Laserfiche WebLink
Charlotte Seymour Appeal <br /> Appeal 1-85 , _ 1 <br /> Page - 4 - <br /> 9 . The specific use of a single chair beauty salon in the <br /> Appellant ' s home would not create excessive noise, dust, <br /> smoke, glare or other nuisances. (Charlotte Seymour <br /> testimony) <br /> 10. The City of Everett assumed that products would be sold <br /> or displayed on the premises because typically beauty <br /> salons sell hair accessories such as shampoo, hair <br /> conditioners , combs , etc. (Ervine testimony) <br /> The Appellant, however , submitted that no products would <br /> be sold or displayed on the premises. (Dave Seymour <br /> testimony) <br /> 11. There is to be no receipt or distribution of products on <br /> site . It is the intent of the Appellant to provide a <br /> place for hair cuts and shampoos. No deliveries of <br /> products would be made. (Charlotte Seymour testimony) <br /> 12. Only the Appellant, Charlotte Seymour , would be employed <br /> on the premises. (Charlotte Seymour testimony) <br /> 13 . Nomore than one-quarter of the total floor area of the <br /> dwelling would be used for the occupation. (Dave <br /> Seymour testimony) <br /> 14 . Access to the work space can be from within or without <br /> the structure_ The Appellant submitted that if <br /> necessary the access to the work space' would be from <br /> within the structure. (Dave Seymour testimony) <br /> 15_ There would be no sign advertising the Home Occupation <br /> Permit. (Charlotte Seymour testimony) <br /> 16 . The Everett Planning Department submitted that the <br /> proposed beauty salon will impact this and other <br /> residential neighborhoods in an adverse manner . <br /> According to the City the impact will be the result of <br /> the proliferation of other similar activities providing <br /> direct customer services in residentially zoned areas. <br /> The City submitted that this decision would allow beauty <br /> salons in any residential area. (Ervine testimony, <br /> staff report) <br /> 17. The Appellant submitted that "not everyone would have <br /> the same desire , circumstances , resources or <br /> opportunities to own a home business" . As a result <br /> there would be no proliferation of similar activities <br /> providing direct customer services. (submittal of May <br /> 20 , 1985 , exhibit 9) <br />