1131 E MARINE VIEW DR 2016-01-01 MF Import

reclaimed by the Carlson family and later purchased by the Appellant, there remained two residential dwelling units on-site, along with the grocery store. (Saunders testimony) Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authorify to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 15.16.100. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS 1. The Appellant is the owner of the subject property at 1131 East Marine View Drive, Everelt, Washington. It is a parcel of land that is developed with a structure. Since the construction of the structure (circa 1954) it has been used for minor commercial activity (grocery store) and residenlial purposes. (Cnding 1) 2. The Appellant submitied a requesl to the City of Everetl for a Planning Director's Determination of Non-Conforming Use lo allow the existing retail grocery store and the two residential units to remair on-site. After review of lhe records and information provided on July 7, 2005, the City of Everett Planning Director denied the Certification of Non-Conforming Use for the subject property. An appeal of the adminislrative decision was filed by the Appellant on July 13, 2005. (�nding 4) Non-conforming uses are vested property rights. They cannol be lost or voided easily. There is a high burden of proof lhat musl be met by the City before the Appellant loses what was a vested property right. (VanSant vs. Citv of Everett 69 Wn.App.641) 3. The Appellant has eslablished a vested right in the two residential units on property located at 1131 East PAarine View Drive. Based on the submittal of Ms. Joann Carison, it is established that the subject property has been used for commercial (grocery store use), as well as two residential uses (apartments) since 1954. Although lhe original building permit only permitted one residential unil, lhe two-unit structure has been consistent since 1954 and its use has not been interrupted. 4. Through the conveyances of the subject property from the Carlson family lo others and the reclaiming of the property by the Carlson family and the ultimate sale to the Appellanl, the two residential units on-site have been independent of each other and provided residential space (or separale parties. 5. The Appellant has met the burden of establishing all the elements of a non- conforming use. The sub;ect property has been used as resideniial purposes both before the zoning was established in 1956 and after. The Appellant has met the standard as required in Dickson vs. Pierce Countv 65 Wn.App. 614. 5