10925 EVERGREEN WAY 2016-01-01 MF Import

� July 1, 1999, he observed the same ten vehicles being occupied. Mr. Cottage did not make daily inspections of the subject propetty and the violations are based on the periodic observations as noted. (Cottage testimony) 6. At the public hearing, a former tenant Brian Comtassel, testified that he had resided at the subject property for a number of months. During his tenancy, he was aware that more than twelve RV vehicles were being parked on-site. He also observed electrical wires being extended to the extra number of vehicles. (Comtassel testimony)' 7. Mr. Comtassel testified that he had lived on the subject property and paid monthly rent. The iestimony of Mr. Comtassel was that his tenancy was for more than 48 hours and that other RV vehicles on-site were parked for periods greater than 48 hours. (Comtasse!testimony) 8. Owa contended that landscaping had occuRed on-site and that it met City standards. (Owa testimony) However, it was the contention of the City that even if landscaping had been �rovided, it did not meet City standards, and it is difficult to tell what type of landscaping was provided because it has not been maintained or protected. (Landles testimony) Jurisdiction: The Hearin�r <<xamir�er of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and ta issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 1.20.080. Based on fhe above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. On June 26, 1996, the City issued an SPU Permit to Owa to "place a twelve space RV park on approximately one acre located at 10925 Evergreen Way, Everett, Washington". The approval was issued subject to seventeen conditions that were stated therein. The conditions that are relevant to the appeal are set forth in finding of fact#1. 2. A code violation citation was issued by the Ciry on June 1, 1999, alleging seven paragraphs of violations. Subsequent to the hearing, evidence was presented that the violations, as set forth in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the code violation citation, have been resolved. The findings, conclusions and decision only relate to those items identified in finding #2, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. (finding 4) 'Apparentiy, Mr. Corntassel and Owa are in dispute over issues not relating to this particular action. At the pubiic hearing, Mr. Corntassel was served with legal papers by Owa's attomey. �