Laserfiche WebLink
1 :I" r a' �' il" ' 1 11 �' � <br />� . r i. �. . ;�. <br />o �Q�od[�D, <br />"` OCT - 5 1990 <br />_ .. .... <br />. GTY OF <br />EVERETT <br />Public Works Dept. <br />re �. �. . __. <br />cmor <br />everett <br />OFF�CE OF T��E <br />LPNO I15E 0�a vIOL�T10N5 <br />HEARING E%�MMER <br />ApPEAI, t7-90 <br />O�iDER <br />On August 31, 1990, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett upheld the <br />Everett Planning Departm�t's administrative denial of a Use Permit <br />application for improvenents to the property at 3330 Wetmore Avenue, Everett, <br />washington. The basis of the affirmation of the City's decision was that the <br />Use Peanit is not a petmitted use for the R-4 zored property arr3 that the <br />Appellant did not hav? a vested right under the previous Zoning Code of the <br />City of Everett to vnprove the property and, further, to use it as an offiee. <br />On 9eptember 17, 1990, pursuant to the Rules of the Hearing Examiner of the <br />City of Everett, the Appellant filed a request for reconsideration. The <br />Appellant's request for reconsideration as set forth in 9ections 1, 2, and 4 <br />are denied. The basis for these denials is as follows: <br />In Section 1 the Appellant requested reconsideration based on the <br />argument that inadeqsate notice of adoption of the new Zoning Co�e had <br />been given to the Appellant. The Appellant supported his argument with <br />a list of cases which indicated that a pcoperty v�rner must be ac�cded <br />due process of law when a property interest is adversely affected. The <br />Appellant mntended that by the City's passage of the new Zoning Code, <br />whict� was more restrictive for the use of his property, that his <br />pcoperty interest was adversely affected. <br />To support his contention the Appellant cited cases. However, the cases <br />dr� not addcess the issue of notice at land use hearings but add[ess <br />rptice of other tyFas of legal proceedings. The main case of support is <br />Zulsa Coll�tion Services v. Pope, 485 US 478 (1988). This case <br />involves, as the Appellant stated, notice to creditors for the probate <br />of an estate. in addition, the Appellant cited the case of Brower e. <br />Wells, 103 Wn.2d 96 whici� involves the foreclasure of property. Both of <br />t ese cases involve propecty interests of creditors who required special <br />Telephone:1206) 259�8772 Far:1206� 259�8742 <br />Ma�ling AdAress: City Ma11.3002 Wetmore Avenue. Eve�etL Washington 98201 <br />Location: 3rd Flooc 2731 Weinio�a A•.:nuc. Ecr.cn. Washing�on 98201 <br />