Laserfiche WebLink
1 Lusiness without violating the Zoning Code. Therefore, the IIoard <br /> 2 has arbitrarily and capriciously determined that the plaintiffs <br /> 3 are violating the Zoning Code, a <br /> pparently, because they receive <br /> � emergency referrals from their answering service a:i ' res?ond � <br /> i <br /> 5 thereto, notwithstanding the fact that many other <br /> persons; <br /> 6 within the City of Everett, such as doctors la <br /> 7 . wyers, refrigeration <br /> repairmen, plumbers and others, including other tow truck operators, <br /> 8 do likewise. <br /> 9 7. The evidence does_ not support the Board's Findinqs. <br /> 10 The Board's Findings, numbers 5 through 8 and 10 and 11 <br /> 11 a=e not su <br /> pported by facts. In particular, with respect to <br /> 12 Finding No. 5, the Doard was advised that Thrifty :owing had two <br /> 13 employees in addition to Pir. and Mrs. Sabine, at the meeting <br /> 14 held on June 30, 1977. With respect to Finding No. 6, while it <br /> _ 15 is often true that h1r. and Mrs. Sabine park their two tow trucks <br /> 16 at the residence wl�en they are both home, it does not follow <br /> 17 nor does the evidence su <br /> pport that every time an employee is at <br /> 18 their residence there is a third tow truck present. With respect <br /> 19 <br /> to Finding No. 7, the Board has inappropriately concluded that <br /> 20 <br /> the tow trucks generate commercial truck traffic in, through <br /> 21 <br /> and out of the R-1 Zone, and designated said conclusions as a <br /> 22 <br /> Findinq, totally in conElict with the Board' s Conclusion No. 8 <br /> 23 <br /> which states as follows: <br /> 24 <br /> The Board is not f' ding by this decision that ' <br /> 25 a person may not t _lize a commercial vehicle ! <br /> to drive between a residence and place of business. � <br /> 26 � <br /> With respect to Finding No. B, the Board was advised that <br /> 27 <br /> the emergency calls which come in to Thrifty Towing during non- � <br /> 28 I <br /> regular office hours are transferred by the answering service to <br /> 29 ; <br /> an employee on call, an2 that the on-call employees do not al�vays I <br /> 30 ( <br /> include the Sabines and, thus, there is no evidence to support <br /> 31 <br /> said Finding. S�7ith respect to Finding No. 10, the term "mainten- <br /> 32 <br /> ance work" is a conclusion not justified by the evidence in the <br /> NOTICE OF APPEAL -7 uw��•�"• o� <br /> ANDEpBON.HUNT[R. OLWEL{.,pAHER b COLLIN9.P.S� <br /> � �01 II11�T lI�TIOH��O�HR nUI�UiN6 <br /> CVEqETT, WA,",H�NGTON p020i <br /> GDP:S� , T.v.noN� txoa� xsz.siai <br />� <br /> ��� /,� � - � <br /> eS��t C>�� e_� c'�� '' <br /> I <br />