Hearing Examiner Decision APP-01-10 TUP 01-10 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY HEARING EXAMINER
RE: Appeal of Notices and Orders issued by City )
Community Development Department; ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
Appellant: Farm Fresh Fruit/Richard W. Phillips ) AND DECISION
File No. APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 )
)
I. SUMMARY OF DECISION
Hearing Matter: Appeal of Notices and Orders issued by the City Community Development
Department, imposing civil penalties of $1,000 and $5,000 for violations of the Spokane Valley
Municipal Code (SVMC).
Summary of Decision: Deny appeal, and affirm the imposition of civil penalties of$1,000 and
$5,000.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On September 3, 2010, the City Community Development Department ("Department") issued a
Notice and Order to Richard W. Phillips ("Rick Phillips"), regarding the Fresh Farm Fruit produce
stand operated by Phillips at 20 S. Argonne Road, Spokane Valley, Washington.
2. The Notice and Order described the violation as operating a business with an expired temporary
use permit (TUP), in violation of SVMC 7.05.040 (Nuisances Prohibited) and SVMC 19.160.030
(Temporary Uses); advised Rick Phillips that this was a 4th offense, a civil penalty of $1,000 was
being assessed, and any costs of enforcement incurred by the City would also be assessed; directed
Phillips to cease all business activity until a new TUP was granted; and contained the other
information required by SVMC 17.100.150.
3. On September 13, 2010, the Department issued a second Notice and Order to Rick Phillips,
regarding the same business. The Notice and Order described the violation as operating a business
with an expired temporary use permit (TUP); advised Phillips that a civil penalty of$5,000 was being
assessed, and any costs of enforcement incurred by the City would also be assessed; directed Phillips
to cease all business activity on the site until a TUP was granted; and contained the other information
required by SVMC 17.100.150.
4. On September 16, 2010, the Notices and Orders were timely appealed by Farm Fresh Fruit
through Rick Phillips, and his attorney Kyle Nolte. The appeal form listed the mailing address for
Farm Fresh Fruit as 20 S. Argonne Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99206; and the mailing address for
Rick Phillips as 1302 S. Herald, Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
5. Notice of a public hearing to be held on the appeal on February 17, 2011 was properly provided
by the Department to the appellant and other necessary persons.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 1
6. On February 17, 2011, the 1-tearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the appeal. The following
persons testified at the hearing:
Kathy McClung, Director Rick Phillips
City Community Development Department 1302 S, I Icrald
11 '107 E. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane, WA 99206
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dan I°larter Sarina I larter
9020 E. Sprague 3124 S. Barmen Ct,
Spokane, WA 99212 Spokane Valley, WA 99037
7. The Hearing Examiner initially took testimony from the above persons without oath or
affirmation. Shortly after the hearing concluded, the Examiner realized such omission, reopened the
record with all parties present, asked each party to swear or affirm that the testimony the party had
given was true and accurate to the best of their knowledge, and gave each party an opportunity to
correct any statements they had testified to. Each party was then sworn in, verified that the statements
that they had made were true and accurate to the best of their knowledge, and advised that they did
not wish to repeat the hearing process.
8. The appeal hearing was conducted in the manner set forth in SVMC 17.90.060, and Appendix 13
of the SVMC.
9. The Hearing Examiner takes notice of the SVMC, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea
Plan(SARP) in effect at the time of the alleged violations, and the Hearing Examiner's decision dated
April 23, 2010 in File No. APP-01-10/TUP-01-10.
10. The following exhibits were submitted and entered into the record at the appeal hearing:
Staff Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, including attached Exhibits 1-13
Exhibit 14 Hearing Examiner decision in File No. APP-01-10/TUP-01-10
Exhibit 15 Photo of vehicles parked at Farm Fresh Fruit
Exhibit 16 12 photos of operations at Farm Fresh Fruit
11. The Department submitted the Staff Report and Recommendation to the Hearing Examiner
("Staff Report"), including Exhibits 1-13. Exhibit 14 was submitted by the Hearing Examiner.
Exhibits 15 and 16 were submitted by Dan Harter.
12. On March 7-8, 2011, the Hearing Examiner reopened the record to include copies of page 2 of
the Notice and Order issued on September 3, 2010, page 2 of the Notice and Order issued on
September 13, 2010, pages 1 and 3 of the TUP application submitted by Rick Phillips on February 18,
2010, and the site plan and written narrative attached to the TUP application; all of which documents
had been inadvertently omitted from the Staff Report.
