1717 BAKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

David P. Cuadalupe Appeal 4-90 Page -G- 3. The Ezeminer Pro Tem ie required to base hie decisiona upon adopted munlcipal lart and may not coaelder equitable defensea in �udgiag casea which axe before him. (Chaussee v. Snohomieh County, 38 Wra.App. 630, 638, Jv.ly, 1984) The poaeible ecun�ic impact of the ina[ant decieion upon any pereoa cannot legally he r.onel3ered. The 1717-1/2 Baker stzuczure either meets City code etandarde for non-conforming usee or 1t doee not. If it daes not, the Planning Department's decieion muet be eustained. y, ,wm teetimony of persone having £iret-hand knowledge of the facte of ,rhich they epeak ia the beet evidence upon s+hich to base an appeal decieion. In the inatant case, neither Cuadalupe nor Yaung have any pereooal knoxledge of the uue of the aubject property prior to their acqu1s1t1on ia 1989. Cuadalupe has presented no aworn testimony ¢or affidavite from any of Che prlor ownera regarding the uae of the structure at 1717-1/2 Baker. What hae been preaented regarding euch prior uee are unawarn xritten atate�ente and interpretatione of thoae etatemente. Thc only exception is the sworn teetimoay of Swan, a pereon xho hee •lived withiu one block of the aubject propezty for appr�:imately the last 40 yeaza. 5. Reeidentlal uea of 1717-1/2 Haker would have became non-conforming in 1956 With the enactment of the 1956 veraior. of the City's Zoning Code. (Tha City [eetified that there may have been zoning as early ae 1942 but that no reliable recorda thereof are available. The Ezaminer hae ignored the potentiality of zoning priur to 1956 ia deciding the inetnnt matter.) The reason reeidential u9e of 1717-1/2 Baker would have become non-conforming in 1956 is that the 1956 veraion of the City Zoning Code allowed only onn residentlal etructure on any given lot. (see exhibit 17) 6. Aeeuming arguendo that 1.71'.�-1/2 Baker wae in use ae a residence in 1956, ! ita conCinuance ae a non-conforming uae would thereafter have been eubject to the non-confarming uae regul.atione within the City's 2oning Code. Prom 1956 through 1980 the Zoning Code provided tt�at Aay uee or building which doea not conform co thie Ordinance may not be: (1) re-establisl�ed af[er diecontinuance for one year; .. . " (ezhibit 17) Thua, if residentlal use of the atructure at 1717-1/2 Baker were diecontinued for any period of trrelve consecutive months or more at any time between 1956 a¢d 1980, the non-conforming right would have been lost and could not have been legally re-eatablished. (Slmilar reetriatioae have applied eince 1980 but are not xelevant to the decieion reached herein.) 7. The beet available evidence in [he record leada to the conclueion tha[ aay non-conforming right for reeideatial occupancy of the atructure at 1717-1/2 Baker was loet as early as the early 1960's. The record ehowe that there are at leaet two periode of greater than �welve months betc+eea 1956 and 19A0 during which 1717-1/2 Bakec Was not used ae a residence: during a aeveral year period in the mid 1960's when the .Telvike uaed the etructure to build care and to store parta for cars; and during the several-year period [hat the Radkes owned the aubject property rrhen the etructure wae uaed for storage only.