Laserfiche WebLink
A Settlement Agreement, dated March 4, 1993, resolved the December 30, 1991 <br /> notice of violation. (exhibit 3.5) <br /> 8. In 1992, a permit application was submitted with a site plan for an addition and <br /> remodel to the on-site residence, adding 416 square feet to the ground floor level <br /> of the house. The site plan identified the detached structure as an existing <br /> garage. (exhibit 3.6) <br /> 9. The subject property had an R-7200 zoning designation while it was included <br /> within Snohomish County's jurisdiction. The R-7200 zone allowed detached <br /> accessory dwelling units. An approved permit would have been required to <br /> convert an existing garage into a legal dwelling unit. (exhibit 2; exhibit 4; Tygeson <br /> Testimony) <br /> 10. Snohomish County records for the subject property show no further permits <br /> relating to the detached 994 square foot garage after the 1982 building permit. <br /> (exhibit 2; exhibit 5; Tygeson Testimony) <br /> 11 . The subject property was annexed into the City of Everett in 2000. Since that <br /> time, it has had an R-2, Single Family Detached Medium Density zoning <br /> designation. (exhrbit 2) <br /> 12. At hearing, Appellant witness John Kenney argued that the accessory dwelling <br /> unit has existed since approximately ten years prior to annexation. He testified <br /> that he was involved in the sale of the property from its previous owner, a <br /> personal acquaintance of his, to Mr. Webster, the Appellant, and that the <br /> previous owner sold the property expressly including an existing accessory <br /> dwelling unit in the garage. Mr. Kenney argued that the accessory unit causes <br /> no harm, has been there for twenty years, and should be "grandfathered". Mr. <br /> Kenney argued that there are other code violations in the immediate <br /> neighborhood and that Mr. Webster is being unfairly singled out to bring his <br /> property into compliance. (Kenney Testimony) Mr. Webster testified that he <br /> needs the accessory dwelling unit for a live-in relative caretaker. (Webster <br /> Testimon y) <br /> 13. The Appellant was unable to provide evidence that Snohomish County had ever <br /> legally permitted the accessory dwelling unit, although Mr. Kenney asserted there <br /> are additional documents in the County files that could be relevant. (Kenney <br /> Testimony) <br /> 4 ) <br />