204 E MAGNOLIA AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

' ' Alfred Norby Appeal Page -4- It is recognized that the Appellant had difficulties in developing the pr.operty during the one-year period that the variance was , in effect. However, to post2one the development of the propert�� for 18 years and to attempt to utilize the variance that was granted in 1968 is not a proper ot iogical method cf land use control and zaning interpretation in the City of. Everett. Conditions of development have changed during this period and the control of land use within the City of Everett must also change. There Rust be a certain expiration date on all variances. Failure to implement the v�iriances must r�salt in their expiration. To do otherwise would be contrary to the purposes oi the Zoning Code which is to guide and regulate the future growth of Everett in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Done and dated this 27th day of August, 1986 . ��`%'�L'� �i�. %�L�. � James M. Driscoll The decision on this application has been made by the Hearing Examiner based on the authority granted in Ordinance 692-80 as amended. It is final unless the following procedure is followed: 1. An aggrieved party has filed a written request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner within ten (10) working days of the Hearing Examiner 's decision. It is the discretion of the Hearir�g Examiner to grant or deny reconsidetation. The final date for reconsideration is September 11, 19d6. 2. Within ten (10) wcrking days after the Hearing Examiner 's action on the reconsideration, the aggrieved party files a written appeal with the City Clerk' s office. If appealed properly, the matter will be submitted to the Everett City Council for further consideration. .