2830 CEDAR ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

Musolf Appeal Page -5- 3. The zoning designation of the public property at the time of the tax segregation was C-1 which had a lot requirement of 5,000 square feet and a width requirement o of each lot of 50 feet. The subject pcoperty did not � satisfy either of theae requirements. � 4. The aubject property does not qualify for a � � non-conforming use because it was not in existence prioc � � to the enactment of the zoning ordinance. N = m 5. The City of Everett hae issued different permits for the m o I� land on the subject property and building conatructed on �c � the aubject pcoperty. At the time of issuance oE theae � � permita the City never enforced compliance of the � � property with the zoning atandards of the City of m Evecett. � _ a � rs 6. The Appellants have acted in reliance of the City's � N ', permita and has incucred substantial expenses acting in ` � , said reliance. The Appellants have a veated right to � A the uae of the property that is based on the City's � � grant of permits and its failuce to enforce zoning code m N � standards. o � m 7. Twenty six years have elapsed from the tax segregation � � of the subject property and the creation of the subject � � lot that does not comply with zoning regulationa. The • a City has not enforced the zoning atandar9 violation of p the property, � x a 8. The City has had knowledge and a reesonable opportunity � to discover the facta and circumstances of the inferior = lot created by the tax segregation of 1960. � z DECISION � c� m Haged upon the preceding Findings oE Facte and Conclusions, the teatimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing and upon the impressiona of the Everett Hearing Examiner, it is hereby ordered that the appeal of Howard and Sharon Musolf of a Everett Planning Department's administrative decision denying a lot certification. for a lot at 2830 Cedar Street, is granted and the lot hereby is given a legal lot certification. The legal lot certification is gcanted aubject to the condition that the atructure on-site may not be expanded in any manner whatsoever and may only be replaced at its current density. Because the aegregated lot was not identified prior to the adoption of the ordinance creating zoning of properties C-4, a non-conforming uae cannot be eatablished. However , with the condition of the legal lot certification, the Appellanta preaerve their property and may rebuild it to its curcent density if accidentally destroyed.