Laserfiche WebLink
000006' HEARING EXAMINER DECISION <br /> RE: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 <br /> Page 9 <br /> C. Stan Price. The witness submitted that he lives across <br /> the street from the subject property. He contended that the <br /> development will have an impact upon the family neighborhood. He <br /> also submitted that the marketability of houses in the neighbor- <br /> hood will be impacted by the creation of the additional house on <br /> substandard lot B. He also contended that the existing duplex is <br /> in poor shape. <br /> D. Kirke Sievers. The witness submitted that the proper- <br /> ties will have no access to 34th. He also questioned whether <br /> there are springs on the property and raised the issue of whether <br /> incorrect surveys have been made of the property. The witness <br /> claimed that additional traffic will result if developed. <br /> E. Dave Beames. The witness submitted that the intent of <br /> the boundary line adjustment of the City of Everett should not be <br /> to create another lot. Any creation of lots should be done <br /> through normal procedure. <br /> F. Scott Brown. The witness supported the lot line adjust- <br /> ment. The witness claimed that no non-conforming lots were <br /> created and that the Applicant was doing what was allowed him by <br /> law at the time. The witness submitted that the Applicant had <br /> been denied due process because of the procedure that the City had <br /> taken in reviewing the request. <br /> 35. The Applicant submitted that, at the time of filing for the <br /> boundary line adjustments , there were four legal lots. With the <br /> boundary line adjustment there will be two legal lots. He sub- <br /> mitted that, because of the decrease in number of lots the Appli- <br /> cant was exempt from any subdivision review and was allowed to <br /> maintain the non-conforming status of the lots. <br /> 36. The Applicant submitted that after the merger was adopted by <br /> ordinance by the City of Everett, the Appellants ' arguments are <br /> accurate. However, his interests are vested. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> I . Jurisdiction <br /> 1 . On October 31 , 1988 , the Everett Planning Department granted <br /> preliminary approval to the boundary line adjustment application <br /> submitted by the Applicant for the property at 3402 Tulalip <br /> Avenue, Everett, Washington. (Specifics are set forth in the <br /> Introduction of this document. ) <br /> 000048 <br />