91-16 DENIAL OF APPEAL OF TOM HAYES FROM A HEX DECISIONA RESOLUTION of the City of Winslow, Washington,
denying the appeal of Tom Hays from a decision of
the Hearing Examiner.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WINSLOW, WASHINGTON, DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council adopts the Order on Appeal
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, as
the decision of the City Council in The Matter of the Appeal of
Tom Hays from a final decision of Hearing Examiner J. Robin
Hunt denying an application for a variance from setback
requirements for the Madison Avenue townhouse complex,
1039-1059 Madison Avenue, Winslow, Washington.
Section 2. The Deputy Mayor is
Order on behalf of the City Council.
authorized to sign the
PASSED by the City Council this 18th day of
1991.
July ,
APPROVED by the Mayor
1991.
th i s 18 th day o f July
anato, Mayo._~ r
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATE:
Ralph Eells, Finance ~irector
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: July 11, 1991
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: July 18, 1991
RESOLUTION NO.: 91-16
[ r/1440R
- 1 -
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WINSLOW
In the Matter of the Appeal
of:
TOM HAYS,
from a final decision of the )
hearing examiner denying an )
application for a variance from )
setback requirements for the )
Madison Avenue townhouse complex, )
1039-1059 Madison Avenue, Winslow,)
Washington. )
)
THIS MATTER came before the City
File No. VAR 15-90-1
ORDER ON APPEAL
Council on a notice of
filed on May 15, 1991 by William M. Bechtold, on behalf
partners of the
the findings of
Hearing Examiner
appeal
of applicant Thomas L. Hays and the general
Bainbridge-Madison Avenue Partnership, from
fact, conclusions of law and order entered by
J. Robin Hunt on the application of Thomas L. Hays for a
variance from setback requirements for the Madison Avenue
townhouse complex, 1039-1059 Madison Avenue, Winslow,
Washington.
At its June 6, 1991 regular meeting, the City Council heard
the arguments and comments of Mr. Bechtold, Stephanie Warren,
Director of Planning and Community Development, and Kathy
James, Associate Planner. Following the comments and
arguments, the City Council continued consideration of the
matter to the July 5, 1991, regular meeting in order to prepare
ORDER ON APPEAL - 1
[r/1439R
a transcript of the hearing before the Hearing Examiner and
receive exhibits from the hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
On July 5, 1991, the regular meeting was continued by the City
Clerk to July 11, 1991. At its meeting on July 11, 1991, the
City Council voted by motion to deny the appeal.
The City Council has considered the documents in the file
for the application, a transcript of the hearing before the
Hearing Examiner on April 10, 1991, the appellate brief filed
by Mr. Bechtold on behalf of the applicant, and the Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order entered by the Hearing
Examiner on May 8, 1991, together with exhibits referenced in
that Order. Based on the evidence presented and the arguments
and comments of the applicant and the City, the City Council
finds that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is supported by
substantial evidence. Therefore, it is ordered that the
decision of the Hearing Examiner is affirmed.
DATED: July 18, 1991.
ORDER ON APPEAL - 2
[ r/1439R