APP-2018-0002 Decision 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
2
3 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF
4 SPOKANE VALLEY THAT THE
STRUCTURE(S) SITUATED AT 7518 EAST
5 BRIDGEPORT AVENUE, SPOKANE
VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ARE UNFIT FOR
6 OCCUPANCY AS SPECIFIED IN THE DO FINDINGS OF FACT,
NOT OCCUPY NOTICE ISSUED JUNE 22, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
7 2018; AND APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF
A NOTICE AND ORDER WITH CIVIL AND DECISION
8 PENALTY FOR CODE VIOLATIONS FOR
THE SAME PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE
9 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
APPELLANT: REBEKAH S. DAVIS
10
FILE NO. APP-2018-0002
11
12 I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
13 Hearing Matter: Appeal of an Administrative Determination by the City of Spokane
14 Valley ("City") that the structure(s) situated at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane
Valley, Washington, are unfit for occupancy as specified in the Do Not Occupy Notice (DNO)
15 issued June 22, 2018; and Appeal of the issuance of a Notice and Order with Civil Penalty for
Code Violations ("Notice and Order") for the same property issued by the City.
16 Summary of Decision: Both appeals are denied.
17
II. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
18
A. Procedural Matters
19 On June 14, 2018, the City's Code Enforcement Department opened an investigation
into code violations for the property located at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley,
20 Washington ("subject property"), Auditor's Parcel No. 45063.3615, abbreviated legal
21 description: ORCHARD AVE ADD N100FT OF B65 EXC E68FT. (Staff Report,
"Investigation Details"pp. 2-3 and"Relevant Background Facts" pp. 3-6.)
22 A Warning Notice was issued on June 18, 2018, requiring compliance with the
applicable building, residential, and zoning codes within 72 hours. (Declaration of Nicole
23 Montano, Exhibit 1; Hearing Exhibit 2.) The Warning Notice identified violations of
24 International Residential Code (IRC) Section R105.1 (requirement of building permits),
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 1
1 Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 5.05.020 (requirement of business registration), and
SVMC 19.60.101 (allowed use in designated zone). The violations are identified as creating
2 an emergency condition at the property requiring correction of the violations or entering into
a Voluntary Compliance Agreement within 72 hours of the Warning Notice. Failure to do so
3 would result in the issuance of a Notice and Order pursuant to SVMC 17.100.050 and
4 17.100.130. (Declaration of Nicole Montano, Exhibit 1.) No information is provided to the
Hearing Examiner of how the Warning Notice was served or posted. Appellant, Ms. Davis,
5 responded to the Warning Notice via e-mail to Nicole Montano, Code Enforcement Officer for
the City, on June 20, 2018, acknowledging receipt of the notice and suggesting that she would
6 be unable to bring the property into compliance by the June 22, 2018, deadline. Ms. Davis's
acknowledgment of receipt of the Warning Notice is proof of service sufficient to establish
7 service upon her.
8 Notwithstanding the e-mail from Ms. Davis in response to the Warning Notice, and in
the absence of compliance or a Voluntary Compliance Agreement, on June 22, 2018, a DNO
9 notice was posted on the subject property. (Declaration of Jenny Nickerson, Exhibits 1 and 2.)
10 On July 6, 2018, Ms. Davis timely appealed the DNO, and the administrative appeal
hearing was scheduled for August 23, 2018. (Declaration of Rachelle McFetridge, Exhibit 17.)
11 Based upon continued violation of the DNO and other violations of the SVMC, IRC,
12 and International Building Code (IBC) identified therein, a Notice and Order for code
violations at the subject property was issued on July 27, 2018, imposing a civil penalty of
13 $500.00 pursuant to SVMC 17.100.250. (Hearing Exhibit 1, Supplement to August 16, 2018
Staff Report, p. 1.)
14 The Notice and Order by the City was issued and posted pursuant to SVMC 17.100.
15 No evidence has been presented to indicate when or by what method the Notice and Order
were served upon the Appellant. The date of the Notice and Order is July 27, 2018. If the
16 Notice and Order had been properly served upon the Appellant, as required by SVMC
17.100.060, on July 27, 2018, the appeal period would have expired on August 10, 2018.
