Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L01-008 - HARLAN TIM / CONNECTIONS - APPEAL
LO1-008 TIM HARIAN (CONNECTIONS) 13030 37th AVE SOUTH December 1, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Denial of Business License Public Notice Requirements for the Hearing Examiner Hearing on Tuesday January 16, 2001 Dear Mr. Harlan: Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director As was arranged with your attorney Samuel Jacobs your hearing before the City Hearing Examiner has been rescheduled to 1:30 Tuesday January 16, 2001. This letter is to inform you of the requirements for posted and mailed public notice for this hearing. Appeals before the hearing examiner are a Type 3 quasi-judicial decision. Notice of Hearing for a Type 3 Decision must be sent to all "owners of record of property within 500 feet of the site, and to the occupants thereof to the extent the street addresses of such properties are different than the mailing addresses of the owners" (TMC18.104.120). Notice must also be posted on the property in question on a notice board that conforms to the requirements of TMC 18.104.110, Posted Notice. information on all the requirements has been enclosed for your convenience. Also, you must complete and return the "Affidavit of Ownership and Hold Harmless Permission to Enter Property" within the next 14 days. This form is to allow the hearing examiner or city staff to visit the property in question should the need arise. Please address all correspondence to the address below. If you have any question regarding this please feel free to call me at (206) 297 -2106 rely rt Pederson Contract City:.Planner Madrona Planning and Development Services 5604 20 Ave NW, Seattle WA 98107 Cc: Samuel M. Jacobs (letter only), Mosier, Schermer, Walstrom, Scruggs, Jacobs & Sieler Steven M. Mullet, Mayor 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 « 1- u tr . a. #i3w Page: 1 Document Name: ASSESSOR AT05 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 733240- 0035 -0 TAXPAYER NAME: ROSS RODERICK E SHORT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6 -7 -8 0 YEAR 88 88 87 * * * * * * LAND 22,50D 13, 900 13, 900 IMPS 1,000 Date: 12/15/2000 Time: 10:56:27 AM A L U E H TOTAL 23,500 13,900 13, 900 KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY HISTORY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0 QTR: NW SECT: 15 TWN: 23 RNG: PLAT: RIVER VIEW REPLAT BLOCK A IS T 0 R Y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *1* * L/C DATE CHANGE# REASON T 4630 08/14/87 MAINTENANCE T 4630 01/26/87 G000280 SEGREGATION T 4630 01/26/87 G000280 SEGREGATION 514 f4iiPr�.db,u PAL11070 -S 12/15/00 TUJ(WILA 4 FOLIO: 20581- - SUBAREA: 024 -005 * *SALES H I S T O R Y * * * * * DATE EXCISE# SALES PRICE REMARKS * * END OF VALUE HISTORY * * "' * END OF SALES HISTORY * * ( 13.4 NEXT ACCOUNT: 733240 0035 0 JUMP CODE: ENTER-PFI--PF2--PF3--PF4--PF5--PF6--PF7--PF8--PF9--PF10-PF11-PF12-PF13-PF14 HELP END MENU CHAR RCVB HEST LEGL ASSD PF -HELP MENU+ 1 Page: 1 Document Name: ASSESSOR ATO5 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 733240- 0035 -0 TAXPAYER NAME: ROSS RODERICK E SHORT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6 -7 -B Date: 12/15/2000 Time: 10:56:15 AM KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY HISTORY PROPERTY ADDRESS: 0 QTR: NW SECT: 15 TWN: 23 RNG: BLOCK A PLAT: RIVER VIEW REPLAY 0 * * + + + + * * + + + + * * * * + * + + + + + + * +* * * * * * * * * * ** VALUE HISTORY* *SALES HISTORY* S T O R Y YEAR LAND IMPS TOTAL L/C DATE CHANGE# REASON DATE EXCISE# SALES PRICE REMARKS 01 37,000 5,000 42,000 T 2413 04 /19/00 REVALUE 00 35,000 5,000 40,000 T 2413 09/08/99 REVALUE 00 33,000 5,000 38,000 T 2413 09/01/99 • REVALUE 99 33,000 5,000 38,000 T 2413 08/05/98 REVALUE i 99 33,000 5,000 38,000 T 2413 07/27/98 R470730 REVALUE { 99 37,000 1,000 38,000 T 2413 04/18/98 R470000 EXTENSION t 98 37,000 1,000 38,000 T 2413 08/26/97 REVALUE 5 97 37,000 1,000 38,000 T 2413 09/04/96 REVALUE 95 37,000 1,000 38,000 T 2413 06/28/94 REVALUE 93 23,300 1,000 24,300 T 2413 02/19/92 REVALUE 91 26,600 1,000 27,600 T 2413 01/10/90 REVALUE 91 T 2413 12/11/89 LEVY CODE CHNG 90 T 4611 12/22/88 LEVY CODE CHNG 89 15,300 1,000 16,300 1 4630 11/13/87 REVALUE * * * * * * * * END OF SALES HISTORY * * ( 0.8 NEXT ACCOUNT: 733240 0035 0 JUMP CODE: •EMER -PF1--PF2--PF3--PF4--PF5--PF6--PF7--PF8 - -PF9 -- PF 10- PF 11- PF 12- PF 13- PF 14- PF 15- PF 16- PF1 7- PF 18- PF 1 9 - PF 20- PF21 - PF 22 -PF23 ---- PF24- HELP END MENU CHAR RCVB HIST LEGL ASSD PF -HELP MENU+ xJ;aua�'rrrl; PAI11070 -S 12/15/00 TUKWILA 4 FOLIO: 20581- - SUBAREA: 024 -005 Z • Q = 1-: '~ W U :UO W = J H : N • WO • u_ Q • = d. • W Z � I- O Z I- W • 2p 0 07 . 