Laserfiche WebLink
,_ ___ .- . <br /> � ------ - _,... .,-a--.. -- _ _� <br /> � s <br /> 85zi xoiiy n=i� <br /> Everett, WA 98208 , <br /> • June 23, 1992 <br /> �ttn. James M. Driscoll <br /> Heazing E�iner <br /> City Hall, 3002 Ketmore <br /> Bverett, WA 98201 <br /> IN THG MATZER OF TAE AFFEAZ �F' PAiTI, YERGER - SHORT SUHDIVISION �2-92 <br /> Dear Mr. I}riscoll: ., <br /> In re:;ponse to the denial annFal decisian t+e suhmit the £oLloHing <br /> i.n£ormation for your consideration. • <br /> The City of Everett P]anning Dept. , as xc11 as the Everett Pub11c <br /> Xorks. xithheld �sic i�ormation from us g�.ior to our decisior. to <br /> netition for a short-subdivision. <br /> Paul Yerger visited the Everett P]a.nning Dept. ar.d requested <br /> information regarding the need £or imgrovements, such as si3e- <br /> xa1k.5, cur�, etc. Dave Tyler 9nformed Mr. Yerger that no street <br /> improvements aould be reqnited for a sLort-subdivis+on of 4 iots <br /> or less. Dave Tyler ne�er mentioned anything about "potential <br /> develcpment". Mr. YPxger also checke3 with Everett Public Norks <br /> Dept. and again a:;ked about street imgrovemPnts. Paul an <br /> employee there reari from the code bouk tha.t under £o.ir lots there <br /> xas no need £or strEet 1IDFlTovements. Again.nothing xas said alw�it <br /> "potentia.l development". <br /> I£ a citizen goes to a paid public employee and asks questiors <br /> pertaining to tha.t department - that citizen ;;hould expect £ull <br /> disclosure. Moreover, there is a curious disorepancy: �verett <br /> City Planning saying 4 lots or less and Everett Public Korks saying <br /> under £our lots. . <br /> Based on the "in£ormation" rece�ved from Ever=tt Planning and <br /> Everett Public Norls xe endaged %egel & Associates to survey, <br /> drax maps, etc. and �esent our 3 lot short-subdivisioa to Everett <br /> City Planning. xe xould never ha.ve taken tr.is action if xe had. <br /> beeL �Soperiy informed at the beginaing that �he City of Everett <br /> xould only grar.t final apLroval L` xe made full standard ha.lf- <br /> street Smprovemeats, requiriug eurbs, gu'cters, sidexalks, a.nc1 street <br /> xideni" arai that they xould base their dec'..sio:i on the potential <br /> for future development. <br /> This issue of potential develap�ent is at best ambigious and since <br /> it L not de£lned Ln the Everett Municipal Code it Ls hard for us <br /> tu wzderstarul hox it became an issue in der�ying our appeal. <br /> • . 6� <br />