HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2024 - Carner's Response to CODE23-000293This letter serves as a formal defense against the claims presented by the City of Renton in response to my
appeal of Code Case CODE23-000293, dated October 15, 2024. I respectfully disagree with the City’s
conclusions and actions based on the following:
1. Proof of Receipt of the 2019 Decision The City claims that I verified receipt of the 2019 Decision in March
2019 by appearing at City Hall. However, no certified mailing or official method of delivery was used to
confirm receipt, and the lack of official documentation creates uncertainty about the City’s ability to establish
proper service. Under Washington state law, such as RCW 64.04.010 and 64.04.020, proper service of
documents is critical in real property disputes. Without proof of service, it cannot be conclusively assumed
that I received the decision in a timely manner or understood its implications. Washington State courts
emphasize the importance of proper notification procedures in upholding due process rights under the U.S.
Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
2. Grandfathered Property Use and Legal Nonconforming Use The City incorrectly interprets my claim
regarding the grandfathered property use. Washington case law (e.g., Anderson v. Island County, 81 Wn.2d
312) has consistently upheld the right to continue a lawful nonconforming use of property if that use existed
before changes in zoning ordinances. I purchased the property in 1999, long before the updates to the Renton
Municipal Code (RMC). My use of the property, including the number of vehicles, has remained consistent
over time and should be protected as a lawful nonconforming use under Washington state law. As RMC 4-10-
060 outlines, my use was legally established prior to the enactment of more restrictive zoning amendments in
2019, and therefore, any retroactive application of those amendments violates my vested property rights.
3. Resolution to Number of Vehicles The City’s claim that I must reduce the number of vehicles on my property
to four is not supported by the facts or the law. The 2019 Decision allowed for five vehicles, and the City
cannot unilaterally reduce that number without proper notice, a hearing, or new legislation that directly
addresses the grandfathering issue. Additionally, Washington law, specifically RCW 46.55.240, gives property
owners certain protections regarding the use of private property for the storage of vehicles, provided that the
vehicles are not a public nuisance or a safety hazard, which is not the case here.
4. Re-Issued Violations The City’s assertion that no violations were reissued is inaccurate. The City’s
inconsistent application and enforcement of regulations have created confusion and an undue burden.
Washington state law under RCW 36.70C.030 emphasizes fairness and consistency in the enforcement of land
use regulations. The City’s ongoing enforcement actions appear to be punitive, as violations were seemingly
closed and then reopened without clear justification, violating my rights to due pro cess under both state and
federal law.
5. Burden of Proof Under Washington state law (RCW 7.48.120), the burden of proof in a nuisance or land use
violation case lies with the party alleging the violation. The City has failed to meet its burden of proof by
relying on speculative evidence and not providing sufficient documentation. Washington courts have held that
in cases involving property rights, the evidence must be clear and convincing (Grays Harbor County v. Bay City
Lumber Co., 47 Wn.2d 879). The City has not demonstrated with clarity that my property is in violation of any
specific provision of the RMC.
6. Constitutional Issues While the City cites its police power to regulate land use, such powers are not
absolute. The Washington Supreme Court in Margola Assocs. v. Seattle, 121 Wn.2d 625 , held that land use
regulations must not be arbitrary or capricious and must serve a legitimate public interest. The City’s
enforcement actions appear to be excessive and infringe upon my constitutional rights under the Fifth
Amendment, which protects against government takings without just compensation. The City has not
provided sufficient evidence that my use of the property presents any danger to public health, safety, or
welfare. Regulating the number of vehicles on private property in a manner that is inconsistent with
established nonconforming uses constitutes an unjust taking of property rights. In conclusion, the City has not
provided substantial evidence to justify its enforcement actions against my property.
I respectfully request that the Hearing Examiner dismiss the violations and uphold my right to continue using
my property as it has been legally used for decades.
Sincerely, Kelly Carner