4712 COLLEGE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

� � The aoproved plans included the Building Plot Plan. (�n the Bui�ding Plot Plan the d:iplex was dapicted and was called out as a "duplex". Clearly, the Ciry at tl�e time of issuance of the Building Permit knew what was being proposed for the subject property. (exhibit 7) 3. At that time of issuance of the Building Permit for the duplex, the property was zoned by thF City of Everett as R-1, Single-Family Residential. At that time, duplexes were not a permitted use in fhe R-1, 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 period from 1963 through the present, the subject property has been used as a duplex. ThPre has been no abandonment of the use, and it has been continuous for the past 36 years. The structure on the subject property remains a duplex. (Quast testimony) 5. Although tF�e approved 1963 Bu?Iding Permit authorized the dupiex, the Planning Director's denial of the Cert4fication of Non-Conformity was that the non-conforming use was not a "legally established use" whiah met the applicable Zoning Code requirements in 1963. (exhibits 1 & 8) Jurlsdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City o°Everett has iurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the ,iecisi� That authority is set forth in EMC 2.23.1�0. Based on ihe above findings, L:e Hearing Examiner enfers 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-Confortnity for the property in order for the existing duplex structure on the site to be declared a legal non-conforming use able to be rebuilt in the ev�nt of f 3 or other casualty. On March 4, 1999, the City issued an interpretation stating that the duplex did not satisfy the specific Zoning Code definition of"non-conforming use" for the purpose of certification and denied the request. The Appellant appealed. (finding 1) 2. The duplex on the subjsct 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 cleariy identified his intent to develop a duplex. On the Building Permit and also on the Plot Map, the applicanYs intent w,�s stated to be a development of a duplex. The "permission" on the Building Permit indicated that the 3 f