Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2024 - HEX Decision Appendix A - Carner Hearing August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 25 Appendix A August 27, 2024 Hearing Transcript Carner Code Enforcement -- CODE23-000293 Note: This is a computer-generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available at the City Clerk’s Office should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. This transcript is only provided as a convenience to the parties for easy and approximate access to the testimony provided during the hearing. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:03): File. Okay. Hold on a sec. Alright, just for the record, it is August 27th, 2024, 10:00 AM I Phil Bergs hearing examiner for the city of Renton this morning have a code compliance appeal code 23 dash 2 93. Looks like we have all the necessary parties here. Ms. Mattson representing the city as its code enforcement officer, Mr. Gardner as the appellant, the property owner involved in this case. And Ms. Mattson, what was that you were saying about an attorney? Officer Madsen: (00:37): Oh, sorry, Patrice from City Attorney's Office. She just sent an email and asked if Mr. Carner had an attorney and if so, she can jump onto this call. Examiner Olbrechts: (00:50): Oh, okay. Alright. Appellant Carner: (00:52): I don't feel the attorney's necessary at this time. If I appeal this then I'll have an attorney when it goes to the Regional Justice Center. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:01): Okay. Alright. So Ms. Matson, are you saying the city's attorney was just going to participate if Mr. Carter had an attorney? Is that the plan? Okay. Officer Madsen: (01:11): Yeah, otherwise the argument is all in the file. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:14): Okay. Alright. And the hearing format for today, the way that it's going to work is Ms. Matson has the burden of proof to prove that the violations occurred. So she gets to go first and last. Essentially her testimony will be under oath and she'll have an opportunity to present the city's case. And Mr. Carner, August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 25 you'll have an opportunity to cross examine Ms. Matson and any city witnesses that are involved. Did you have a question? I Appellant Carner: (01:42): Have a question. Examiner Olbrechts: (01:42): Yeah, sure. Appellant Carner: (01:43): Yeah. Are you a judge? Examiner Olbrechts: (01:46): Yeah, I'm a hearing examiner. Yeah, Appellant Carner: (01:49): But you're an actual judge, that's your title? Examiner Olbrechts: (01:51): No, my title's hearing examiner. I'm a lawyer that works for 35 communities, including the city of Ren. Appellant Carner: (01:57): Oh, Examiner Olbrechts: (01:58): Okay. Appellant Carner: (01:59): I just wanted to get Examiner Olbrechts: (02:01): Yeah, sure. It's a fair question. Certainly. Yeah. Alright, so Mr. Carter, as I was saying, any witnesses that the city presents, you can cross examinee and ask some questions about what they had to say. Then once the city's done presenting their side, you'll have an opportunity to present your evidence, whether that just be limited to your testimony or any witnesses documents you want to put in, we can consider all of that. Once you're done, then the city has a chance for rebuttal and after all that, I have 10 business days to issue a final decision. And as you said, that decision would be appealable to the Regional Justice Center, basically superior court. So now I did get a packet of exhibits from Ms. Madson and you should have received that as well. I'm going to share my screen. So we all, let me put that up here so it's real clear what documents that I have. Where's that same screen? There we go. Okay. Oh, Cindy, my share function is disabled. Speaker 4 (03:12): Sorry, I couldn't get my video on. Oh, I just, I put the wrong co-host on. Sorry. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 25 Examiner Olbrechts: (03:28): Okay. It looks like I'm legitimate now, so there we go. Okay. Alright. So Mr. Carner, right now you should see the list of exhibits that the city has there. Did you receive the packet of documents? Appellant Carner: (03:43): No, I did not. Examiner Olbrechts: (03:45): Okay. Ms. Mattson, were those given to Mr. Carner? Speaker 4 (03:50): Yes, they were. I sent it to him on his email and I said that the case file was there. He had to have clicked on the case file too big. Speaker 5 (04:02): Okay. Speaker 4 (04:03): Okay. So it was in the email, Kelly, with your Zoom hearing, so where you got your Zoom hearing, you had your case file for both your case and the city's file? Appellant Carner: (04:16): I was unaware, Speaker 4 (04:16): But I can resend it. Examiner Olbrechts: (04:18): Yeah. Yeah, Mr. Carter, I mean, if you need, basically, I think this is most of these documents or documents, you've probably already seen the warning letters and the notice of violation itself. There were also some photographs and a narrative of a chronology of what has happened with your property. So Appellant Carner: (04:39): Yeah, I haven't seen any of the photographs. Examiner Olbrechts: (04:41): Okay. Alright, well we can continue this a week or something if you need time to look at it, that's fine. Appellant Carner: (04:48): No, no, we can continue now. I don't want to hang this up if Examiner Olbrechts: (04:52): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 25 I don't Appellant Carner: (04:52): Agree with it, I already told you I'm going to appeal it, so. Examiner Olbrechts: (04:55): Yeah, yeah. Alright. Okay. Well I did have to ask, I mean, do you have any objections over entry of these? It wouldn't be based on you disagree with the city's allegation, it's just like if the photographs are not accurate or that they're taken to somebody else's property, that kind of thing. Appellant Carner: (05:11): Well, I mean we can look at it and I can tell you, I mean what we're looking at if they're not of my property, Examiner Olbrechts: (05:17): You're saying they're not of your property. Appellant Carner: (05:19): I said if we look at them and they're not of my property, I'll tell you. Examiner Olbrechts: (05:24): Okay. Alright. Well I dunno if Ms. Matson's going to go show every single photograph. So I mean, Appellant Carner: (05:32): Well, whatever ones you're using for your decision should be shown. Examiner Olbrechts: (05:36): Yeah, I don't know which ones those are going to be either. So Mr. Carter, I'll give you a chance to look at these or I'm just going to admit them. So do you want some time to look these photographs over all of the documents? Appellant Carner: (05:51): I don't have time. Like I've told Ms. Madson, I work for King County Metro Examiner Olbrechts: (05:55): Inspector. Okay. Alright, well I'll say get an opportunity to look them over and you've declined. So I'm going to admit all those exhibits one through eight without objection. Okay. Ms. Matson, let me swear you in. