Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

Page 6 -- July 25, 2003 Each student resident si~ned the master lease and individually accepted:liabil- ity for the residence as a whole. 'the lease did not assign specific rooms to individual renters, but each renter was required to pay Welsh a portion of the rent. In all other ways, it appeared that all students acted collectively in dealing with. Welsh. The building con- tained only one kitchen, which the renters used for eating meals. On Sept. 23, 1999, the housing inspector from the District of' Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatou Affairs (DCIL&) visited the house and later filed a housing violation notice, which alleged Welsh failed to obtain a housing license and certificate of occupancy, both required by statute. Walsh maintained he did nor receive proper notice of the infractions. It was noted the housing violation notice was nor sent ro Welsh, but on Oct. 6, 1999, the notice of infraction based on the violation notice was sent to him. The notice of inIkaction charged Welsh with the same violations and listed fines. Welsh responded he did tot receive proper notice and was not given reasonable time for the performance of any act required by the notice of violation." At the hearing before the administrative law judge, the DCRA inspector testified that the building was being used as a "rooming house" and the cita- tions he issued were based on ~at understanding. Walsh responded his prop- err,,' was not a rooming house and he was leasing the building as a single fam- ily home and not as "separ~ate dwelling units." The judge found Welsh in violation of the relevant statute, imposed fines, and classified the property as a "rental property with multiple dwelling units." Walsh appealed to the District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review (BAR)i BAR agreed Welsh was required to have both a certificate of occu- pancy and a license. Walsh appealed, again maintaining that bas building was not a multiple dwelling unit. DECISION: Remanded to the board. The matter was remanded to the B)d~. for further consideration of the hous- Lng business license issue. The fines for failure to obtain and post the certifi- cate of occupancy were dismissed. The court decided the BAR relied on an erroneous definition of a dwelling unit to classify Walsh's house as a multiple dwelling. Citation: Welsh v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, No. Of-AA-lO53 (2003). see also: fo~zes v. District of Columbia De?arrment of fmployme~zr Se~Jices, 5f9 A.£d 704 (i987). 106 jNow RENEW your subscription ONL.~'E at www. qu/ntan.com i