13. The copies of the missing pages were supplied by the Department, at the Hearing Examiner's
request. The appellant, Rick Phillips, advised that he did not object to inclusion of the documents in
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 2
the record; but asked that photos of his apricot crop from 2010, attached to his email, be included in
the record. The Examiner responded that he would include all the omitted pages in the record, but
would not include the apricot crop photos in the record.
14. The record includes the electronic recording of the hearing, the documents and exhibits
submitted at the hearing, the pages omitted from the TOP application and the Notices and Orders
made part of the record after the hearing, the correspondence between the I tearing Examiner and the
parties on March 7-8, 2011 regarding including the missing pages in the record, and the items taken
notice of by the Hearing Examiner.
15. The site is approximately 15,000 square feet in size, irregular in shape and relatively flat in
topography. The site is improved with a 1,600-square foot building used for indoor storage, paved
parking and driveway areas, and driveway approaches to Argonne Road. A tent structure, mounted
on poles, is seasonally located on the site, to accommodate an 800-square foot produce stand.
16. The site is bordered on the east by Argonne Road, the railroad tracks for Union Pacific Railway
Company on the west, vacant land on the south, and a used car business on the north. See photos of
site and adjacent land in Exhibit 16.
17. The site consists of portions of County Assessor tax parcel nos. 45191.9183, 45187.001 and
45207.0002 leased by Rick Phillips from Union Pacific Railway Company, the owner of such parcels.
See Exhibits 1, and 6-8.
18. The site is zoned Gateway Commercial Avenue (GCA), under the Sprague and Appleway
Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP). The SARP is a special overlay zone that governs land use
applications defined in the SVMC; and supersedes various development standards set forth in the
SVMC, except those specifically incorporated by the SARP. See SVMC 19.110.020
19. The GCA zoning district of the SARP does not expressly permit produce stands, whether
permanent or temporary. The SARP does not directly address temporary use permits; but specifies
outside storage and display requirements for seasonal products and retail products that are normally
displayed outside due to size, weight, or nature of the product. See p. 13-14, 24, and 28-30 of SARP.
20. The intent of SVMC Chapter 19.160 is to regulate certain temporary uses of property not
otherwise regulated by other City ordinances or regulations. See SVMC 19.160.010.
21. SVMC 19.160.030.B authorizes the Department to issue a temporary and revocable permit for
the sale of seasonal goods in any nonresidential zone, for a period not to exceed six (6) months in any
12-month period. The Department may impose conditions on issuance of the permit that are deemed
necessary to reasonably mitigate any adverse impacts anticipated from the temporary use. See SVMC
19.160.040.
22. A temporary seasonal use is not required to comply with the standards normally associated with
a permanent use. However, the use must be consistent with the permitted uses in the zone; be an
appropriate use of the property pending the permanent long term use; not result in significant traffic,
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 3
puking, drainage, fire protection or other adverse impacts that cannot be appropriately mitigated; and
provide any necessary sanitary facilities. See SVMC 19.160,030. 3,
23 . SVMC 17.100.030 authorizes various enforcement actions by the Department to discourage
public nuisances, and otherwise promote compliance with applicable provisions of the SVMC,
including Title 19. This includes issuing notice and orders, assessing civil penalties, and recovering
costs; abatement by judicial order; entry into voluntary compliance agreements, and assessing civil
penalties through a notice and order if the agreement is breached; issuance of a stop work order, and
assessing civil penalties if the order is not complied with; and permit denial.
24_ SVMC 17.100.250 provides for the assessment of civil penalties for code violations, and
establishes an assessment schedule for initial violations and repeat violations. The basic initial
penalty per violation is set at $500, an additional penalty of$500 may be added for a history of 1-2
similar violations, an additional penalty of $2,500 may be added for a history of three (3) or more
similar violations, and a penalty of$5,000 may be added for "economic benefit to person responsible
for violation"; in pertinent part.
25. SVMC Chapter 7.05 addresses nuisance conditions on public and private property, defines a
"nuisance", includes the unlawful use of real or personal property as a type of nuisance, contains a list
of prohibited "public nuisances" that is not intended to be exhaustive, and vests the Department with
the enforcement mechanisms set forth in SVMC Chapter 17.100 to abate public nuisances that come
to its attention.