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Speaker 6 (06:13): I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (06:13): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 25 Okay, great. Go ahead. Officer Madsen: (06:20): So this Peggy started as a referral from the previous case in 2022 and I performed inspection as listed in the narrative. There are several violations that needed to be corrected. I've sent warning letters, I've spoke with Mr. Kerner and to date, as of this packet that was submitted, the violations that are still present are the ones that are listed on the notice of violation. I can read those off if you'd like. Examiner Olbrechts: (07:14): No, I've read them over and Mr. Carner has received a copy of that. What would be really useful is if you kind of went over the re-inspection photographs exhibit, is it exhibit eight or no Exhibit seven? Yeah. And identified the violations on each of the photographs. That'll be the primary evidence I rely upon in assessing whether the violations occurred or not. Sure. And any other photographs you think pertinent to your case? Of course. Speaker 6 (07:42): Of course. Officer Madsen: (07:56): So for exhibit seven, Examiner Olbrechts: (08:01): I got to stop my sugar, sorry. There we go. Okay. Officer Madsen: (08:10): Did you want me to share my screen? Examiner Olbrechts: (08:12): Yeah, yeah. Officer Madsen: (08:13): Okay. Speaker 6 (08:51): Okay, Officer Madsen: (08:54): So let me bring up this. Okay, so the first violation is disabled or unlicensed vehicles and boats. I'm going to scroll down here to Speaker 5 (09:45): Unknown caller. Sorry about that. Officer Madsen: (09:51): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 25 This Montana trailer right here. This one is unlicensed. I have a clearer picture up towards the top. Didn't want to duplicate a lot of these pictures. They're mostly of the same thing. Here's a closeup of the Montana trailer. Examiner Olbrechts: (10:15): Okay. And when you strip from one exhibit number two to the other, could you just say that for the record so that it's clear when I look back at the transcript, which photographs to look at? So now you're back to exhibit two. Alright. Officer Madsen: (10:27): Exhibit two has an up close picture of the license attached to the trailer. Examiner Olbrechts: (10:40): Okay. I'm trying to remember. Did the NOV under appeal, did that include the allegation that these were inhabited in violation of code? Is that correct? Speaker 7 (10:49): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (10:50): Okay. And what basis, how did you come to that conclusion? Officer Madsen: (10:55): So the same exhibit, exhibit two. We have an awning and a front porch built on the Montana trailer. Okay. We have slides out and indicative of cavitation in the trailer. Examiner Olbrechts: (11:12): Okay. And it looked like there was some kind of utility connection there. What was that? As far as you know? Officer Madsen: (11:20): Yes. A utility hookup. And Examiner Olbrechts: (11:23): Is that power or is that, what is that? Officer Madsen: (11:26): It looks like power, yeah. Examiner Olbrechts: (11:27): Okay. Officer Madsen: (11:29): And Mr. Kerner has admitted that somebody is living in this trailer. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 25 Examiner Olbrechts: (11:32): Okay. And then is this one of the unlicensed vehicles or is it just, yeah. Okay. Alright. And how do you know it's unlicensed? Officer Madsen: (11:41): I searched on the Department of Licensing for this plate here, 1 3 7 1 slash NW and found that it's not licensed as well as the sticker. Examiner Olbrechts: (11:56): Okay. And when was that search done? Officer Madsen: (12:03): The latest search was done on June 14th, 2024. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:10): Okay. Alright. And what are we looking at right now? Officer Madsen: (12:13): This is a certified printout of the Department of Licensing Examiner Olbrechts: (12:19): For that trailer that's shown in exhibit two Officer Madsen: (12:21): For the trailer. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:22): Okay. And which exhibit is this in? Officer Madsen: (12:30): Can I add this one? I don't believe I did. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:33): Okay. Alright. Mr. Carner, any objections over entry of the, you said Ms. Smith? Yes. Appellant Carner: (12:39): She doesn't have her stuff together. She's not adding anything. Examiner Olbrechts: (12:42): She what Appellant Carner: (12:43): If she doesn't have her information already put in here? I don't agree to add anything to it. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 25 Examiner Olbrechts: (12:49): Okay. Alright. Okay. I'll go ahead and admit it. Okay, Ms. Matson, go ahead. Officer Madsen: (12:55): That was the first violation and on the violations it is including, but not limited to, so most of the vehicles on the property, we can't see the registration, so we're unsure if they are licensed or not. So that was the one that we saw. The second violation is maximum number of vehicles per lot, and this one just states that a property owner can have four vehicles on their property. And I'm going to scroll down to exhibit seven and see if there's, I can count up. I've listed them. Speaker 5 (13:55): Okay. Officer Madsen: (14:04): Them on exhibit seven. Appellant Carner: (14:06): Question, did you take pictures of the backyard? Officer Madsen: (14:12): Yes. Appellant Carner: (14:13): You know that's an invasion of privacy and against the law. Officer Madsen: (14:20): Do