0 H- W W. I • I- r • Li_ 0 W Z V= • • 0 Z m 6 Page: 1 Document Name: ASSESSOR ATO5 ACCOUNT NUMBER: 733240- 0035 -0 TAXPAYER NAME: ROSS RODERICK E SHORT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6 -7 -8 * LAND ZONE ACTUAL JURISDICTION SQUARE FEET WATER SYSTEM SEWER VIEW OPEN SPACE TIDELANDS WATERFRONT FEET WFT LOCATION WFT BANK WFT RIGHTS ONLY DATA* LDR TUKWILA ' 10612 WTR DIST PUBLIC NO Date: 12/15/2000 Time: 11:40:09 AM * * * * * * * * * * * BLDG SQ FOOTAGE DATA FIRST FLOOR 1/2 FLOOR 2ND FLOOR UPPER FLOOR TOTAL BSMT FIN BSMT BSMT GARAGE TOTAL LIVING AREA ATTACHED GARAGE UNPIN FULL FLOOR UNPIN HALF FLOOR KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS REAL PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS PROPERTY ADDRESS: QTR: NW SECT: 15 TWN: 23 RNG: 04 PLAT: RIVER VIEW REPLAT BLOCK A B U I L D I N G DATA* k ROOMS BEDROOMS FULL BATHS 3/4 BATHS 1/2 BATHS DINING OTHER ROOMS ACCESSORY IMPS POOL AREA POOL CONSTR DET GARAGE AREA 580 CARPORT AREA MOBILE HOME FOLIO: 20581- - * * * * BUILDING OF MISC BLDG INFO YEAR BUILT GRADE #STORIES #LIVING UNITS BRICK t STONE DAYLIGHT BSMT HEAT SOURCE HEAT SYSTEM 416T : PAI11060 -S 12/15/00 TUKWILA SUBAREA; 024 -005 * * * * * * * * * * * MISC BLDG INFO FIREPLACES SINGLE MULTI FREESTANDING # OPEN PORCHES # ENCL PORCHES # DECKS ( • 0.2 NEXT ACCOUNT: 733240 0035 0 JUMP CODE: . ENTER-PFI--PF2--PF3--PF4-- PPS-- PF6-- PF7-- PF8-- PF9-- PF10 PF11 PF12 PF PF PF PF16 PF17- PF18- PF19 PF20 PF21- PF22- PF23--- -PF24- HELP END MENU CHAR RCVB HIST LEGL PF -HELP MENU+ Z • • Q - W re 6_ jU O. �U D W = W O: H • ca F- WW O .. Z O ~ Z DEC 22 '00 12:24PM TUKWILA DCD/PW PHONE: (206) 246-5345 MESSIANIC CONGREGATION 13001 - 37th Avenue South FAX: (206) 433-5099 Seattle, Washington 98168 December 18, 2000 Samuel M. Jacobs Suite 2701, One Union Square 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101-1176 BEM ,„. • .• Re: Tim Harlan ys. The City of Tukwila. "... *.* I am writing this letter in. reference fosih■S.4ki've thsp „ana Tim Harlan's right to conduct his busine in our neighborhood: f the congregati4a1.,3eader of Beth Ha Shofar, a Messianic Synagogue just donhetzet froMiTiin My residence ••■• •■•• S • 's .) );.:; • • -•• • • is directly across the, street from the same . irte4s. • • .:••• •• ! it.,••••••<.'9,7 • t I spent part cifr Ciiijakcof1 :i0WingAii5 on this an block, across the street from this garage. rean always renmber t his 1cat�n as an automativt?.0.&.truck repair while • ••• '4 • 1•: nceAri, Oyer the past 18 years, I have never seen this property use4 fornythm a O erepairs; Harlan tiY tit Tim .4.. Q M •. • •• t• •• moved his business of '0ordpnter, the bliildi*.: . • ‘. Since that tinie;AiziiiiiiCil.eakinOrove4thei;:tolidificitt ofthe property and its appearance. g0a.s:*45aiicied:tig•Paikklot and bghtm on. the Odirior'of the building. His efforts l#v• Featiy,i ,mp Of Or i know for certain thOtinkiabersott 0 he :::ngifeL'Ati4ii•have Timti.'467iCei'and.nd him to be an asset within the cthiimtuuty It is ihiportant that our 4.§rnii31!niry be allowed to keep assets that are beneficial in their sOik,:e•and appearnee ' • ' • . , . "•:‘,"*: growing up. I *nr.iredliacic to f:••• „ , ;. ; ; ..,::: , S 1 4 ”- t , • ••• ••: • ;..,•••- ••• ., incerely ;" ••:. ., . ,•. .....,:;•.'. t .: !.,..;,-;•2 ., 416r.4./ -. 1 t. f ,, Alp „ .• ,7'..;:, t .''.', 1. ` 1 .: ‘, .. ''; ' •:', '`-' I ,..• • ::. ". . r I, i• •••• Thomas McLeod t .• Messianic Pastor ■ **:. • •..;:•, •• 1•. •■•• • • • , ' . • • : ' : •:" • :• • , "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee." Psalms 122:6 P. 6/7 • DEC 22 '00 12 :24PM TUKWILA DCD /PW r 2964397535 P.7i72 DEC- 13 —Ht� 110:21 r1 .cur ....vc Joe Wade 13200 37 Ave S Tukwila, WA 98168 To Whom It May Concern: 12 -13 -00 I am Joe Wade, of 13200 37 Ave. S, Tukwila. My family and I have lived for 6 years in the house immediately south of the property owned by Tim and Becca Harlan on 37 Ave S. For our zrst three years here, that property was owned by Jerry Ross and was used as a machine shop. While Jerry was always a good and helpful neighbor, and his use of the building as a business bad absolutely no negative impact on my family or property, his maintenance of the building and property left a lot to be desired. The yard was thoroughly overgrown with unmaintaincd wads and shrubbery, the building had not been painted in many years, there was at least one broken down vehicle in the yard along with several truckloads of machine parts and various other large rusted metal scraps. The slope between Jerry's shop and my house was strewn with many tires and much metal scrap. The side opposite my house was no more than a dumping spot for a large mound of rusting and battered metal. The yard was normally dark at night due either to the dense overgrowth or lack of any exterior lighting. He cold me that his shop had been,broken into twice. I would often visit with Jerry in the shop. and I want to emphasize that his business use of the property was not a problem at all. My only complaint was the exterior appearances. In contrast, Tim Harlan has brought that property up to a much higher standard in a very short time. The property has been cleared of all debris and undergrowth to make maintenance possible, and has been well maintained ever since. Trees have been pruned or removed to create an attractive