26. On February 18, 2010, Rick Phillips dba Farm Fresh Fruit submitted an application for a
temporary use permit (TUP) to allow use of the 800-square area on the site for "outdoor fruit sales";
which business would have paved parking, and meet all fire and health codes. See TUP application in
Exhibit 6, as supplemented by omitted pages.
27. The TUP application listed the time period for the temporary use as "March thru...", stated that
"Plans of metal roof to replaced tent will be submitted before 6 month T u.p. expires...", and advised
that "tent to be used to sell seasonal fruit". The site plan attached to the application showed sales
areas for potatoes, melons, veggie rack, fruit display, a pop cooler, and a check-out counter. See p. 2,
and attached site plan and narrative, of TUP application.
28. On February 18, 2010, Rick Phillips submitted a revised site plan for the TUP application. See
Exhibit 6. The revised site plan advised that the applicant would be "selling produce direct to
public", and"selling fruit grown by owner".
29. On March 2, 2010, the Department approved the TUP application, subject to various conditions;
for a 6-month period extending between March 2, 2010 and September 2, 2010. The approval is
indicated on page 5 of the TUP application, and in an attached letter dated March 2, 2010 from
Director Kathy McClung to Rick Phillips.
30. The letter dated March 2, 2010 from Director McClung made clear that the TUP is limited to the
6-month period ending on September 2, 2010; and the City expected the business to be closed on
September 3, 2010, unless Phillips made "other permanent arrangements". The letter referenced
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 4
Phillips' mention to the Department of the possibility of receiving approval for a permanent structure
ort the site; and advised Phillips to allow adequate time to pursue the City's approval process for such
concept, so he could make business decisions dependent on what conditions may be placed on such
approval.
31 . On August 19, 2010, Rick Phillips applied to the Department for a commercial pre-application
meeting, for the proposed permanent structure. Phillips attended a pre-application meeting with the
City on September 7, 2010, and applied for a building permit to develop the site on October 1, 2010.
This included the submittal of blue prints for the proposed building and the payment of fees. See p. 2
of Staff Report, and testimony of Rick Phillips.
32_ After filing the appeal of the Notices and Orders on September 16, 2010, Rick Phillips and his
legal counsel worked with Department staff and acting City Attorney Cary Driskell to stay the appeal
while Phillips pursued approval for a permanent structure on the site. On November 12, 2010,
Driskell sent a letter to Phillips advising that he had been informed by Director McClung that Phillips
was discontinuing his pursuit of a permanent structure on the site, and that based on such information
the Department would be arranging a hearing date for the appeal. See Exhibits 9 and 10.
33. Farm Fresh Fruit, in its written appeal, advised that in February of 2010 it had requested a TUP
for a longer period than six (6) months from the Department, because the growing and harvesting
season for its produce is longer than six (6) months; prior to expiration of the TUP on September 2,
2010, it had requested an extension of the TUP beyond such date from the Department, which denied
the extension; and it had completed a pre-application meeting with the Department on September 7,
B 2010 to obtain approval for a permanent structure, which approval would alleviate the need for a TUP
in the future.
34. Farm Fresh Farm Fresh Fruit contended in its written appeal that it was selling apples, peaches
and pears it produced, as defined in RCW 36.71.090, which were not ready for harvest or sale prior to
September 2, 2010; and the Notices and Orders issued by the Department attempted to penalize it for
selling produce it was legally entitled to sell pursuant to RCW 36.71.090.
35. Rick Phillips raised similar contentions at the appeal hearing. Phillips testified that he started
the pre-application process for approval of a permanent structure in August of 2010; thought he would
be approved for a permanent structure by the time the TUP expired in September of 2010; he had
submitted blueprints and paid fees to the City for the permanent structure, and is currently in the
process of trying to get approval for a permanent structure; and approval of the permanent structure
has been delayed by the need to obtain a parcel line adjustment and have associated survey work
done,to accommodate the parking and permanent structure on a single parcel as required by code.
