4228 S 3RD AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

Craig Van Sant Appeal 11-89 Page -3- It 7 CrT7 6. Mr. Countryman testified that in addition to the commercial activity �. H on -site, portions of the building were used for storage of "stuff" that �3 to belonged to the previous owner. H z 7. Mr. Countryman testified that he learned neon sign skills from the H previous owner. Apparently, for a tuition or apprentice fee, Mr. 0 Countryman was instructed in the art of neon signs. N H xz 8. Mr. Countryman submitted that the main office of Ace Neon was on Smith done tl7 OH Street in the City of Everett but much of the tube bending was at O O H the subject property. "Mg 0. n 9. Letters of evidence to support the commercial activity of the site were H C submitted by Jim Sheflo Sr., Pam Holler, Kalvin Holler, Jim Sheflo Jr., H Z and Chris Sheflo. try In H 10. The representative of the Applicant submitted that the commercial O y C r f+f activity is a pattern that has been established and can be traced back to 1972. z H En HOV 11. No evidence of Building Permits, Business Permits, taxation reports, or other evidence of commercial activity was submitted. The Applicant also failed to submit any business records of previous owners of the subject property indicating that the subject Froperty was used in conjunction with another business. CONCLUSIONS _ 1. The activity on the subject property in the past has been in conjunction with other business uses. However, there were no business records, taxation records, or any permits from the City of Everett with regard to -- ... the commercial activity of the subject property noted. 2. The burden of proof on the existence of a Non -Conforming Use is on the party asserting such use. This burden has not been met in this request. 3. The use must have lawfully existed. No evidence has been submitted to prove that the use was a legal commercial use. DECISION A complete review has been made of the Request for Reconsideration. The Applicant has failed to document the legal use of the subject property for commercial activity. An noted In the original Findings and decision of January 12, 1990, there is no specific proof that the activity on -site was a ' commercial activity that was authorized or licensed by the City of Everett. At no time has there been any proof that the site was being used for commercial activity other than :.he fact that it was used as a possible adjunct ' to another business. To change the use of the residential zoned property to a commercial zone at this time because of supplemental commercial activity that may have occurred on -site is not warranted. The limited activity does not warrant a Non -Conforming Use status and the activity cannot change the zoning use of the subject property.