4504 BROADWAY 2018-01-02 MF Import

� � and testimony preaented at the hearinq, exhibits presented at the hearing,, and the documents and exhibits forwarded to Council by the Planninq Department, including the appeal by Everqreen Funeral Home. 11. O� June 28, 1988 , the City of Everett City Council voted to reverse the Hearing Examiner's conclusion /6, reverse the Hearing ! Examiner's decision and direct appreval of SPU N7.-88 subject to , the conditions recommended by the Planninq Department. FI�Q� l. A public hearinq was held before the City's Hearinq Examiner on March 3, 1988 on the request by Evergreen Funeral Nome for a Special Property Use Permit for construction of a cremator•ium. On March 21, 1968, the Nearinq Examiner issued a decision to deny the request for a Special Property Une Permit. The Hearinq Examiner found that the �pplicant could meet the criteria of compatibility and environmental impact but did not show that the use would meet the public need criterin. The Examiner stated, Althouqh tha uae may serve a private convenience in thnt it provides an additionnl crematarium ft has not been shown that the proposed use will in fact serve the public convenfence or necessity. Th�re are three • cremetoriums within the City of Everett and one of them provides cremAtion servi�es to the �pplicant. it appears thet the cramntorium requested by the Applicant is for financial reasons and convenience rather than for public convenience and necessity. 2. On March 31 , 1988, the �pplicant requested that the Hearing Examiner reconsider his decisxon. 3. On April 15 , 1988, the Hearinq Examiner issued a decision to deny reconaideration. 4 . On April 27 , 1988 the Applicant. sur�itted an appeal of the Henring Examinar'a decision. In his appeal , the Applicant alleged both an error in fact arad an error in law and requested that the City Council teverse the decision of the Hearinq Examiner and direct approval of :+pecial Property Uae Permit N2-88 subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Department of the City of Everett. The �pplicent stAted, The record does contain substantial evidence of a public need for full service funeral homea to alleviate problems of land use planninq associated with the dedication of large tracts of land for the burial of dead bodies. Denial of the Appellants Special Property Use Permit request is discriminatory against the Applicant. . . . There is no legitimete basis for discriminetinq between the funeral home6 alread� operating cremaCories and the special use request of F��t�B�T 7: � Z