My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3330 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
>
Address Records
>
WETMORE AVE
>
3330
>
3330 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/3/2017 5:09:31 PM
Creation date
3/9/2017 1:52:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
WETMORE AVE
Street Number
3330
Imported From Microfiche
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
� �� l'!lf11� � � �� Kr� <br />Q+ l�t�'ID F. [�l1Yffit <br />...e E_er..r2.. <br />an or <br />everett <br />OiFICE OF TME <br />L�ND USE �M VIOL�ilONS <br />NEAR�NG E%�MiNER <br />1�pPW. #7-90 <br />0[�Ht <br />On August 31, 1990, the Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett upheld the <br />Evetett Planning Department's administrative denial of a IIse Permit <br />application foc 'vnprovenents to the pcopecty at 3330 Wet�nore Avenue, Everett, <br />Washington. The basis of the affirmation of the City's decision was that the <br />Use Petmit is not a permitted use foc the R-4 zored property and that the <br />Appellant did not have a vested right under the previous Zoning Code of the <br />City of Evetett to improve the property and, further, to use it as an offioe. <br />On 9eptember 17, 1990, pursuant to the Rules of the Hearing Examiner of the <br />City of Everett, the ApQellant filed a request for reconsideration. 'it�e <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 />1. In Section 1 the Appellant requested reconsideration based on the <br />acgument that inadegiate notice of adoption of the new 2oning Code had <br />been given to the Appellant. The Appellant suppotted his argument with <br />a list of cases which irdicated that a pcoperty aaner must be acmrded <br />due process of law when a property interest is adversely affected. The <br />Appellant eontended that by the City's passage of the new zoning Code, <br />whicf� h*as more restrictive for the use of his pcopecty, that his <br />pcoperty interest was adversely affected. <br />�ib support his contention the Appellant cited cases. However, the cases <br />do not address the issue of notice at land use heazings but address <br />rotiee of othec types of legal proceedings. The main case of support is <br />7ulsa Collection Services v. Pope, 485 US 478 (1988). This case <br />invo ves, as the Appel ant statea, notice to creditors for the probate <br />of an estate. in addition, the Appellant cited the case of Brower v. <br />Wells, 103 Wn.2d 96 whid� involves the foceclosuce of property. Both of <br />ese cases involve property interests of creditors who cequired special <br />Telephona: �206) 259�0772 faz:1206) 259�8742 <br />Mailing AdOress: City Ha11.3002 Wetmore Avewe. EveretL Washingron 98207 <br />Locetion: 3rtl Floor, 2731 Wetmore Avenue. EveretL Washington 98207 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.