Laserfiche WebLink
00000 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION <br /> RE: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 17 - Letter to Bob Landles from John Robinette, <br /> 3/24/89 <br /> 18 - Letter to Jim Driscoll from <br /> Scott Brown, 4/10/89 <br /> " 19 - Letter to Jim Driscoll from <br /> Jim Isles, 4/13/89 <br /> " 20 - Letter to Jim Driscoll from <br /> Martin Robinett, 4/13/89 <br /> 21 - Letter to Jim Driscoll from <br /> J. Robert Leach, 4/13/89 <br /> After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appli- <br /> cant; evidence elicited during the public hearing; and as the <br /> result of the personal inspection of the subject property and <br /> surrounding areas by the Everett Hearing Examiner, the following <br /> Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the <br /> decision of the Everett Hearing Examiner. <br /> FINDINGS OF FACTS <br /> I. Background <br /> 1. On April 8 , 1985, the City of Everett approved Ordinance No. <br /> #1123-85. This ordinance established the rules and regulations <br /> for boundary line adjustments which do not create additional lots, <br /> tracts, parcels, sites or divisions. <br /> 2 . On March 8 , 1988 , the City Planning Director issued an <br /> opinion that two lots of an existing subdivision could not be <br /> certified as non-conforming lots. According to the Director' s <br /> decision, the Applicant had to prove, by documentation of legal <br /> records, a lot' s non-conforming status . Because the lots at issue <br /> contained an area which did not meet or exceed the minimum lot <br /> size as set forth in the Everett Zoning Code, the Director deter- <br /> mined that the conveyed parcel did not satisfy the requirements <br /> for non-conforming status . An appeal of this decision was made to <br /> the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett. <br /> On June 3 , 1988 , the Everett Hearing Examiner overturned the March <br /> 8 , 1988 , Staff Decision and, in effect, invalidated the procedure <br /> that had been used by the City to certify lots which did not meet <br /> minimum lot requirements , but which satisfied exception provisions <br /> as set forth in the Everett Zoning Code. The decision effectively <br /> allowed substandard platted lots in the City to be legal, non- <br /> conforming lots if the lots satisfied the exception provision. <br /> 000042 <br />