My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6714 HIGHLAND DR 2022-03-23
>
Address Records
>
HIGHLAND DR
>
6714
>
6714 HIGHLAND DR 2022-03-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2022 2:06:58 PM
Creation date
3/17/2022 4:25:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
HIGHLAND DR
Street Number
6714
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
0 i <br />County Assessor's record. A copy of the violation citation was personally delivered to the <br />Respondent. Each method of service used is independently sufficient to provide notice <br />pursuant to EMC 1.20.010.C.1. (Exhibit #3, Violation Citation, dated September 27, 2017 <br />with mail receipts) (Exhibit #4, Declaration of Service, dated September 28, 2017) <br />(Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) <br />5. Upon review of City records, Officer Cunningham determined that the Respondent had not <br />applied for or obtained the required City permits for the alterations conducted on the second <br />dwelling unit. (Exhibit #7, TRAK(T PermitTrak Permit History Screen Print, dated October <br />17, 2017) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) <br />6. Dana Mam, sister of the Respondent, testified for her sister at the hearing, that she intends to <br />comply with all City requirements to bring the property into compliance with City <br />ordinances. Craig Miller, Realtor for the Respondent, testified at the hearing that there was <br />no indication that the second dwelling unit was ever used as a shop and that the Respondent <br />had followed poor recommendations by another party. He argued that she was innocent in <br />her actions and requested that the entire fine be suspended. (Testimony of Dana Mam) <br />(Testimony of Craig Miller) <br />7. The City provided the Respondent with an opportunity to correct the conditions that were in <br />violation of sections of the EMC and provided notice of the date, time and place of this <br />hearing. The Respondent appeared at the hearing. <br />Based on the above findings of fact, the Violations Hearing Examiner enters the following <br />conclusions: <br />CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br />Jurisdiction: <br />Pursuant to EMC Chapter 1.20 or any Everett Municipal Code provisions that identify EMC <br />Chapter 1.20 for enforcement, the Violations Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has <br />jurisdictional authority to hold this hearing and to issue the decision. EMC 1.20.020. <br />Applicable Law: <br />1. IPMC 106.1 Unlawful acts, which reads: <br />It shall be unlawful for a person, firm or corporation to be in conflict with or in violation of <br />any of the provisions of this code. <br />2. IPMC 108.1.4 Unlawful Structure, which reads: <br />An unlawful structure is one found in whole or in part to be occupied by more persons than <br />permitted under this code, or was erected, altered or occupied contrary to law. <br />319 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.