you want to address that? Examiner Olbrechts: (14:23): Well, that's a question to you, Ms. Batson, if you want to answer it or not. Oh Officer Madsen: (14:26): Yeah, yeah, I'll definitely answer that. The invasion of privacy, the under of the Fourth Amendment. We cannot go above and beyond what is expected privacy. So I cannot reach over fences and take pictures. All of these pictures were taken at normal height and from a public right of way. Examiner Olbrechts: (14:52): Okay. Well yeah, that's the key is where did you take it? So, okay, so all the pictures were taken from public right of way. Alright. Officer Madsen: (14:58): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (14:59): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 25 Okay. Appellant Carner: (14:59): And you have that in writing as far as the documentation for that? Officer Madsen: (15:03): Yeah, they're the pictures. Examiner Olbrechts: (15:08): Okay. Ms. Matson, go ahead. Officer Madsen: (15:13): On this picture here on exhibit seven, I have one, two, there's three vehicles here. One Montana trailer, that's four. This is on the other side, the backyard, there's another one. Five, so that's over four. I could, Examiner Olbrechts: (15:43): These are pictures in exhibit seven for the record, is that correct? Officer Madsen: (15:46): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (15:46): Okay. Officer Madsen: (15:47): Yes. And from time to time as the case progressed, there have been movements of the vehicles, but always over the four vehicles. Examiner Olbrechts: (15:59): Okay. And the dates on the photographs, are those accurate of the date you took the pictures? Officer Madsen: (16:03): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (16:04): And you took all these pictures, is that right? Officer Madsen: (16:06): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (16:06): Okay. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 25 Officer Madsen: (16:11): The next violation is impermissible parking location. The vehicles are parked strewn about the property. There's no indication of vehicles being parked on impervious surfaces or not. Each property is allowed one driveway, and that can be confirmed with planning department on what lot percentage the driveway is and where it can be located on the property. And I'm referring to again, exhibit seven, you could see a paved driveway in front of the house. It's kind of a half circular area and most of the vehicles are parked not on that driveway. Speaker 5 (17:16): Okay. Officer Madsen: (17:22): On grass and dirt. Okay. And then the last violation is the habitation of recreational vehicle, and we already addressed that. Examiner Olbrechts: (17:38): Okay. That was just, you showed pictures of just one rv, I believe you said there were two or something in your reports, is that correct? Officer Madsen: (17:46): There were three Examiner Olbrechts: (17:47): RVs Officer Madsen: (17:48): Total. Okay. Examiner Olbrechts: (17:49): Could you kind of identify how you concluded for each one that they were being Officer Madsen: (17:55): Inhabited? The only one that Mr. Connor's admitted to somebody living in is the Montana trailer that was back here in exhibit seven. The other one, he has not admitted to anyone living in them. And the only indication of somebody living in them has been slides out Examiner Olbrechts: (18:17): The what? What was that? Officer Madsen: (18:20): The slides out the Oh, I see. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:22): Pop August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 25 Officer Madsen: (18:22): Out. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:23): Okay, got it. Officer Madsen: (18:24): I'm going to refer to exhibit six and scroll down to the eagle trailer that has the slides in the awning out. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:49): Okay. Alright. Is that everything, Ms. Mattson? Officer Madsen: (18:53): I believe that's everything. Examiner Olbrechts: (18:55): Okay. Mr. Carner, do you have any questions of Ms. Mattson? Appellant Carner: (18:58): Well, I mean, first off, if she would've done a later inspection, she would've, before this hearing started, she would've saw that the Montana trailer's not even here, it's been sold and gotten rid of. And if she would've ever replied to the information I sent talking, talking about the allowance of vehicles, because the allowance is more than four per piece of property. It's one for every licensed driver that lives on the property, which she just walked that away. Didn't even ask how many people lived here. So the four, and then the other thing that has been tried to change is the definition of a vehicle. The definition of a vehicle is somewhat something that a person drives, not something that's towed behind a vehicle, a car, or a truck. So to say that the trailers are vehicles is this wrong, it contradicts itself as far as even in your guys' own guidelines. Examiner Olbrechts: (20:24): Okay. And Mr. Carter now is just cross-examination of Ms. Matson. Did you not have any questions directly of her or like I said, no. Okay. Speaker 5 (20:33): Alright. That's fine. Fine. I have no questions for her. Okay. Examiner Olbrechts: (20:35): And Ms. Matson, are you done presenting evidence for the city at this point? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Carter, I guess, did you want to present any testimony yourself, Mr. Carner? Appellant Carner: (20:46): Well, did you get the information that I sent to Ms. Mattson? The response letter that I sent to the city of Renton? August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 25 Examiner Olbrechts: (20:54): Let's see. I don't, Ms. Matson, did you? I don't think I've got that yet. So did you send that to me, Ms. Mattson, Officer Madsen: (21:05): Which letter are you referring to? Are you referring to the writing on the appeal document? Appellant Carner: (21:13): No, not that. That's another one you can give to him that he should have already, but the letter I sent to the city council, to the mayor, to everyone, Officer Madsen: (21:24): You have to be more specific. What date, what time was it? Via email? Via email. Appellant Carner: (21:30): It was in an email. Email. It was a PDF. It says City of Rent and Response. Officer Madsen: (21:37): It was in an email. Okay. What day? Appellant Carner: (21:44): I'll have to look at my email for the date because I just have the letter pulled up. Examiner Olbrechts: (22:40): Ms. Carter, what we can do if you're just going to limit to your comments to what was written is you can get those to Ms. Matson, she'll forward them to me and then she can submit something writing in response and then we can conclude it that way if you prefer. Appellant Carner: (22:58): Well, I can go through each of the four things real quick in the letter. Examiner Olbrechts: (23:03): Okay. Let me swear you in real quick. