6503 EVERGREEN WAY SPORTYS BEEF AND BREW 2018-01-02 MF Import

�r� m�x Cy' H 4ycn H �� yzH oxo :y H'�J fA H z �i o E�3- OH� �^ t� o Y, V � ay� r z HH � C] t7 Cn �� z H cn H O tn �..� �1 F..: �� 1 j � � � @ r`�; a � IN THE MAl7ER OF THE APPEAL OF GREGG ORTEGA (SPORTY'S BEEF &BREW) APPEAL #5-92 ORDER DENYING THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION On November 30, 1992, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett issued a decision on the appeal of Gregg Ortega (Sporty's Beef & Brew). The Hearing Examiner granted the appeal of Gregg Ortega and stated that the 1992 Building Permit for the improvements of the property at 6503 Evergreen Way could not include street improvements that related to a 1989 Building Permit. The basis of the decision was that there was a lack of due process, and the 1992 Building Permit had limited subject matter. Pursuant to the R�les of Procedure of the He�ng Fxaminer of the City of E�1gtt, on December 9, 1992, the City of Everett Public Works Department filed a request for reconsideration. In the City's request, four arguments were submitted. The basis of the arguments is that the Appeilant knew, or should have known, that street improvements were required, and therefore it can be implied that he is required to make the street improvements pursuant to the 1992 Building Permit for that work ihat was completed pursuant to the 1989 Building Permit. This case falls under the Vested Rights Doctrine of the State of Washington. Incipient land development is protected from regulations adopted or amended subsequent to a prescribed point in the land development process. In ihis case, the Buiiding Pertnit was issued in 1�89 and the Appellant had a vested right to develop the property at 6503 Evergreen Way, Everett, Washington, pursuant to that Buildino Permit. i he City cannot subsequent to the issuance of that Building Permit amend the regufations and requirements for the development pursuant to the issued Building Pertnit. In olher words, the City cannot try to correct a deficiency by requiring new development to cortect the City omissions from the past devetopment. In P�rkridg2 vs Citv �f Seattle, 89 Wn.2d 454, 573 P.2nd 359, the Supreme Court of the State of Washington relaxed a traditional requirement that Building Permit applications be complete and strictly in compiiance with existing regulations. The Court held that rights may vest even on the basis of incomplete or otherwise deficient applications. An application is suffice to vest rights, and if a Building Permit is issued, the developer has the right to develop pursuant to the Building Permit with no amendments or alterations being made by the City. The case currently before the Hearing Examiner is simiiar to the Parlcridge doctrine. The City claims that inaccurate or incompiete information was provided. However, the City did issue the Building Permit. The City cannot try to correct deficiencies that should have been made at the time of the issuance of the 1989 Building Pertnit. The City can issue a Building Pertnit for the 1992 development, but it cannot require improvements based on the construction that was completed in 1989. Accordingly, the decis+on of the Hearing Examiner remains as stated. The Motion for �� Reconsideration is denied. 4,. Done and dated this 24th day of December, 1992• �� O�� D I u) � .— I ��J �. �,�r.aca2�. DEC 28 1992 _ ............... James M. Dnsco l l CITY Of EVERETT Hearing Examiner Public \Norks Dept.