Laserfiche WebLink
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> Jurisdiction <br /> Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner Pro Tem of the City of Everett has jurisdictional <br /> authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authorify is set forth in EMC <br /> 15.16.100. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner Pro Tem enters <br /> the following Conclusions: <br /> CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FINDINGS <br /> 1 . The Appellant submitted an application for non-conforming use on December 2, <br /> 2010. The City of Everett Planning Director denied the application on January 4, <br /> 2011 due to a lack of evidence the use had been legally established. On <br /> January 18, 2011, the instant appeal was timely filed, asking that the Planning <br /> Director's decision denying the non-conforming use be reversed. (findings 2 and <br /> 4) <br /> 2. The only Snohomish County records relating to a detached accessory dwelling <br /> unit on-site are those relating to the 1991 Notice of Violation, which determined <br /> the dwelling unit to be illegal. The illegal use of the existing accessory structure <br /> as a dwelling ceased for an unknown period of time between 1991 and 1993. <br /> (findings 6 and � <br /> 3. Neither Snohomish County nor the City of Everett has any record of the <br /> accessory dwelling unit ever having been approved. (findings 9, 10, and 13) <br /> 4. Accessory dwelling units are prohibited in detached accessory structures in the <br /> R-2 zone. (Everett Municipal Code (EMC) 19.39.020.D.2) Accessory buildings <br /> are not allowed to contain bedrooms, kitchens, or dining rooms. (EMC <br /> 19.7.020.8) <br /> 5. Pursuant to the Everett Municipal Code, "non-conforming use" means a leqallv <br /> established use which met the applicable Zoninq Code requirements at the time <br /> it was established but which fails by reason of adoption, revision or amendment <br /> of the Zoning Code to conform to the present requirements of the zone in which it <br /> is located. (EMC �9.4.020, emphasis addec� <br /> 6. The Appellant did not meet his burden of proving that the accessory dwelling use <br /> was legally established. Without such evidence, by definition it cannot be a non- <br /> conforming use. The Planning Director did not commit error in denying the <br /> application for non-conforming use certification. <br /> 5 <br />