HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2025 - HEX emal 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:Corrected Carner Decision Upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23-000293)
Date:Wednesday, March 19, 2025 11:30:15 AM
Attachments:Carner Recon II.pdf
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
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>
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.
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