Laserfiche WebLink
( t <br /> r��;�, <br /> `ri�;'i <br /> A •• <br /> CITY OF EVERETT '�� <br /> BOARD OF REVIE�V <br /> Robert Larson ) <br /> 2501 Lombard Avenue ) <br /> Everett, �VA 98201, ) <br /> ) Case No. 835H-98 <br /> Appellant, ) � <br /> ) Findings of Pact, Conclusions <br /> vs. ) of Law, and Proposed Order <br /> ) <br /> City of Everett, a �Yashington ) <br /> municipal corporation, ) <br /> ) <br /> Respondent. ) <br /> ) <br /> This matter having come before the Board of Review of the Ciry of Everett on the 27"' <br /> day of October, 1998, and the testimony of�vitnesses having been heard and all exhibits <br /> admitted into evidence having been considered, the Board of Review makes the following <br /> findings of fact and conclusions of law and ordcr. <br /> Findines of Fact: <br /> 1. An inspection was conducted of the building situated upon the propeRy at 2501 <br /> Lombard Avenue (hereinaRer"the building") in the Ciry of Everett, Washington <br /> under the direction of the Director of Code Compliance and under the authority oFthe <br /> City of Everett Building Of6cial. <br /> 2. As a result of the inspection, the officer performing the inspection believes that the <br /> building is residential. <br /> 3. As a result of the inspection, the officer performing the inspection believes tbat <br /> conditions exist at the building that are in violation of the Uniform Housing Code, as <br /> adopted by the City of Everett, and render the building unsafe, dangerous or <br /> hazardous. Said conditions are set out more fully in the Notice and Order, which was <br /> admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. . There was no testimony to refute the <br /> conditions as described in the Notice and Order. <br /> 4. As a result of the inspection, the officer performing the inspection believes that <br /> conditions exist at :he building that are in violation of the Uniform Code for the <br /> Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, as adopted by the City of Everett, and render the <br /> building unsafe, dangerous or hazardous. Said conditions aze set out more fully in the <br /> Notice and Order, which was admitted into evidence as Exhibit No. . There <br /> was no testimony to refute ihe conditions as described in the Notice and Order. <br /> F[NDINGS OF FACC,CONCLUSIONS 1 <br /> OF LA\V AND ORDER <br />