The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-08-2024 - Carner Grandfather rights considerationTo the City of Renton Hearing Examiner, Subject: Request for Reconsideration of Violation Ruling Due to Lack of Application of Grandfather Rights I respectfully request a reconsideration of the sustained violations in the decision rendered on November 1, 2024, on grounds that my circumstances meet the criteria for grandfathering. I urge the Hearing Examiner to reevaluate the sustained violations, specifically regarding the interpretation of RMC 4-4-085 provisions and consider the protections that “grandfather rights” should afford to property owners like myself who have held longstanding conditions that predate the current code provisions. 1. Grandfather Rights Were Overlooked in Assessing Violation No. 1 In violation No. 1, I contend that the trailers parked on my property should have been considered under the principle of grandfathering, as the definitions of “vehicle” and “recreational vehicle” are inconsistent and ambiguous. As noted, the Renton Municipal Code does not explicitly categorize unmotorized camper trailers as “vehicles” under RMC 4-4-085(D)(2). When I acquired the trailer and parked it on my property, the current provisions did not specify unmotorized recreational vehicles as prohibited if unlicensed. Since I complied with prior standards, applying these new interpretations retroactively places an unfair burden on me as a property owner, one that the principle of grandfather rights typically shields against. 2. Inconsistencies in the Code Language Compounded by Failure to Apply Grandfather Rights The decision to sustain this violation on the grounds of “common understanding” of terms ignores not only the previous ambiguity of the term “vehicle” in the Code but also my reliance on this ambiguity in good faith. By adopting the current interpretation of “vehicle” and applying it retroactively, the Code enforces new rules for which did not previously exist. This approach fails to recognize the historical precedence for grandfathering conditions existed before the enactment of new standards. Grandfathering is essential here to avoid penalizing me for code changes that changed after I had years of previous use. Buy the City trying to take my rights away just compensation is required under the Taking clause in the Fifth Amendment . 3. Precedent for Recognizing Grandfather Rights in RMC 4-4-085(D)(3) (Violation No. 3) The decision acknowledges that the portion of gravel used as a driveway since 2019 qualifies as an approved parking surface under RMC 4-4-085(D)(3) due to its pre-existing condition before the ordinance's 2019 amendment. This use of grandfather rights for a pre-existing condition demonstrates the City’s willingness to recognize such rights where reasonable expectations were set based on previous laws. Thus, a similar principle should be applied to my parking of the fifth -wheel trailer, which predated the new interpretation and serves no substantial risk to neighborhood character or aesthetic standards. 4. Importance of Grandfather Rights for Preventing Future Harassment and Ensuring Consistency The absence of explicit grandfather rights in the current ruling leaves open the possibility of continued disputes should a different Code enforcement inspector interpret the Code differently in the future. This instability is burdensome, as it exposes property owners like me to inconsistent enforcement based on changing interpretations of the Code. By formally recognizing my use of the fifth -wheel trailer and other structures under grandfather rights, the City would establish a clear standard that would prevent repeated harassment over conditions that existed prior to the updated Code interpretations. (This also was not addressed in any response.) I also contest the legitimacy of the 2019 Decision on the bases of: 1. Proof of Receipt of the 2019 Decision The City claims that I verified receipt of the 2019 Decision in March 2019 by appearing at City Hall. However, no certified mailing or official method of delivery was used to confirm receipt, and the lack of official documentation creates uncertainty about the City’s ability to establish proper service. Under Washington state law, such as RCW 64.04.010 and 64.04.020, proper service of documents is critical in real property disputes. Without proof of service, it cannot be conclusively assumed that I received the decision in a timely manner or understood its implications. Washington State courts emphasize the importance of proper notification procedures in upholding due process rights under the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Since I did not receive the document until after the allowed time for appeal, the Decision null and void under the right to due process as previously mentioned and further mention of the decision should cease. Conclusion The Fifth Amendment provides protections that could be relevant if the City of Renton is trying to take away certain rights, especially if it involves property or due process. Here’s how you might consider applying the Fifth Amendment in a legal strategy: 1. Protection Against Unlawful Seizure of Property: The Fifth Amendment includes a "Takings Clause," which says that the government cannot take private property for public use without "just compensation." If the City of Renton is trying to take or restrict my property, they are infringing on your Fifth Amendment rights unless they provide fair compensation. For instance, if zoning changes or other regulations diminish the value or use of my property, you might have grounds to claim a "regulatory taking." 2. Equal Application of the Law: Although the Fifth Amendment's "equal protection" concept is more explicitly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, it is also interpreted within the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. If the city’s actions appear to target you unfairly or impose disproportionate burdens compared to others in similar situations, you could argue that it constitutes unequal treatment under the law. 3. Fighting Overreach in Administrative Actions: If the City of Renton is enforcing rules or policies that overstep its legitimate authority, you may be able to challenge them under the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. Administrative overreach or excessive regulation that infringes upon fundamental rights may be challenged as a violation of due process. 4. In light of these points, I respectfully request that the sustained violations be reassessed with due consideration of grandfather rights to avoid undue penalties for pre-existing conditions. Recognizing these rights would acknowledge the historical context of my property use, which I have maintained in compliance with previous standards, and would provide essential clarity to prevent future discrepancies in Code enforcement. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I also request that the right to appeal be extended until the matter of Grandfathered rights has been discussed and settled. (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.) Sincerely, Kelly Carner