Laserfiche WebLink
- " . ,.h <br /> ,o •Lloyd Henning <br /> • �,i.' <br /> Faoy '� Frank H. sennett �// �_ <br /> j <br /> oA,� November 17, 1975 � <br /> ,,.�• <br /> sue�ccr ADVERTISING SIGN ON CITY SIDEWALK cirr oF EVERETT. EVEPETT. '.VASHINGTON � <br /> it is inconceivable to me that a request to place a sign on City <br /> proparty, in direct violation of a City Ordinance, can be pro- <br /> cessed through your office to the City Council. <br /> Even though your recommendation is to d iy the permit. I wonder <br /> why the applicant was not informed that his recourse is to request <br /> a change in the Sign Ordinance and not a "street use permit. " <br /> In my opinion placing this item on the Council agenda places the <br /> Council in an embarrassing position and also shows a reluctance <br /> of the City staff to carry out the duties assigned to them. <br /> This Department refused to sign the permit application and made a <br /> verbal request for an initialed copy of the attached memo so that <br /> we could take exception to the proceedings prior to scheduling on <br /> the Council agenda. Obviously our request was not honored as the <br /> next time we were made aware of it was by reading the November 19 <br /> Council agenda. <br /> This is '-.he third time, to my recollection, that this same thing ��� <br /> has happened. There is apparently a difference of opinion on what <br /> procedure takes precedent, the enforcing of an ordinance or the <br /> processing of an application. Si �ely this can.be worked out so <br /> we are not, in effect, olacing the Council in a position of, per- <br /> , haps inadvertantly, vielating one of their own ordinances. <br /> cc: George Eastman <br />