Laserfiche WebLink
Charlotte Seymour Appeal <br /> Appeal 1-85 1 <br /> Page - 7 - <br /> DECISION <br /> Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions , the <br /> testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing , and the <br /> impressions of the Everett Hearing Examiner upon a site view, <br /> it is hereby ordered that the appeal of the Appellant , <br /> Charlotte Seymour , is denied. The March 22 , 1985, <br /> determination of the City of Everett ' s Planning Director that <br /> the proposed single chair beauty salon should. not be granted a <br /> Home Occupation Permit for property located at 2505 - 81st <br /> Place S.E. , Everett, Washington, •which is zoned R-1, is <br /> affirmed. <br /> The appeal has been denied because the Appellant has failed to <br /> adequately satisfy the criteria as set forth in Section <br /> 19.44 . 030 . More specifically the Appellant ' s request has <br /> failed to adequately show that the home occupation should be <br /> located in the residential area rather than the commercially <br /> zoned area. To locate the one chair beauty salon in the <br /> residential area would be contrary to the intent of the <br /> ordinance which is to preserve the stability of the City' s <br /> commercial areas. This is the law of the City of Everett and <br /> any change from this legislatively intent must be done by <br /> legislation of the Everett City Council . <br /> The City of Everett, however , does appear to have a few <br /> problems with Home Occupation Permits. Section 19.44.010 <br /> indicates that home ' occupations may be permitted in any <br /> residential zone providing that the general requirements as set <br /> forth in Section 19 .44 .020 are met. In addition , the criteria <br /> of Section 19. 44 . 030 must be satisfied. However , there is <br /> nothing within the Everett Zoning Code that specifically sets <br /> forth that Home Occupation Permits are limited to those <br /> permitted uses in any specific zone. Thus , the City of <br /> Everett ' s claim that a beauty salon is not a permitted use and <br /> therefore should not be allowed in a R-1 zone is not supported <br /> by law. It is only because the intent of Section 19 .44 .030 <br /> requires the preservation of the stability of the City' s <br /> commercial areas that the Home Occupation Permit is not granted <br /> in this particular case. If Home Occupation Permits are to be <br /> allowed in the future, it would be appropriate to specifically <br /> set forth in the ordinance what type of uses are allowed in <br /> particular zones. <br /> 15 <br />