Laserfiche WebLink
y H <br /> N � <br /> p G <br /> �C � y <br /> ~ � Pastor J.B. Brandt APPeal <br /> o m o � Appeal 5-92 <br /> ro y H Page -3- <br /> � z <br /> ro <br /> ° ~ p 6. The Appellant submitted that the fence will interfere with the 21on <br /> � � R Lutheran Church's use of the unopened right-of-way. This will include <br /> � y � interference: with access to a compost pile; with access to a garden; <br /> � and with maintenance to keep the alley free of xeeds. Further, <br /> N according to the Appellant, landscape materials and landscaping <br /> � d y completed within the alley will be impacted by the construction of the <br /> � � � fence. <br /> O y <br /> N 7. The Appellant submitted that the Public Works Permit that a11oWs t e <br /> construction licant fshould n be erequiredd [o lconstruct ae fence6 on his <br /> that the App <br /> property line. <br /> 8. The Appellant submitted that other property ownera in the area have not <br /> constructed a fence in the unopened right-of-way. Further, the <br /> Appellant contended that the accessibility to [he sanicary seWer may be <br /> impacted as well as the accessibility to the cable, telephone, and <br /> electrical service lines. The City did not present any testimony <br /> claiming impact to utility easements. <br /> 9. The Appellant contended that the City had err8 in issuin8ellanterthe <br /> � ��'� pursuant to EMC 13.30.040. Inatead, accordin to the App <br /> I <br /> �,� permit should have been issued pursuant to EMC 13.30.010. Accor ng o <br /> EMC 13.30.010, the use of the right-of-way ca¢no� be excl�e ellant� <br /> 1 cannot interfere with public convenience. Accordin to the App � <br /> �.► . the use, as proposed by the Applicant, ia an exclusive use which srould <br /> ��� interfere with his convenience. The Appellant submitted that the permit <br /> should have been denied. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> I �� <br /> 1 temporary8 use Soff a City ight of-xay in anb alley obetr+eenr Alger oAvenue <br /> ' '�� and College Avenue i° li II600o�e1 Jc�e Z he1992 it u¢9Juneul7,b 1992, Cthe <br /> of Everett to the App <br /> pppe?.lant filed an appeal• <br /> + 2� [oeholdran hearing and r.o issuet a decisiantonatheuadministrativeuappealY <br /> ��� <br /> This authority is sec farth in the Hearing Examiner Ordinance oE t e <br /> City of Everett. <br /> I F 1 � 3, EMC 13.30.040 sets forth the criteria for the isauance of the temporary <br /> (� � use permit. Those criteria have been reviewed and are satiefied by the <br /> Applicant. <br /> 4� interfe ee ithithe�public i onvenience ormhealthResafety, and e+lfarenof ' <br /> the general public. <br />