The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-2025 - Carner 2nd email Re_ Corrected Carner Decision Upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23-000293)CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From:Kelly Carner To:Phil Olbrechts Cc:Sheila Madsen; Jason Seth; Cynthia Moya; Carner, Kelly Subject:Re: Corrected Carner Decision Upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23-000293) Date:Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:58:31 AM Phil is there a reason why your decision says you have 21 days to appeal and the Superior court says I have 30 days? On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:35 AM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: Thank you see you in Court. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:29 AM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote: Corrected decision attached. Only revisions are addition of a new Footnote 1 and removal of reconsideration clause at the end of the decision. Footnote 1 addresses Mr. Carner's second request for reconsideration. On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:13 PM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: Adding Jason Seth to file the Reconsideration On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 12:10 PM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: also to add to the last thing the Examiner said in his decision see below. On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:57 AM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner and all parties, I respectfully oppose the City of Renton's objection to my second request for reconsideration, submitted on Friday, March 14, 2025. The City's objection is based on Renton Municipal Code (RMC) 4.8.I.5, which states: "Each party of record to a decision shall be limited to one request for reconsideration." However, I believe that the application of this code in my case would result in an injustice, and I request that any ambiguity in the code be resolved in favor of the property owner, as supported by legal principles and case law. Ambiguity in RMC 4.8.I.5 The language of RMC 4.8.I.5 is subject to interpretation. It is unclear whether the limitation of one request for reconsideration applies strictly to each distinct decision or encompasses all decisions related to a particular case. This ambiguity necessitates careful examination to prevent potential injustice. Rule of Lenity and Its Application While the Rule of Lenity traditionally applies to criminal statutes, its underlying principle—that ambiguities in statutory language should be resolved in favor of the affected party—can extend to civil matters, especially when significant property interests are at stake. This principle ensures that individuals are not subjected to unforeseen limitations due to unclear legislative language. In State v. McGee, the Washington Supreme Court emphasized that when faced with an ambiguous statute and no clear legislative direction, the statute should be construed strictly against the state. The court stated, "The rule of lenity dictates we must construe a statute strictly against the State when we are faced with an ambiguous statute and we find no direction from the Legislature." Washington Case Law Supporting Property Owners Washington courts have recognized the importance of resolving ambiguities in favor of property owners to prevent undue hardship. For instance, in State v. Coria, the court acknowledged that at common law, co-owners could not steal from each other, as each had legal entitlement to possession. This recognition of property rights underscores the judiciary's role in protecting individuals from unjust statutory interpretations. Conclusion Given the ambiguity in RMC 4.8.I.5 and the potential for injustice if my second request for reconsideration is denied, I respectfully urge that the code be interpreted in favor of the property owner. This approach aligns with legal principles and Washington case law that advocate for resolving ambiguities to prevent unfair outcomes. Sincerely, Kelly Carner On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 11:21 AM Sheila Madsen <SMadsen@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Resending as Hearing Examiner was inadvertently left off last email. SHEILA MADSEN, Code Compliance Inspector City of Renton // Development Services Virtual Permit Center // Online Applications and Inspections office 425-430-7236 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56 From: Sheila Madsen Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 11:13 AM To: Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com>; Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Carner, Kelly <kcarner@kingcounty.gov>; Charleen Pleasance <CPleasance@Rentonwa.gov>; Donna Locher <DLocher@Rentonwa.gov>; Eric Petzold <EPetzold@Rentonwa.gov>; Finance AR <FinanceAR@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Churchill <JChurchill@Rentonwa.gov>; Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Casaundra Sauls <CSauls@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: RE: Hearing Examiner's Decision upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23- 000293) Dear Mr. Hearing Examiner and all parties, With respect to Mr. Carner’s request for second reconsideration, submitted on Friday, March 14, 2025, the City of Renton objects based on RMC 4.8.I.5 “Each party of record to a decision shall be limited to one request for reconsideration.” Thank you, SHEILA MADSEN, Code Compliance Inspector City of Renton // Development Services Virtual Permit Center // Online Applications and Inspections office 425-430-7236 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56 CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Renton. Do not click links, reply or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. From: Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 2:51 PM To: Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov> Cc: Carner, Kelly <kcarner@kingcounty.gov>; Charleen Pleasance <CPleasance@Rentonwa.gov>; Donna Locher <DLocher@Rentonwa.gov>; Eric Petzold <EPetzold@Rentonwa.gov>; Finance AR <FinanceAR@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Churchill <JChurchill@Rentonwa.gov>; Patrice Kent <PKent@rentonwa.gov>; Sheila Madsen <SMadsen@Rentonwa.gov>; Casaundra Sauls <CSauls@Rentonwa.gov>; Jason Seth <JSeth@Rentonwa.gov> Subject: Re: Hearing Examiner's Decision upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23- 000293) i'm requesting reconsideration so this doesn't have to go to court. Please review the following attached. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 1:06 PM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: The Examiners decision is bias and this very obvious with all the case law that Mr Carner presented that affirmed his case, at every corner Mr Carner proved that he more than meets case law for every Violation, it’s apparent that the Examiner doesn’t have the Authority to rule on the Fifth And 14 Amendment Violations by the City, for these reasons this will be Appealed to an actual Court that has the ability to uphold property right law and the Amendments that govern our people. So bureaucracy doesn’t overthrow democracy which is the case here. On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:16 AM Cynthia Moya <CMoya@rentonwa.gov> wrote: Mr. Carner, Here is the Hearing Examiner’s Decision upon Reconsideration regarding your Code Compliance Appeal. Please reply back to this email so I know you have received this decision. Thank you, CINDY MOYA | CITY CLERK SPECIALIST City of Renton / / City Clerk’s Office cmoya@rentonwa.gov Office (425) 430-6513 Work Schedule: Tues, Wed & Thurs: City Hall Mon & Friday: Work from Home