G
36. Rick Phillips testified that he has a special license from the State Department of Agriculture to Il
go to several different farms and "gather" (i.e. select) produce to sell on the site; he has obligations to
growers to sell certain produce at certain times of the month; the growing and harvesting season for
certain produce, such as asparagus and apples, fluctuates with the weather; he has been in the produce
business in Spokane County since 1977, and at one time used to assist supermarket personnel who
would come to the warehouse that he worked at and "gather" various types of produce for the
supermarket.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 5
37. Rick Phillips testified that he has sold produce in the Spokane Valley for the past 10 years; his
span currently oversees the selling of produce on the site, which allows Phillips to raise and harvest
produce for sale; he raises apples, pears, peaches and apricots on 10 acres of land that he leases m
Orondo, Washington, which is situated in central Washington; the City had told him that he could not
sell apples that he had personally raised and gathered after expiration of the °l"UP, which violated his
rights under RCW 36.71.090; he had gone to the City Council and tried to get the regulations changed
to allow a 1-month extension to a 6-month TUP; and Spokane County makes much greater
allowances for produce stands under its regulations than the City.
38. The Department, in the Staff Report and at the public hearing, advised that Rick Phillips had
told Department staff that he raises apples, pears and peaches. Photos of the produce stand taken by
the Department between September 3-14, 2010 show such produce; but also illustrate bananas,
oranges, melons, corn, peppers, honey, onions, signs for the sale of huckleberries, and other
unidentified products for sale.
39. The Department advised that it understands the railway owner of the site is not receptive to
some of the changes that Phillips would need to make to the property for a permanent building on the
site;including the addition of restrooms, parking and lot line adjustments. The Department did not
explain how it obtained this information. See page 3 of Staff Report, Exhibits 7-8; and testimony of
Kathy McClung.
40. Rick Phillips did not dispute that he had sold various types of produce at the fruit stand after the
TUP expired on September 2, 2010 that he did not personally raise or harvest; but contended that his
efforts in personally selecting and purchasing such produce from the grower before transporting it to
his produce stand for sale met the definition of "gathered" under RCW 36.71.090(1). Phillips
contended that the civil penalties assessed against him were excessive, illegally based and should not
be imposed.
41. On February 25, 2010, the Department issued a Notice and Order to Rick Phillips/Farm Fresh
Fruit for operating his fruit stand business on the current site before the TUP issued for the business
was granted on March 2, 2010. The Notice and Order assessed a civil penalty of$1,000, based on an
initial penalty of$500, and an additional $500 for having a history of two (2) similar violations for the
business.
42. Farm Fresh Fruit appealed the February 25, 2010 Notice and Order to the Hearing Examiner.
On April 23, 2010, the Hearing Examiner affirmed the $500 initial penalty; found that only one (1)
previous similar violation had occurred on the site, for selling seasonal produce not raised or gathered
by Rick Phillips after the 2009 TUP expired on September 12, 2009; and reduced the $500 additional
penalty assessed under SVMC 17.100.250 to $250.
43. The Hearing Examiner's reduction of the civil penalty from $1,000 to $750 was based on good
faith efforts by Rick Phillips to remedy other problems associated with the 2009 permit, including
adding more parking and paving required by the Department. See Hearing Examiner's decision dated
April 23, 2010 in File No. APP-01-10/TUP-01-10.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 6
44, Dan Harter and Sarina Harter, the operators of the used car lot that abuts the site on the south.,
testified in support of the Department's position at the hearing. The Hailers contended that flick
Phillips had opened his business early and closed it late in each of the last seven (7) years, in violation
or the 6-month TUP issued each year for the produce stand; the first Notice and Order issued to
Phillips on September 3, 2010 should have assessed a penalty of$2,500, since the Notice and Order
stated this was the fourth (4111) similar violation on the site; the leaseholder of the 10 acres that Phil lips
claimed he raised fruit on in Orondo had advised Dan Harter that Phillips made no lease payments in
2010, and there were no apples, pears, peaches or apricot trees on such land; Phillips had numerous
code violations on the site in 2010, including unscreened garbage and junk, and failing to remove and
block access to three (3) parking spaces on the site as requested by City Engineering; and the railroad
would not allow a permanent building within its right of way as proposed by Phillips. See photos in
Exhibit 16.
45. Rick Phillips disputed and objected to the portion of the testimony by the Harter's relating to
other alleged violations of the SVMC and TUP not charged by the City in any Notices and Orders;
contended that the Harters had blocked access to his property, and were biased because they wanted
to expand their business to the current site; and reaffirmed that he made lease payments, and had
raised and harvested apples, pears, peaches and apricots on the 10-acres he leased in Orondo,
Washington in 2010.
