Laserfiche WebLink
In his motion for reconsideration, Appellant Slatten, sets forth a lengthy dissertation of his <br />interpretation of the VanSant findings. The interpretation does not set forth new fads that <br />can be considered. It relies upon inferences and implications with regard to the commercial <br />non -conforming use and depends upon assumptions not necessarily in the record. <br />Many of the assumptions are based on the residential use of the property and how that use <br />applies to the con Lmercial use. As noted, the Court of Appeals did not overturn the Hearing <br />Examiner's denial of the multi -family residential non -conforming use. Thus, the January 10, <br />1994, Hearing Examiner decision affirmed that this residential use was not allowed. <br />However, to consider the multi -family residential non conforming use as a means of <br />inferring that there was an intent to abandon the commercial non -conforming use fails. The <br />city clearly has not established any intent to abandon the commercial non -conforming use. <br />All of the arguments of Mr. Slatten are subjective in that they refer to impressions that he <br />and his fellow appellants have with regard to the use of the property. The abandonment <br />test as set forth in the VanSant Court of Appeals case is very, very difficult at best. Mr. <br />Slatten and the city have not shown what the intent of Mr. VanSant is and thus have failed <br />to carry the burden of showing that the commercial non -conforming use has been <br />abandoned. <br />Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is denied based on the record developed and <br />the direction given to the Hearing Examiner by the Washington Court of Appeals. <br />It should also be noted that although two appellants, Mark Sullivan and Carol Lively, were <br />not initially sent a copy of the January 10, 1994, decision, they were sent copies of the <br />decision prior to any period for reconsideration. It is noted that neither Mr. Sullivan nor Ms. <br />Lively appeared at the remand hearing or requested a copy of the decision. No error was <br />made in failing to provide them with a copy of the decision and, if there was error, it was <br />mitigated because they have had an opportunity to seek review of the decision. <br />Done and dated this 14th day of February, 1994 <br />'q. �Qe. <br />s M. Driscoll <br />Hearing Examiner <br />