Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-01-2024 - HEX Decision - storage violations - Full decision Code Enforcement Decision - 1 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER OF RENTON DECISION FILE NUMBER: CODE23-000293 ADDRESS: 11135 SE 164th St Renton WA 98058 PROPERTY OWNER: Kelly Carner 11135 SE 164th St. Renton, WA 98058. REVIEW AUTHORITY: City of Renton TYPE OF CASE: Finding of Violation DISPOSITION: Three of the four alleged violations sustained (one just in part) and $200 of the $300 fine sustained; The fines shall be waived if required corrective actions are completed by November 1, 2025. INTRODUCTION Kelly Carner appeals a Finding of Violation (“FOV”) alleging four code violations associated with outdoor storage for his single-family home located at 11135 SE 164th St Renton WA 98058. Three of the four violations are sustained. FOV Violation No. 2, alleging more than four parked vehicles, is reversed because the City did not disprove Mr. Carner’s contention that he had nine licensed drivers and associated vehicles registered to the violation site. Violation No. 3, alleging parking on an unauthorized surface, is sustained only in part. Contrary to the FOV, the gravel driveway on the violation site is found to be an authorized surface for the parking of vehicles. Mr. Carner has made considerable headway in challenging the alleged violations of the FOV. The one that is likely to still cause him the most difficulty is the City’s prohibition of residing in a recreational vehicle or travel trailer, RMC 4-4-030I. Given the burden that RMC 4-4-030I places upon Mr. Carner, amongst other factors, Mr. Carner is given a year to discontinue that use. Mr. Carner did not argue that the travel trailer use should be considered grandfathered. If the use was lawfully established prior to RCW 4-4030I, it might1 be protected as a nonconforming use. Mr. 1 Establishing a legal nonconforming use for the recreational vehicle use would likely be challenging. A court opinion issued since Mr. Carner’s 2019 code enforcement decision, CODE17-000628, would make his position even more difficult. See Icicle/Bunk, LLC v. Chelan Cnty., 537 P.3d 321 (2023). In the Icicle case Chelan County adopted an ordinance prohibiting more than one short term rental per lot. A property owner who had been renting out two short term rentals on a single lot challenged the application of the ordinance to him on the basis that he had lawfully operated Code Enforcement Decision - 2 Carner is free to make that argument upon a reconsideration request filed with the City Clerk by 5 pm November 20, 2024. The record would be re-opened for that purpose. City staff have done Mr. Carner a big favor by not contesting his position that the City has the burden of proof in regards to affirmative defenses, i.e the exceptions to the parking and storage requirements alleged in the FOV. Mr. Carner’s burden of proof argument was a major part of his post-hearing briefing. The City response to those arguments was that the City had the burden of proof. In doing so the City has essentially taken on the responsibility of proving negatives, e.g. that Mr. Carner’s gravel driveway was not established prior to the adoption of RMC 4-4-085.D.3 and that the excess vehicles parked on his lot are not registered to persons residing on the lot. As discussed in the legal analysis below, the law likely does not require the City to assume this burden of proof. Since Mr. Carner’s position is uncontested and marginally justifiable, the City is left taking on the responsibility it voluntarily took upon itself. The City failed to meet that burden of proof for the excess parking charge (Violation No. 2) and failed to do so for a couple vehicles parked outside an approved surface (Violation No. 3). As a result Violation No. 2 is reversed and Violation No. 3 is reversed in part as described in more detail below. HEARING The hearing on the appeal was held virtually on August 27, 2024 at 10:00 am via the Zoom application. Mr. Carner was given until September 3, 2024 to provide written argument in his defense and the City until September 10, 2024 to provide a written response. In review of the hearing transcript the Examiner found that Mr. Carner may have misunderstood that he had the burden of proof in asserting affirmative defenses to the alleged FOV violations. To give Mr. Carner a fair opportunity to assert his affirmative defenses, the Examiner re-opened the hearing for that purpose by email dated September 11, 2024. Mr. Carner was given until September 20, 2024 to present additional argument and evidence on this affirmative defenses, the City until September 27, 2024 to respond and Mr. Carner until October 2, 2024 to reply. The briefing on affirmative defenses was subsequently extended to October 18, 2024. The record was closed on October 18, 