appearance from the street and from neighbor's yards. The building itself has been transformed. It has been re- roofed, the old makeshift windows have been replaced with proper paned windows, and exterior security lighting has been added. in my opinion, Tim has turned this property around. What had been a neighborhood eyesore is now well on it's way to being on a par with other structures in the neighborhood. The use of the building for business by Tim, just as it was by Jerry, is in no way_ inappropriate for the character and norms of this neighborhood. My home is closest to this property so I am certainly the party most impacted by its use. I have had no negative impact or experiences linked to the use of the property. In terms of noise and traffic, I would be unable to tell that the building is being used for business and is not an average single - family residence. The use of the property for the types of business operated there by Terry and Tim has not detracted from our neighborhood. I would be pleased to Iearn that this property would continue to be used for its current small business p irpose. Sincerely, Joe Wade u... .A.i.L���Ct'.":.�.Li. �t,:r.:`4•. j) j/ry7,�hiii DESCRIBE HAZARD / 1GLEr(07A L C /JVr 1751 o,I Or 6A 2 A6, /' T() LI t/1/� Cs+ • PROBLEM IN DETAIL: .SPAct1 r>r, ,At?/4; ) oil rs uN _SA rC, AlO eCrtM1-77s REQUEST FOR ACTION � TAKEN BY: j4 5 0 Ni - / r CONES DEPARTMENT: M / OFr, - �A1e/terM ;:ti,,,•..,.,::,,.,::vt::.2.a„ wk:.:vic::.'.'• Sv:::v'r:'t:rks::,:,,w., t.:::,:.:: k•..,J `•ica: vY::a::;ti h::..:. :::+h..'s2ta:::::: x•: ::::z:::`vS::S i:::::::::::;:,..,...,. n.:...:::ity: S#:;;'..•...:: ti:• k;:... .:n5:f;::5i::'t:i::::5fk::v::.r :i:2;;: <i::;::::;'t::v.Lk•: x'•::;•k::. DATE : .......................... RECEIVED. 1 WHAT CORRECTIVE MEASURES WERE TAKEN OR ASSISTANCE GIVEN? (IF NONE, EXPLAIN.) 47-0 ©,€.x.. ,470.1 r -b <'4r / -'CV/9 - /5$ -S e) 7r- -. roxweg,e. (1167‘fere EC. Ovf S Tom') /A. rSpp cr(971r A-(4-6 (s') A ro iss/4..16 s S /ae. P S 4-4 r,,U 7 C ria* , /II/ 7144 mm m'-G i4' a_ 4e //cony / 7 O/ - C(c —4e74 C' 7OL D //9 77) 4711776/4V 1,77 ( ; 7 C r7 //U f/ c''i f)7 -Gam,{" ./S.5 .r COMMENTS: FORM M0303 RO I low'`'an BY: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED CCiVliviu N V Q.EV_F f1FIVIFNT I, Q � rt W UO U � U W J H 0 I- I WW I- H .z W IT- z CITY OF TUKWILA ' F FORWARD 0 0: PARKS/RECREATION PUBLIC WORKS • UtllItl,. F FIRE DEPT. OF COMMUNITY P POLICE OTHER: /f D ::::.. >`.!...:�'�"• ;:;.'�" >:: >:::::::::;: >::� a File - 2 PERSON REORTING S SUGGESTION/HAZARD: - lk kC• m. SETT U N RESIDENT OTUKWI A a VISITOR �p E ADDRESS: NUMBER: 81-54E3 R R EQUEST CONTACT? NATURE OF REPORT: osAF o NUISANCE o EMPLOYE E O ETHER: LOCATION: /sogo J A V ,S' ;:ti,,,•..,.,::,,.,::vt::.2.a„ wk:.:vic::.'.'• Sv:::v'r:'t:rks::,:,,w., t.:::,:.:: k•..,J `•ica: vY::a::;ti h::..:. :::+h..'s2ta:::::: x•: ::::z:::`vS::S i:::::::::::;:,..,...,. n.:...:::ity: S#:;;'..•...:: ti:• k;:... .:n5:f;::5i::'t:i::::5fk::v::.r :i:2;;: <i::;::::;'t::v.Lk•: x'•::;•k::. DATE : .......................... RECEIVED. 1 WHAT CORRECTIVE MEASURES WERE TAKEN OR ASSISTANCE GIVEN? (IF NONE, EXPLAIN.) 47-0 ©,€.x.. ,470.1 r -b <'4r / -'CV/9 - /5$ -S e) 7r- -. roxweg,e. (1167‘fere EC. Ovf S Tom') /A. rSpp cr(971r A-(4-6 (s') A ro iss/4..16 s S /ae. P S 4-4 r,,U 7 C ria* , /II/ 7144 mm m'-G i4' a_ 4e //cony / 7 O/ - C(c —4e74 C' 7OL D //9 77) 4711776/4V 1,77 ( ; 7 C r7 //U f/ c''i f)7 -Gam,{" ./S.5 .r COMMENTS: FORM M0303 RO I low'`'an BY: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED CCiVliviu N V Q.EV_F f1FIVIFNT I, Q � rt W UO U � U W J H 0 I- I WW I- H .z W IT- z ROUTING INSTRUCTIONS REQUEST section is completed by the person taking the information. Copies are distributed as follows: a. Original (top sheet) to Mayor's office. b. Pink and yellow copies go to the appropriate department designee for routing. Mayor's office retains original copy in tickler file as a reminder for follow -up. 4. Upon completion, department designee sends yellow copy with remarks to Mayor's office. Pink copy is retained for department files. MAR 16 '01 05 :48PM TUKWILA DCD /PW P.2/3 The general things upon which I think we should stipulate are as follows: 1. Prior to the late 1950's, there was no zoning or other similar land use controls on this property. 2. The first applicable zoning map that can be located is from the early z 1960's, and designates this area as Suburban Residential. = z !~ w 3. As far as anyone can tell, the zoning on the property remained Suburban u� Residential until it was annexed into the City of Tukwila in (1988 ?j. v o co 4. Since annexation into the City of Tukwila, the property has been w i continuously residentially zoned and is presently zoned Low Density Residential. w o 2 S. The parties stipulate to the authenticity of the November 27, 2000 letter from Jerry Ross (copy attached) and agree that all facts Stated therein arc co accurate. - w z = I realize that the thrust of number 5 above is somewhat different from the others 1— O and that you might object to it. However, I assume and believe that there is no basis for w I' disputing any of its contents. I therefore believe that it would be appropriate to stipulate to it. j o U Please contact me once you have had an opportunity to review this matter to o H discuss whether a stipulation would be possible. Thank you very much for your continued w w cooperation in this matter. v ..z w U = O ~ SMJ i�: iii.:..r..a..i.