Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-30-2024 - Carner's response to city of renton code enforcementDear Phil Olbrechts As you can see from the snip of Sheila Madsen email. The changes to the City code didn’t take effect until 12-09-2019, which even further shows the current code violations that are trying to be enforced didn’t exist at the time. I purchased the property in 1999 and been using it the same way since then. Further Mr Olbrechts you in the determination you made back in 2019 (and as reminder I asked for the documentation that showed that I received the document then so I could appeal and still haven’t received it) said that I did have grandfathered rights and could have unlimited number of cars which is the main issue. I have sent you a defense below of your claims that I have burden of proof, which is not the case, you yourself even told Sheila Madsen this at the hearing she had burden, and if want to dig through enough case law you can come up with examples that have nothing to do with this subject like you presented. Also, Sheila’s comment about how much time had passed is null since she closed the original Violations and then reissued them. If this behavior continues this will be the outcome. If a code enforcement official, such as a code inspector or building inspector, violates your rights, you may be able to sue t hem under federal law. 42 U.S.C. section 1983 creates a civil rights claim you can file in either state or federal court against a code enforcement officer for violating your rights. section 1983 n : the section of title 42 of the U.S. Code that makes a person liable for depriving another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the U.S. Constitution and laws while acting under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of a state Sheila Madsen Wed, Sep 18, 3:42 PM (10 days ago) to Phil, me, Cynthia, Donna As requested, I’ve attached a copy of Ord 5959 approved on December 9, 2019. As the property owner facing claims or actions initiated by the City of Renton, it is vital to assert the importance of the burden of proof in ensuring fair and just proceedings. The burden of proof fundamentally rests with the party making the claim or asserting a particular position, which in this case, is the city of Renton. Here’s why this principle is crucial in defending my rights as a property owner: 1. Presumption of Innocence and Fairness: In any legal or administrative action, the burden of proof is essential for maintaining fairness. The principle that the accuser must prove their case aligns with the fundamental legal notion of “innocent until proven guilty.” As a property owner, I am presumed to be in compliance with regulations and laws until the city provides concrete evidence to the contrary. This protects me from undue hardship and ensures that any actions taken against me are justified and not based on mere assumptions or accusations. 2. Protection from Arbitrary Action: The burden of proof safeguards property owners from arbitrary or capricious actions by the city. Without this principle, the city could impose fines, penalties, or other actions without substantiating their claims. For example, if the city alleges that my property is not in compliance with a specific ordinance, it is their responsibility to prove this claim through evidence and not merely rely on generalizations or unverified information. This ensures that actions against my property are grounded in factual accuracy and not in bureaucratic errors or misunderstandings. 3. Encouragement of Diligence and Accountability: By placing the burden of proof on the city, it encourages them to exercise diligence and accountability in their claims. It compels the city to thoroughly investigate and substantiate their allegations before taking action. This accountability is crucial because it helps prevent baseless or incorrect claims from being levied against property owners, which could otherwise lead to unwarranted legal or financial consequences. 4. Equitable Distribution of Evidence: The burden of proof ensures that the party with access to and control over the evidence bears the responsibility of presenting it. Typically, the city, as a governmental entity, has more resources and access to information than an individual property owner. It is only equitable that the city, with its access to public records, inspections, and other resources, should bear the responsibility of proving any claims it makes about my property. This balances the scales and prevents a scenario where property owners are unfairly burdened with disproving unfounded allegations. 5. Legal Precedents and Protection of Rights: Legal precedents and principles affirm the importance of the burden of proof in protecting individual rights against governmental overreach. The burden of proof is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive protection against injustice. Courts consistently uphold this principle to ensure that governmental actions are justified and that property owners have a fair opportunity to contest claims made against them. In summary, as a property owner, asserting the burden of proof in disputes with the city is not just a technical defense; it is a fundamental safeguard of fairness, accountability, and justice. By ensuring that the city bears the responsibility to prove its claims, I am better protected from potential abuses and ensure that any actions taken are well-founded and justified. This brief addresses the legal and equitable rights of the property owner concerning grandfathered rights, vested rights, and non- conforming use. It contends that the City’s actions infringe upon established rights and imposes unjust constraints on the property owner’s use of their property. We assert that the property owner’s vested rights and non-conforming use status should be upheld in accordance with applicable law and principles of fairness. 