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, nothing but the truth in this proceeding? Appellant Carner: (23:08): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (23:09): Okay, great. Go ahead. Appellant Carner: (23:12): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 25 So I'm just going to start at the top after the examinee, the codes Sheila has cited clear, the wording has been updated recently. So since the codes were originally written, the wording has changed on the codes that they've been updated to change the wording of the codes, which I don't know how they do that without council approval and going through the whole process. But as the definitions of what a vehicle is, the city is trying to make up their own definition. We have legal dictionaries that make up definitions of what a boat or a trailer is. Is a vehicle under the definition is not correct. (24:06): The city's own code contradicts itself. The term when it says you can leave a vehicle, have a vehicle for every licensed driver, as you can see highlighted below, which I highlighted through code that says four licensed drivers resided on scene address and additional motor vehicle for each licensed driver for over four. And at the time I had nine licensed drivers on the property. So I don't agree with the trailer being a vehicle statement. Second part, disabled vehicles or unlicensed or unlicensed portion. To me that's nonsense. I've never seen anything anywhere that says a vehicle sitting on your property has to be currently tabbed. If I'm not driving the vehicle or it's sitting for a different reason, why would I currently tab it to me? I've never seen that anywhere in, oh my gosh, of course I can't talk today. (25:21): Inable parking locations. So I've owned this property since 1999. It's been gravel since 2002, 2003. The whole area that she's saying is parked on dirt and grass. You come in, you'll see grass is growing, but I try to cut it out or peel it back. Anybody that has gravel knows that fight that they have. But I've been parking on those locations for years, so I denied that this claim is even there, which I've already told her. The car thing I deny as far as that. Also for the fact that I'm, I have grandfathered rights from King County where I was when I bought this property is in King County habitation of recreational vehicles. Like I've already stated, that trailer is not on the property anymore. The cruiser trailer is up for sale sitting on the front of the property. All these things she would've saw if she came by the white van that she noted it in. (26:50): Her violation letter is also for sale. So it's not like I'm not trying to work with everyone. The other thing she didn't mention is that I'm trying to build a garage. I've been in the permit process with the city of Renton now for, it's got to be close to six months and back and forth going with them, trying to work things out with them as far as their requirements. So the rest of the vehicle problem that is under the city violation is going to be corrected as soon as the garage is taken care of. And that's active. You can see the emails I've had back and forth with them. (27:40): Okay. State of Washington, I'm not done yet. State of Washington allows habitation of recreational vehicles. And one thing that is kind of confusing to me is at the state that we're in, with inflation being record high and over 60,000 people in the state of Washington being homeless, why this is such an issue for you to try to make a place for your family to live when they can't afford anything but grandfathered rights, unconditional use. So I'll give you an example of Sheila's boss I had a meeting with or him, Robert Shoey, and he is actually the inspector that wrote this violation up. And just so you can have an example of the thinking process that they go through. So I was replacing my fence in the front. It was built in 2006. It's a wood cedar fence. Part of it blew down. I checked a couple of the boards, saw they were rotting. So I tore it down and replaced it one section at a time, and it was down for maybe a week. (29:02): The city has adopted the code that you can only have a four foot fence in the front yard. I told him I've had this fence for 20 years, so I'm grandfathered in under the grandfathered rights clause, under the August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 25 unconditional use clause that you even have in the city. Robert, his exact words were, well, once you take the fence down, it's no longer up. That's not what the law says though. The law says you have to abandon that use for a period of time, and most of the times is six months to a year. You have to abandon that use before you lose that. Right. So this is one thing I wish the city would educate themselves with actual laws and actual rights of the people that they represent. Because Sheila represents me. She represents the people in the city of renting and for them to be writing stuff that isn't accurate or they change the wording on the code to try to make it seem like it applies to you Now when it didn't apply to you before. (30:25): Here's my final argument here. I've been harassed by the city of Renton code enforcement, starting with Donna Lochner and then Robert and now Sheila. The mental ambush that I've been under is unbearable. You get a letter from some people that tell you you've broken all these rules that you don't understand because when you research the stuff, you haven't broken any rules. I feel that there's a training that needs to take place for the city staff what's allowed and what's not allowed. They say these things like it's law. I ask them if it's