�..w...:rr...:'� " � �"''�' _ .; L' i�, riuWn�3;+. is�ti�.:�Gei.�,�5:sr�+.cG..�s•: z June 1, 2000 To Whom it may Concern: Tim Harlan Tim & Rebecca Harlan 13029 37 Ave So. Tukwila, WA 98168 (206) 242 -4887 This letter is in regard to the use of the building at 13030 37t Ave So. 4 The history of this building and it's uses date back to the 1800's. The most current history of the building is that the building was rebuilt in 1941 by Mr. Ross, Sr. and used as a business for mechanic repairs and a steam cleaning business. His son Jerry Ross took over the business and building and for the last 25 years has used the building as a office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. We took over use of the building from the Ross's a couple of years ago and our use has been that of storage, office, and some auto repair. Since our occupancy we have also been doing general maintenance on the building, i.e. re- roofing, gutters, etc. and clearing the property of brush and debris. It is our intent to continue using the building for storage, office, and small equipment repair. I hope this answers questions surrounding the building and it's history and current use. If you have any questions, please feel to call or contact me at my home @ 206- 242 -4887 or my cell phone @ 206 -321 -1111. FAH - II3 /7 D July 20, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Harlan: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7687 3566 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL - 2000 TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE Steven M. Mullet, Mayor This letter will serve as a Notice of Denial that your application for a 2000 Tukwila business license has been denied under Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110 Denial - Revocation; A.2. — The building, structure, equipment, operation or location of the business for which the license was issued does not comply with the requirements or standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 3 7 G)--e S The Department of Community Development, Building Division, has reviewed your application and found that the building in which the proposed business would be located is in the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone and is not your residence or your primary residence. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.0 30 defines home occupation as "an occupation or profession which is customarily incident to or carried on in a dwelling place, and not one in which the use of the premises as a dwelling place is largely incidental to the occupation carried on by a member of the family residing within the dwelling place... ". Further, it states that, "The business involves no more than one person who is not a resident of the dwelling." Your letter of June 1, 2000 states that the previous owner, Mr. Ross, used the building for the last 25 years as an office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. Normally a history of a previous and similar legal usage of a site could "grandfather" that usage for a new owner; however, there must be no increase of the nonconforming use and this use must not have been discontinued for more than six consecutive months or 365 days in the previous three years. In this situation, there is no record of any business license for any type of business at this address during the past 12 years. Regardless of the stated or actual previous uses, none can be continued if they have been occurring illegally. You are hereby advised that it is illegal to conduct business in the City of Tukwila without a current business license. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fa (206) 433 -1833 114 w4'7.F. k`• .� �:LliGtlB:... "atmn... Pbi Tim Harlan July 20, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Denial to the Hearing Officer, provided that the appeal is made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Denial. Failure to appeal within this time period shall constitute a waiver of all rights to any additional administrative hearing or determination on the matter (Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110(B). Sincerely, 4. f City Clerk e E. Cantu, CMC c: S. Lancaster, DCD Director; A. Pederson, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney; J. Jones, Code Enforcement Officer Z . 