3605 22ND ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

4. The issued 1978 Building Permit had a description of tne property to be developed as being 7,500 square feet with front and rear setbacks of 20 feet and side setbacks of 5 and 16 feet. The plot plan for the 1978 Building Permit did depict the setbacks, but the existing single-family dweiling was not shown. However, as noted, the City granted the Building Permit. (exhibft 1, Palacios testimony) 5. The duplex was const►ucted 12 feet from the east property line, rath�r than the required 20 feet, as required by the Zoning Code. For the past 22 years the City of Everett has taken no action to correct this non- conforming use. (exhibit 1, Palacios testimony) The Appellant, wh� purchased the subject property in 1993, had nothing to do with the building of the duplex on-site. (Sedy testimony) The Appellant acted in good faith in pursuing the Non-conforming Use Certification. Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: CONCLIiSIi1NS The Appellant is the owner of a 10,890 square foot parcel that consists of lots 14-16, Block 456 in the Plat of Altamont Addition to Everett (subject propertyj. On-site is a single-family residence (2127 Hamson Avenue, Everett) that was constructed in 1910. There is also a dupiex structure on-site (3605 - 22nd Street SE, Everett) that was constructed in 1978. In 1998, the Appellant sought a Certification of a Non-conforming Use for the duplex. The Certification was denied by the City Planning Director on June 12, 1998, and the Certification was again denied on February 3, 2000. The Appellant appealed the denials. (finding 1) 2. The subject property has been historically developed with two structures. The most recent structure, the duplex, was buiit in 1978 with approval of the City. Although the building plot plan of the duplex did no4 depict the existing single-family residence, the City had constructive kraowledge that a single-family residence existed on-site since 1909. The City has waived its right to contest development of the duplex on-site. (findings 1, 2, 4, 5) 3