Laserfiche WebLink
Musolf Appeal <br /> Page -4- <br /> 9. Between 1960 and the purchase of the property by the <br /> Appellants in 1976, at least four permits were isaued <br /> forPwork on the sPubject pcoperty. In addition, a thia <br /> ins ection of s ace heaters occurred during o <br /> period. In 1982 a permit for four water heaters was <br /> isaued for the property. (Doughty testimony) rni <br />� 10. The Appellants have recently attempted to refinance the � � <br />' property. Upon ceceipt of appraisal it was determined <br />� that the lot is an illegal lot and the structure on the ;n m <br /> lot is a not a non-conforming use allowed by the Evecett <br /> 4 Zoning Code. As a result, the Appellanta cannot acquire m o <br /> refinancing or insurance on the site without a legal .-�c <br /> cert i f ica t ion of the lot and a designation on � i� <br /> Inon-conforming use. (Musolf teatimony) m � <br /> 11. According to the City when the lot segregation occurred c = <br /> in 1960, the aubject property did not meet the existing � � <br /> zoning atandarda, and, thus the lot may not be sold as a � v, <br /> separate parcel. (staff report) o " <br /> �1 p <br /> 12. Twenty aix years have elapsed from the tax segregation -� � <br />�� oE the subject property and the creation of a lot the8 0 � <br /> did not comply with zoning regulations. The City <br />� not acted upon the failure of the lot to satisfy zoning � N <br /> I standards. (Doughty teatimony) `^ <br /> 13. The Appellants ' claim that the City should be estopped � m <br /> from asserting that the lot ie not a legal certiEied lot � <br />� nor a non-conforming use because the City has iasued -+ <br />� permits for the building on the property and has taken = <br /> no action to abate the illegality of the lot. According <br /> to the Appellants , they have acted in celiance oi the = <br /> City'e actiona and have incurred substantial expense, �+ <br />� and, thus have a vested right to a legal lot status and zo <br /> a non-conforming use. (Haglund testimony) � <br /> m <br />� CONCLUSIONS <br />( 1. A Everett Planning Department's adminigtetitionaefori�a <br /> denying a lot certification and a p <br /> non-conforming use and building permit foc property <br /> located at 2830 Cedar Street, in the City of Everett, <br /> Washington, wae issued by the City of Everett' s Planning <br /> Department on April 22, 1986 . <br /> 2. The subject property was part of a lot created by a tax <br /> eegregation which was done prior to November 2 , 1975. <br /> According to the terma of Section 18.28.010 (EMC) , all <br /> lots created by tax segregations prior to that date muat <br /> meet the cequi�ements of the City Zoning Code existing <br /> at the time of segregation. <br />