6 O 0 CO 0 w I w 0 g - L.L. co � I Z � ►- 0 Z F— w w 2 U 0 WW I I 0 O. W O ~ Z City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 S 'teven M. Mullet, Mayor 1:80, - CORRECTION NOTICE Date of Notice: June 7, 2000 Name: Tim Harlan Street: 13029 37th Ave. S. City: Tukwila, WA 98168 Location of Violation: 13030 37th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 Date of Inspection: May 26, 2000 (RFA 00 -159) • An inspection of the above revealed the following violation of the Tukwila Municipal Code: DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: 1. Operation of business without license. (TMC 5.04.020) 2. Remodel/conversion of garage into office space without permit. (UBC 106.1) CORRECTIVE ACTION: 1. Obtain required licensing for home business operation. 2. Obtain required permits for electrical and remodel work in progress or completed. A request for an inspection has been submitted to the Department of Labor and Industries Electrical Division. Our records (King County Assessor's records) identify you as the person responsible for this property. As such, you must take the above described corrective action by June 21, 2000 or a Notice of Civil Violation may be issued and you will be assessed monetary penalties of up to $100 for each of the first five days that a violation exists and up to $500 for each subsequent day the violation continues, pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 8.45 "Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement." Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 x dig rr S Tim Harlan June 7, 2000 Page Two If you have any questions, please contact the Code Enforcement Office at 206 - 431 -3682 during my office hours of 8:30 -10:00 a.m. and 3:30 -5:00 p.m. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, ason W. Jones Code Enforcement Officer JWJ/bw sI4 16 1 r 3 z = w ug = J0 0 0 CO ❑ U) W W J I - W 0 = w Z O Z �- - ❑ F - : W W . -O .z w = O ~: z Business License: • RENEWAL ❑ NEW `•�,•;'1 uu Application Date: r /. ' % � ( - + C Business Name ;' :. - h^e C�1�hl� jj\i'l' ; ;-.- Local Street / s `, ?• "-rue.. S� . e) C - ' - (, L• .- -, • Address L (Be sure to Include zip ,---/ /, L (� :- F. 2 � �. ��, ( J .. ) t-(' 6 code+ 4 -digit extension) Local PO box & zip, if applicable �; tA .,X /C 5•' f (� Business Phone (include area coder 2,. c - Y ( ( ' - �1�y1 Corporate Phone: ' c : __ c(5/ .- }/2, Local manager (include name and home phone): Indicate ownership status: ❑ Individual El Partnership - - 7 : c - • ": : ( - ( ((( ❑ Corporation ❑ Non -profit List owners/partne officers: Title Home Address City/State/Zip Phone , ., . Date of Birth tic--; �' , k S -` 1,_ Z l -> •4: (_ �∎ ` LP L_ r �c ( L Pt. r 2S s Is your Door -to -door solicitation/peddler? . L ❑ Yes business: Telephone solicitation? O'No 0 Yes Contractor based outside City? .0 No 0 Yes If "Yes'; show jobsite address in space below Operated from your Tukwila residence? 0 No ❑ Yes If "Yes'; read information on reverse side and sign Any gambling and/or gambling devices on premise .O ❑ Yes Any amusement devices on premises? ❑ No 0 Yes No. of devices: Description of business (give details; also, fist types of products sold or stored). ,-- ` Will retail sales be coryaucted? ❑ Yes ,O No Size of floor space used: yC,J7 • sq. ft. Original opening date of business in Tukwila: l,/ C - Z i Total employees at Tukwila location, includ. management _c' Full -time: (fart - time: Number of employees in each type of employment Office: ‹.. Retail: Wholesale: Manufacturing: Warehousing: Other. Do you use /store/discharge flammable, hazardous, or biohazardous materials? 0 No D Yes If "Yes ", state type and quantity: In case of emergency, notify: Phone 1. a Are you PRESENTLY doing any: 4' y `.. construction or remodeling? ✓0 No1 installation of commercial storage racks? o r i ❑ Yes change of signage? !, o" ❑ Yes If Yes Appropriate building permits MUST be obtained prior to start of construction or rack installation. Separate sign permits required. Copies of the final approved permits MUST accompany this application. Show 1999 City of Tukwila Business License-r• • Renewal => If business name has changed in past year, list former name: Is your business use different than the previous use of New business Is► this building/space? 0 Yes No. of CTR "affected employees" at the site for which this business license application is filed: (Read CTR information.on reverse side) If you are a new building owner or planning to sell a building - please note fire alarm installation provisions on reverse side OFFICE.USE Date: 1 � ONLY Receive by • � _.,,,G.-_-_,..\ LICENSE FEE (based °t 0 to 5 $50.00 number of employees) • "6 to 100 $100.00 CHECK ONE mi► 0 101 and above $200.00 Paid: • Cash ,5th' Receipt No.: 5')5-) WA State Sales Tax No. or UBI number (9 digits): ( � 02 -0 I 531 F No.:._;")v c1 Building: Planning: �0( . Zoning de.ignatrbn: I certify the information contained herein Is correct. I understand that any untrue statement Is cause fo revoc W of my license. • Building /sign permit attached Police: Fire: Signature r Date issued: Print Nam,_ ..