Laserfiche WebLink
..w�_ ' ��._' _ __. . . �:.." ' T . — <br /> I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> � � I <br /> 1 business without violating the Zoning Code. Therefore, the Board I I <br /> 2 has arbitrarily and capriciously <br /> determined that the plaintiffs I i <br /> 3 are violaY.ing the Zoning Code, apparently, because they receive i <br /> � emergency referrals from their answering service and respond <br /> 5 thereto, notwithstanding the fact that many other persons, � <br /> 6 within the City of Everett, such as doctors, lawyers, refrigeration I <br /> 7 repairmen, plumbers and others, including other tow truck operators, <br /> 8 do likewise. , <br /> 9 7. The evidence does not support the Board's Findings- <br /> 10 The IIoard' s Findi.ngs, numbers 5 through S and 10 and 11 <br /> 1 <br /> 11 are n�t supported by facts. In particuiar, with respect to <br /> 12 Finding No. 5, the IIoard was advised that Thrifty Towing had two � <br /> 13 employees in addit-ion to Pir. and Mrs. Sabine, at the meeting <br /> 14 ect to Finding No. 6, while it � <br /> held on June 30, 1977. With resp � <br /> 15 is often true that Mr. and Mrs. Sabine park their two tow trucY,s <br /> 16 at the residence wl�en they are both home, it does not follow <br /> 17 nor goes the evidence support that every time an employee is at <br /> 18 their residence there is a third tow truck present. With respect <br /> 19 to Findi.ny No. 7, the Board has inappropriately conc�uded that <br /> 20 the tow trucks generate commercial truck traff.ic in, through � <br /> zl and out of the R-1 Zone, and designated said conclusions as a <br /> 22 Finding, totally in conflict with the Board' s Conclusion No. 8 <br /> � 23 which states as fol��ws: <br /> �� The Board is not finding by this decision that <br /> 25 a person may not utilize a commercial vehicle <br /> to drive between a residence and place of business. <br /> 26 With respect to Pinding No. Br the Board was advised that <br /> 27 the emergency calls which come in to Thrifty Towing during non- <br /> 28 regular office hours are transferred by the answering service to <br /> 29 an employee on call, and that the on-call employees do not always <br /> 30 include the Sabines and, thus, there is no evidence to suPPort <br /> 31 p�ith respect to Finding No. 10, the term mainten- <br /> �� <br /> said Finding. <br /> 32 ance work" is a conclusion nat jusi:ified by the evidence in the <br /> uw orncu or <br /> ANDCIIdON.HUNTEH.OL'WELL.OAKCR�COLLIN9.P•G <br /> NOTICE OF APPEAL -7 • <br /> •6yEp��7HWA5MINGTON B0201 <br /> TtLkl'MOM[ t2oot aex•��e� +! <br /> I GDF:st • ' I <br /> � r <br /> - - - - �-, - - - � <br />