Resolution 3197 - Laserfiche WebLink

v W Bay Ridge Development Order May 26, 1989 Page -5- 9. Petitioners' paragraph #9 asked the question if a board fence around the wetland would provide recreational benefits. The petitioners did agree that the wetlands must be protected. No specific relief was requested with this section of this request for reconsideration. 10. Petitioners' paragraph #10 apparently sought some clarification in this section of the density. The issues have been addressed above. 11. Petitioners' paragraph #11 contends that the development does not meet the criteria of the Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program. This is the argument of the petitioners as set forth in the public hearing which has been addressed in the Findings and Conclusions. 12. The petitioners are correct that the citation of the ordinance granting the Hearing Examiner jurisdictionaluthority is misstated. The correct ordinance number is 1121-85, Section 10-2. This correction will be noted on the official decision. 13. The petitioners contend that the proposed development will not satisfy the goals and policies of the Snohomish County Shoreline Management Master Program. In the motion for reconsideration (#13) , the petitioners set forth a list of designation criteria that are allegedly not satisfied and list the management policies that are claimed not to be satisfied. Further, the petitioners set forth a list of general regulations and residential development regulations and roads and railroads that allegedly have not been satisfied. A complete review of these issues was made in the SEPA review, the limited Environmental Impact Statement, the public hearing, and a review of the appropriate sections of the Everett Zoning Code, including the development standards for R-3(A) zoned property as set forth in Chapter 19.19 of the Everett Municipal Code. 'Through the conditions imposed in the approval of the Shoreline Permit, the issues raised by the Applicant -will be mitigated in a manner that will be consistent with the Snohomish County Shoreline Master Program, the zoning codes of the City of Everett and the environmental conditions imposed by the City of Everett. 14. Petitioners' paragraph #14 relates to density which has been addressed above. 15. The shoreline improvements were proposed by the Parks Department of the City of Everett and have been agreed to be developed by the Applicant. The issue of what the future design will be is not before the Hearing Examiner. 16. Petitioner's paragraph #16 refers to wetlands. No specific issue of relief is set forth in the motion for reconsideration. 000041