- �/ 2000 License No.: Title /Office: City of Tk,cwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188.2599 206-433-1800 This is an APPLICATION ONLY, and NOT a license to conduc You must obtain a business license PRIOR to conduc7iijg ALL LICENSES EXPIRE DECEMBER 31a1 Appl; ation for 2000 City Business License FILL OUT THIS FORM IN ITS ENTIRETY INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED Please return completed application with fee to Tukwila City Hall at address shown above, Attention: City Clerk's Office Ines n Li lbws)_ EXH-16 rl'"'G DEC 22 '00 12 :22PM TUKWILA DCD /PW November 27, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAX CONCERN: P.O. Box 73 Hansville, WA 98340 -0073 P.2/7 I am very familiar with the property bearing the King County Assessor's Parcel No. 733240 0035. My parents,.Rodrick and Bernice Ross purchased the property in 1941. Some of my knowledge of this property comes from my own personal observations and experience, while other information has come from my parents and other older persons familiar with the property. Some time prior to 1941, a structure had been erected on this property which was used as a community center for the Riverton Heights community. Dances, public meetings and other community events were held there. At other times, the building was used as a store. When my parents bought the property in 1941 the former structure was either severely dilapidated or, perhaps, had burned. In 19.41 nr194/, my father built the building that presently exists on the property, using the foundation of the former structure. He used the building for a number of years as a commercial en repair and general automotive_ garage which was open to the public. He also had an office in the binding. In about 1979. I commenced a commercial heavy equipment repair business in the building. I did work on marine engines, earth moving machinery and other large equipment. While some of my business was done off premises, I set up a complete machine and equipment repair shop in the building on the property in question and did most of my component (engine, transmission, etc.) repair work in this facility. I also maintained an office within the building. My parents sold the property to the present owner, Tim and Rebecca Harlan, in 1999. Throughout the period during which my parents owned the property, from 1941 through the time of the sale, my father and/or I operated a business on the property and used the property for business purposes continuously and on an ongoing basis. It was never used as a residence. I will be happy to provide additional detail if this would be helpful. Extt 'Orr 6 -1 DEC 22 '00 1E :23PM TUKWILA DCD /PW Samuel M. Jacobs Re: Tim Harler property. Dear Mr. Jacobs, My wife, Eleanor, and I sited our Mobile Home on the property of 13016 37 Ave. S., in King County, in September 1984. This is the property just north of the Tim .Harler property in dispute. This building, to the South of us, was used as a garage for repairing vehicles, mostly trucks, until the time Tim purchased the property. I worked with the Committee for annexing this area into the city of Tukwila. It was my understanding that my mobile home and the`e were grandfathered into the city of Tukwila. When Tim Harler purchased the property, the lot was covered with all kinds of debris which was offensive to the eye. We helped with the removal of truckloads of debris. Since Tim purchased the property he has done much to improve the appearance of the property. The large amount of soil used to expand his parking area for the lower part of the building concerned us. Since he has planted and put straw on the steep slopes, we are no longer concerned. We think the improvements Tim has made are of benefit to this neighborhood. We are happy that Tim has this property and is able to have his business there. We consider Tim a good neighbor. Phil and Eleanor Smith P.3 /i 14 December 2000 axtfibrr z _I w Q � Q 2 J U U 00 co W W J = F- W 2 g = I- w Z = zI W w U � O 52 o � • w I- "o Z . U w p _ o 1 - z .• • •••••■•••••••■1■ ULU ee 'WW le;dt'M IUKW1LH DUV/I'W _ • •.31,(4z4._.4-;ii ) . • z,77,01 a _ieete6.2; , . c, ( 01 o_ceit A,4(-604., . t T2 4 . 7)-Aiezze .te4 L4- . . . . ,t7tie/m/ . ee_ 6 t e ,7z4a .-.,.1(eA4 -1.seiZ I* • •• • • ., • d4;71/ 777..142 . • • ..1: • .0.47/14A.5,a4.4tr • e.11717<el. . „c/Lree... 2:14:2_0- •••■••••■••• ••••■••• •■••■•••••••■■■■ 01 •■••■•■I •■•••••••■•/ 4/r ._ 0:10..., e --1-2-c-e/t-e, ...4:0- 21.0. • 771 ---Atre a' .54 . \ . . ." --Z*..Ye?r , (4' e - 2 . 7 4 2 .--e-i,fre4ec-E-2-) ... h1046- TtiA AJ (ke 7 .. 0.71 0:-(//t? -- . . - ., . . ... .... ....„ • . ,..• ___ ..... __ • • • _.• • • • # - - -. . . - g- . 4 '.1! ' -4.a-4:tkGreel ....._-P.2 .....__If ....._ . .,, Z X#6' 6 3 , - • z 1 1 ,f-- Z 6 1-1 C.) O 0 co w WI _J • u_ iij 0 g 7.1 • < • a Z I- 0 Z U.1 uj 0 o O 1— W W • 0 L.L. z O to I= I o 1- z / ''- -_'- ___'-_..-- ° .. -~.