17 Although there is no indication of the date or method of service, the Notice and Order itself
reads on page 7 of 7, paragraph 10.a.: "The Appeal Deadline is: August 16, 2018 at
18 9:00am". The Notice and Order, dated July 27, 2018; was timely appealed by Ms. Davis on
August 16, 2018, per the terms of the Notice and Order itself, and this appeal item was added
19 to the DNO hearing agenda scheduled for August 23, 2018. (Hearing Exhibit 1, Supplement
20 to August 16, 2018, Staff Report.)
On August 20, 2018, the Hearing Examiner conducted a visit to the site, viewing the
21 property from street, without entering the subject property or contacting anyone at the
subject property.
22
On August 23, 2018, the Hearing Examiner conducted an open record hearing, open to
23 public view and in a quasi-judicial in format, on the appeals of both the DNO and the Notice
and Order. At the hearing both the City and the Appellant provided testimony relative to
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 2
1 each of the appeals. The hearing was conducted pursuant to Chapter 17.90.060 SVMC, and
Appendix B of the SVMC.
2
The following persons appeared and testified at the hearing, under an oath
3 administered by the Hearing Examiner:
Rachelle McFetridge, Attorney Doug Powell, Building Official
4 City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Valley
10210 E. Sprague Avenue 10210 E. Sprague Avenue
5 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Spokane Valley WA 99206
6 Rebekah Davis Eric Lamb, Deputy City Attorney
7518 East Bridgeport Avenue City of Spokane Valley
7 Spokane Valley WA 99212 10210 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley WA 99206
8
Brian Elsner (homeless)
9 brianelsner zyahoo.com
10 The following exhibits were admitted at the hearing:
• Exhibit 1: Code Enforcement Department Supplement to August 16, 2018, Staff
11 Report
12 • Exhibit 2: Office of the City Attorney Letter dated June 18, 2018, to Rebekah
Davis re: Nuisance and Zoning Violations
13
• Exhibit 3: Email correspondence initiated on June 20, 2018, by Rebekah Davis to
14 the City regarding letter of Nuisance and Zoning Violations (Exhibit 2)
15 • Exhibit 4: Letter from Inland Northwest Engineering, Inc. dated July 12, 2018, to
Rebekah Davis re: Funkey House Study, Project Number: 2018128 Funkey House
16 Study
17 The record includes the documents in the City's file number APP-2018-0002 at the
time of the hearing; the electronic recording of the hearing by Hearing Examiner staff;
18 Exhibits 1 through 4 admitted during the hearing; the sign-in sheet for the hearing; and the
items taken notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
19 Because this is the first open public hearing on the matter, the burden of proof on
20 appeal is upon the City to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that its DNO is
appropriate.
21 B. Description of Subject Property
22 The subject property is located at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley,
Washington, referenced as County Assessor's tax parcel no. 45063.3615, and legally described
23 as ORCHARD AVE ADD N100FT OF B65 EXC E68FT. The parcel is approximately 7,313
square feet.
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 3
1 The subject property is within an area designated as Single Family Residential (SFR)
in the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") and is zoned R2,
2 residential zoning.
3 C. Appeal of Do Not Occupy Notice
1. Facts Relative to Appeal of DNO
4
Spokane County records indicate that a house, 618 square feet in size, was built on
5 the property at E. 7518 Bridgeport Avenue, during the years 1938 and 1939. The building
was a single-family residence with a single story, containing a total of six rooms. Interior
6 walls were drywall construction and the exterior walls were of board and batten. The house
was heated by"stove."Also constructed on the property was a detached garage of frame
7 construction with a dirt floor, vertical lap siding, and a composite roof. A photograph of the
8 house on the property, taken in June 1967, shows a small, single story, rectangular house
with a pitched roof and lap siding. (Declaration of Rachelle McFetridge, Exhibit 1.)
9 Appraisal notes in the Spokane County records, for the year 1999, regarding parcel
number 45063.3615 contain the following notes:
10
"DID A WB INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY 2/24/98. THE
11 STRUCTURE LOOKED LIKE IT WAS UNDERGOING A CHANGE. IT
APPEARED A UNIQUE SECOND FLOOR WAS BEING ADDED. I
12 COULD NOT GET INTO THE YARD BECAUSE OF FENCES AND DOGS.
THE ADDITION LOOKED LIKE IT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO I
13 DID NOT ADD IT TO THE RECORD. 5/1/98 (68)."
14 A search of permit and inspection records regarding the house at E.7518 Bridgeport
15 Avenue produced the following information about the evolution of the structure overtime.
• Permit application for installation of a wood stove — 11-10-80. Inspection record
16 indicates attempted inspections on 2-3-82 and 2-12-82 with "no response." In 1983,
another inspection was attempted with no response and a note that it appeared
17 "no obvious sign of a wood burning unit." The inspection notes were signed with
the initials "RCO." (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 1.)
