Laserfiche WebLink
f <br /> r <br /> � � <br /> 1 The Everett City Code, Section 19.70. 020, provides that: <br /> ` 2 l,ny person . . . may be the appellant . <br /> ��; from . . . any determination oE the � � ' <br /> �; : 3 Building Inspector in the application of � <br /> °� the Zoning Code to the appellant's <br /> 4 land . . . � <br /> ' . [Emphasis supplied) . � i <br /> 5 In this matter, there was no determination, whatsoever, concerning <br /> 6 the applicati'on of the Zoning Code to land belonging to the <br /> " . 7 defendants Larson. The onl matter � <br /> � , <br /> � Y presented dealt with the <br /> � 8 application of said Zoning Code to the plaintiffs' residence ; <br /> 9• and, therefore, the Board was withoutjurisdiction to review the I <br /> I <br /> I 10 Building Inspector's determination. � <br />� 11 2. The Board's decision unconstitutionall de ri.ves I <br /> i 32 plaintiffs of their pro erty without due process of law. � <br /> , <br /> 13 Plaintiffs were never notified that the defendants, I <br /> 14 ' Larson, appealed from the decision of the Building Inspector and � <br /> � <br /> 1.5I were not provided with a copy of said appeal, prior to the Roard's I <br /> 16 hearing on June 6, 1.977, as set forth in Exhibit "2" attached to I <br /> 17 this complaint, nor were plaintiffs notified concerning the nature <br /> 18 of the hearing set for June 6, 1977, or the serious possible <br /> 19 consequences which might result therefrom. In .fa^,t, the only <br /> �0 notice which plaintiffs received is that set forth in Exhibit "3" <br /> 21 attached hereto, which merely states taht the Board will review <br /> 22 the IIuilding Inspector's decision and that in the Assistant Cit-y <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. <br /> ?7 In addition, at the hearing on June 6, 1977, defendants, <br /> 28 I,arson, appeared personally and by and through their attorney, <br /> ?� David H. Oswald, and the Board took unsworn statements from <br /> 30 numerous persons r�ithout <br /> providing plaintiffs an adequate op- <br /> 31 portunity to confront and cross-examine said persons. Furthermore, <br /> 32 said Board received and based its decision upon unsworn statements <br /> NOTICE Ol�' APPEAL -9 uw orn�:n or <br /> ANDERBON.NUNT[R,DEW[LL,11AKER A COLLIN�,p.& <br /> {01�Ip\T HATIONI�L O/�MN OIIILOIND <br /> I GDP:St EVEIiETT, WASHINGTON Y0301 <br /> , r.un.o�. �xoai aez.n�ei <br /> , <br /> l. - <br />