-_'-' _---- _ -_ '----�~ -----�-----'' ' --- x �------ ' �� ��� /m= -Ca4P/ DEC 22 "00 12:24PM TUKWILA DCD/PW ' ' "� u�'�� �� v- July 20, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL - 2000 TU.KWILA BUSINESS LICENSE Dear Mr. Harlan: 54444 8 IT A City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7687 3566 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED This letter will serve as a Notice of Denial that your application for a 2000 Tukwila business license has been denied under Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110 Denial - Revocation; A.2. - The building, structure, equipment, operation or location of the business for which the license was issued does not comply with the requirements or standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. The Department of Community Development, Building Division, has reviewed your application and found that the building in which the proposed business would be located is in the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone and is not your residence or your primary residence. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06.430 defines home occupation as "an occupation or profession which is customarily incident to or carried on in a dwelling place, and not one in which the use of the premises as a dwelling place is largely incidental to the occupation carried on by a member of the family residing within the dwelling place... ". Further, it states that, "The business involves no more than one person who is not a resident of the dwelling." Your letter of June 1, 2000 states that the previous owner, Mr. Ross, used the building for the last 25 years as an office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. Normally a history of a previous and similar legal usage of a site could "grandfather" that usage for a new owner; however, there must be no increase of the nonconforming use and this use must not have been discontinued for more than six consecutive months or 365 days in the previous three years. In this situation, there is no record of any business license for any type of business at this address during the past 12 years. Regardless of the stated or actual previous uses, none can be continued if they have been occurring illegally. You are hereby advised that it is illegal to conduct business in the City of Tukwila without a current business license. Phone: (206) 433 - 1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Steven M Mullet Mayor z w 6 J U 00 o co w J = H w 2 J � EL2 = t-_ z � �= z �- w � • 0 U O - O E- wW F- • - . ti. w z 0 z , Tim Harlan July 20, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Denial to the Hearing Officer, provided that the appeal is made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Denial. Failure to appeal within this time period shall constitute a waiver of all rights to any additional administrative hearing or determination on the matter (Tukwila.Municipal Code 5.04.110(B). Sincerely, g e E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk c: S. Lancaster, DCD Director; A. Pederson, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney; J. Jones, Code Enforcement Officer z i~ '~ w a: 6 ,J U 0 0 0 : cn w = ' J H, w 0 < = Pai . w z z o LU w W' = U P. cp z tii ~ z I LW OICE9 OE MOSLER SCHERMERWALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER LAURENCE A. MOSLER SUITE 3030 JAMES SCHERMER 1001 FOURTH AVENUE PLAZA PAUL ARNOLD WALLSTROM- SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 981:4.1107 MICHAEL P. SCRUGGS SAMUGL M .Ar0Rt LINCOLN D. SIELER DONALD R. MORMON' 'ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON "0F COUNSEL HAND DELIVERED Ms. Jane Cantu City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 August 1, 2000 Re: Appeal of Denial of Business License Regarding Property Located at 13030 37 Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Dear Ms. Cantu: Attached, please find our Appeal of the Denial of the Business License at the above- referenced site. Based on our conversation of last week, it is my understanding that there is no appeal fee nor is there any format or required contents for the Notice of Appeal. Please let me know immediately if I have misunderstood you on either of these points, or if anything additional is needed. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Svil:nbo Enclosure cc: R Noe. City Attorney . L• : s .ar,Gaitv . A. recte. le, P AAAL Very truly yours, SAMUEL M. JACOBS CHERMER, W STROM, JACOB , & SEE MOSLER, SCRUGG TEt +HoNe I LJnWILA ;2061 �D CLERI FA ari (206) 024.8241 54.4,11; lecobsek :erv.com CAVE AUG 0 1 2000 E fW3i1` f 08/01/2000 12:50 20662. ;•1 CONNECTIONS, INC. APPEAL OF DENIAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE The undersigned owners of the property and business in question hereby appeal the denial of the Business License for Connections. Inc. at 13030 37th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98168 (see the Notice of Denial contained in the letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A).. The reasons for the appeal include, but are not limited to, the following: The denial is based on the contention that the use in question is not a lawful use of the property. On the contrary, the use in question is a legal nonconforming use of the property under the Tukwila Municipal Code and therefore is lawful. Dated this