18
• Permit issued 10/23/89 for installation of wood stove/insert. Property
19 owners/occupants are listed as Charlie and Paige Lee. No inspection record is
attached. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 1.)
20
• Permit application, dated 09/17/90, for construction of a kitchen addition of 10 foot
21 by 12 foot to the first floor in the front of the house, attachment of a boat to the
first floor in the front of the house, and the addition of a second floor structure
22 identified as "Paige's Art Studio Addition," 15 foot by 18 foot in size and shown
directly above the first floor kitchen addition and extending into the middle of the
23 house from front to back. Property owners/occupants are listed as Charlie and
Paige Lee. The permit for said additions was issued 02/28/91. No inspection
24 reports are provided. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 2.)
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 4
1 • Permit application, dated 09/17/90, for construction of a detached carport 22 foot
by 32 foot, 704 square feet in size. Property owners/occupants are listed as Charlie
2 and Paige Lee. The permit for said carport was issued 02/28/91. No inspection
reports are provided. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 3.)
3
• Permit issued on 10/08/91, for relocation of wood stove. Property owners/occupants
4 are listed as Charlie and Paige Lee. No inspection reports are provided.
(Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 4.)
5
• Permit application, dated 10/25/91, with architectural drawings for construction of
6 second floor addition to the residential structure. Property owners/occupants are
listed as Charlie and Paige Lee. The architectural drawings illustrate the details
7 of the foundation for the attachment of the boat to the structure and for the
kitchen addition on the first floor. They also illustrate the details for the second-
8 floor addition, which includes a third level structure, androof construction over
the second floor and third level additions. An amendment to the second floor and
9 third level plans, reviewed on 10/25/91, contains a note stating that there are no
stairs to the third level and no room for a stairwell to that area. The permit for
said addition was issued on 10/25/91. No inspection reports are provided.
10 (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 5.) Note that the permit issued 10/25/91 for
the addition of the second floor and third level structures appears to be similar,
11 though more detailed than, the second-floor addition permit issued 9/17/90 for the
first-floor addition, attachment of the boat to the residence, and second floor"art
12 room" addition.
13 • Permit issued 08/10/92 for reroofing of residence. Property owners/occupants are
listed as Charlie and Paige Lee. No inspection reports are provided. (Declaration
14 of Doug Powell, Exhibit 6.)
15 • A document, dated 8/14/92, identified by Doug Powell as an ICBO determination
regarding the definition of a "story" and"floor" and addressing decks outside of the
16 walls of the structure. It is unclear how the document originated or who the
author of the document is; however, the document refers to "E. 7518 Bridgeport
17 Avenue" and appears to describe the condition of the 3rd level"floor" and access to
the space as it existed in 1992. A handwritten note at the end of the document,
18 dated 8/14/92, reads: "Requested interprutation [sic] from ICBO regarding
definition of floor & story. Floor system described above does not constitute a floor
19 & deck w/o a roof would not meet the definition of a story (Unidentifiable initials)."
(Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 7.)
20
• Permit issued 10/11/94 for two wood/pellet stove inserts. Property
owners/occupants are listed as Charlie and Paige Lee. No inspection reports are
21 provided. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 8.)
22 • Permit issued by City of Spokane Valley, dated 02/03/2017, for the conversion to
gas at the property. The property owner is identified as Rebekah S. Davis. No
23 inspection reports or records are provided. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit
10.)
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 5
1 No other building permit applications or permits are indicated in the records of
Spokane County or the City of Spokane Valley. As of the date of the hearing, the property
2 located at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, auditor's parcel
number 45063.3615, has associated building permits and other required permits for only a
3 one bedroom, one bathroom, two story single family residence, with a detached garage with a
4 dirt floor, and a detached carport. Modifications to the residential structure as it is shown in
the 1967 photograph, for which permits were issued include the addition of a boat attached to
5 the first floor opposite the kitchen, the addition of a kitchen area (120 square feet of floor
space) on the first floor, the addition of a second floor "art room" (270 square feet of floor
6 space) with a ceiling that extends through exposed joists to the height of a third level above
the ground, and the installation of wood stoves. (Testimony of Doug Powell; Declaration of
7 Doug Powell.) There is no evidence of a certificate of occupancy issued by the appropriate
8 government jurisdiction for any work performed at the property since 1939.
