The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-2025 - HEX email on court statute 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:Phil Olbrechts To:Kelly Carner 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 2:36:31 PM Here are the pertinent statutes: RCW 36.70C.030 Chapter exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions—Exceptions. (1) This chapter replaces the writ of certiorari for appeal of land use decisions and shall be the exclusive means of judicial review of land use decisions, except that this chapter does not apply to: RCW 36.70C.020 Definitions. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Energy overlay zone" means a formal plan enacted by the county legislative authority that establishes suitable areas for siting renewable resource projects based on currently available resources and existing infrastructure with sensitivity to adverse environmental impact. (2) "Land use decision" means a final determination by a local jurisdiction's body or officer with the highest level of authority to make the determination, including those with authority to hear appeals, on: (a) An application for a project permit or other governmental approval required by law before real property may be improved, developed, modified, sold, transferred, or used, but excluding applications for permits or approvals to use, vacate, or transfer streets, parks, and similar types of public property; excluding applications for legislative approvals such as area-wide rezones and annexations; and excluding applications for business licenses; (b) An interpretative or declaratory decision regarding the application to a specific property of zoning or other ordinances or rules regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property; and (c) The enforcement by a local jurisdiction of ordinances regulating the improvement, development, modification, maintenance, or use of real property. However, when a local jurisdiction is required by law to enforce the ordinances in a court of limited jurisdiction, a petition may not be brought under this chapter. RCW 36.70C.040 Commencement of review—Land use petition—Procedure. (1) Proceedings for review under this chapter shall be commenced by filing a land use petition in superior court. (2) A land use petition is barred, and the court may not grant review, unless the petition is timely filed with the court and timely served on the following persons who shall be parties to the review of the land use petition: (a) The local jurisdiction, which for purposes of the petition shall be the jurisdiction's corporate entity and not an individual decision maker or department; (b) Each of the following persons if the person is not the petitioner: (i) Each person identified by name and address in the local jurisdiction's written decision as an applicant for the permit or approval at issue; and (ii) Each person identified by name and address in the local jurisdiction's written decision as an owner of the property at issue; (c) If no person is identified in a written decision as provided in (b) of this subsection, each person identified by name and address as a taxpayer for the property at issue in the records of the county assessor, based upon the description of the property in the application; and (d) Each person named in the written decision who filed an appeal to a local jurisdiction quasi-judicial decision maker regarding the land use decision at issue, unless the person has abandoned the appeal or the person's claims were dismissed before the quasi-judicial decision was rendered. Persons who later intervened or joined in the appeal are not required to be made parties under this subsection. (3) The petition is timely if it is filed and served on all parties listed in subsection (2) of this section within 21 days of the issuance of the land use decision. (4) For the purposes of this section, the date on which a land use decision is issued is: (a) Three days after a written decision is mailed by the local jurisdiction or, if not mailed, the date on which the local jurisdiction provides notice that a written decision is publicly available; (b) If the land use decision is made by ordinance or resolution by a legislative body sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, the date the body passes the ordinance or resolution; or (c) If neither (a) nor (b) of this subsection applies, the date the decision is entered into the public record. (5) Service on the local jurisdiction must be by delivery of a copy of the petition to the office of a person identified by or pursuant to RCW 4.28.080 to receive service of process, or as otherwise designated by the local jurisdiction. Service on the local jurisdiction is effective upon delivery. Service on other parties must be in accordance with the superior court civil rules or by first-class mail to: (a) The address stated in the written decision of the local jurisdiction for each person made a party under subsection (2)(b) of this section; (b) The address stated in the records of the county assessor for each person made a party under subsection (2)(c) of this section; and (c) The address stated in the appeal to the quasi-judicial decision maker for each person made a party under subsection (2)(d) of this section. (6) Service by mail is effective on the date of mailing and proof of service shall be by affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 11:58 AM Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com> wrote: 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 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. office 425-430-7236 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56 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