2024. the two units prior to adoption of the ordinance. The Icicle court found that the two units were not protected as nonconforming uses. It specifically held that the “use” to which the property owner was vested was short term rental use generally and not two short term rentals specifically. In the same vein, the “use” to which Mr. Carner has vested is generally residential use, not RV use specifically. As noted in Mr. Carner’s 2019 code enforcement decision, his nonconforming (grandfather) rights only attach to single-family use generally and not performance standards that regulate the manner in which that single-family use is conducted. The one distinguishing feature of the Chelan ordinance was that it expressly provided that nonconforming use rights didn’t attach to properties with multiple short term rentals. Renton’s nonconforming use regulations, Chapter 4-10- 060 RMC, are not that clear about what types of uses are grandfathered. However, as noted in the Icicle case, the “limited protection provided by a nonconforming use is still subject to ordinances regulating the manner or operation of use.” 537 P.3d at 327. These restrictions regulating “manner or operation” are the performance standards identified in Mr. Carner’s 2019 decision. RMC 4-4-030I and the other regulations cited in the FOV all likely qualify as these types of performance standards that can restrict Mr. Carner’s vested single-family use. Code Enforcement Decision - 3 TESTIMONY A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A. EXHIBITS Exhibits 1-8 of Code File 23-000293 were admitted into the record during the August 27, 2024 hearing. The following exhibits were admitted subsequent to the hearing: Exhibit 9: Undated Carner written defense citing to legal dictionary Exhibit 10: Ausugst 27, 2024 email from Carner to C. Moya received at 11;21 AM. Exhibit 11: October 9, 2024 email from Examiner to Parties including string starting September 11, 2024. Exhibit 12: City of Renton Ordinance No. 5959 emailed September 11, 2024 by City Exhibit 13: Carner response to Ordinance No. 5959 emailed September 28, 2024 Exhibit 14: Undated letter from Mr. Carner to Examiner Responding to Ordinance 5959 emailed September 28, 2024 Exhibit 15: October 15, 2024 City Response Exhibit 16: October 17, 2024 Carner Reply FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Appellant. The Appellant is Kelly Carner, 11135 SE 164th St, Renton, WA 98058. 2. Violation Site. The violation site is the Appellant’s residence, 11135 SE 164th St, Renton, WA 98058. The Appellant, Kelly Carner, is the owner of the violation site. 3. Appeal. This decision addresses Mr. Carner’s appeal of an FOV alleging four violations of the RMC. The FOV was issued on June 17, 2024. 4. Violations. For ease of reference, the findings of fact below are linked to the violation numbers of the FOV for Case No. CODE23-000293. All references to the “violation site” are to Mr. Carner’s residence, 11135 SE 164th St, Renton, WA 98058. A. Violation No. 1: The Montana trailer parked on the violation site on February 29, 2024 was unlicensed. The second photograph of Ex. 6 clearly shows the trailer having a license tab dated for 2022. Ms. Madsen had confirmed with Washington State Department of Licensing records that the license was expired. Mr. Carner did not deny the vehicles is unlicensed. This determination is made without the DOL licensing record presented by Ms. Madsen at the hearing. Mr. Carner was not given the opportunity to review the document so the document has not been considered in issuing this finding. B. Violation No. 2: More than four vehicles were parked outdoors in public view at the violation site on February 29, 2024. Ex. 6 photographs show an SUV, a white van, Code Enforcement Decision - 4 three camper trailers and/or RVs and a storage trailer on the violation site on that date. Ms. Madsen testified that there are always more than four vehicles parked on the violation site. Mr. Carner doesn’t deny that more than four of these types of vehicles are parked on his property. Mr. Carner asserts in Exhibit 9 that he has nine drivers registered and living at his address. The City does not dispute this and provides no evidence to the contrary. Since the City has assumed the burden of proof in negating affirmative defenses, Mr. Carner’s statement in this regard is taken as a verity. Mr. Carner did not specifically posit that the drivers and vehicles are licensed to the violation site. However, since the City has the burden of proof to establish the contrary, it must be found as well that the nine drivers residing on the violation site are registered to that site along with their vehicles. C. Violation No. 3: At least two vehicles were parked off of a driveway on a graveled surface overrun with grass on February 29, 2024. The second photograph of Ex. 6 shows a graveled