Records maintained by the City include photographs of the residential structure at
9 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, taken over time in July 2012,
and in October 2017. (Declaration of Rory Lapka; Declaration of Doug Powell.) Exhibit 1 to
10 the Declaration of Rory Lapka, illustrates the existence of a deck at the second and third
11 floors of the residence, and what was identified as a hot tub during the hearing by Ms. Davis,
located on a deck outside of the second story of the residence, with a tower structure above it.
12 There is no record of permits issued for the second floor or third floor decks or the hot tub and
tower as seen in the 2017 photographs. (Declaration of Doug Powell.) Photographs of the
13 residential structure in 2012, illustrate work in progress inside and outside of the structure.
Some of the construction work identified in the 2012 images may have been within the scope
14 of the permits issued between 1990 and 1994; however, no record of permits for electrical
wiring and plumbing work throughout the structure seen in the 2012 photographs has been
15 provided. (Declaration of Doug Powell, Exhibit 9.) Mr. Powell testified at the hearing that he
16 had searched the permitting records and has provided copies of all permits that he could find.
Ms. Davis has produced no evidence of any permits for the work performed at the property
17 allegedly without required permits.
Exhibits 7— 16 to the Declaration of Rachelle McFetridge are copies of news reports,
18 newspaper articles, and advertisements on the internet at various B&B and hotel/motel
19 booking sites all referencing the property at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley,
Washington, including photographs of the property. The articles and advertisements indicate
20 that the photos represent the property between 2016 and 2018. The various advertisements
for the property describe the residence as being able to accommodate 16 persons in a variety
21 of bedrooms, lofts, towers, and an artist's loft attached to the garage with its own entrance.
The advertisements also describe "wrap around decks, spiral staircases to all three levels of
22 the house, an outdoor fire pit, and a wood stove-heated hot tub. (Declaration of Rachelle
McFetridge, Exhibits 9, 10, 12, and 16.) One advertisement seeks visitors who are
23 experienced in building, carpentry, electrical, plumbing, and renovations to trade work on the
24 property for rent at the residence. (Declaration of Rachelle McFetridge, Exhibit 14.)
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 6
1 When compared to the photographs in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Rory Lapka and
Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Doug Powell, the photographs in Exhibits 7— 16 to the
2 Declaration of Rachelle McFetridge illustrate the extensive work that has been performed at
the property since 2012. Taking the photographs and the many advertisements into account,
3 it is clear that the structure as it currently stands far exceeds the one bedroom, one bathroom
4 two story single-family residence that is depicted in the drawings that accompany the permit
applications and were the basis of the issuance of permits between 1988 and 2017.
5 Ms. Davis testified at the hearing raising several issues that will be addressed
hereafter. When asked by the Hearing Examiner if she had any evidence or testimony to
6 present that would refute the allegations from the City regarding the lack of building permits
7 for the extensive construction and alteration work performed at the property and on the
residential structure, her response was simply that she did not. (Testimony of Rebekah
8 Davis.) Inland Northwest Engineering, Inc. performed an inspection of the residential
structure, in July 2018, at Ms. Davis's request. (Hearing Exhibit 4.) The letter report of the
9 inspection, dated July 12, 2018, states the conclusion that the floor and roof of the structure
are generally adequate for the design loads, it does not address the lack of permits for work
10 performed at the property. The letter points to deficiencies in the structure, such as the spiral
11 staircase from the second to the third floor not meeting code, the lack of smoke and CO2
detectors, and the water closet on the 3rd floor not meeting code.
12 Even after receiving the Warning Notice, the Do Not Occupy Notice, and the Notice
and Order regarding the lack of required permits and the danger to the safety and welfare of
13 the public and those individuals who may occupy the residence, Ms. Davis has repeatedly
14 refused to allow the City to make inspections to determine the extent of building and/or
residential code violations and, thus, assess the degree of danger posed to the occupants of
15 the residence and the surrounding properties. (Declaration of Jenny Nickerson.)
Evidence in the record is overwhelming that a significant amount of construction
16 work, remodeling, and alterations have been made to the structures at 7518 East Bridgeport
17 Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, between 1988 and 2018. That construction work
includes extensive electrical wiring, plumbing work, remodeling to the interior of the
18 residential structure as well as alterations and additions to the exterior of the structure, for
which required permits were not obtained and of which no inspections by the agencies with
19 jurisdiction for same have been completed.
