2322 CEDAR ST 2021-11-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

• EMC 16.005.010;IPMC 108.1.4 Unlawful Structure as adopted by EMC 16.005.010;and International Residential Code(IRC)R105.1 Permit Required as adopted by EMC 16.005.010. Copies of the violation citation were mailed via first class and certified mail to the Respondents' last known address,which Officer Cunningham obtained from Snohomish County Assessor's record. A copy of the violation citation was posted on the subject property on November 16,2017. Each method of service used is independently sufficient to provide notice pursuant to EMC 1.20.010.C.1. (Exhibit#3, Violation Citation, dated November 15, 2017 with mail receipts) (Exhibit#4, Declaration of Service, dated November 16, 2017 with photo) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) 6. While posting the citation on the subject property on November 16,2017,Officer Inspection Photos, dated November 16, 2017, 2017) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) 7. On January 9,2018,Officer Cunningham reinspected the subject property and observed and photographed that the structure remained in the same condition as observed on November 16,2017 and the stop work order remained posted in public view. The Respondents had not applied for required City permits. (Exhibit#1 a, Inspection Photo, dated January 9, 2018) (Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) 8. City of Everett Building Division Chief Inspector Ted de Budden,testified at the hearing that during an inspection of the subject property on October 17,2017,he observed exterior construction and interior alteration being conducted. Construction activity also included alterations to the electrical system. A posted stop work directed the owners to obtain required permits for construction work being performed. (Testimony of Inspector de Budden) • 9. At the hearing,Peter Rudolph,attorney for Respondent MacMillan,questioned Respondent MacMillan who testified that the main structure on the subject property was built in 1901 and the addition constructed in 1930. Mr.MacMillan stated that Respondent Caudle,his father,had purchased the property approximately one year ago. Mr.MacMillan also stated that he had begun demolition of dry rot to wallboard,removal of framing due to water damage,and some electrical work. He plans on completing alterations to further electrical, plumbing,and mechanical systems and replacement of windows,doors,and exterior surfaces on the residential structure on the subject property. Respondent MacMillan hopes to submit an application for non-conforming set back certification after his return from vacation. (Testimony of Gary MacMillan) (Argument of Peter Rudolph) 10. Respondent MacMillan testified at the hearing that if he could not use the property the way he intended,then the structure would remain as it is today. His goal is to bring the subject property into compliance with City ordinance. City staff informed Respondent that he may be able to return the structure to its original-alteration status through permits. Code Enforcement staff offered to extend the compliance period by 90 days to allow time for non- conforming certification and to determine what uses may legally occupy the structure. (Testimony of Gary MacMillan)(Testimony of Code Enforcement Officer Cunningham) 3 � ta