4611 COLLEGE AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� � b � �,,,T. p �, y� _ . � .. .�i.�,.. t' H fn f+ � i Ij Mn � �3 'A "�° y M I� THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THE � � � ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH (PASTOR.1.8. o H BRANDT) OF A PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT APPEAL#5-92 M¢ � � Or er t" y m On July 31, 1992, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett issued a decision upholding � o y Public Works Permit#92-173 and thereby denying the appeal of the Zion Lutheran Church. � � "� Pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Hearina Examiner of the Citv of Everett, on � y Au gust 14, 1992, the Appellant, Zion Lutheran Church, through their pastor, J.B. Brandt, filed a Motior for Reconsideration. In the Motion, the Appe l lant se t fo rt h various a l lege d errors of procedure, fact, and law. The alleged errors will be addressed in this Order. I The Allec�ed Errors of Procedure Tlie Appellant contended in its Motion that inadequate notice of the appeal hearing was given. In response to the Appellant's contention, the Everett Public Works Department submitted a memo to t��e Hearing Examiner setting forth that prior to the original hearing, the Appellant had provided the Cdy with a list of property owners who required notice. According to the Public W�rks Department, the list was "deficienY'. As a result, the Public ��; VVorks Department generated a mailing list using a computer program called Metro Scan. �I From this list, additional property owners were notified. � � A review of the ordinances of the City of Everett indicates that no established notice ' ��' procedure is r�quired for an appeal hearing. However, the City's attempt to correct the �"�� deficient list, as submitted by the Appellant, appears to have been done in good faith and � appears to adequately inform the property owners of the appeal. It is also noted thzc the appeal was a site specific request and that the Appellant was fully aware of the hearing. i �..� There is no error of procedure with regard to notice. � ("'� The Appellant also argued that the City did not consider the utilities within the right-of-way. Tne use of the right-of-w;.y is not a transfer of any title to the property. The right-of-way fee ownership remair .��ith lhe City. Any extraordinary use is subject to utilities that are in + ��,�� dec de to utilize the nght ofrway for purposels other tlhan bhe pe ml it as g�an ed to�the � Applicant, Kevin Stark, the City is allowed to do so. �� No error of failure to consider these utilities was made.