Resolution 3208 - Laserfiche WebLink

JOOOO6 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION RE: AP-#2-89 4/27/89 Page 6 said determination. However, neither this ordinance, nor any other ordinance of the Everett Municipal Code, provides specific notice requirements of preliminary determinations. 17 . The City of Everett submitted that they "cured this" by providing property owners notice even if it was beyond the origi- nal 10 day period. The notice provided was the reaffirmation of the City' s preliminary decision. 18. The City submitted that EMC 18 . 80 . 010 does not require that appeals be filed within ten (10) working days, but that they may be filed within ten (10) working days . According to the Argument, this grants the City discretion in determining if, in fact, appeals and notices are acceptable. 19 . The City submitted that EMC 2 .23 . 120 (A) (1) (c) gives the Hearing Examiner jurisdiction over the appeal. Under this section the Planning Deparment determined that the February 3 , 1989 reaffirmation was an administrative determination concerning the City of Everett' s boundary line adjustment ordinance. According to the City the cited section of the EMC allows ten (10) working days from the date of the administrative determination in which to file an appeal. 20. Appellant Kellerman' s representative submitted that appeals to Hearing Examiner for a boundary line adjustments must be made within ten (10) days from the date on which the preliminary decision was rendered. According to the representative "rendered" means the communication of the decision, and not the issuance of the decision. Thus, according to the argument, until the decision is made known by communication, the preliminary decision has not been rendered. The representative claims there must be notice before the rights of the parties can be effected. 21. Appellant Kellerman' s representative submitted that his client was aggrieved and will suffer direct and substantial impact from the proposed boundary line adjustment and has standing to appeal. III. Fact Relating to Boundary Line Adjustments 22. Admitted at the hearing as Exhibit 13 was the boundary line adjustment map. On this map the Applicant' s property is depicted. Lots 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 , and the south 8 feet of lot 8 of blocks 830 and 831 of the plat of Everett' s Division H are depicted on the map as extending from Tulalip Avenue and extending easterly for t.. kOO45