20 Ms. Davis testified that she acquired ownership of the building in 2016, and that at
that time the work seen in the photographs was already completed. She also testified that at
21 no point, when she acquired the property or at any time afterwards was she advised that
there was work performed at the property that required building or other permits. She
22 asserts thus that because the work was done prior to her owning the building and in her
ignorance of the requirements for permits, she could not be held responsible now for the lack
23 of permits etc. (Testimony of Rebekah Davis.)
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 7
1 Evidence offered by the City indicates that Ms. Davis has been an occupant and/or in
control of the property since at least 2012, when her mother Sandrea Shane Davis acquired
2 title to the property. Exhibits 2 —6 to the declaration of Rachelle McFetridge indicated that:
3 • Grantor, Alice J. Stoner transferred title to the property to Sandrea Shane Davis
on or about August 2, 2012.
4
• The Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit, dated August 2, 2012, for that transaction
5 indicates that the Grantee of the property is "Sandrea Shane Davis, an unmarried
woman, c/o Rebekah S. Davis."
6
• A General Power of Attorney, dated July 25, 2012, executed by Sandrea Shane
Davis as Principal, names Rebekah S. Davis, Sandrea's daughter, as Sandrea's
7 "Attorney in Fact."
8 • The recording cover page for the Power of Attorney, which was recorded in
Spokane County on August 15, 2012, by Rebekah S. Davis, indicates that the
9 Power of Attorney was recorded relative to Tax Parcel Number 45063.3615.
10 • A Quit Claim Deed, dated June 3, 2016, and recorded in Spokane County on
June 6, 2016, indicates that"Sandrea S. Davis c/o Rebekah Davis" transferred
11 title to the property at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane, Washington, to
Rebekah S. Davis.
12
• The Real Estate Excise Tax Affidavit, dated June 6, 2016, for the June 3, 2016,
13 transaction indicates that the Affidavit was signed by Rebekah Davis as Personal
Representative, on behalf of the Grantor, and by Rebekah Davis as the Grantee.
14
The evidence of the transfers of the property to Sandrea S. Davis in 2012 and to
15 Rebekah S. Davis in 2016, is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
Rebekah S. Davis, the Appellant, had knowledge of the property, of activities at the property,
16 and was in control of the property beginning in 2012 through the present day.
17 2. Authority for Issuance of DNO Notice and Appeal Thereof.
By Chapter 24.40 SVMC, the City has adopted:
18
• Washington State Energy Code
19
• Washington State Historic Building Code
20
• State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of the International Building Code,
including Appendix Chapters E, F, G, I, and J and ICC ANSI A117.1 and the
21 International Existing Building Code
22 • State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of the International Residential
Code, including Appendix Chapters F, G, H, and J
23
• State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of the International Mechanical
24 Code, the International Fuel and Gas Code, NFPA 58, and NFPA 54
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 8
1 • State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of the International Fire Code
2 • State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of the Uniform Plumbing Code
3 • State Building Code Adoption and Amendment of Appendices A, B and I of the
Uniform Plumbing Code; etc.
4
IRC Sections R1O4.1 and R104.2 authorize and direct the building official to enforce
5 the code and to receive applications for and to issue permits pursuant to the code. Any owner
or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish,
6 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
7 installation of which is regulated by the IRC, or to cause any such work to be performed,
shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit. (IRC
8 Section R1O5.1.) A building or structure shall not be used or occupied, and a change in the
9 existing use or occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not
be made, until the building official has issued a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided
10 in the IRC. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be construed as an approval of a
violation of the provision of the IRC or of other ordinances of the City. Certificates that
11 presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provision of the IRC or other ordinances of
the City shall not be valid. (IRC Section R11O.1.)
12
A certificate of occupancy issued pursuant to the IRC shall be revoked or suspended
13 by the building official wherever the certificate is issued in error, based on incorrect
information, or where it is determined that the building or structure or portion thereof is in
14 violation of any ordinance or regulation or any of the provisions of the IRC. (IRC Section
R11O.5.) It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend,
15 repair, move, remove, demolish or occupy any building or structure or equipment regulated
by the IRC, or cause same to be done in conflict with or in violation of any of the provisions of
16 the IRC. (IRC Section R113.1)
17 SVMC 17.100.030 authorizes the City to determine that violations of SVMC Title 24
have occurred or are occurring and provides procedures and remedies that may be pursued by
• 18 the City upon such a determination. Persons having standing may appeal a determination of
a violation or violations by the City to the Hearing Examiner. (SVMC 17.100.220; Chapter
19 17.90 SVMC; SVMC 24.30.010.)
