1717 BAKER AVE B 2016-01-01 MF Import

David Gaudalupe Appeal 4-90 Page -4- 3. The property may have been a non-conforming use until the owaerahip of the property by Joyce and Albert Radke, however, the non-conforming use and etstue of the property for two dvelliag units on one lot termiauted in July, 1978, because [he non-conforming uae ceased for a period of more than one year. 4. Thp non-conformina use cannot be re-eatablished after it hae been diacontinued. 5. The subject property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue, Everett, ie not a non-confoLmin{e use. DECISION Based upon tlte preceding findings of facta and conclusions, the teatimony and evidence aubmitted at the public hearing, and upon the impreseioae of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Ever�ett upon a eite view, it !s hereby ordered that the requested certification of the property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue, F.verett, is not certified as a non-confocmiug use. The property is not a non-conforming uae. It may have been a non-conforming uee until July of 1978. At that time, the non-conforming uae of the property had been discontinued for one year und aas not restored and wae coneidered to have lapsed. From evidence eu�itted at the public hearing, it ie apparent that during Che ownerehip of the propertq by Radke, the rental unit at 1717-1/2 Baker wae nat ueed ae a residential unit but wae used ae etorage. Thus, [he use is coneidered to have terminated for at least one year and, thus, loet ite non-confocming status. Accordingly, the property was then required to conform to the R-2 standarda, including the deneity atandard. R-2 density atandarda require that only one residence per lot be located on each lot. Thus, the property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue cannot continue to exiat ue a rental or reaideatial unit. The residence at 1717 Baker is used £or reeidential purposes and ie considered the eole residence on that lot. The Appellant presented testimony and evidence indicating that the tax recorde of Snohomish County and the water recorde of the City of Everett treat the proper[;� as residential use. The taz asseaemente of the Snohomieh Co��nty are not applicable in thia caee. Any appeal of that aseesament or deaignation of the property is within the �uriediction of Snohanieh County and not the �uriadiction of [he Nearing Examiner of the City of Everett. Correction of thia mistake ahould be brought to the at[ention of the Snohomieh County Aeaeeaor's Office. With regard to the water, the City of Everett may be in error in a1loWing water to be serviced to the sub�ect property. However, the allowance cf [he water meter at the property does not condone the violation of the density standards of the Ci[y of Everett.