My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
112 SE EVERETT MALL WAY LOVERS PACKAGE 2018-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
>
112
>
LOVERS PACKAGE
>
112 SE EVERETT MALL WAY LOVERS PACKAGE 2018-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2019 3:50:25 PM
Creation date
3/8/2019 3:46:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
SE EVERETT MALL WAY
Street Number
112
Tenant Name
LOVERS PACKAGE
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Findin�s of Fact No. 14 <br /> Testimony of David Tyler - "....However, to develop a wireless facility at these <br /> locations would require a monopole cellular tower which the City discourages." <br /> Point of Clarification to Findin�s of Fact No. 14: <br /> Construction of a monopole cellular tower has been installed at 220 Olympic, <br /> in the View Ridge neighborhood. Why then did the City of Everett allow this <br /> installadon? <br /> Findin�s of Fact Nc. 18 <br /> Testimony of David Tyler - "The only Review Process III for cellular facilities in <br /> Everett is when it is located on a free-standing tower structure. Such a design was not <br /> proposed." <br /> Point of Clari�cation or Soeci�c Error to FindinIIs of Fact No. 18: <br /> SPU 00-029 - Project Location - 609 Wood Place - Review Process III Public Nearing <br /> for Pr�sal of Roof ToQ Antennas and Associated Communications Equipment is <br /> scheduled for March 22, 2001 at 11:00 a.m., Wall Street Building. <br /> Under Findings of Fact No. 18, Mr. Tyler's testimony is in contradiction to the <br /> above-stated Review Process III Proposal. <br /> Because of the Wood Place precedent referenced above, it is rny belief that this matter <br /> should have been classified as a Re��icw Process 11[ �vhich would have required a public <br /> hearing. <br /> I respectf�lly requcst that you reconsider your decision based upon the foregoing seven <br /> Findings of Facts presented. <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> QD��.,- C°���.� � <br /> Beverly Cru baugh, Appellan� <br /> 1025 L.ombard Avenue <br /> Evcrett, Washington 98201 <br /> (425) 252-0714 <br /> � ��i <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.