Laserfiche WebLink
1 • Is an approval of a projcct valid when that approval presumes to give authority to <br /> 2 violatc or cancel the provisions of the Everett Municipal Code? <br /> 3 • Docs a scc;tion of deck used as a high trat�ic path of ingress and egress between <br /> 4 other sections of deck need to meet minimum safety requirements? <br /> 5 2. Rclief Rcuuested: <br /> 6 The appellants seek Ihe following relief: <br /> 7 • That final approvaUdecision on the project be withheld until the legal location of the <br /> 8 properly line at issuc in the project is resolved through the pending litigation on this <br /> 9 subject. <br /> 10 Md that should review continue prima facie <br /> I 1 • Thal the buildcrs, thc Reinertsens,bc held to comply with the requi�ements of the <br /> 12 Gverett Municipal Code. <br /> I 3 • That approval of the project be revoked and notice of violations be issued. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 3. Statement of Facts: <br /> 1 G On or about May 26, 2003 thc ap�llants, Carolyn Rygg and Craig Dilwotih, returned to their <br /> 17 homc located at 3225 Shore Avenue, Gverett WA to discovcr that their neighbors, the Reinertsens, <br /> 18 at 3301 Shore Avenuc had moved a section of split rail fence to allow for a bcam to be used in a <br /> 19 dcck project of thc Reinertsens. The beam (photograph attached) extended past the Iine established <br /> 20 by wi exisling boarJ tcnce thal attachcs to the appcllants' garage and house. ARer confrontation <br /> 21 with lhe Rcinerlsens, it was discovercd that no permit application had cver bcen made by the <br /> 22 Rcincrtsens for the deck projecl. <br /> 23 <br /> 24 <br /> MIiMORANUUM OI'AI'I'IiLI.AM:S'ARGUMIiN'1'ANU CRnIG UlLwoenl;3225 SIIORE AVE BVERE7T,WA 98203 <br /> 25 AUl'I IOHIII'ANU/OR SUPI'I.IiMF.NT 7Y)MIiMORANUUM•2 125-353•71I0 <br /> of 14 <br /> EXHIBIT #� <br /> PAGE�S�F� <br />