law and they're like, well, we're not lawyers. That's just a summary of everything. But I don't agree with her coats that she was trying to enforce. I don't feel they applied to me. One other question that I asked for a response on that no one has responded on, even asked Robert about it, the last hearing examiner, which I don't remember if that was you. Examiner Olbrechts: (32:06): I think it was, yes. Appellant Carner: (32:08): So I want a copy of when I received that decision that you made because I don't recall ever receiving it until she was sent it to me back a few months ago. Therefore, I was never given a time to respond to it because based on the response I got, I would've definitely appealed it to the appeals court. Examiner Olbrechts: (32:38): Okay. Yeah. And Ms. Matson, I don't know if you have records or actually Ms. Moya I think is the city clerk's office is the one that sends it out. Ms. Moya, do you keep records of when those documents are mailed out or how do you keep track of that? Speaker 4 (32:55): Yeah, I can dig it up. What year was that? Do you remember? Examiner Olbrechts: (32:59): I think was 2019. Was it? It was a while ago. Yeah. Maybe any documentation you have as to when it was mailed, just email that to Mr. Carner. Appellant Carner: (33:10): Yep. Examiner Olbrechts: (33:11): Okay. Alright. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 15 of 25 Appellant Carner: (33:11): Well mail isn't, mail doesn't mean I got it. It has to be certified. Speaker 5 (33:22): Okay. Appellant Carner: (33:23): So that's just like with this today. Fortunately I saw her email for the meeting today. I never got a piece of paper in the mail or any other correspondence about this meeting. Examiner Olbrechts: (33:40): Okay. Okay. Well, I'm glad you were able to make it. I missed Appellant Carner: (33:44): This meeting because of just the email being sent. It wouldn't be legal. Examiner Olbrechts: (33:51): Right. Okay. Anything else, Mr. Carton Carter? Appellant Carner: (33:57): No. You can probably tell I'm flabbergasted about this whole thing and I want to move forward. The biggest thing I think that will help everything is when I get the garage done, it will take care of three quarters of the issues that we have going on. And that's one thing I was waiting hoping Sheila would do is, Hey, I'm trying to do this garage. You can see the correspondence back and forth with the city that I'm working on this stuff. My dad lived in the trailer, the Montana, that's why I had the steps on it because he was dying of cancer and he passed away last summer. And I don't know if you've had a loved one die, but the ordeal of trying to get all their affairs in order, cleaning up after them and going through all the paperwork and stuff and seeing what's needed. It's a huge deal. And it was just me. My other brothers don't, my one brother couldn't even handle it and the other two don't live in the area. So Examiner Olbrechts: (35:13): Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that. Appellant Carner: (35:15): Now that trailer's gone. So that thing is no longer an issue. The cruiser trailer is for sale. If she drives by, she can take a picture and see that it's parked out in the front area by that black trailer that you saw earlier, the one cam trailer that she counted as three of the trailers right there, that's also been sold. So I'm working on simplifying my stuff, but I also don't want to give up any rights that I do have because that's one thing that is happening is the city keeps putting out, and it's not just the city of remnants. Every city does this, puts out more codes and laws to control the people. I don't understand it. I understand some of it that's needed, but the extremes that they're going to is like they're trying to make it into an HOAI don't live in an HOA, I would never buy a house in the HOAI like having some rights. So that's basically all I have to say today. Examiner Olbrechts: (36:33): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 16 of 25 Okay. And Mr. Carner you refer to as some correspondence? I don't have access to that unless it's made an exhibit to this proceeding. If you want me to look at that, we can have you just email whatever documents you want me to look at. I'll write Speaker 6 (36:48): It out to, Examiner Olbrechts: (36:49): Yeah, whatever you want. Put in the record, send that to Actually, do you have Ms. Moya email address? Speaker 5 (36:55): Yes, I do. Examiner Olbrechts: (36:55): Okay. Yeah, send it to her. Send it Speaker 4 (36:57): To me if you could. Examiner Olbrechts: (36:57): Yeah. And then I'll let Ms. Madson respond to them and you'll be given a copy of her response as well. So if, yeah, Mr. Carter, anything you want to get in the record, just get that to Ms. Wyant, I guess by a week from today, which would be see the 3rd of September. Just email that to her, Appellant Carner: (37:16): All that in five minutes. Examiner Olbrechts: (37:17): Okay. That's great. And then Ms. Matson, you can have seven days from when you receive a copy of that to respond to it, a written response, and of course, make sure Mr. Carner gets a copy of your response as well. So Ms. Matson, did you have any questions, Mr. Carner? Officer Madsen: (37:34): Yes. Should I address each of his issues? Examiner Olbrechts: (37:37): Well, no. Now's the time just for questioning. And then once you're questioning, then assuming Mr. Carner is done presenting evidence, then we'll let you make your responsive argument. Yeah. Officer Madsen: (37:48): Okay. Mr. Carner, is there anyone living in any trailers right now on the property? Appellant Carner: (37:53): I live in one trailer. I've lived in that trailer for 17 years. Just like the response I sent to you guys said. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 17 of 25 Officer Madsen: (38:03): So just you and one person lives in one trailer? Appellant Carner: (38:07): Just me. And the reason for this is I travel for work. I'm normally home three days a month, so it makes no sense for me to go rent an apartment or a house or anything else for that time. Officer Madsen: (38:24): And then how many people live inside the house? Appellant Carner: (38:30): This is relative to, Officer Madsen: (38:34): To the number of vehicles on the property. Each one has to have a licensed driver. Appellant Carner: (38:40): So like I said before, you can go through the DMV and see how many licensed registered drivers there are to this property. That would be the legal way of doing this. Me telling you how many people live here doesn't do anything. I could say there's 20 people that live here. Officer Madsen: (39:06): Are you saying that there's 20 people that live in your house? Appellant Carner: (39:08): No, I'm saying there's no way for you to verify it. The only correct way to verify it is to go to the DMV and pull up how many people have licensed to this property. I mean, I have record of that. I can just go on to my search through Washington State and it shows how many people are licensed to each property. I could pull your address up and see who lives at your house. Officer Madsen: (39:35): Okay. So you're declining to answer that one, not Appellant Carner: (39:37): Declining. Officer Madsen: (39:40): Are there any Appellant Carner: (39:41): Trailers Officer Madsen: (39:42): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 18 of 25 On the property that are hooked up to city sewer or water? Appellant Carner: (39:47): City water? Officer Madsen: (39:50): Any trailers on the property? Are they hooked up to? Appellant Carner: (39:52): I just told you I live in one trailer. Officer Madsen: (39:56): Is that a yes. Is there a trailer that's hooked up to city sewer and water. Appellant Carner: (40:00): Okay. I'm not going to answer any of those questions. Examiner Olbrechts: (40:05): Okay. Alright. Anything else, Ms. Matson? I guess now, I guess Mr. Cardinals won't answer any questions, so if you want to, Appellant Carner: (40:14): Well, I mean, this is going to go to the appeals court based on how she's acting. Examiner Olbrechts: (40:18): Okay. That's fine. Question. Okay, Ms. Mattson, any testimony, any further evidence in the rebuttal? Speaker 6 (40:26): Yes. Examiner Olbrechts: (40:27): Oh, and Mr. Carter, I just to verify take you're done presenting your case, is that correct? Appellant Carner: (40:32): Well, I mean what I'm being accused and attacked right now. Examiner Olbrechts: (40:37): Yeah. Well, I mean, I don't know if I'd call it because she's just asking questions, but yeah, Appellant Carner: (40:42): She's trying to get more information for her job Examiner Olbrechts: (40:47): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 19 of 25 And that's the way that we have to do it at the local level because we don't have the discovery tools available in a court proceeding. So if you don't answer questions, I use it on base. Pardon? Appellant Carner: (40:58): This isn't a court proceeding? Examiner Olbrechts: (41:00): No, it's not a court proceeding. It's a, or excuse me, it's a code enforcement proceeding at the local level. So we don don't have all of the discovery tools available to us that the judicial process has. So it's a little different. It's called quasi-judicial because it's like a judicial proceeding, but not exactly. Appellant Carner: (41:17): But when you started this, you said she had the burden of proof, correct? Examiner Olbrechts: (41:21): Yeah, that's right. Appellant Carner: (41:23): Okay. Well she needs to prove how many people live on this property Examiner Olbrechts: (41:27): Before she writes. You can do that and Appellant Carner: (41:29): All the rest of it. Examiner Olbrechts: (41:31): That's right. Okay. But I just wanted to make sure, I mean, pardon? Appellant Carner: (41:35): Sorry. I want you to read one email that I'm attached to this, that I sent her based on this, about the codes that I'm under for the grandfather clause and being in King County and everything. And her exact words were, I'm not going to do that research because I don't need to. Examiner Olbrechts: (41:57): Okay. Appellant Carner: (41:58): That's in writing. Examiner Olbrechts: (42:00): Okay, that's fine. Yeah, I mean my role is just to see if the code's been violated or not. So ultimately it's the evidence that's put into the record here is what's most important, whether the violations occurred or not. We really try to avoid playing games. We just want to find out if the violations occurred. That's it. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 20 of 25 Appellant Carner: (42:19): I'm not playing any games. Examiner Olbrechts: (42:20): No, I understand. I understand. I understand your frustration here. And like I say, I'm just here to find out if the evidence supports the allegations that the city is making and it's going to be based on the evidence presented in this hearing. Alright, Ms. Mattson, any final presentation comments? Officer Madsen: (42:42): Yes. So I had a comment on the definition of vehicle that was dated in a response letter to Mr. Carner. I can grab the exhibit number. Really it's exhibit number eight. This was a letter drafted to address all of his concerns as well as we could. There's a definition of a vehicle that included in there as well as the pertaining code for a disabled slash unlicensed vehicle. So if any code backup is needed located 4 4 0 85. Appellant Carner: (43:48): So where was the definition pulled from? Officer Madsen: (43:56): Do you want me to answer that? Speaker 5 (43:57): Yeah, go ahead. Just snaps in. Yeah. Officer Madsen: (43:59): Okay. It's pulled from the definition section of the code library online. Appellant Carner: (44:05): So from the city of Briton? Officer Madsen: (44:07): Yes. Appellant Carner: (44:08): So it's not from a legal dictionary or outside source. Officer Madsen: (44:15): I'm just referencing the city of, Speaker 6 (44:18): Okay. Officer Madsen: (44:26): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 21 of 25 Let's see here. The impermissible parking, that one is also stated in code. Mr. Connor mentioned that we didn't go on the property to see where they're parked. That's not in our purview. We can't go onto the property to see where they're parked. We can just go by what we can see. And from the pictures it is clear that they're not parked in the paved driveway that's in the front of the house. Appellant Carner: (44:56): That's not the code. The code states they can be parked on gravel. Examiner Olbrechts: (45:03): Okay. And Mr. Carner, please if you have any questions of Ms. Matson