1. Grandfathered Rights Grandfathered rights refer to the continuation of an existing use or structure that was legal under previous regulations but became non- conforming due to subsequent changes in zoning or land use laws. The property in question has operated under its current use for many years, predating the City’s recent changes to zoning regulations. These rights are crucial in maintaining the stability of property investments and protecting owners from retroactive regulation. a. Legal Precedent Courts have consistently upheld grandfathered rights to prevent unfair treatment of property owners who have relied on prior regulations. The City’s recent attempt to alter or eliminate these rights is in direct conflict with established legal principles which protect property owners from retroactive application of new zoning laws. b. Equitable Considerations The property owner made significant investments based on the existing legal framework at the time. To deny or alter these rights now would constitute an unfair and arbitrary action that disregards the owner’s reasonable expectations and investments. Such a change would undermine the integrity of the legal system, which must honor established rights and commitments. c. Protection of Investments Vested rights are integral to protecting the property owner’s investments and ensuring that governmental bodies do not arbitrarily disrupt or undermine legitimate property use and development. The City’s actions, which seek to invalidate or restrict these rights, would disrupt the owner’s legitimate use of their property and result in substantial financial and operational harm. 3. Non-Conforming Use Non-conforming use refers to properties that were lawful under former regulations but do not conform to new zoning laws. Such uses are often protected to prevent unnecessary hardship on property owners who have invested in their properties based on previous legal standards. a. Continuation of Use The property owner’s use is a legal non-conforming use, having been established and maintained in accordance with the regulations that were in effect when the use commenced. The City’s effort to curtail or eliminate this use disregards the principle that non- conforming uses should be allowed to continue, albeit in a manner that respects their status. b. Regulatory Consistency The City's actions undermine the stability and predictability that property owners rely upon. Allowing the City to unilaterally and retroactively alter the status of non-conforming uses without adequate justification is inconsistent with legal precedents and principles that aim to balance regulatory control with property rights. Conclusion In conclusion, the City’s actions to challenge or limit the property owner’s grandfathered rights, vested rights, and non-conforming use are unjust and legally indefensible. Upholding these rights is essential to maintaining the integrity of property laws, protecting the property owner’s investments, and ensuring fairness in regulatory practices. We respectfully request that the City honor the property owner’s existing rights and cease any actions that would undermine these legally established protections. 3. Constitutional Issues Takings Clause: • The property owner might argue that the city's action constitutes a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment, which would require just compensation. They would need to demonstrate that the city’s action deprives them of the reasonable use of their property. Equal Protection: • If the property owner can show that the city’s actions are discriminatory or that they are being treated unfairly compared to other property owners, they could argue a violation of their right to equal protection under the law. 4. Practical and Community Considerations Economic Hardship: • The owner could present evidence of the economic impact of being forced to remove the trailer, including financial hardship or loss of affordable housing. Legal Counsel: • Preserving Grandfathered Rights During Annexation • To Whom It May Concern, • As a property owner affected by the proposed annexation of my property from King County to the City of Renton, I am deeply concerned about the potential impact on my established rights and property usage. I respectfully submit this defense to highlight the critical importance of preserving my grandfathered rights under the current zoning and land use regulations. • 1. Understanding Grandfathered Rights • Grandfathered rights, also known as "nonconforming use rights," are protections granted to properties that were legally compliant with the zoning regulations in place at the time the property was developed. These rights are essential to ensuring that property owners are not unduly penalized when local regulations change. My property has been developed and utilized based on the zoning laws and regulations set forth by King County, and these rights are crucial for maintaining the value and intended use of my property. • 2. Legal Precedent and Protection • Washington state law, including provisions in the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) and local ordinances, typically mandates the preservation of nonconforming uses during annexations. According to RCW 36.70A.040, the GMA ensures that any changes in jurisdiction should respect the pre-existing land uses and zoning designations, thus safeguarding property owners’ rights that were established under prior regulations. Additionally, case law supports the notion that property owners should not face sudden or severe disruptions in their usage rights due to administrative changes. • 3. Impact of Annexation on Property Rights • The proposed annexation introduces new zoning laws and land use regulations under the City of Renton’s jurisdiction, which differ from those of King County. Such changes could severely impact my property's existing uses and future development plans. If these grandfathered rights are not preserved, I may face restrictions that could limit my property’s current and future utilization, potentially leading to a decrease in property value and a loss of the investment made based on King County regulations. • 4. Equitable Treatment and Fairness • In the interest of fairness and equity, it is essential that the City of Renton honors the grandfathered rights associated with my property. The purpose of these protections is to acknowledge and respect the investments made by property owners under previous regulations and to prevent arbitrary or unjust consequences resulting from the administrative transition. Abruptly changing these rights would undermine the principles of fairness and stability that are central to property law. • 5. Request for Consideration • In light of these concerns, I respectfully request that the City of Renton formally acknowledge and incorporate the grandfathered rights associated with my property into its new zoning and land use framework. This acknowledgment will ensure that my property remains compliant with its historical usage and development, thereby preserving the value and utility that has been built based on King County’s regulations. • Conclusion • In conclusion, preserving my grandfathered rights is not merely a matter of personal benefit but also a matter of upholding legal principles and ensuring fair treatment during the annexation process. I urge all relevant authorities to consider these points carefully and to act in a manner that respects and protects the established rights of property owners affected by this transition. • Thank you for your attention to this important matter. • Sincerely, • Kelly Carner 11135 se 164th st Renton, WA. 98055 Kelvisss@gmail.com 206-992-5394