20 SVNIC 7.05.03U authorizes the city manager or his/her designee to determine whether
violations of Chapter 7.05 SVMC occurred and to utilize compliance provisions set forth in
21 Chapter 17.100 SVMC. SVMC 7.05.040 reads that:
22 No person, firm, or entity shall erect, contrive, cause, continue, maintain, or
permit to exist any public nuisance within the City ... Including buildings
23 or portions thereof which are deemed dangerous or unfit pursuant to SVMC
(including building and property maintenance codes and regulations).
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 9
1 SVMC 17.30.010 states that all violations of SVMC 17 through 24 are hereby
determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare and are
2 declared to be public nuisances.
3 The failure to obtain the required permits for the work that has been performed in
transforming the residence at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue from the relatively simple two
4 story structure for which permits were obtained into the building that exists there now, and
the failure to obtain a certificate of occupancy to the building as it now exists are violations of
5 Chapter 17.100 SVMC and Chapter 24.40. Violations of SVMC 17.100 and SVMC 24.40 are
by definition nuisances and are detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
6 On those bases alone, it was proper for the City to issue the Warning and then the DNO on
7 June 18 and June 22, 2018, respectively.
In addition to the violations regarding required permits etc., there is sufficient
8 evidence in the record to find that Ms. Davis has been and continues to operate a bed and
breakfast business at the property, thus requiring her to register her business with the City.
9 Having failed to do so is a violation of SVMC 5.05.020.
10 Finally, Ms. Davis is in violation of SVMC 19.60.050 by operating a community
residential facility in an R-2 zone and allowing more than six residents to occupy the
11 property.
12 The issuance of the Warning and Do Not Occupy Order by the City are appropriate
and lawful.
13 D. Appeal of Notice and Order, Civil Penalty $500.00
14 1. Facts Relative to Appeal of Notice and Order
15 The facts as described in sections A and C above also support the issuance of the
Notice and Order, Civil Penalty $500.00 by the City. Those facts are not repeated in this
16 section of this decision.
17 2. Authority for Issuance of Notice and Order and Apnea]. Thereof.
18 SVMC 17.100.130 authorizes the City to issue a Notice and Order to any person
responsible for a code violation when the City has sufficient evidence of a code violation. The
19 Notice and Order may be issued within 30 days of the determination of a code violation or
within 10 days of the end of a Voluntary Compliance Agreement time period has not been
20 met. The Notice and Order issued by the City was issued approximately a month after the
issuance of a DNO for code violations and after attempts were made to negotiate a Voluntary
21 Compliance Agreement with the Appellant.
22 The Notice and Order, Civil Penalty $500.00 was properly issued and complies with
the terms and penalty provisions of the SVMC.
23
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 10
1 'E. Issues Raised in the Appeal:
2 At the hearing on August 23, 2018, the Appellant raised several issues in defense of
the alleged violations stated in the Warning, DNO, and Notice and Order. Those issues
3 I include:
1. That the time allowed to her for compliance with the various applicable codes was too
4 short.
5 2. That she had no notice of the requirement of permits for work performed in modifying the
residential structure from the original size and shape to how the structure now exists.
6
3. That she did not perform the work in modifying the structure, all work had been
7 performed prior to her acquiring the property in 2016.
4. That the property is actually owned and operated by a religious group (that she did not
8 identify specifically) and that the action to enforce compliance with the code was a
9 violation of the freedom of religion.
5. That she is entitled to a fair hearing before an unbiased and impartial tribunal.
10
6. That she lacked an opportunity to be heard.
11 7. That she is entitled to a protection of her inalienable rights. (No specific rights were
explained.)
12
8. That she and the members of her community who occupy the property are not subject to
13 the law of the City but are only subject to the laws of God.
14 SVMC 17.100.050(F) states that a warning shall specify a reasonable time, not more
than 30 days for abatement of a violation, and that a stop work order shall be issued in the
15 event that the violation is not corrected or a Voluntary Compliance Agreement is not entered
into with the specified period of time. The warning was dated June 18, 2018, and Ms. Davis
16 acknowledged receipt of the warning. She contacted the City but did not correct the
violations or enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement within the time stated. She had
17 not complied or entered into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement even at the time of the
hearing on August 23, 2018. The warning and DNO were issued within the requirements and
18 time limits of the applicable SVMC.