46. The Hearing Examiner allowed into evidence the testimony by the Harters regarding the other
types of alleged code violations on the property; but only for the limited purpose of helping determine
the intent of Rick Phillips in continuing to operate the produce stand after the TUP expired on
September 2, 2010, and the amount of the civil penalty that should be assessed for the Notices and
Orders by the Department to Phillips.
47. The record preponderates that Rick Phillips raised and/or harvested apples, pears, peaches and
apricots that he sold on the site during the 6-month term of the 2010 TUP; and was still selling such
produce on the site after the TUP expired on September 2, 2010, including the dates when the two (2)
Notices and Orders were issued. The record also preponderates that Phillips was selling bananas,
oranges, melons, corn, honey, onions, huckleberries and other unidentified produce from the site that
he did not raise or harvest, at the time the Notices and Orders were issued.
48. The above findings consider that any information the leaseholder provided to Dan Harter
regarding Phillip's lack of contacts with the 10-acre property in Orondo was hearsay; the opposing
testimony that was offered by Rick Phillips regarding such property was taken under oath,
unequivocal and appeared credible; Rick Phillips had previously told the Department that he
personally raised apples, pears and peaches on the Orondo property; and the photos in Exhibits 7-8
that were taken by the Department, which provide clear evidence of the various items of produce that
were being sold on the site after the TUP expired in September of 2010.
49. The record establishes two (2) previous, similar violations that were committed by Rick Phillips
and documented by the Department prior to issuance of the September 3, 2010 Notice and Order.
Exhibit 13 submitted by the Department summarizes the various contacts and problems that the
Department experienced with Rick Phillips and the Farm Fresh Fruit business in 2009 and 2010.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 7
50, The record establishes that Rick Phillips sold farm products and edibles that he did not raise,
pick, harvest, produce or manufacture after the TUP expired on September 2, 2010, for a continuous
period between September 3-14, 2010, and for his own economic benefit; and knew, or reasonably
should have known, that such actions constituted a code violation.
51 . The Department did not calculate or request reimbursement fear its administrative cost in
bringing the current enforcement actions.
III, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. RCW 36.71.090(1) authorizes a farmer, gardener or other person, without license, to sell,
deliver, or peddle any fruits, vegetables, berries, eggs, or any farm produce or edibles, that are raised,
gathered, produced or manufactured by such person; and prohibits any city or town from passing an
ordinance prohibiting the sale by, or requiring a license from the producers and manufacturers of such
farm produce and edibles.
2. The legal opinion issued by former City Attorney Mike Connelly correctly interprets RCW
36.71.090, as it applies to the requirement in SVMC 19.60.030.E that a TUP be obtained from the
City Community Development Department ("Department") to sell seasonal goods in a nonresidential
zone. See Exhibit 11.
3. The Washington State Supreme Court interpreted certain language in RCW 36.71.090(1), in.
Hastings v. City of Bremerton, 159 Wash. 621 (1930). The Court found that the words "or other
person" in the statute refers to classes of people similar to "farmers or gardeners", and does not
include a "manufacturer" who converts or processes farm produce or edibles produced by another
person into another product for the market; and found that the word "manufactured" used in the
statute refers to the process by which a person turns their own farm products or edibles into some
other form, such as turning cream into butter or cheese, apples into cider, or pork into sausage.
4. The statute on its face, and the Hastings v. City of Bremerton decision by analogy, clearly
establish that the City is authorized by RCW 36.71.090(1) to require Farm Fresh Produce and Rick
Phillips to obtain a TUP to sell produce that Phillips did not raise, gather, produce or manufacturer.
5. The Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "gather", in pertinent part, as "to
bring together: collect <tried to gather a crowd> <gathered firewood>"; or "pick, harvest<gather
flowers>". Such dictionary defines "harvest", in pertinent part, as "the act or process of gathering in
a crop".
6. Construing the context of the term "gather" in relation to the other language in RCW
36.71.090(1), and the overall legislative intent of such statute, the reasonable and logical construction
of the term "gather" in RCW 36.71.090(1) is the dictionary definition "pick, harvest"; and not the
more broad dictionary definition of"to bring together, collect"
7. If a person personally picks or harvests apples, strawberries or corn from a farm; or
huckleberries from the forest; the person can be said to "gather" such produce; and RCW
36.71.090(1) allows such person to sell, deliver or peddle such produce without having to obtain a
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 8
license from a city or town. The actions of Rick Phillips in selectively picking out and purchasing
certain types of produce from growers that Phillips did not raise, pick or harvest does not meet the
definition of"gather" in RCW 36.71.090(1).
