Laserfiche WebLink
1 Which were irrelevant and immaterial to the issue before said <br /> 2 Boar�;. <br /> 3 3. The Board's decision and the applicable provisions <br /> ¢ of the Zoning Code are unconstitutionall�va ue. � <br /> 5 Chapter 19.14 of the Everett City Code is unconstitution- <br /> 6 ally vague as it relates to what incidents of ownership or use <br /> 7 and occupation of premises constitutes an impermissible "commercial <br /> 8 use" in contravention of the "R-1-Single Family Loca Density <br /> 9 Residence Zone. " Said Ordinance and the Board's Findings & <br /> 10 Conclusions contain no sufficient ascertainable standards by <br /> 11 which a property owner may determine what incidents of ownership <br /> 12 or occupations and use of the land will constitute a conversion <br /> 13 from a permitted use to an impermissible use. <br /> 14 Chapter 19. 72 of the Everett Cit Code <br /> Y provides for <br /> 15 criminal penalty for violation of the Zoning Code, and, therefore, <br /> 16 with respect to thc. question of whether or not the plaintiffs' <br /> 17 alleged activities are in violation of said Zoning Code, the � <br /> 18 provisions of said Zoning Code are unconstitutionally vague. <br /> 19 9 • The Board 's decision is an unconstitutional denial � <br /> 20 of the equal protection of the law. ' <br /> 21 Defendants acknowled e that numerous ! <br /> g persons, other than <br /> 22 plaintiffs, residing in reside:itial zones within the City of <br /> 23 Everett, receive and respond to emergency telephone calls at their <br /> �4 place of residence during all hours of the day and night, such <br /> 25 as doctors, la�vyers, refrigeration repairmen and others, and, <br /> 26 in a3dition, that such <br /> persons often drive their commercial <br /> 27 vehicles between their place of• business and their place of <br /> 28 residence, however, defendants assert that such instances do not <br /> 29 constitute a violation of said Zoning Code. By virtue of the <br /> 30 IIoard' s determination, herein a <br /> ppealed from, that these same <br /> 31 incidents, in the case of the plaintiffs, constitute a violat-ion <br /> 32 of said Zoning Code, does, itself, violate the e ual <br /> 9 protection <br /> NOmzca or APPRAL -5 uW orricc� or <br /> ANDCRBON,HUNTCfi.O[WELL,DAN[R 6 COLLIN9,P.G� <br /> 001 I111]T H�TION��11/�NN 1�t11LOIN0 <br /> i GDP:St � � CVC�F.77, WAGNINGTON onzot <br /> � T[ILMOM[ (3O6) 232.DIEi <br /> i <br /> � / <br /> %1 . <br /> � � J ��j: � <br />� � . . � <br />