10708 HOLLY DR 2018-05-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . A code enforcement violation citation was issued to the Appellant on the subject property on November 4, 2010. The Violation Citation required either the non- conforming use certification of an accessory dwelling unit located in a detached garage or the abatement of the violation (removal of the accessory dwelling unit) by December 31, 2010. (exhibit 2, staff report; Tygeson Testimony) 2. The Appellant submitted an application for non-conforming use on December 2, 2010. The City of Everett Planning Director issued a decision denying the application on January 4, 2011, on the basis that no evidence was found that the use was legally established. (exhibit 2, staff report; exhibit 8) 3. The City of Everett Violations Examiner heard an appeal of the Violation Citation on January 13, 2011 . An Order was issued that same date requiring deconstruction of the accessory dwelling unit. (exhibit 2, sfaff report; exhibit 9) 4. On January18, 2011, the instant appeal was timely filed, asking that the Planning Director's decision denying the non-conforming use be reversed. In the appeal letter, the Appellant argued, via his friend/representative, that records exist at Snohomish County that would prove the accessory dwelling unit was legally established prior to the subject property's annexation by the City of Everett. In the alternative, the Appellant argued that the use should be "grandfathered" due to its lengthy history. (exhibit 1) 5. According to records obtained by City of Everett Planning Staff, the detached ara e (that contains the accessory dwelling unit in question) was permitted in 1982 by Snohomish County. The approved building was a one-story structure with a foot print of 994 square feet, measuring 28 by 35.5, for use as a garage and storage structure. (exhibit 2, staff report; exhibrt 3.1) 6. In 1991 , the Snohomish County Development Department Code Enforcement Division investigated a complaint regarding: a commercial business being operated out of the garage; an allegation that part of the garage had been converted to a dwelling; and the placement of a construction shack at the rear of the garage. (exhibit 3.2) Correspondence from a Code Enforcement Officer, dated December 30, 1991, notified the then-owner that operation of a business and use of the structure as a dwellinq unit (among other issues) constituted violations of applicable zoning code. The correspondence informed the then- owner that the violations would result in a Notice and Order which would lead to financial penalties unless the violations were rectified. (exhibit 3.3, emphasis added) 7. Follow up communications and site inspection verified that the business was removed from the property and that no one was living in the garage. (exhibit 3.4) 3 