Laserfiche WebLink
000006 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION <br /> RE: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 <br /> Page 5 <br /> 31 , 1988 . Pursuant to the review, the City reaffirmed the pre- <br /> liminary approval for the boundary line adjustment for the subject <br /> property. <br /> 10. Notice was given to adjacent property owners of the City' s <br /> reaffirmation of the preliminary approval of the boundary line <br /> adjustment. Within ten working days of the notice the Appellants , <br /> as set forth in the caption of the document, filed appeals with <br /> the City. <br /> II. Middle Jurisdiction <br /> 11 . Prior to the administrative hearing on this appeal the <br /> Applicant filed with the Washington Superior Court a Petition for <br /> Writ of Prohibition and a Petition for Writ of Mandamus against <br /> the City. The writs were to prevent the City from further review <br /> of the boundary line adjustment decision and to mandate the City <br /> to issue permits. The Superior Court of the State of Washington <br /> for Snohomish County denied the Petitions. <br /> 13. At the public hearing the Applicant objected to the juris- <br /> diction of the Hearing Examiner to hear the appeal of the reaf- <br /> firmation of the boundary line adjustments. According to the <br /> Applicant, the preliminary approval of the boundary line adjust- <br /> ment occurred on October 31, 1988 , and no appeals were made from <br /> this administrative decision. <br /> 14 . The Applicant submitted that RCW 58. 17. 040 (6) excludes <br /> boundary line adjustments which do not create any additional lots <br /> of insufficient area and dimensions to meet minimum requirements <br /> for width and area for a building site from the provisions of RCW <br /> 58. 17 , Subdivision Review. Because of this exclusion, according <br /> to the Applicant, no specific notice is required to adjoining <br /> property owners for any administrative action on a request for a <br /> boundary line adjustment. <br /> 15. According to the Applicant, the appeal of the reaffirmed <br /> approval is moot because, pursuant to the law as set forth in <br /> Norco v. King County, 29 Wn App 179 , the Applicant had a vested <br /> right for the boundary line adjustment which cannot be challenged. <br /> 16 The Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 18 . 80. 010 grants property <br /> owners with standing the right to appeal preliminary determina- <br /> tions relating to boundary line adjustment approvals. These <br /> property owners are allowed ten (10) working days from the date of <br /> 000044 <br />