Resolution 3311 - Laserfiche WebLink

13 Thomas Hoffman Appeal Appeal 9-89 Page -3- FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. The Appellant owns the subject property, a lot immediately north of a residence at 2324 Walnut Street, Everett, Washington. The lot, a 3,000 square foot parcel of land, is located in an R-2, Single Family High Density Residential Zone. 2. The minimum lot size for R-2 zoned property in the City of Everett, Washington, is 5,000 square feet, and, thus, the subject property is a substandard lot. In order for it to be developed, the City must certify it as buildable for a single family dwelling. 3. The Everett Planning Department denied the certification of the lot as a buildable lot. According to the City, based on the provisions of the Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 19.56.110, the lot has merged with the adjoining lot. 4. EMC 19.56.110.B, Substandard Lots, states: If two or more substandard lots or a combination of lots or substandard lots and portion(s) of lots or substandard lots are contiguous and were acquired by common conveyance prior to the above dates, (December 1, 1956) and if all or part of the lots do not meet the requirements established for minimum lot area and width, the lands involved shall be merged and considered to be a single undivided parcel. No portion of said parcel shall be used, altered, or sold in a manner which diminishes compliance with lot area and width requirements, nor shall any division of any such parcel be made which creates a lot with a width or area below the requirements permitted by the City's Zoning Code. 5. The City submitted a deed recorded under Snohomish County Number 1173641 which purports to merge the subject property with the adjoining property. The deed was recorded on December 22, 1955. The City contended that this deed effectively merged the two properties into one parcel. 6. The lot was acquired by a common conveyance in 1955 prior to December 1, 1956. A copy of the common conveyance deed is attached hereto and by this reference is hereby incorporated as part of these findings. 7. The Appellant submitted that in 1971 he bought his home at 2324 Walnut Street and the subject property. He contended that when he bought his home, he was only buying the one lot and that the lot contained on the subject property was created in 1943. 8. The Appellant contended that he has considered his home and the subject property as separate lots. This was supported by various tax assessments for each lot which have been received over the years. 9. The Appellant submitted that in 1985 he was told by the tax assessor of 8` Snohomish County that he, in fact, did have an additional buildable lot next to his property.