4712 COLLEGE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

, � The approved plans inciuded the Building Plot Plan. On the Building Plot Plan the duplex was depicted and was called out as a "duplex". Clearty, th� City at the time of issuance of the ,3uilding Permit knew what was being proposed for the subject property. (exhibft 7) 3. At that time of issuance of the Building Permit for the duplex, the �roperty was zoned by the City of Everett as R-1, Single-Family Residential. At that time, duplexes were not a permitted use in the R-9, Single-Family Residential zone. (exhibit 1) Thus, with its approval by the City in 1963, the duplex became non-conforming. (exhibit 4) 4. During the oeriod from 1963 through the present, the subject property h2s been used as a duplex. There has been no abandonment of the use, and it has been continuous for the past 36 years. Ths structure on � the subject property remains a duplex. (Quast testimony) 5. Although the approved 1963 Building Permit authoriz�.i ttie duplex, the Planning Director's denial of the Certification of Non-C��niormity was that the non-conforming use was not a "legally establisF:sd use" which met the applicable Zoning Code requirements in 1963. (exhibits 1 B 8) Jurisdiction: The Hearing �xaminer of the City of Everett has jurisdictiona� authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set foRh in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above findings, the Hearing Examiner enters the following conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Appellant is the owner at the property at 4710/4712 College Avenue, Everett, Washington. He requested a Certification of Non-Conformity for the property in order for the existing duplex structure on the site to be declared a legal non-conforming use a�le to be rebuilt in the event of fire or other casualry. On March 4, 1999, the City issued an interpre�ation stating that the duplex did not satisfy the specific Zoning Code definition of"non-conforming use" for the purpose of c��rtification and denied the request. The Appellant appealed. (finding 1) 2. The dupiex on the subject property is a legally established structure and building. Although the duplex was not a permitted use in the R-1 zone in effect February '11, 1963, the applicant for the Building Permit clearly identified his inttnt to develop a duplex. On the Building Permit and also on the Plot Map, the applicanYs intent was stated to be a development of a duplex. The "permission" on the Building Permit indicated that the 3