to this appeal via corresponding conclusions of law. International Property Maintenance Code Section 302.4 as amended by RMC 4 -5- 130(B)(16): Weeds: All premises and exterior property shall be maintained free from weeds or plant growth in excess of twelve inches in height on development property or twenty-four inches (24") in height on vacant land. All noxious weeds shall be prohibited. Weeds shall be defined as all grasses, annual plants and vegetation, other than trees or shrubs; provided, however, this term shall not include cultivated flowers and gardens. 3. Weeds exceeding 24 inches in height were observed on parcel number 3295400120, on October 4, 2019. It is concluded that as owner of the violation site, Mr. Hassan Chihab was in Code Enforcement Decision - 4 [Type here] violation of RMC 4-5-130(B)(16) on October 4, 2019. 4. Unequal Enforcement. During the hearing Mr. Chihab asserted that the City has failed to enforce other violations in his neighborhood, and this should excuse his noncompliance. The alleged favorable treatment of other neighbors does not serve as grounds for reversing the FOV. Mr. Chihab was essentially making an equal protection argument, asserting that he was being treated differently than other similarly situated neighbors. Since Mr. Chihab is not asserting discrimination based upon any protected class, such as race or religion, his challenge is subject to the “rational basis review,” which requires City action to be wholly arbitrary to overcome its strong presumption of constitutionality. See, Rhoades v. City of Battle Ground, 115 Wn. App. 752 (2002). There is no compelling evidence of arbitrary action in this case. The City asserted that it received a complaint about Mr. Chihab’s violation. As with many other jurisdictions, Renton prioritizes its limited code enforcement resources on issues that generate public concern and complaints, i.e. its enforcement process is complaint-based. Such an approach is rational given the need to prioritize limited resources and it is not found to be arbitrary. Further, it is also unlikely that the hearing examiner has any jurisdiction to consider constitutional equal protection claims in the resolution of a code enforcement appeal. See, LeJeune v. Clallam County, 64 Wn. App. 257 (1992), (absent an express code provision, County Commissioners have no authority to reconsider their quasi - judicial decisions); Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984), (hearing examiner has no authority to consider equitable estoppel defense because the examiner was not given this authority by ordinance or statute); Exendine v. City of Sammamish 127 Wn. App. 574 (2005), (hearing examiners do not have the authority to enforce, interpret or rule on constitutional challenges). DECISION Violation No. 1 of the October 4, 2019 Finding of Violation is sustained. A $250,00 fine is imposed. Decision issued December 20, 2019. Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Appeal to Superior Court. 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.