19 SVMC 07.05.040 prohibits any person from causing or continuing a nuisance within
the City, a nuisance being defined as including a violation of building and property
20 maintenance codes. Regardless of whether she was given notice of the violations prior to the
21 Warning Notice or at the time that she performed or had work performed to modify the
' structure, since the Warning Notice and DNO, Ms. Davis has continued to fail to correct the
22 violations or to enter into a Voluntary Compliance Agreement.
Ms. Davis's claims that she did not perform or cause to be performed any work in
23 violation of the applicable codes are without credible basis. Evidence is sufficient to support a
24 finding that since 2012, when her mother purchased the property, Ms. Davis was aware of
and in control of the activities at the property.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 11
1 Although Ms. Davis claims that a religious organization owns and operates the
property, she provided no evidence of that, thus her claim is without support in the record.
2 The deed to the property that appears in the record indicates that Ms. Davis is the legal
owner of the property since 2016.
3
The hearing of the appeals that were filed by Ms. Davis were conducted pursuant to
4 the applicable codes and regulations of the City. Proper notice of the hearing was provided
pursuant to those codes, and Ms. Davis appeared and presented lengthy argument and
5 testimony regarding her allegations and defense to the DNO and Notice and Order.
6 Ms. Davis's reference to protection of inalienable rights was merely stated and
repeated by Ms. Davis though she made no reference to any specific rights or how they may
7 have been violated. Any issue that may arise from Ms. Davis's reference to inalienable rights
would be a constitutional issue, as would her arguments about religious affiliation with the
8 property. Those issues are outside of the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner and would not
9 be decided by the Hearing Examiner.
Ms. Davis's assertion of her not being subject to the City's jurisdiction or laws is also
10 an issue of constitutional magnitude and outside of the jurisdiction of the Hearing Examiner
to hear or decide.
11
Ms. Davis has failed to establish her defenses with credible evidence or reference to
12 issues that are within the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction to hear or decide. For those
reasons, she has failed to establish the defenses that she has raised before the Hearing
13 Examiner.
14 Based on the above findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner enters the
following:
15
III. DECISION
16
Based on the Findings and Conclusions above, the appeal of an administrative
17 determination that the structure(s) situated at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane
Valley, Washington are unfit for occupancy as specified in the DNO issued June 22, 2018, is
18
hereby denied; and the appeal of the City's issuance of a Notice and Order with Civil Penalty
19 for code violations at the subject property under the Do Not Occupy Notice is hereby denied.
The Do Not Occupy Notice posted on June 22, 2018, remains in effect until such time
20 as the subject property is inspected and the fire/life/safety issues have been addressed and
remedied by Appellant. Pursuant to SVMC 17.100.200, SVMC 17.10.230, and SVMC
21 17.100.240, nothing in this decision shall impede any right that the City has to pursue any
22 other judicial or administrative remedy that may be available to the City
DATED this 4th day of September, 2018
23
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 12
1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
2HEARING EXAMINER
3
David . Hubert, WSBA#16488
4 NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
5 Pursuant to SVMC Chapter 17.90 RCW Chapter 36.70C, the decision of the
6 Hearing Examiner on the appeal of an administrative determination that the
structure(s) situated at 7518 East Bridgeport Avenue, Spokane Valley,Washington
7 are unfit for occupancy as specified in the Do Not Occupy Notice and the Notice
and Order with Civil Penalty for code violations is final and conclusive unless
8 within 21 calendar days from the date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's
decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant
9 to RCW Chapter 36.70C.
10 On September 5, 2018, a copy of this decision will be mailed by regular mail
to the Appellant and to all government agencies and persons entitled to notice
11 under SVMC 17.80.130(4). Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of
the Hearing Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it is mailed.
12
The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's decision will be
13 September 10, 2018. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE APPEAL DECISION
IS OCTOBER 1, 2018.
14
The complete record in this matter is on file during the appeal period with
15 the City of Spokane Valley, 10210 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,Washington
992016; and may be inspected by contacting Rachelle McFetridge. The file may be
16 inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of each week,
except holidays, during regular business hours. Copies of the documents in the
17 record will be made available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision File No.APP-2018-0002 13