5102 33RD AVE W 2016-01-01 MF Import

After due consideration of the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellants and testimony and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Everett Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT The Appellants are the owners of a parcel of land located at 5102 — 33`d Avenue West, Everett, Washington. The subject prooerty, zoned R-S, Residential Suburban, is developed with a sin5le-family residence. (exhibit 1, Fauver tesfimony) 2. In an R-S zone, the minimum sized permitted lot is 9,000 square feet. The parcel on which the AppellanYs property is loca!ed is 7,560 square feet. It is below the lot area standard. (exhibit 1) The subject property was tax segregated on March 31,1982. The tax segregation was done by Snohomish County and uvithout reference to zoning codes of the City of Everett. Apparently, at the time !he entire lot was tax segreyated it included the two existing residences. (exhibit 1, Chapm.an testimony) Both residences on the parcel were constructed in approximately 1942. They arE• long standing, well maintained structures th<it have been occupied for over 60 years. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) 5. In 1993 the owners of the subject property requested confirmation of lot status for the property at 5102 — 33`' Avenue West, Everett, Washin�ton. The lot status, which would have created the non-conformity of the subject lot, was denied by the City of Everett. No appeals of that decision were filed. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) The Appellants have filed the most recent requesi for a non- conforming lot certification. The City denied the request, and this appeal foilowed. (exhibifs 2, 3 & 4) 6. For the City of Everett to recognize tax parcels and legal non-conforming lots, the City is required to determine if a conveyance deed was recorded prior to December 1, 1961. Because there are no historical conveyances of the property prior to 1961 that would create the additional lot, the City determined that the subject property fails to meet the required dates for the conveyance. (exhibit 4) 7. Daniel 0'Brien, the son of Vllilliam 0'Brien, the original owner of the tax parcel, applied for a lot certificatior� of the subject property in March 1995. No formal decision was ever issued r,y the City on that applicatior�. Mr. 0'Brien was informed that the lot could not be certified as a legal lot because of the date it had been tax segregated. After the interaction between the City and Mr. O'Brien, Mr. O'Brien sold the property to the Appellants. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) 2