Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-30-2024 - Carners response to hex email -12-28-2024 attachmentTo the Hearing Examiner to emphasize that this hearing is intended solely to clarify evidence already presented by Mr. Carner and not to allow the City to expand or build a new case, the following argument can be incorporated into the defense , Also the Mr Carner’s grandfathered rights and vested right along with non-conforming use, were brought to attention during the hearing in the letter Mr Carner sent during the appeal on August 27th , so for the issue to be totally over looked and not address until now, and act like this is a claim that was not made until recently is not true, The Examiner nor the City asked for more proof of Habitation, in fact if Mr Carner if didn’t ask for reconsideration, his constitutional rights would have been taken and would have no choice appeal the decision to the court. Also for some reason the 14th amendment and 5th amendment violations by the City seem to be overlooked, Mr Carner respectfully disagrees with the Examiners response. Defense Argument: Limiting the Scope of the Hearing I. The Hearing’s Scope Must Be Limited to Issues Raised in Mr. Carner’s Motion for Reconsideration 1. Purpose of a Motion for Reconsideration • A motion for reconsideration, as recognized under Washington law, is a procedural mechanism to address errors or clarify evidence previously submitted. • The purpose is not to relitigate the entire matter or allow the opposing party (here, the City) to introduce new evidence or arguments that were not part of the original proceedings. • Allowing the City to use this hearing as a platform to expand its case fundamentally contradicts the procedural fairness required under RCW 36.70C.130 and due process principles. 2. Risk of Prejudice if the City Expands the Scope • By introducing “additional new evidence,” as proposed in the Examiners email, the City risks shifting the focus of the hearing away from the narrow reconsideration issues. This would unfairly burden Mr. Carner by forcing him to respond to new claims or facts outside the scope of his initial evidence. • This approach is inconsistent with Washington case law, which emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to defined hearing parameters. (See Chaussee v. Snohomish County Council, 38 Wn. App. 630 (1984), where procedural overreach in a land use case led to a due process violation.) 3. Hearing Examiner’s Role in Defining the Scope • The Hearing Examiner must ensure that this hearing remains focused solely on clarifying evidence already presented by Mr. Carner. • The City’s cross-examination should be limited to seeking clarity on existing testimony or evidence related to nonconforming (grandfathered) use rights, not creating new grounds to challenge those rights. • RCW 36.70C.130(1)(d) requires that any hearing or judicial review of land use decisions be limited to the administrative record unless specific exceptions apply. Allowing new evidence from the City effectively rewrites this principle. II. The City Should Not Be Permitted to Build a New Case 1. Misuse of Cross-Examination to Expand Issues • The City’s stated intention to “flesh out the veracity of witness statements” must not devolve into an attempt to raise new arguments or present evidence that goes beyond Mr. Carner’s original submissions. • Due process safeguards (under both the 14th Amendment and Article I, Section 3 of the Washington Constitution) ensure that cross-examination is not a tool for creating new claims but rather for testing the reliability of existing evidence. 2. Introduction of New Evidence Is Procedurally Improper • The City’s right to present “additional new evidence” directly contradicts the purpose of a motion for reconsideration. As stated in RCW 34.05.570(3), reconsideration hearings are typically confined to the record unless an error or omission necessitates clarification. • The Hearing Examiner should require the City to justify why new evidence is necessary and demonstrate its relevance strictly within the reconsideration framework. Without such justification, this would constitute an impermissible attempt to reopen the ca se. 3. Weyerhaeuser Precedent and Narrow Hearing Parameters • In Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce County, 124 Wn. 2d 26 (1994), the court addressed procedural limits in administrative hearings, affirming that hearings must be conducted in a manner that balances the rights of all parties without exceeding their defined purpose. • Here, the City’s attempt to introduce new evidence unrelated to Mr. Carner’s existing evidence violates this principle and risks converting the reconsideration hearing into a new trial. III. Proposed Remedy: Strict Enforcement of Hearing Scope 1. Limit Cross-Examination to Clarification • The City’s cross-examination should be restricted to clarifying facts and statements already presented by Mr. Carner in support of his motion for reconsideration. • The Examiner should prohibit any questioning designed to expand the scope of the case or introduce new claims against Mr. Carner’s grandfathered nonconforming use rights. 2. Prohibit Introduction of New Evidence by the City • The Examiner should preclude the City from presenting new evidence unrelated to rebutting or clarifying Mr. Carner’s existing evidence. This aligns with the Washington Supreme Court’s guidance in administrative matters to protect parties from procedural overreach (e.g., RCW 36.70C.120). 3. Preserve Procedural Integrity • Ensuring that the hearing remains narrowly focused on Mr. Carner’s existing evidence protects the integrity of the proceedings and prevents undue burden or prejudice against Mr. Carner. This is critical to upholding the fairness required under due process standards and Washington law. Conclusion This hearing is not an opportunity for the City to expand its case or introduce new claims against Mr. Carner. Its purpose is solely to clarify the evidence presented by Mr. Carner in his motion for reconsideration. Expanding the scope of the hearing risks procedural unfairness, violates due process, and undermines the foundational principles of Washington administrative and land use law. Mr. Carner respectfully requests that the Hearing Examiner strictly limit the hearing to its intended scope and prohibit the City from introducing new evidence or arguments beyond the existing record. This structure highlights the limited nature of the hearing and why expanding its scope would be procedurally improper.