driveway access to a carport and potentially a second building to the left of the carport. To the right of the driveway is a graveled area overrun with grass upon which a storage trailer and camper trailer are parked. This area does not access any buildings and is not a necessary part of the drive aisle that leads to the carport. The Montana trailer and white van depicted in the Ex. 6 photographs are parked on the driveway. It’s unclear if the driveway has been in place since 2019. However, as identified in Mr. Carner’s 2019 code enforcement decision, multiple cars have been parked at the violation site since well before 2019. Given that the City has the burden of proof to establish that the gravel driveway hasn’t been in place since 2019, it must be concluded that the driveway has been in place since at least 2019. The graveled area abutting the driveway is not found to be a prior approved surface. Given the long history of the violation site used as parking before any such approvals were likely necessary and the absence of any assertion from Mr. Carner that the surface was approved, the preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) establishes that the gravel area abutting the driveway was never approved by any governmental entity. D. Violation No. 4: The Montana trailer located on the violation site was inhabited for residential purposes on February 29, 2024. Mr. Carner has also inhabited another camper trailer on the violation site. The photographs of Ex. 7 show the slide-outs of the trailer extended and a utility cord appended to the vehicle. Ms. Madsen testified that Mr. Carner had acknowledged that the vehicle was inhabited. Mr. Carner acknowledged at the hearing that his father had lived in the vehicle but had passed away. At hearing Mr. Carner also acknowledged that he has been inhabiting another trailer on the violation site. Mr. Carner has since removed the Montana trailer from the violation site. However, Mr. Carner acknowledged at hearing that he continues to live in another trailer or RV on the violation site. Code Enforcement Decision - 5 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Authority of Examiner: The Hearing Examiner has the authority and jurisdiction to review code violation as provided in RMC 1-10-5. 2. Burden of Proof. The City has the burden of proof in establishing both the elements necessary to prove the violations alleged in the FIOVs as well as establishing that Mr. Carner doesn’t qualify for any of the affirmative defenses to those violations. As to the affirmative defenses, that interpretation is only adopted because the City did not contest Mr. Carner’s position on that issue. RMC 1-10-5C4 requires that violations alleged in an FOV be established by a preponderance of evidence. RMC 1-10-5C4 further provides that if ”the Hearing Examiner determines that the evidence supports that a Violation was committed after reviewing the Notice of Violation, then the burden of proof shall shift to the Violator(s) to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a Violation has not occurred.” This appeal raises the question of whether RMC 1-3-2C4 places the burden of proof upon the City to establish whether Mr. Carner qualifies for affirmative defenses. A reviewing court would likely hold Mr. Carner to the burden of proof on affirmative defenses. However, the City is not advocating such an interpretation. Given that the City’s does not contest Mr. Carner’s position that the City has the burden of proof for affirmative defenses, Mr. Carner’s interpretation will be adopted and the burden of proof will be placed upon the City even for establishing affirmative defenses. Statutory exceptions qualify as affirmative defenses when they don’t negate an element of an alleged violation. See Kastanis v. Educ. Employees Credit Union, 122 Wn. 2d 483, 493 (1993). The courts rule that the defendant has the burden of proof in establishing an affirmative defense. Id. Two of the alleged FOV violations include affirmative defenses. RMC 4-4-085D4 prohibits the parking of four vehicles on residential property. This ordinance provides for three exceptions, none of which negate the elements of more than four vehicles on residential property. The other provision with affirmative defenses is RMC 4-4-085D3. The provision requires parking of vehicles on driveways or other approved surfaces. An exception to that provision provides that the parking restriction doesn’t apply to driveways consisting of compacted dirt or gravel established prior to the adoption of RMC 4-4-085D3. That exception also doesn’t negate the elements of RMC 4-4-085D3, which are limited to prohibiting parking outside of an approved surface. Since all of the afore-mentioned exceptions qualify as affirmative defenses, Mr. Carner would have the burden of proof to establish them in the absence of any