5027 OCEAN AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

which requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that individuals of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is contrary to the law ,,f the State of Washington. Swoboda vs. LaConner, 97 Wn.App. 613 (1999) if ordinances or requirements are vague, they are void. The purpose of the void for vagueness doctrine is to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcement of the law. Burien Bark Supply vs. Kinq Countv, 106 Wn.2d 868.' DECISION Based upon the preceding rindings oi -;;ct and Conclusions, testimony and evidence submitted at the pubiic hearing, is hereby ordered that the appeal of the City Pianning DepartmenYs October 1, 2001, denial of a building permit for the property a� 5027 Ocean Avenue, Everett, Washington, is granted, and the decision is overturned. This matter is remanded to the Everett Plar�iny Department for further review consistent with development standards of the City of Everett. Done and dated this 4th Jay of January, 2002 .. fj�. /V�+co�se� � Jam . Driscull Hearing Examiner ' Tiie instant case exempli(ies a need for revision of certain terms in the Everett Municipal Code. Specifically, the City should review "attached" and "detached" accessory dweliing units and should address whether an accessory building must be subordinale in use and size to lhe principal use. The Appellant is correcl thal there currenUy is no requirement in lhe Everett hlunicipal Code that the accessory building be less in area than the principal building or use. Whiie the Appellant has successfully argued his case, lhe Hearing Examiner recognizes that this type of design is not necessarily desirable and is certainly not consislent with other develepment in the area. Ho�vever, the weakness of the ordinances have allowed the Appellant to build the structure, as proposed, subject of course to (urther review by the City to determine if all other regulations are salisfied. 5��