HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2024 - City email to carnerCAUTION: 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:Sheila Madsen
To:Phil Olbrechts; Kelly Carner
Cc:Cynthia Moya; Donna Locher
Subject:RE: Renton/Carner Code Enforcement -- CODECASE# 23-000293 -- Additional Opportunity for Comment
Date:Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:43:37 PM
Attachments:ORD 5959.pdf
As requested, I’ve attached a copy of Ord 5959 approved on December 9, 2019.
If you’re having difficulty viewing the attachment, please click on this link to access the
publicly available document:https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/DocView.aspx?
id=8065542&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton&searchid=6e67771c-609b-4143-ab41-
7f2a3d93860a
Thank you,
SHEILA MADSEN, Code Compliance Inspector
City of Renton // Community and Economic Development
Office 425-430-7236
NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This message complies with Washington State’s Public Records Act – RCW 42.56
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 2:01 PM
To: Kelly Carner <kelvisss@gmail.com>
Cc: Cynthia Moya <CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>; Donna Locher <DLocher@Rentonwa.gov>; Sheila
Madsen <SMadsen@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Renton/Carner Code Enforcement -- CODECASE# 23-000293 -- Additional Opportunity for
Comment
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.