code provision to the contrary. Code Enforcement Decision - 6 Construing the RMC 4-4-085D3 exception as an affirmative defense is also consistent with universal case law that assigns the burden of proof on defendants to establish nonconforming (grandfathered) uses. As previously noted, an exception to RMC 4-4-085D3 is for previously established driveways, which parallels2 nonconforming use law. The courts in Washington State and likely all other states have always ruled that property owners asserting nonconforming use rights have the burden of proof to establish them. See, e.g., Van Sant v. City of Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641, 648 (1993), First Pioneer v. Pierce Cnty, 146 Wn. App. 606, 614 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008); Univ. Place v. McGuire, 144 Wn. 2d 640, 647 (2001); Miller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 111 Wn. App. 152, 164 (2002) 8A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.188a (3d ed. 1986); Jacobs v. Mishawaka Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 182 Ind. App. 500, 507, 395 N.E.2d 834, 839 (1979). As noted in an Arizona decision discussing burden of proof in a code enforcement case: While the municipality has the initial burden of showing the property is in violation of the current code, the property owner can avoid enforcement of the current code if it shows it has satisfied the municipality's regulations regarding non-conforming uses. See ¶¶ 23-24, supra. Thus, the assertion that property is a non-conforming use constitutes an affirmative defense. See Black, Robertshaw, Frederick, Copple Wright, P.C. v. United States, 130 Ariz. 110, 114, 634 P.2d 398, 402 (App. 1981) (confession and avoidance an affirmative defense). As with affirmative defenses generally, the party asserting the defense "has the burden of pleading and proving it.” 218 Ariz. At 184. Mr. Carner devoted a substantial amount of his post-hearing briefing arguing that he doesn’t bear the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses. The City’s sole response to this position was that it has established by the preponderance of evidence that Mr. Carner committed the violations alleged in the FOV. The City does not contest Mr. Carner’s position that he doesn’t have the burden to establish affirmative defenses. In this regard, the City has waived objection to Mr. Carner’s position and his interpretation is found binding in this appeal. The City and Carner positions in assigning burden of proof to the City for affirmative defense is marginally supported by RMC 1-3-2(C)(4). As previously noted, RMC 1-3-2C4 generally requires that violations must be established by a preponderance of evidence and that the City must initially meet that standard in establishing that a violation has occurred. The City/Carner position can be reconciled with this requirement by construing all exceptions to code violations as elements of the violation. A more legally sound interpretation would be that the elements of a violation do not include its exceptions. However, the case law on this issue is sparse and with waiver from the City the interpretation taken by Mr. Carner is adopted. 2 The RMC 4-4-085D3 exception is technically broader than nonconforming use rights because it doesn’t require the previously established driveway to have been lawfully created. Code Enforcement Decision - 7 In his post-hearing briefing Mr. Carner argues that assigning the burden of proof to him for affirmative defenses violates his constitutional rights. Mr. Carner cites to no court ruling supporting this position and there very likely is none for civil code enforcement cases. Historically, the US Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for legislatures to establish affirmative defenses to criminal charges and place the burden of proof with respect to these defenses on the defendant. See Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952) (insanity defense). Due process is satisfied when the government is required to prove all of the elements of the offense, as defined by the legislature. Due process does not require that the government accept the additional burden of disproving every fact constituting an affirmative defense to the charge. 3. Code Violations. The four code violations alleged in the FOV for the subject appeal, CODE23-000293, are all quoted below in italics and applied to the Findings of Fact of this decision through corresponding Conclusions of Law. Violation No. 1 - Parking of Unlicensed Vehicles RMC 4-4-085(D)(2): It is unlawful for any person to keep, store or park, or to permit any other person to keep, store or park, any disabled vehicle or boat, or unlicensed vehicle or boat, on any residentially zoned property within the City unless that vehicle or boat is stored and parked outside public view within a fully enclosed building at all times. Vehicles and boats which are kept on site and outside of an enclosed building shall be operational and currently registered. 