4634 COLLEGE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Blue Bay Inc. Appeal Page -5- 13. The Appellant submitted that if the City interprets lots 11 and 12 as merging with lots 9 and 10, it also must consider lot 24 as part of the merger . Lot 24 was part , of a probate in which the five lots were set aside in lieu of homestead . According to the Appellant, the ;, inclusion of lot 24 as part of the parcel exemplifies why a merger is not allowed in this particular situation. (Allendoerfer testimony) 14. The City submitted lhat although the Everett Municipal Code does not contain a definition of conveyance of record, the definition in Black's Law Dictionary should be given consideration . As set forth in Hlack 's, conveyance is "a transfer of legal title to land" . The City claimed that the conveyances prior to December 1, 1956 , were for larger parcels of land and not for separate lots. The City further submitted that the Planning Department has consistently applied the merger � principle in reviewing other land use applications. . (Anderson testimony) 15. The City agreed lots 11 and 12 are separate platted lots, but, maintained that they constitute only a portion of the property ronveyed by the conveyances of record. Thus, the City �ontends that they are not separate lots but part of one parcel of land . (staff report) 16 . The City submitted that the existence or non-existence of a merger clause within the Everett 2oning Code is not the issue of this case. What is critical , according to the City, is that the lots involved, lots 11 and 12, are part of the conveyance of record and do not have non-conforming status . (Exhibit 16) 17 . The City submitted that the denial of a legal non-conforming status of a lot and the denial of a building permit are reasonable exercises of the City' s authority over health, safety and welfare . Because of the lack of proper open spaces and the small lot, the City claimed to be exercising its authority. (Anderson testimony) 18. The City and the Applicant both address the issue of taking of the Appellant' s property by the City of Everett. The Everett Hearing Examiner has no jurisdictional authority to make any delermination on lhe eminent domain powers of the City of Everett. (administralive finding)