once she's finished you can ask her the questions. Go ahead Ms. Madson. Officer Madsen: (45:12): We also addressed the nonconforming rights or the grandfather rights that Mr. Carner is claiming that he's entitled to. They are still subject to current city regulations as stated in the hearing examiner decision in 2019. That was also included in the exhibit so I can get the exhibit number for you. All of these issues were addressed and ample time was given to Mr. Carner to resolve these violations including a $300 fine that should be paid. I have checked with accounting and that fine has been paid however the violations remained. And as far as habitation of recreational vehicle, the fourth violation we just confirmed, Mr. Conner has confirmed that he ising inside of a recreational vehicle inside on the property and the garage that has been applied for, it looks like it was started in June of 2024, which is about two years after the decision had been issued. So it's been essentially two years that these violations have remained on the property. So ample time has been given to resolving. Examiner Olbrechts: (46:51): Okay. Is that it? Ms. Madson? Officer Madsen: (46:58): And I just want to reiterate, the non-conforming use can be altered when a change or an improvement is made as going back to, I know the fence situation isn't pertinent to this situation, but that was the fence situation. Examiner Olbrechts: (47:17): Okay. Mr. Carner, any questions of Ms. Mattson? Appellant Carner: (47:22): Well, I mean it's nothing that's going to be solved here. It's going to have to be solved with attorneys. Examiner Olbrechts: (47:28): Okay. And Mr. Carter, you mentioned you had been working on the garage. When did you start doing that and how far along are you? Appellant Carner: (47:36): Well, I don't know where she's getting her numbers, but my emails pull up a lot farther back than hers. August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 22 of 25 Speaker 5 (47:44): Okay. Appellant Carner: (47:46): Let me go. Examiner Olbrechts: (47:52): Like I said, I'll be happy to look at any of the emails you want me to look at. Just forward them to Ms. Moya and she'll forward them to me. Appellant Carner: (48:00): Okay. Well I've been dealing with just the one person that worked for the city. It's a planner. Andrew Van Gordon. I was dealing with him and the stuff they were trying to apply to me was the stuff they were applied to commercial property down in the city center, which another person that works for the city that takes a code and misapply it. So that's what's happened lots of times. Well, Andrew doesn't work for the city anymore, so I worked with his boss, Clark Close, and Clark was very specific. I did what he asked and that part's done. I was dealing with Andrew for over two months trying to get that taken care of. And like I said, you have access that you could see all the correspondence back and forth. (49:15): Now it's to the city building department for the actual structure and getting them a couple plans. I took yesterday off work to finish a couple of the plans up for 'em and they should have the rest of the information they need by end of week. And I was just hoping to have a permit in hand a month and a half ago, two months ago. Because my first submittal of this stuff, what she's seen is when they accepted it as a complete, they're saying they had to have all these different documents. That's not when I started trying to get the documents for them because the last time I did a permit, it didn't require all the stuff that they want now. It's a nightmare. Especially this used to be a garage permit edition. Used to be you walk in and you walk out with the permit after you show 'em the plans. It used to be a very simple process. So that's my plan is to get the garage built, get the cars and things that need to go in there in there. I'm downsizing. I already told you, you're more than welcome to come by and take pictures. (50:40): I think my biggest issue is having codes misapplied or having codes that are cherry picked. Like when she wrote the first code about only having four vehicles, no one ever gave me the option to say, oh, but you can't have one for every licensed driver. So if she would've sent the whole aspect of it there, I would've saw that and I wouldn't have stressed as much. But until I pulled up all the codes myself and read them for their whole, what they're talking about, you're in a status of panic and you're like, what is going on? You have sleepless nights, you have this stuff going through your brain and you don't know what to do. And it's not like with her, she has all her colleagues and attorneys and people she can talk to that back her up with her decision and stuff with me. Who am I talking to? My confidant passed away. I don't have anybody to talk to. So I have to do the research myself. And from doing the research myself, I feel that the city is in violation of violating my rights. Same story. Examiner Olbrechts: (52:05): Okay. Alright. Thanks Mr. Carter. Ms. Mattson, any questions? Mr. Carner August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 23 of 25 Officer Madsen: (52:15): Here. I just want to quickly address the car issue. Examiner Olbrechts: (52:22): Okay. So no questions of Mr. Carner. You're just kind of giving, wrapping it up here. Is that what you're doing? Officer Madsen: (52:26): Yeah. Examiner Olbrechts: (52:27): Okay. Officer Madsen: (52:30): The first morning of violation that was sent out that noted which code was violated on the number of cards there is in the description, a list of acceptance exception. And one of 'em is for if you have more than four license drivers on your property. Examiner Olbrechts: (52:54): Okay. And is that something you can check? It's that issue hasn't come up before in the code enforcement cases in rent. And I mean, do you have access to, can you do a search and DOL records to see how many drivers live at that particular property? Officer Madsen: (53:08): No, we searched by a license plate number and bin number. Examiner Olbrechts: (53:12): Okay. Okay. Alright. Appellant Carner: (53:15): One tool that you guys could start using, they'll give you all the information that you want, is the Washington State gov search. And if you go to that and you