Laserfiche WebLink
�� � <br />C <br />�� <br />H <br />K y <br />°vy <br />M H <br />� n <br />H, <br />z y <br />� M <br />O N <br />H <br />h] <br />H <br />N <br />H <br />m <br />H <br />� <br />0 <br />x <br />H <br />� <br />n <br />� <br />H <br />O F+ <br />n C N <br />� ro r <br />ca <br />H O tyn <br />IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF APPEAL #8-92 <br />GREGG ORTEGA (SPORTY'S BEEF &BREW) <br />ORDER DENYING THE PUBLIC WORKS �EPARTMENT REQUEST FOR RECONSIC�RATION <br />On November 30, 1992, the Hearing Examiner of� he Heann EExamineug anted the appeah of <br />appeal of Gregg Ortega (Sporty's Beef & Brew). 9 <br />Gregg �rtega and stated that the 1992 Building Permit for the improvements of the property at <br />6503 Evergreen Way could not include street improvements that related to a 1989 Building Permit. <br />The basis of the decision was that there was a lack of due process, and the 1992 Buiiding Permit <br />had limited subject marier. <br />Pursuant to the R��rocedure of ihe Hearina Examiner of the Citv���r St. on December <br />9, 1992, the City of Everett Public Works Department filed a reques[ for reconsideration. In ihe <br />City's request, four arguments weie submitted. The basis of the arguments is that the Appellant <br />knew, or should have known, that street improvements were required, and iherefore it can be <br />fo pthat work ihat was comple ed Ru suanrt to the 1989 Bu Id ng Permito the 1992 8uilding Permit <br />This case falls under the Vested Rights Doctrine of the State of Washington. Incipient land <br />development is protected from regulations adopted or amended subsequent to a prescribed poini <br />in the land development process. In this case, the Buiiding Permit was issued in 1989 and the <br />Appellant had a ves!ed right to develop tha prope :y ut 6503 Evergreen Way, Everett, Washington, <br />pursuant to tliat Building Permit. The City cannot subsequent to the issuance of that Building <br />Permit amend the regulations and requirements for the development pursuant to the issued <br />Building PertniL In other words, the City cannot try to correct a deficiency by requiring new <br />development to cortect the City omissions from the past development. In �rkrida� vs i° <br />attle• 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2nd 359, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington relaxed a <br />traditioiial requirement that Building Permit applications be complete and strictly in compliance with <br />existing regulations. The Court held that rights m2; , est even on the basis of incomplete or <br />otherwise deficient applications. An application is suffice to vest rights, and if a Building Permit is <br />issued, tlie developer has 1he right to develop pursuant to the Building Permit with no <br />amendments or aiterations being made by the City. <br />The case currently before the Hearing Examiner is similar to the Parkridge doctrine. The City <br />ctaims that inaccurate or incomplet�2 infortnation was provided. However, the City did issue the <br />Building Permit. The City cannot try to cortect deficiencies ihat should have been made at the <br />1 g92 development�, but it can not e qui e imp ovements bt sednon the construc9on t at washe <br />completed in 1989. <br />Accordingly, the decision of ihe Hearing Examiner remains as stated. The Motion for <br />Reconsideration is denied. <br />Done and dated this 24th day of December, 1992. <br />� . . . . �� <br />/%�� ��1. N� <br />James M. Driscoll <br />Hearing Examiner <br />��Q��U�rl� <br />U <br />DEC 28 19°2 <br />� CITY OF EVERETT <br />Public Works Dept• <br />