SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION - Laserfiche WebLink

Attachment #1 Changes in the City's Reasons for Allowing Use of the Backyard (Previously sent via email 9/15/2016) Over the nine years that we, Mike and Darlene Miller, have been battling the Masons' use of the outdoor backyard area, every time we asked the City to enforce the codes, City staff has come up with a different explanation of why they should not. However,the last attempt is so bizarre, with City staff adding a completely new argument that had never been heard in nine years, that we asked our attorney to write a response (see attachment from our attorney, Stuart Flashman). We feel it is very important that you be aware of this. There is, however,a much bigger question:Why has City staff been doing this?Why has staff been working so hard, even to the point of creating multiple novel interpretations of the City's codes and of a clearly written use permit, to let the Masons continue to operate to the detriment of the residents that the codes and use permit were written to protect? We hope that the Council will demand an explanation for Staffs past behavior. Below is a history of City staffs changing positions on the use of the backyard. 2007 to 2009: The CUP does prohibit use of the backyard. • Planner Donna Decker is assigned to the Millers' case. • Planner Donna Decker agrees that the CUP prohibits backyard parties. • Donna states in emails that the backyard is a buffer, which is not to be used for parties. • Donna Decker is reassigned to a different case. 2010 to 2013: The CUP does prohibit use of the backyard, but City staff allows use of the backyard by overriding the CUP with the"accessory use" provision. • Brian Dolan and Nelson Fialho begin managing the case. • Brian and Nelson reverse Donna's position regarding the backyard. • Brian and Nelson agreed that the Masons' CUP prohibits backyard parties, but they override the CUP with the"accessory use" provision. • The Millers retain an attorney, Stuart Flashman, to represent them. • Mr. Flashman states, "Most of us would understand an accessory use to be a minor use associated with the main activity. The Planning Department's interpretation, however, allows the tail to wag the dog, with commercial activities creating the major use. Both revenues and use of the building combined from the public parties and catering company far outweigh the revenues and use of the building for Masonic membership dues, meetings and activities. ... This stretches accessory activities far beyond what is contemplated in the zoning ordinance." • (Note: PMC 18.08.595 defines an accessory use as"appropriate, subordinate, and customarily incidental to the main use of the site.")