1502 PINE ST 2017-09-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

• Response: A field inspection by the Building Official has verified that this work is complete. • 5. The detached accessory building is not to be occupied for residential purposes unless permitted by an amendment to the zoning code and required permits for the conversion to a dwelling unit are secured by the owner. o Response: The accessory building appears to be unoccupied at this time. Beds and other furniture previously observed have been removed, the cooking range from the kitchen area has been removed, and the wiring for the range has been decommissioned. 6. Owner shall obtain all permits required by the Building Division within 90 days of the date of this agreement. o Response: Owner of the property has acquired the necessary permits, including an electrical permit and a combination permit for partial building demolitions, plumbing, and mechanical. Owner has also provided a report from "Banner Inspections" as requested by the Building Official. (Exhibit 12a and Exhibit 15) 14. Pursuant to an Order of the Hearing Examiner, Mr.Claughton was given opportunity to submit written comments to the Brook's report. Mr. Claughton was allowed to submit a response by, December 23, 2010. (Exhibit#17, Order Allowing Response dated December 16, 2010). None was submitted. 15. Subsequent to the open record hearing in this matter Mr. Claughton submitted an email that has been included in the record. The first argument raised in the email is that the City of Everett has not defined what the definition of a dwelling unit would be if an ordinance were passed allowing detached accessory dwelling units on the property. This argument is moot because it seeks a response of a non-allowed situation. It also seeks an answer for a situation that did not exist at the time of the code violation. The second argument submitted is that the Respondent seeks a "compromise" on the height of the fence on site. Although the Respondent argued that the fence did exceed the height standard for fences in Everett, he submitted that relief should be granted because the fence has been on the property for over 18 years and that the City has not pursued the matter during that time. (Exhibit # 16, Email from Mr. Claughton dated December 3, 2010) 16. Mr. Claughton submitted a site plan to the City which was used to determine lot coverage calculations. The dimensions were verified on the City's aerial photographs. The City concluded that the lot coverage originally calculated with all building appurtenances in place amounted to 47% of the lot (3346 sq. ft 7200 sq. ft. = 0.47 = 47%). The required lot coverage for the R-2 zoned property is 40%