My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Resolution 4168
>
Resolutions
>
Resolution 4168
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/11/2017 10:38:18 AM
Creation date
4/11/2017 10:38:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Resolutions
Resolution Number
4168
Date
9/13/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Second Chance <br /> SPU #5-93 <br /> Page -6- <br /> 14. The sentencing standards of the State of Washington are used to impose the <br /> penalties upon youths who will be housed at Second Chance. The youths at the <br /> Second Chance facility will be committed for more than 30 days. The placement of <br /> juveniles at the Second Chance facility will not be by choice of the juvenile but will <br /> be at the administrative discretion of DJR in carrying out the court mandated <br /> sentence. <br /> 15. The proponents of the Second Chance facility submitted that the facility is a <br /> correctional facility that is a permitted use in a C-2 zone. <br /> 16. Opponents of the Second Chance facility argued at the public hearing that the <br /> Second Chance facility is neither a correctional facility nor a jail. Instead, the <br /> opponents contended that the facility constitutes a group home of over 20 persons <br /> and that it is prohibited in a C-2 zone. <br /> 17. The opponents of the Second Chance facility in the C-2 zone submitted that there is <br /> no definition of a "correctional facility or jail" in the Everett Zoning Code. Because of <br /> lack of definitions and the vagueness of the use of the facility, they argued that it <br /> should not be permitted in this zone. <br /> 18. In 1991 the City of Everett adopted amendments to the 1989 Everett Zoning Code. <br /> Included in the amendments was the inclusion of"jails and correctional facilities" as <br /> being permitted in a C-2 zone. The opponents of the Second Chance facility in a C- <br /> 2 zone claimed that the 1991 amendment was a "housekeeping" amendment and <br /> was "insignificant". The opponents submitted that the legislative evidence of the <br /> insignificance of the amending ordinance is evidenced by a letter from a.former <br /> Planning Commission member (admitted for the record as exhibit#13). <br /> 19. The opponents to the proposed facility submitted that if a word or a term is not <br /> defined within the Everett Municipal Code, the decisionmaker should refer to the <br /> dictionary. in referring to Random House Dictionary, a spokesman for the <br /> opponents submitted that "correctional facility" is defined as being a prison for long <br /> term confinement. According to the opponents, such confinement is not proposed <br /> for this facility and therefore is not considered to be a "correctional facility". <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.