4. Violation sustained. Violation No. 1 is sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4A, a Montana travel trailer parked on the violation site on February 29, 2024 was unlicensed. Mr. Carner disputes that the trailer qualifies as a vehicle. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC) is ambiguous as to whether the vehicles referenced in RMC 4-4-085(D)(2) must be motorized. RMC4-4-085 doesn’t define vehicle. RMC 4-11-220 defines “Vehicle, large” and “Vehicle, small” as motor vehicles including trucks, motorcycles etc. These definitions support Mr. Carner’s position, as the Montana trailer is a fifth wheel and not motorized. However, 4-4-085C4 defines a “recreational vehicle” as a “vehicle, with or without motive power, capable of human habitation…” (emphasis added). Title 4 RMC clearly has some inconsistencies on whether an unmotorized camper trailer should be considered a “vehicle.” The reference to “vehicle” in RMC 4-4-085 is construed as including unmotorized vehicles. In construing a statute, the court's paramount duty is to ascertain and give expression to the intent of the Legislature. State v. Yakima County Comm'rs, 123 Wn. 2d 451 (1994). RMC4-4-085 doesn’t expressly identify the purpose of prohibiting the parking of unlicensed vehicles on residential property. However, it’s clear that the purpose is to maintain residential character and aesthetics by preventing the visual incompatibility of residential lots used as parking lots for numerous vehicles. RMC 4-4-085 serves as one means to reduce the number of vehicles parked on residential lots. In this regard, prohibiting the parking of unlicensed Honda Civics while authorizing camper trails several times bigger would make little sense. Including camping trailers is also consistent with the common meaning of “vehicle.” Miriam Webster defines “vehicle” as “a means of carrying or transporting something.” “Vehicles” as referenced in RMC 4-4-085 is construed as including recreational vehicles and/or travel trailers without motors. Code Enforcement Decision - 8 Mr. Carner asserts that a legal dictionary should be used to evaluate the terms of the RMC. Legal dictionaries usually carry very little weight in the construction of ambiguous code provisions. As outlined in one court decision: When a term is not defined by a statute, judicial opinion, or pattern jury instruction, courts employ the common understanding of the term rather than its technical definition. To determine the ordinary meaning of a term, courts look to standard English language dictionaries. Courts typically do not rely on a legal dictionary unless there is some indication the term should be given its technical meaning. When "[t]here is no indication that the legislature intended to use the legal definition of the term ... [r]eliance on a legal dictionary definition is ... improper.” State v. Allen, No. 73046-1-I (Wash. Ct. App. July 25, 2016). Violation No. 2 -- Excess Parking RMC 4-4-085D4: [For residential uses composed of detached dwellings] … A maximum of four (4) vehicles, not including motorcycle or mopeds, may be parked on a lot unless vehicles in excess of the allowed number are kept within an enclosed building. Additional vehicles may be allowed if: a. More than four (4) licensed drivers reside at the same address, an additional motor vehicle for each licensed driver over four (4) may be parked at that particular address, provided that each licensed driver and said vehicle are registered to the same address; or b. An Additional Vehicles Permit is obtained (see RMC 4-9-105) c. RMC 4-4-080, Parking, Loading and Driveway Regulations, allows more off-street parking stalls for the subject property based on the presence of lawfully established structures and uses. 5. Violation Reversed. Violation No. 2 is reversed. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4B, more than four vehicles were parked on the violation site on February 29, 2024. However, as further found in Finding of Fact No. 4B, the City has failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the exception created by RMC 4-4-085D4 doesn’t apply. Mr. Carner asserts that he has nine registered vehicle owners living on the violation site and so long as those owners live on the property nine vehicles are permitted to be parked. Violation No. 3 -- Impermissible Parking Locations RMC 4-4-085.D.3; Except for recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles being used for development activity pursuant to a valid City-issued permit, all motor vehicles shall be parked on a lawfully established driveway or an approved impervious surface. A separate violation of this Section shall be deemed to have occurred when, after