4611 COLLEGE AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� � � ro C N .. . .. � . -`tl;� _._ ., A it':_ � H �, � ��a*=' r ��-7 � N � r''S.. : . K y f1 - A � y '��° I. Alleaed Errors oi Procedure. ca � �v 1. FAII,URE TO NOTIFY ADJACENT LAND OWNERS: Notice of the ,°�, � o Hearing Examiner's Hearing was no t received b y ad jacent property � ;° � owners in the block; i.e. , Ronald and Joanne Erickson and Ptichael � y � and Jeanne Simmons, despite the fact that appellant furnished a list of the same to both Public Works and the Fiearing Examiner. y "- The certified statements of Michael and Jeanne Simmons, as well as � d N Joanne Erickson, objecting to the City of Everett granting the � r r applicant's permit, are attached hereto and incorporated by y y reference. Due process is violated when notice and an opportun.ity ° y to be heard are not provided. On motion for reconsideration, the Hearing Examiner stated, "A review of the ordinances of the cit�• of Everett indicates that no established notice procedure is required for an appeal hearing. Houever, 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. Appellant specifically denies this and refers the City Council to the letters of Joanne Erickson and Michael and Jeanne Simmons. Further, as the Court of Appeals noted in South Hollvwood Hills Citizens' Association v. Kina Countv, 33 S7n. App. 169, 172, 653 Pac. 2nd 1324 (1962) , due process requires onl}• that notice be reasonably calculated under the circumstances � � to inform a party of the pendency of proceedings affecting him or j '��, his property. In that case, in a subsequent appeal which involved �= a pl.at approval, the Washington State Supreme Court held at 101 Wn. ' 2nd 66, 75, ci77 P. 2nd 114 (1984) : 1 �� "Thus, measures to provide notice to adjacent property �.`� owners are to be developed by the local authorities. " The fact that the Hearing Examiner has not found city ordinances estab.lishina notice procedures does not relieve the City of Everett �.,a from providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to adjacent ' landowners, and due process is violated when that does not occur. ` ,� Further, and contr.ary to the Hearing Examiner's Order on a�0 � Motion for ReconsideLation, EMC Section 2.23. 160 sets forth the established notice procedure for an appeal hearing; i.e. , "Notice of the time and place of the public hearing shall be given as + � provided in the or3inance governing the application. if none is ��1 � spPcifically set fnrth, such notice shall be given at least 10 working days prior to such hearing by mailinq notification to property owners per County As�essor records within 500 feet of the subject property and identified neighborhood groups who have ��„r� requested notice of land use matters. " This did not occur, according to the declarations of Simmo;�s und Erickson. 2. Naither the City of Everett r.or the applicant, Mr. Stark, presented an� evide�:ce of his need or reasons for reque:>ting a ZIOh LIITHERAN C80RCH APPEAL - 2 realest.zionluth.apl " .y��' ,:� :io� . .. � � s `u� ,, -.. . . . � . . .