Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> 1 The Everett City Code, Section 19.70. 020, provides that: <br /> 2 Any person . . . may be the appellant . <br /> from . . . any determination of the � � <br /> 3 Buildinq Inspector in the application of <br /> the Zoning Code to the apoellant' s <br /> 4 land . . . . [Emphasis supplied] . <br /> 5 In this matter, there was no determination, whatsoever, concerning <br /> 6 the application of the 2oning Code to land belonging to the <br /> 7 defendants: Larson. The only matter presented dealt with the <br /> 8 application of said Zoning Code to the plainti£fs ' residence <br /> 9 and, therefore, the Board was withoutjurisdiction to review the <br /> 10 Building Inspector's determinacion. <br /> 11 2. The Board's decision unconstitutionall de rives <br /> 12 laintiffs of their property without due p ocess of lati . <br /> 13 Plaintiffs were never notified that the defendants, <br /> 14 Larson, appealed from the decision of the Building Inspector and <br /> 15 were not provided wi�h a copy of said appeal, prior to the Eoard's <br /> �6 hearing on June 6, 1.977, as set forth in Exhibit "2" attached to <br /> 17 this complaint, nor were plaintiffs notified concerning the nature <br /> 18 of the hearing set for June 6, 1977, or the serious <br /> possible <br /> 19 consequences which might result therefrom. In fact, the only <br /> 20 notice wliich plaintiffs received is that set forth in Exhibit "3" <br /> 21 attached her�to, which merely states taht the Board will review <br /> 22 the Building Inspector' s decision and that in the Assistant City <br /> 23 Attorner' s opinion, it would not be necessary for the plaintiffs <br /> �� to attend said hearing. Therefore, the consitutional due process <br /> 25 requirements of adequate and sufficient notice is wholly lacking <br /> 26 in this case. i <br /> 27 In addition, at the hearing on June 6, 1977, defendants, <br /> 28 Larson, appeared personally and by and through their attorney, I <br /> 29 David A. Oswald, and the Board took unsworn statements from I <br /> 30 numerous persons without ' I <br /> providing plaintiffs an adequate op- � <br /> 31 portunity to confront and cross-examine said persons. Furthermore, � <br /> 32 said Doard received and based its decision upon unsworn statements I <br /> NOTICE OF J\PPEAL -9 � uw o.��c�. ov <br />, ANOGpBON.HUNTGR.DEWCLL.O�K[R e COLLIN9.P.4 <br /> �ot Iln�r Ner�oMe1.eeql(su�ln�qo <br /> GDP:St ' cvenerr, w�sniNeroN oozoi <br /> � 7.�.HOHi czoe� xn:.aiai <br /> �� <br /> ��� � 2{ i �' : . � <br /> � . <br />