1717 BAKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

David Gaudalupe Appeal 4-90 Page -4- 3. The property oay have heen a non-conformiag use until the ownership of I the property by Joyce aad Albert Ra?ke, hovever, [he non-conforming use and atatua af the property for two dwelling units on one lot terminated in July, 1978, because the non-confotming uae ceased for a period of more than one yenr. 4. 'fhe non-conforming use cannot be re-established after it has been diacontinued. 5. The sub�ect property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue, Everett, is not a non-canfocming use. DECISION dased upon the preceding findings of facta and conclusione, the teetimony and evidence submltted at the public hearing, and upon the Smpressions of the Hearing Ezaminer of the City of Everett upon a s'_te viecr, it is here6y ordered that the requeated certiflcatiou of the property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue, Everett, is not certified as a non-conforming use. The property ia not a non-conforming uae. Zt may hav� been a non-conformiug uae until July of 1978. At t:hat time, the non-conEoxming uee of the property had been discontinued for ona year and wae not restored and wae coneidered to have lapsed. From evidecce submitted at the public hearing, '.[ ia apparent that during the oxnerahip of the property by Radke, the rental uni[ at 1717-1/2 Baker wae not used ae a realdential uoit but wae used ae storage. Thus, the use is conaidered. to have terminated for at least one year and, thue, loet ita non-confocming etatus. Accordingly, [he property craa then reqnired tu conform to the R-2 standaxda, including the density standard. R-2 denaity atandarde requir.e that only one reaidence per lot be located on each lot. Thus, the property at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue canaot continue to exiat ae a rental or residrzatial unit. The residence at 1717 Haker is uaed for resldential purposes and is considered the aole residence on that lot. The Appellant presented test:imony and evidence indicating that the tax records of Snohomiah County and thee water recorda of the City of Everett treat the property as rr.sidential use. The taa assesaments of the Snohomieh County are not applicai,:e in this case. dny appeal of that aeaesement or designatian of the property ia within th.e juriadiction of Snohomiah County �orrectiontof juriadiction of the Hearing, Examiner of the City of Everett. this miatake should be brought to the attention of the Saohomiah County I Asaesaor's Office. With regard to the water, the City of Everett may he in I error in allowing water to be serviced to the subject prop�rty. However, the allowance of the crater mete:^ a[ the property daes not condone the violatlon of the density s�andards of the City of Everett.