Laserfiche WebLink
1 k T r <br /> !t 208 July 27,1988 <br /> E onwarch 21,1988,the Hearing Examiner issued a decision to deny <br /> the request for a Special Property Use Permit. The Hearing <br /> [ Examiner found that the Applicant could meet the criteria of <br /> ��., compatibility and environmental impact but <br /> did not show that the <br /> use would me he public need criteria. The Examiner stated, <br /> Although the use may serve a private convenience in <br /> I N that it shown <br /> that an additional crematorium in <br /> it shaser not <br /> Ln� Sx been cM1con enat convenience <br /> rproposed ss tye will Ln ract sere the <br /> public emat c snwithi a oylof. There t a d oneeov <br /> ,vides cue within the City of Everett and one of them <br /> provides cremation cervices to the Applicant. It <br /> appears that the reasons iumand convenience <br /> by the Applicant <br /> is for public <br /> convenience <br /> reasons and co sityence lather than <br /> ' for public convenience antl necessity. <br /> tyl�� I 2' <br /> enaHlner reconsiderthisA2,016187-requested that the Hearing <br /> r.' , 3. 1ectnrtl 13,1980,the Hearing Examiner issued a decision to deny <br /> y.1 O o sideration. <br /> A- On April 27,1988 the Applicant submitted an appeal o4 the <br /> ring Examiners decision In his appeal,the Applicant <br /> 4'`IHS{�{i, alleged both an error to fa d error in law and requested <br /> y that the City Council reversethedecision o4 the Hearing <br /> tI]`1 t 4'1 Examiner and direct approval 4 Special Property Use Permit 12-ee <br /> subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department <br /> of the City of Everett. The Applicant stated, <br /> III. 1.30` The record does contain s bstenhiel evidence of <br /> ITV'' ,.. public need for full service funeral homes to alleviate <br /> 1 t problems of land use planning associated with the <br /> I,,' � dedication of large tracts of land for the burial of <br /> ,y <br /> dead bodies. Denial of the Appellants Special Property <br /> Use Permit request is discriminatory against the <br /> '",4 <br /> POI <br /> ± Applicant.... There is legitimate basis for <br /> the <br /> discriminating between funeral homes already <br /> II, n` operating crematories and the special use request o4 <br /> Ef I. Ire the Appellant. <br /> II'I 5. The conditions recommended by the Planning Department were as <br /> 5 M. t� follows: <br /> ,k: IP <br /> a. The site must ba de1e10ped in a manner consistent moth the <br /> site plan presented et the public hearing. <br /> i� I. TM1e Applicant oust comply with all conditions listed to the <br /> OeterminatSon o4 Nan-StgniPirence Pox the proposal. <br /> � 1 6. After M1eering g public testimony at tM1e public hearing on Jun' <br /> x 28,1900,the Clty Council made the following 4lndinBs: <br /> 'VA. I. a. That the use of ether crematoriums by Evergreen Funeral Hex <br /> ,,I,i 1 may be cancelled in the future- <br /> {. - I I b. That the exclusion of the ppplieant•s crematerlum may be <br /> discriminatory. <br /> E1 <br /> iia <br />