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

3. The Statc of Washington Court of <ppea's affirmed the State of Washington Superior Court's reversal of the Hearing Examiner's decision in which the non- conforming use for the commercial activity on the subject property was denied. According to the Court of Appeals, the Hearing Examiner was in error in relying solely on business and tax records to deny the commercial permit and remanded the matter far further consi('eration of evidence. 4. At the remand hearing, tht City of Everett presented no testimony or evidence that proved that it was the intent of the Applicant or of his predecessors to abandon rye commercial activity that ex sled on -site since 1972 No evidence was presented to prove that until the time of the first hearing on the non -conforming use appeal there was any intent to abandon commercial activity at the site. 5. The City of Everett ptesented no testimony or evidence to indicate or to prove that the Applicant or his predecessors of the ownership of the property took any action or failed to take any action that would constitute abandonment. 6 The Applicant submitted testimony and evidence at the first public hearing supporting his contention that there had been no abandonment of the facility. Although no evidence was presented that business licenses and business taxes were paid from the productivity on -site, evidence was presented in the form of written communication indicating that the prior owner of the property had conducted a neoi lighting company on -site, and the commercial activity had been constant since 1972. 7. Testimcny was received at the first hearing from Don Fletcher who owns the pro ferty across the street from the subject pr party. He indicated that he was at his property approximately 24 hours a day becar. ;e of disabilities from an automobile accident and !hat he has observed both the noon lighting company and other neon signs being produced and transfered from the subject property. Fuiher, he testified that products were manufactured and delivered from the site, and commercial activity was occurring on -site. 8. The Appellant submitted utility records (electrical) which indicated that a commercial rate was being charged for the electricity provided on -site. He indicated from the electrical record it appears that the commercial rate was being charged for the commercial activity on the main floor. 9. A representative of the neighborhood (Joanne Wildman) submitted that neighbors had proof that the provious owner had intended to abandon the commercial activity. The basis of this contention was that the building in the 1970's was classified as illegal to occupy and that no permit was ever obtained on the property. The witness submitted that the previous owner was in disregard of building codes and that other City licenses were not secured. The witness submitted that with the lack of business records, business licenses, and the secession of business activity on -site, the property should be considered abandoned for non -conforming use purposos.