27 112TH ST SE 2017-05-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

3 the City of Everett Public Works Division a buffer extends 17 feet south onto lot 11. However, according to development standards of the City the concrete pad must be at least 27 feet south of the rear lot line and should not extend more than 103 feet north of the south (front) lot line. The placement of the concrete pad extends into the side and rear yard setbacks and intrudes into a critical area along the rear lot line. (Exhibit#11, Email from Steve Ingalsbe dated August 20, 2015 with site plan) (Exhibit#12, Hand Drawn Site Map) (Exhibit#13, Email from Steve Ingalsbe dated August 21, 2015) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 6. On August 24, 2015, the City issued a violation citation to the Respondent for violations of International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) 106.1 Unlawful Acts as adopted by EMC 16.005.010; IPMC 108.1.4 Unlawful Structure as adopted by EMC 16.005.010; International Residential Code (IRC) R105.1 Permits Required as adopted by EMC 16.005.010; Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 19.37.040(D) Critical Area Features and EMC 19.37.170(A)4 Standard Stream Buffer Requirements. Copies were mailed to the Respondent via first class and certified mail to the Respondents last known address which Officer Fagerstrom obtained from Snohomish County Assessors Record. A copy was posted on the property. Each I method of service used is independently sufficient to provide notice. (Pursuant to EMC 1.20.010.C.1) (Exhibit#4, Violation Citation dated August 24, 2015 with mail receipts) (Exhibit#5, Declaration of Service dated August 24, 2015 with photo) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 7. On November 9, 2015, Officer Fagerstrom reinspected the property and observed and photographed that the concrete slab remained in the backyard of the property. Based on research of City records, the Respondent had not applied or obtained required City permits for the work conducted on the property. (Exhibit#1a, Pre- Hearing Inspection Photo dated November 9, 2015) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Fagerstrom) 8. The City provided the Respondent with an opportunity to correct the conditions that are in violation of sections of the EMC and provided notice of the date, time and place of this hearing. Sylvia DeZordo, administrative assistant in office of Mr. Harvey, appeared at the hearing. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Violations Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction: I Pursuant to Chapter 1.20 EMC or any Everett Municipal Code (EMC) provisions that identify Chapter 1.20 EMC for enforcement, the Violations Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold the hearing and issue the decision. EMC §1.20.020 I s