8. Between September 3-14, 2010, Rick Phillips sold or authorized the sale of seasonal goods from
his Farm Fresh Fruit business that he did not raise, gather (i.e. pick or harvest), produce or
manufacturer; i.e. bananas, oranges, melons, corn, peppers, honey, onions, huckleberries and other
unidentified products or edibles; in the City of Spokane Valley; without a temporary use permit
(TUP) in a nonresidential zone; in violation of SVMC 19.160.030.8 and SVMC Chapter 17.100.
9. The Notices and Orders were properly issued by the Department, and contained the required
contents. The Department was authorized to impose civil penalties in the Notices and Orders. See
SVMC 17.100.130 and SVMC 17.100.150.
10. The Department properly imposed a civil penalty of$1,000 in the September 3, 2010 Notice and
Order, including $500 as the basic initial penalty for the violation, and an additional $500 penalty for
a history of two (2) similar violations. See SVMC 17.100.250(4).
11. The Department properly imposed a civil penalty of$5,000 in the September 13, 2010 Notice
and Order, including a $5,000 additional penalty for "economic benefit to person responsible for
violation"; even though it should have assessed a total of$5,500, which includes the initial penalty of
$500 added to the $5,000 additional penalty. See SVMC 17.100.250(5).
12. In the September 13, 2010 Notice and Order, the Department could alternatively have assessed
an additional penalty of$2,500 for a history of three (3) violations, including the violation cited in the
September 3, 2010 Notice and Order; plus the initial penalty of $500, for a total civil penalty of
$3,000; but was not required to do so under SVMC 17.100.250
13. The Department followed the procedures set forth in SVMC 17.100.050 for the investigation of
probable violations of the SVMC by Rick Phillips that occurred after the TUP expired.
14. The Department was not required to give Farm Fresh Produce or Phillips a warning, or attempt
to enter into a voluntary compliance agreement with Phillips, before issuing the Notices and Orders.
This is because the continued sale of produce from the produce stand that Phillips did not raise,
gather, produce or manufacture after the TUP expired represented repeat violations; and/or because
Phillips knew, or reasonably should have known, that the sale of such produce from the site without a
i3
new TUP constituted a code violation. See SVMC 17.100.050.C.
iF
IV. DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, the civil penalties of
$1,000 and $5,000 imposed by the City Community Development Department against Richard W.
Phillips in the September 3, 2010 Notice and Order and the September 13, 2010 Notice and Order,
respectively, are hereby affirmed.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-10/TUP-01-10 Page 9
DATED this 10th day of March, 2011
a
CITY HEARING EXAMINER PRO TEM
k
` "
/
Mich °el C. Dempsey, W BA###8235
NOTICE OF FINAL DECISION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Pursuant to Section 17.90.010 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC), and RCW
Chapter 36.70C, the decision of the Hearing Examiner on the appeal of a Notice and Order of
Violation imposed by the City Community Development Department is final and conclusive
unless within twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of issuance of the Examiner's
decision, a party with standing files a land use petition in Superior Court pursuant to RCW
Chapter 36.70C. Pursuant to RCW Chapter 36.70C, the date of issuance of the Hearing
Examiner's decision is three (3) days after it is mailed.
This decision was mailed by regular mail to the Applicant, and to the City Community
Development Department, on March 10,2011. The date of issuance of the Hearing Examiner's
decision is therefore March 14,2011, counting to the next business day when the last day for
mailing falls on a weekend. THE APPEAL CLOSING DATE IS APRIL 4, 2011..
The complete record in this matter, including this decision, is on file during the appeal
period with the Office of the Hearing Examiner, Third Floor, Public Works Building, 1026
West Broadway Avenue, Spokane,Washington, 99260-0245; and may be inspected by
contacting Kristine Chase at(509) 477-7490.
The file may be inspected during normal working hours, listed as Monday-Friday of
each week, except holidays, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. After the appeal
period, the file may be inspected at the City of Spokane Valley Department of Community
Development-Code Enforcement, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA, 99206; by
contacting Chris Berg at(509) 921-1000. Copies of the documents in the record will be made
available at the cost set by the City of Spokane Valley.
HE Findings, Conclusions and Decision APP-02-1 0/TUP-0 1-1 0 Page 10