HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-18-2024 - carner email Re_ FW_ Hearing Examiner's 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:Sheila Madsen
Cc:Phil Olbrechts; Cynthia Moya; Carner, Kelly
Subject:Re: FW: Hearing Examiner"s Decision upon Reconsideration - Carner (CODE-23-000293)
Date:Tuesday, March 18, 2025 12:10:58 PM
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
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.
<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>
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