Laserfiche WebLink
y H <br /> ro � <br /> 10 G <br /> C M <br /> b y N <br /> r <br /> y �n <br /> � H A <br /> ro N ro g Cit of Everett <br /> JAMES M. DRISCOLL HeariPa ex2miner, Y <br /> � � � August 14 , 1992 9 <br /> o H � RE QUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - ZION LUTHERAN CFiURCH <br /> H � g • <br /> � .~i Cv pertinent facts are misrepresented by omi licant rs m propertylclinen <br /> N � form, including location of the app <br /> � � y Further, neither the c:ity of Everett nor the applicMYt BYandtes <br /> c pertinent ' information locating Mre SWhich areaalleadjacent to the <br /> L° � storage shed, cr Mr.' Simmons garag , <br /> � y right-of-way and will be impacted by the erection of a fence over <br /> half of the right-of-way; i.e. , in effect denying access to all <br /> three of them. <br /> 12, Alleaed Errors of Fact. <br /> l. The Findings and Uecision of tlie Hearing Examiner defined <br /> the applicant's property to be zoned as R-1, however, fails to <br /> consider that the adjacent properties involved fall the Hearing <br /> zoning classifications not taken into consideration by <br /> Examiner. <br /> 2 , The Findings and Decision failed to consider whether the <br /> � � proposed use under the permit will be harmiul to adjacent property <br /> � `� owners, including depreciation in value to the adjacent Picantthas <br /> � to the effect that the app <br /> (there is expected testimony <br /> 1 • used not only the westerly 7 1/2 fee and other unwanted,apropertys <br /> � placed wood pallets, tree trimmings, <br /> ��� devaluing debris in the easterly half of the riqht-of-way, not only <br /> interfering with access by adjace alues.�W The H aringeExaminer' s <br /> � depreciation of adjacent property <br /> decision further fails to consider: <br /> � �� a. the accessibility to public sewer lines which <br /> would be disrupted, and which would resuli: in <br /> a health and safety hazard; <br /> �� � b, whether accessibility to cable, telephone, and <br /> electrical service would be interfered ublic <br /> should this fence be established on a P <br /> ' ��'=' right-of-way; <br /> �, whether the applicant, Mr. Stark, would hava <br /> free u�e of this public land and whether this <br /> �r. free use, without any responsibility for <br /> ��r taxes, would not interfere with the welfare of <br /> the general public. <br /> 3 . The Aearing Examiner's decision failed to consider a definite <br /> discrepancy between Mr. Stark' s survey and the plat planse�itlis <br /> with the Snohomish County Assessor' s Office. Before any p <br /> granted, the city' s civil engieTt lpg ne of Mra StarkY�andhthis <br /> confirm the survey of trie prop Y <br /> should be done at no cost to him or to the adjacent property <br />