issuance of a citation, twenty four (24) or more consecutive hours passes and the offending vehicle remains in an impermissible location, regardless of whether or not the vehicle has been relocated from the original location. For the purpose of this Section, driveways consisting of compacted dirt and/or gravel established prior to the effective date of this Section shall be considered a permissible parking location. Code Enforcement Decision - 9 6. Violation Partially Sustained. Violation No. 3 is partially sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4C, the storage trailer and camper trailer parked to the left of the driveway depicted in the second photograph of Ex. 6 were not parked on a driveway or approved impervious surface on February 29, 2024. Those two vehicles are parked in violation of RMC 4-4-085.D.3. However, as further determined in Finding of Fact No. 4C, the Montana trailer and white van were parked upon a gravel driveway in place since 2019. RMC 4-4-085.D.3 was adopted by Renton City Ordinance No. 5959, which went into effect on December 18, 2019. As such, under the last clause of RMC 4-4-085.D.3, the driveway is an authorized parking location. “Driveway” is not defined by RMC 4-4-085.D.3 or the Chapter 4-11 definitions. Miriam Webster defines a “driveway” as a “private road giving access from a public way to a building on abutting grounds.” The graveled portions of the violation site as depicted in the second photograph of Ex. 6 show a driveway for the portion of gravel that serves as a vehicular access route to the carport and adjoining home. The portion of the gravel to the right of the access drive does not qualify as a driveway because it doesn’t serve as an access way to any building or abutting grounds. Violation No 4 -- Habitation of Recreational Vehicle RMC 4-4-030 I: Habitation of Travel Trailers or Recreational Vehicles: Except as authorized in RMC 4-9-240, Temporary Use Permits, recreational vehicles, travel trailers, tents, or other temporary shelters shall not be used for habitation. 7. Violation sustained. Violation No. 4 is sustained. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4C, two recreational vehicles have been used for habitation on the violation site. FINES RMC 1-10-7B: Civil Remediation: A Violation, as described in this chapter, is a civil code violation, and Violator(s) may be issued a Fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each final determination of a Violation. For Ongoing Violations, a new Fine shall be issued for each day (or portion thereof) in which the violation exists. Nothing in this chapter is intended to limit or prevent the pursuit of any other remedies or penalties permitted under the law, including criminal prosecution. The payment of any fees, Fines, or assessments pursuant to this chapter does not relieve a potential Violator of the duty to correct the Violation as ordered by the Administrator, or his or her designee. 10. As determined in prior conclusions of law, three of the four alleged violations in the FOV are sustained. A fine of “up to” $250 is authorized for each violation and the FIOV under appeal imposes a $100 fine for three of the four violations. One of the violations subject to a $100 fine has been reversed by this decision, leaving $200 in fines legitimately imposed. Although Mr. Carner has a long history of noncompliance with the City, it is understood that he is the victim of changing regulations that did not exist when he purchased his property. It is also recognized that Mr. Carner has been building a garage to abate some of the parking violations. Overall, Mr. Carner is making some effort to comply and the $200 in fines are of little consequence given the expense and inconvenience of further compliance requirements. For all these reasons, the $200 fine shall be suspended pending full abatement within a year. Code Enforcement Decision - 10 DECISION Violation No. 1, 3 and 4 are sustained. The corrective action required by the FOV for those violations shall be completed by November 1, 2025: provided that the driveway as identified in this decision shall be considered an approved surface and vehicles may be parked on that surface. $200 of the $300 fines imposed by the FIOV are also sustained. The $200 fine shall be waived if all corrective actions are completed within a year of this decision. DATED this 1st day of November, 2024. City of Renton Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RECONSIDERATION Appeal to Superior Court. An appeal of the decision of the Hearing Examiner must be filed with Superior Court within twenty-one calendar days, as required by the Land Use Petition Act, Chapter 36.70C RCW. Requests for reconsideration shall be entertained if filed with the City Clerk prior to 5:00 pm, November 20, 2024. . 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.