3330 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

xenneth Mayer Appeal Appeal 7-90 Page -2- 2. 3. notice. The new Zoning Code of the City of Everett involved all propecties within che City and did not cequire specific irdividual notice. Notice was given pursuant to the State of k'sshington statutes and the City of Everett's codes. In addition to the required notice, the proposed zoning code change was advertised in local papers; public notices were given; and public meetings wece held. The City clearly pcovided the public with the necessary notice to advi�e the camiunity and the propecty oaners in the carmunity of the zoning code c3�ange. 'lhe Appellant's argument for inadequate notice fails. In Section 2 the Apc"�llant itrlicated that his property was, in fact, a non-conforming use because it was in the E�rocess of being put to use as a professional office building. The fact remains that while the prope�ty was being developed, it Mas not used for a camneccial use or an office use. Although it was being converted, it had not functioned with the new offiue use. Thus, the non-conforming use status dces not apply to the Appellant for his pcoperty. Section 4 addresses the harshness of the 'no-vesting provision" whid� is a request based on equity. While it is recognized that the vesting does create a hardship on the Appellant, it is noted that the Appellant's property is not tteated differently than other properties in the canmunity. S. The one item that still must be addressed in the Appellant's request for reconsideration is Section 3. The Appellant raises the issue as to whether a vested right is applicable only to the use of the property as it was being used for at the time of the zoning code c3�ange or if the vested right doctrine applies to all the uses that could have been used for that pcoperty. I am requesting a Menorandum of Authority fran the City Attorney on this issue. Y am also requesting that the Appellant provide me sane legal authority to support his argument. The legal menorandum should be submitted to my offioe by Octobe[ 19, 1990. In summary, the Appellant's request for reoonsideration based on Sections 1, 2, and 4 are denied. No determination is made on the request for reconsideration based on Section 3. Upon receipt of the Lequested information from the City Attorney and the Aopellant i will make a ruling. Done and dated this 5th day of O:tobe�, 1990. ��!� /j1.1fJ,�.a.� J s M. Driscol Hearing Examiner