Laserfiche WebLink
. <br /> i <br /> i <br /> 1 which were irrelevant and immaterial to the issue before said <br /> i <br /> 2 Board. I <br /> 3 3. The Soard's decision and the applicable provisions I <br /> 4 of the Zoning Code are unconstitutionall�_va ue. i <br /> 5 Chapter 19.14 of the Everett City Code is unconstitution- j <br /> 6 ally vague as it relates to what incidents of ownership or use � <br /> 7 and occupation of premises constitutes an impermissible "commercial 1 <br /> 8 use" in contravention of the "R-1-Single Family Low bensity <br /> 9 Residence 2one. " Said Ordinance and the Board's Findings & I <br /> 10 Conclusions contain no sufficient ascertainable standards by 1 <br /> 11 which a property owner may determine what incidents of o4m�rship <br /> 12 or occupations and use of the land wiil constitute a conversion A <br /> 13 from a permitted use to an impermissible use. ' <br /> 14 Chapter 19. 72 of the Everett Cit Code J <br /> y provides for � <br /> 15 criminal penalty for violation of the 2oning 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 Zonin Code the <br /> 4 � <br /> 18 provisions of said Zoning Code are unconstitutionally vague. <br /> 19 4. The Board's decision is an unconstitutional denial <br /> 20 of the equal prot�ction of the laoi. ; <br /> 21 Defer,dants acknowle3ge that numerous persons, other than , <br /> 22 plaintiffs, residing in residential zones within the City of 1 <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, lawyers, refrigeration repairmen and others, and, <br /> 26 in addition, that such <br /> persons often drive their commercial <br /> 2? 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 appealed from, that these same <br /> 31 incidents, in the case of the plaintiffs, constitute a violation <br /> 32 of said Zoning Code, does, itself, violate the e ual <br /> 9 protection <br /> NOTICL OF APPF.AL -5 uw orna� o� <br /> w ANDEpBON,HUNTCp, OCWELL.bAKER 6 COLlIN9,P.G <br /> !01 II�fT NATIOrv�t O�NR OYILOiNO <br /> cnr:st � [V[qEiT, WA6NINGTON D8201 <br /> ' 7[LLPNON[ �20E) Q9j.9�p� <br /> � <br /> • I <br /> 1 Y <br /> � y <br /> l <br />