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

8. The structure on-site does not satisfy the setbacks of 20 feet from the easterr and western property lines. The City, however, made no final determination on ihis issue because it determined that the building does not qualify as non- conforming. (exhibit 1) 9. Over the past 60 years the City has taken no specific action against the property owners of the residences on-site. Further, since 1982 when the parcel was segregated into two tax lots, the City has taken no enforcement action on substandard lots for either of the two lots. (exhibit 1) 10. The two segregated tax lots on-site are owned by two separate and different individuals. (exh.i�it 1, FauvertestimonyJ Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authorify is set forth in EMC 15.16.100. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Ffcwring Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLUSIONS The Appellants are the owners of a parcel of land located at 5102 — 33`d Avenue West, Everett, Washington. The subject property, zoned R-S, Residential Suburban, is developed wiih a single-family residence. (finding 1) 2. The subjeck property was tax segregated on March 31,1982. The tax segregation was done by Snohomish Couniy and �vithout reference to zoning codes of the City of Everett. At the time thE entirQ lot was tax segregated it _..- included the two existing residences. The Appellants seek approval irorn the City of Everett of a non-conforming lot certification of the property at 5102 — 33`a Avenue West, Everett, Washington. (�nding 3) 3. The Appellant's property was part of a tax lot that was created in March 1982. The tax lot that was created resulted in two separate tax parcels, both substandard for the R-S zone in which the property is located. The Appellants sought approval of the non-certification status of their lot, but the City denied it. This apE�eal followed. (�ndings 3& 5) 4. For the past 60 years the Appellants and their predecessors have had a residence on the portion of the property that is a tax lot. They have developed the property in question and have incurred substantial expenses acting on the reliance that the property was a separate buildable lot. The City has not enforced any Zoning Code standards against the tax lot. (�ndings 8& 9j For the past 22 years since the tax segregation of the entire parcel, the sub;ect lot has not complied with the zoning regulations and standards of the R-S zone. 3