6516 ELLIOTT WAY 2016-01-01 MF Import

January 1�, 1983 z 0 .... � ., ... ,� � 3teven C. Gish �,TY �, m Attorney at Law everett �� 2531 Broadway Everett, WA 982D1 �,Tr „�� . ,......� --� � [V[P[TT. W��MIMOTON N = Re: Vila Fleck - 6516 Elliott Way '•'°' m Ciy ANan�y � � - Dear Stev.: "'� -� c O 3 m The City is in receipt of the Notice of Appeal of the Fire Marshal's Order dated the = � 8th day of December, 1982, as well as the Notice of Appeal of the Chief Building '^ Inspector's Determination dated December 9, 1982. The Notices are dated the 27th � _ da�y of December, 1882, and were filed with the City on that same date. � _ ,� .. < `" Aceording to the Fi�•e Marshel's Order, any appenl taken therefrom wes to be done �, in accordance with City ot Everett Ordinance No. 724-80 which hes Ceen codiYted � a into EMC 16.04.220. Aecording to Section 4 thereof, any appeal of the Fire � m Marahel's Order must be filed no later than five days after service ot the Order. ,_ „ Aceording to our records, ViLi Fleck received the Order on the llth day ot o "' December, 1982. The Notice of Appeal wes not filed until December 27th end, � m therefore, not timely filed with the City. However, the Notice of Appeal of the 3 ,`^„ Chie[ Building Inspecto� wes timely filed. _ �, -�r • m Inapite of the above-stated deficiency, the City Attorney's Of[ice is willing to p waive the irregula�Ity and allow Ms. Pleck to proceed with her appeel. I should ,� intorm you, however, that this da:s not preelude the Boarc of Appeals trom n dlsmiseing the action based upon their ovm motion. Z -i x The p�imary besis for waivtng ttie irregWxrity is due to the Zoning Code revisions ,,, whieh are proceeding through the Planning Commission which seem to provide her = operation with e breath of life. As proposed, the revision would ellow 4 (maybe 6) � individuaJs and perhaps more through the conditional use process. While the �; numbers are less than tAs. Fleck i� presently accommodating, it would at leest be e "' mlddle ground and possibly gtve her en opportunity to continue her operations I�ut probably on a smaller senle. Of course, this all presupposes that any continued use oP the structure would require full Pire Code and �uilding Code compliance. Therefore, we feel that it is appropriate that your client be given nn opportunity to express her plans for code compllence with the Board of Appeals. Aecording to EMC 16.04.220(7), the Donrd of Appeals shall set a hearing within seven dnys of the date of appeal. Because of the jurisdictional issue previo�ly discussed, we have elready overrun the seven day time lim(t. I propose that the seven day time period be waived by both parties nnd a hearing date be selected which is mutuelly agreeable to all parties. In the meanlime, (since two distinet