3301 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

I Noticc c iappeal for cause#04-2-08016-7 was filed on Mazch 4, 2005 (cause N55842-1-I). 2 Decision from the Appellate Couri Division I is still pending. 3 Conswction of the deck recommenced, and appeared to be near completion in September 4 2005. On September 27, 2005 the appellants wrote a IeUer of concem to Allen Gifl'en, Planning 5 Dircctor. 6 On October 5,2005 Allen Giffen filed lhe decision that is under this appeal. The October 5, 7 2005 dccision admits thc previous response from the Planning Departmenl"acknowlcdged that... R the deck is greater than 36 inches above gradc"within the rcquired setback and that lhis"code 9 violation will not be enforccd." 10 I 1 4. Argument snd Authority: 12 i. �inal Decision is Premature 13 'I'hc property line on which lhe project relies is currently undcr litigation(#55842-1-I). As a 14 result, thc requirecl sidc sclback may well change from that suppliecl on the pertnit. An ultimate 15 dccision on the pro�rty linc closcr to the builder's house than that on the pertnit application will I6 bring more sections of thc dcck inlo vioiation of L'MC tiUe 19 Chapter 39.150(c) 2,as well as limit 17 the space oC Qie 30 inch scction of deck also at issue on the appeal even further. A decision on the 18 property linc further away Gom the buildcr's house than that on the permit application, while not 19 remedying tlie cxisting violation of EMC 39.150(c)2,will provide more options to the Hearing 20 I;xaminer in regards to thc 30 inch wide section of deck. 21 I[sccros a squandcring of evcryonc's timc to make a final decision when such a decision 22 will rcly on a property line that ultimatcly muy change from that on which the decision is based, 23 making parts of any such decision moot such that further proceedings aze fikely to be necessary. 24 MIiMURAP'UUM OP AI'PCI,LAM'S'ARGUMIiNT ANU CMIa DII.WORTII;3223 SIIo0.G AVE EVERGTf,WA 9820! zs AUl'I IORI71'ANU/OR SUI'PI.IiMLNT lTl MI>MOFtANUUM-5 425-J534120 I ofl4 EXHIBIT #L PAGE,�QF �'