3402 TULALIP AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

HEARING LXAMINER DECISION R�: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 Page 11 has no jurisdictional authority to hear the appeal because the time for filing of appeals has lapsed. The decision of the Planning Department of October 31, 1988 is effective and the boundary line adjustment as set forth therein is allowed. SUMMATION As evidenced by the Findings of this document, this matter is confusing and difficult to understand. Suffice to say, the City of Everett, prior to City Council action, was forced to prohibit mergers of contiguous lands because the City Code did not contain any specific lar.guage allowing mergers or lots that were acquired by common conveyance prior to December 1 , 1956. The Applicant's request for the boundary line adjustment was filed prior to the adoption of the merger clause in the City Code. Therefore his request was grandfathared in and the boundary line adjustment could be processed. The argument that no notice was given of the Planning Department's preliminary approval of the boundary line adjustment, and thereby invalidating the approval, fails. Nowhere in the codes of the City of Everett or the statutes of the State of Washington are there provisions that notice has go be given for a boundary line adjustment. Boundary line adjustments are exempt from subdivision statutes of the State of Washington (RCW 58. 17. 040 (6) ) . Clearly the preliminary approval as set forth in the October :il, 1988 Planning Department decision granted the Applicant prop=rty rights for the boundary line adjustment. The February 3, 198� reaffirm- ation of the preliminary approval was unnecessary. The Applicant had vested rights that could be acted upon. All the February 3, 1989 reaffirmation did was set up a procedure where those who had failed to appeal the October 31, 1988 approval could do so. Nowhere, however, is there any provision in the Everett City Code which requires reaffirmation of preliminary approval. The Appellants' argument that the October 31, 1988 decision was never rendered also fails. According to the Appellants, the issuance of the decision does not set the appeal clor.k running, but the rendering of the decision does. The rendexing of the decision, according to the Appellants, includes the conveyance of the information to the surrounding property owners. However, as noted, there is no notice requirement for boundary line adjust- �,;=nts and thus there is no specific individuals who are to receive the decisioa. To adopt the Appellants' argument, a decision would never be effective because parties could never find out what the Planning Department' s decisior, was. This inte-pretation of rendering a decision is not workable with the la:id use laws of the City of Everett.