3330 WETMORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Kenreth Mayer Appeal Appeal 7-90 Page -2- rotice. The new Zoning Code of the City of Evetett involved all properties within the City and did not require specific indivi�al notice. Notice was given pursuant to the State of Washington statutes and the City of Everett's codes. in addition to the required notice, the proposed zoning code d�ange was advertised in local papers; public notices were given; and public meetings were held. Rhe City clearly provided the public with the necessaty mtioe to advise the caimunity and the property owners in the community of the zoning oode diange. 1he Appellant's argumait for inadequate notice fails. 2, in Section 2 the Appellant irdicated that his property was, in fact, a non-conforming use because it was in the pcocess of being put to use as a professional office buildirg. The fact remains that while the property was being develoued, it was not used for a cortmercial use or :n office use. Although it was being converted, it had not functior�ed witi the new office use. Thus, the mn-conforming use status does not appl} to the Appellant for his property. 3. Section 4 addresses the harshness of the "no-vesting provision" whid� is a request based on equity. While it is reoognized that the vesting dces create a hardship on the Appellant, it is noted that the Appellant's property is not treated diffecently than other pcoperties in the oamnmity. 4. 1he one item that still must be addressed in the Appellant's request for reoonside:ation is Section 3. The Appellant raises the issue as to whether a vested right is applicable only to the use of the propecty as it was being us2d foc at the time of the zoning code diange or if the vested right doctrine applies to all the uses that could have been used for that property. I am requesting a Menorandam of Authority fran the City Attorney on this issue. I am also requesting that the Appellant provide me sane legal authority to support his arg�anent. It�e legal menorandum should be submitted to my offioe by October 19, 1990. In summary, the Appellant's request for reconsideration based on Sections 1, 2, and 4 are denied. No determination is made on the request for rewnsideration based on Section 3. Upon ceceipt of the requested information from the City Attorney and the Appellant I will make a ruling. Done ard dated this 5th day of October, 1990. . /i1.1,�,c+,a.�P� _ J S M. Dt sco Hearing Examiner