4611 COLLEGE AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

H M � � p 6 C �+ 7 H2 tn y :t N k n H � bH �q y N M�+ CC 2p i � H O o � Appeal#5-92 � ro � Page -2- n • � H � t+ S� N Finaily, the Appellant contended that an error of procedure included the failure to identi � d y the exact Iccations of the AppellanYs storage shed, the Applicant's garage, and another � t° ro garage. The permit was for the use of the right-of-way, and the City determined the right- o v of-way based on representations of the Applicant. There are no contentions that the permit is for land other than in the right-of-way. The City can decide on the amount, location, and use of the right-of-way. Accordingly, there is no errorin procedure. II Alleaed Error of Fact The Appellant contended that the City failed to consider other properties and the impact to other propeRies in the area. A review of the findings and conclusions indicates that Cenclusion #4 addressed the issue of no interference af public convenience of the health, � ` safety, or welfare of the general public. Other properties were considered. � ��'. � � The Appellant contends that the Applicant is using more than the westerly 7-112 feet o t e right-of-way. The permit is only for the use of half of the right-of-way. Any use by the I �e�� Applicant of the right-of-way or any other use by other property owners without ihe Citys , permission is unlawful. The decision of the Hearing Examiner pertains only to the area that is the subject of the permit. � �.� The Appellant claimed discrepancy of plot plans and access records for the subject property. At the hearing, the Hearing Examiner relied upon the representations of the City staff. It is presumed that the City, in issuing the permit, delermined the exact amount of �� right-of-way that can be subject of the permit. Any discrepancy of the plot plans and the Assessor s office is irrelevant to the case before the Hearing Examiner. �. �. Although the Hearing Examiner's decision did not set forth parameters of duration or �►�� conditions or fence height, they are governed by City policy and City code. The City retains complete control of thP right-of-way. The Appellant's contentions disputing the � '�� City's authority are not supported by law. I �� III Alleqgd Errors of Law \ The Appellant contended that the provisions of Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 13.30.040.A.2 are not applicable but in fact the provisions of EMC 13.30.010 are. This issue was raised at hearing and was addressed in the findings. 1