HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-2024 HEX email to Carner deadline
Cynthia Moya
From:Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, September 11, 2024 2:05 PM
To:Kelly Carner
Cc:Cynthia Moya; Donna Locher; Sheila Madsen
Subject:Re: Renton/Carner Code Enforcement -- CODECASE# 23-000293 -- Additional
Opportunity for Comment
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.
Correction to reply deadline in email below -- Mr. Carner's reply would be due October 2, 2024.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 2:00 PM Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
Mr. Carner,
This email provides Mr. Carner an additional opportunity for comment on the four vehicle limit rule, RMC 4-4-
085D4. Additional opportunity is provided because Mr. Carner was not aware he had the burden of proof to
establish conformance to the exceptions to that rule.
In reviewing hearing testimony and post-hearing documents Mr. Carner is shown to express the understanding that the
City has the burden of proof in establishing exceptions to the four vehicle parking limit imposed by RMC 4-4-
085D4. Case law provides that the defendant has the burden of proof in proving affirmative defenses and that
statutory exceptions qualify as affirmative defenses when they don't negate an element of the alleged
violation. See Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn. 2d 483, 493 (Wash. 1993).
RMC 4-4-085D4 provides two exceptions that are pertinent to Mr. Carner's defense. RMC 4-4-085D4a
authorizes more than four vehicles when there are more than four registered owners living on the property
with their vehicles parked on the property. RMC 4-4-085D4c authorizes more vehicles to the extent that
property has "more off-street parking stalls for the subject property based on the presence of lawfully established
structures and uses." It should be noted that for this latter "grandfather" exception, case law is also clear that persons
who wish to allege grandfather rights have the burden of proving them. Van Sant v. City of Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641,
648 (1993).
If Mr. Carner would like to present evidence on the two exceptions authorized by 4-4-085D4, please submit
any such documentation to the parties to this email by 5 pm, September 20, 2024. The City may provide a
response by 5 pm September 27, 2024 and Mr. Carner may submit a reply by 5 pm September 25, 2024. If
Mr. Carner wishes an opportunity for additional oral argument please make your request by email to me cc'd
to the other parties.
To establish any grandfathered rights Mr. Carner will need to know when RMC 4-4-085D4 was adopted and
amended by the City. The City's on-line code cites the ordinances adopting each section at the end of each
section. Those ordinances are also available on-line and provide the necessary information as to dates of
adoption. Mr. Carner should be able to get this information on his own. However, City staff probably can get
this information more quickly since they were involved in the adoption process. It is requested that City staff
provide Mr. Carner with copies of the ordinances that establish when RMC 4-4-085D4 was adopted.
1