2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

r In THE SliPE;t10^ C��: i': G'r Tiii: �'�:,�-- . . .:. .�;i=:::":: . I:: i�::J i'OR ?u: COu:�iY i�i . ......_. ._:::. 4 �� TED DAiiL, ; 5 I Petitioner-Plaintiff, ) � ) 6 � vs ; NO. 144661 ' i 7 TH6 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE ) PIEMORANDUM OPINION , CITY OF EVERETT a»d the Members ) Q rn.._��a� � � ) I g Respondents-Defendants. ) , ) 10 � �� The Court has considered the pleadings , records and briefs � �2 I of the parties, and has determined that the decision of the i 13 II Board of Adjustment ef the City of Everett should be remanded • I �q I for the purpose of determining whether all of the provisions 15 I of Everett Municipal Code Section 19. ')0. 060A have been met. 16 Although the record discloses that the facts and conditions of 17 I subsections 2, 3 and 4 of said Ordinance have been found to i �� i, exist, the record is not clear as to subsection 1 or tliat �q I, Ordinance. It appears that a finding as to subsection 1 of ZQ ( ciie Orninance nay hav� been omitted by inadvertence , oversic;�t Z� � or misunderstanding. Zf the conditions ann facts as co;.tai:.ec zZ I; in subsection 1 are found to exist, then the decision of the Zq i Board of Adjustment granting the variance would be valid and �'� , �� aroper. In t:�C' 0VE'I1t. �}]e t Oc'TQ O< <i'-:�CStC::'71r 15 liL�ti1C' t0 . `ti a �inding that the facts anc conditiais set -."orth in �uUsection �6 1 co exist, then the action of thc board of Adjustment in {� Z� yca:,cing the variance wili Ue in violation of Ordinace 19. o0 . CoG:. (1 28 and invalid as contrary to law. I) 29 �I in all ather respects, the evidence before the Court fails l; � 30 � to establish that the action of tne Board of Adjust�.ent ��as I '1 I 32 I I II ,.unorandum Opinion -1- ' ..��. ��