4611 COLLEGE AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

� n ~ w . N �y �.L�, �7 v b P � [� M H N H o � � ermit to build a fence (exclusive use) on 7 1/2 feet o_` the city' s � y � Ppublic) right-of-way. Mr. Stark's application for a Publ.ic works z Permit fails to disclose the intended use of the city right-of-caay ro � e requirecl by Code Section 13 .30.030(c) . � e�e R 3 . Neither the City of Everett nor the applicant located � „ � utilities; i.e. , power, telephone, television cables; nor the �' saniY.ary sewer which runs north and south in the center of the 16' y y right-of-way; s �°c� r 4 . The dimensions of the applicant's property and other Cq y � rertinent facts ar� misrepresented by onission from the application y o y forsi, including lo�ation of the applicant's property line. Further, neither the City of Everett nor the applicant provided pertinent information locatinq Pir. Stark's garage, Mr. Brandt's storage shed, or Mr. Simmons' garage, wl�ich are all adjacent to the right-of-way and will be impacted by the erection of a fence over half of the right-of-way; i.e. , in effect denying access to all three of them. II, Alleqed Errors ��f Fact. 1. The Findings and Decision of the Hea:-ing Examiner defined the applicant's property to be zoned as R-1, however, fails to �. consider that the adjacent properties involved fall under other � �v , zoning classifications not taken into conside�:ation by the Hearing ,� Examiner. 1 2. The Findings and Decision failed to consider whether the r��, proposed use under the permit will be harmful to adjacent property �� owners, including depreciation in vaiue to the adjacent properties �, (thare is expected testimony to the effect that the applicant has used not unly the westerly 7 1,�2 feet of the right-of-way but has placed wood pallets, tree t.rimmings, and other unwanted, property- i �,� devaluing debris in the easterly half of the right-of-way, not only interferina •HitF access by adjacent landowners, but resulting in depreciation of adjacent property values. The Hearing Examiner's ' decision further fails to consider: I �,�a a. the accessibility to public sewer lines which would be disrupted, and which would result in , � a health and safety hazard; I�� b. whether accessibility to cable, telephone, and � electrical service would be ir.terfered with � should this fence be established on a public .�.i�' riaht-of-way; �. . c. wh�ther the applicant, Mr. Stark, would have free us� of this public land and �rhether this ZZ027 LIITHERAN CHORCH APPEAL - 3 realest.zionluth.apl