put a license or an address in, it tells you everything about that property. It tells you the people that live there. It tells you if they've had any convictions. It tells you who lived there and when they lived there. Like I told Sheila when there was a couple other cars here when she wrote her violation, my sister-in-Law had her mom and dad that were moving back to South Dakota and they were here for a couple months and that those cars would leave, which they're gone now, but even them even just living here for that short period of time, they're on that as living here. Examiner Olbrechts: (54:10): Okay. Thanks Mr. Carter. Alright. Ms. Mattson, again, since you have burden of proof on most of this, you got final word if you want any. Speaker 7 (54:21): August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 24 of 25 I believe that's it. Examiner Olbrechts: (54:22): Okay. Alright. Go ahead and close the hearing. Well, except for as I said, Mr. Carner, any documents you want to be added to the record, go ahead and forward them to Ms. Moya within the next week. And then Ms. Matson will have seven days from the time those documents come in to provide a written response, which should be shared with you as well. So I have a lot of information to review here and if he did get a chance to look at my last decision, Mr. Carner, at the least you'd know that I do try to address everything that's raised. So it should be pretty thorough. Don't at this point, I don't have any opinions. Oh, go Appellant Carner: (55:00): Ahead. I did read it and you didn't admit that I had grandfathered rights for vehicles and stuff. You went back into the whole decision about that, but then you limited it to five vehicles. Examiner Olbrechts: (55:14): Yeah, yeah. I mean I don't remember all the details. I'll have to be looking at that again. Appellant Carner: (55:19): I have a problem with is you admitted that I have fathered rights through King County four vehicles and that you could have unlimited vehicles as far as King County's concerned. But then you made the decision that I could only have five vehicles Examiner Olbrechts: (55:35): And I was very clear about the case laws specifically provides that those are considered performance standards and you can phase them out and that's what the city has done. So I mean, it gave you a year to remove those vehicles and you didn't apparently, I mean that's what the city's alleging. So that's the information. I mean, that case law is not that ambiguous. I mean what you can't do is just terminate the use as a single family home, but you can impose additional, what they call performance standards, which are things like limiting the number of vehicles. But you can appeal that and argue that and create new case law if you want. But the case law right now I think is the city can create new performance standards even for something that pre-existed. I mean, I understand your situation. (56:21): You were out in unincorporated King County where of course the rules are more flexible. You probably didn't ask to be annexed into the city of Renton. Now you're saddle with all these city laws and it's put everybody in a bad situation unfortunately. But it's like I say, I have a lot of information to look at here and I will address everything and you will have a right to appeal it. And I mean if you want to create new law or find that I'm inaccurate, then I mean best of luck. I mean, my only interest is applying the laws that the city council has adopted. You mentioned that the city staff have changed some of the wording. I don't think so. I know that the city council has amended the code a few times when they found that they weren't operating the way they had intended. (57:05): So that's something, once you get the final decision, you might want to check into. Because I believe all the city amendments are on the city's website. That's all available as to when ordinances were amended. And if you look at each code provision, you'll see in parentheses there are ordinance August 27 Renton CE (Completed 09/11/24) Transcript by Rev.com Page 25 of 25 numbers. Those identify all the ordinances that have changed the language of the code and those were all adopted by the city council. So rent's pretty good about making all that information available. A lot of cities don't do that. So at least you got that to work with. Make your job a little easier. No, and when I say I understand you're frustrat, like I say, I know I used to be 30 years ago, I was a Fork city attorney out in the middle of nowhere where it was people had no restrictions on what to do with their property and they were really proud about that. So I can kind of relate to your circumstances of coming from kind of a rural area and being sucked into the city. But our job as staff and my job as the hearing examiner is to follow the law, whatever that is, and you are contacting the right people at city council. You don't like the law. Those are the people to say change it because Ms. Madson doesn't have that authority except to maybe advise the council that certain things aren't working, that kind of thing. Appellant Carner: (58:21): Well, I'll have to do that. I do know a few of the council members. Examiner Olbrechts: (58:24): Yeah, yeah. It's always an option. So anyway, like I say, we, it's a couple weeks to deal with the post hearing documentation and then I got a couple weeks after that to issue that decision. So thanks Mr. Carter. Oh, sorry. Speaker 4 (58:39): Sorry. Before we end, Mr. Carter, do you prefer mail for the decision or email? We've been emailing Appellant Carner: (58:48): Me And you have been emailing, but any legal documentation that is sent as a decision has to come in the Ford of the certified letter showing that, Speaker 4 (59:00): Unless it agreed. Appellant Carner: (59:02): I'm not agreeing to that. It needs to be certified letter because Speaker 4 (59:06): That's what I was asking. I'll send it by mail. Thank you. Appellant Carner: (59:09): Well, and it can't be just agreed between us verbally. That's not legal. I deal with legality stuff as my position at King County all the time. And everything has to be documented. You're correct. Verbal agreements. Examiner Olbrechts: (59:28): Alright. Okay. Well thank you all. We're adjourned for today.