Laserfiche WebLink
i " �Sayor ':obert Q. Andcr: on <br />IF�O'" John �arrens <br />j°ATC July 22, 1971 <br />suo _c* Residence oE Mr. ��eo:g� Se;cton <br />.J = <br />/�✓ <br />�_ � j , !� � <br />CI1\ ��F CVSRETT. EVERETT. \ST�iHINGTON <br />A citizen cc+mplaint vas received by [he inspection department from Mr. Sexton. tir. <br />Ericison and I visited the property un July 13, 1971. <br />2fr. SAattou �iigianlly c�mplained that the City c�nc wrong to permit ast apartment to <br />be built next door to his property. k'hile ve were e+[ his residence he added the <br />couplain[s thnt the �djecent building eacroacHed on his proper:y end that the contractor <br />uad damaged his property. Mr. Sexton latee called the inspect?oa office and cor�plained <br />that Yhere :�•as inaufficien[ pe:rking furniah4d For the use of the zdjacent property. <br />All of ti�eee :.-�plaiat:; weY� against the City and he otated that he wns going to sue <br />the City. <br />F7e :m estigated all of the complaints F.ith the folloving coaclueiou�: <br />1. '!'he aparCment is permitted within the zpning ordinauce. <br />2. The owner is providing three pnrkins spacea which is the umount required by <br />ehe zoning ordinsnce. <br />3. The building does encroach OC DI1, SEYCOR�9 property. <br />4. Mr. Sex[�n'c property waa not Ic£t in the same coadition by the coatractor <br />us .`.L- vas prior to the conat¢uction of the new 1rui1d1ag. <br />5. That the contructor. di.d damage Mr. Sexton'a house. <br />T�.'.iink ftr_ Sexton hu� a right to complain, but not nginst thc City. In my opinion <br />htr. Sexton waa d�aged but the Ctty is not responsible for uay of Lis complaintc. <br />