4634 COLLEGE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

Blue Bay Inc. Appeal Page -8- To support its position, the City submit�ed that the key wocds of the exception ordinance are "conveyance of record" . According to the City, lots 11 and 12 were part of a larger parcel of land (lots 9, 10, 11 and 12) that was pact of the conveyance of record as oL• December 1, 1956 . Because none of these lo�s was separated in a conveyance prior to December 1 , 1956 , the City interprets them as one lot. Lots 9 and 10 have :a development but lots 11 and 12 do not and the City' s interpretation prohibits further separate developme�.t on them. The Appellant, on the other hand, argues that the City's position effectively establishes a "merger" rule for the City even lhough no legislative authority to do so exists. Merger is a legal principle in which numecous lots merge into one lot if they are not separately �istinguished in a conveyance. The • Appellant contends no autnority exists for me�gez in the City of Everett and as a ree�ult, lots 11 and 12 must be considered as separate from lots 9 and 10 . if viewed as such, these lots , although they fall short of R-2 standards, qualify as an • exception under EMC 19 .16.030. Both sides to this dispute agree that there is no clear authority for merger in the City of Everett. The Appellant contends that no authority of any sort exist, while the City claims that EMC 19.16 .030 is not draP�ed as precisely as it could be. But the City submits that in order to protect a reasonable use of substandard lots, cunsiderab;e weight must be given to the intent of the legislation and the Planning Department's interpretation of zoning principles. It is correct that the Plannin9 Department' s interp�etation and administration of `.he 2oning Code must be given great credence. However , �he Appellant must also be given the opportunity to act based on reasonable expectations. Burien Bark vs . King County 106 Wn.2d 268 . No specific authority has been shown to allow the City to treat lots 11 and 12 as being merged with lots 9 and 10 . These lots were merely conveyed with other lots but no merger occurred _ The City can only act to the extent of its authority and cannot bind property owners beyond that authority. Further , the Evecett Hearing Examiner is limited in hi=_ auChority to infer a specific intent of the City Council . The authorir.y of Hearing Examiners in the State of Washington is by ordinance and statute and does not include common law powers . The Washington Court of Appeals in Chausee vs . Snohomish County Council , 38 Wn .App. 630 s�ar.ed ;