i day of 2000. MOSLER SCHERMER L PAGE 02/02 ECtfiA,1 %�i ai,iu4;`� �aa:�W i3e=�:; 2;;�tr;;i��i,.'a �.:ciaih:•= &;s:itt�:::i:. r ' ` 'Jan -25 -01 03 :24P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 Date of Notice: Name: Street: City: Location of Violation: Date of Inspection: City of Tukwila P.02 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 s- 0 (. Steven M. Mullet, Mayor C , D �S , An inspection of the above revealed the following violation of the Tukwila Municipal Code: DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION: 1. Operation of business without license. (TMC 5.04.020) 2. Remodel/conversion of garage into office space without permit. (UBC 106.1) CORRECTIVE ACTION: CORRECTION NOTICE June 7, 2000 Tim Harlan 13029 37th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 13030 37th Ave. S. Tukwila, WA 98168 May 26, 2000 (RFA 00 -159) 1. Obtain required licensing for home business operation. Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall fax (206) 433-1833 2. Obtain required permits for electrical and remodel work in progress or ;.ompleted. A request for an inspection has been submitted to the Department of Labor and Industries Electrical Division. Our records (King County Assessor's records) identify you as the person responsib.ie for this property. As such, you must take the above described corrective action by June 21, 2000 or a Notice of Civil Violation may be issued and you will be assessed monetary penalties of up to $100 for each of the first five days that a violation exists and up to $500 for each subsequent day the violation continues, pursuant to the Tukwila Municipal Code Chapter 8.45 "Civil Violations, Enforcement and Abatement." Pk Jan -25 -01 Tim Harlan June 7, 2000 Page Two Sincerely, J'WJ/bw 25P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 If you have any questions, please contact the Code Enforcement Office at 206- 431 -3682 during my office hours of 8:30 -10:00 a.m. and 3:30 -5:00 p.m. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. ason W. Jones Code Enforcement Officer P_03 ,z . • w O 0 U 0 COW • J i- N lL, W O. co -J w= I _. z i-- z° w o O • • 0 F- w 2 H p . O .. z W U( F- I' O z 'Jan-25-01 03:25P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 P.04 July 20, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.U. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Harlan: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 Steven ll /30 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7687 3566 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED) RE; NOTICE OF DENIAL - 2000 TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE This letter will serve as a Notice of Denial that your application for a 2000 Tukwila business license has been denied under Tukwila Municipal Codc 5.04.110 Denial - Revocation; A.2. -• The building, structure, equipment, operation or location of the business for which the license was issued does not comply with the requirements or standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. . The Department of Community Development, Building Division, has reviewed your application and found that the building in which the proposed business would be located is in the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone and is not your residence or your primary residence. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.06.430 defines home occupation as "an occupation or profession which is customarily incident to or carried on in a dwelling place, and not one in which the use of the premises as a dwelling place is largely incidental to the occupation carried on by a member of the family residing within the dwelling place... ". Further, it states that, "The business involves no more than one person who is not a resident of the dwelling." Your letter of June 1, 2000 states that the previous owner, Mr. Ross, used the building for the last 25 years as an office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. Normally a history of a previous and similar legal usage of a site could "grandfather" that usage for a new owner; however, there must be no increase of the nonconforming 'use and this use must not have been discontinued for more than six consecutive months or 365 days in the previous three years. In this situation, there is no record of any business license for any type of business at this address during the past 12 years. Regardless of the stated or actual previous uses, none can be continued if they have been occurring illegally. You are hereby advised that it is illegal to conduct business in the City of Tukwila without a current business license. Phone: (206) 4334800 • Clry Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Jan -25 -01 'Pm Harlan July 20, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Denial to the Hearing Officer, provided that the appeal is made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Denial. Failure to appeal within this time period shall constitute a waiver of all rights to any additional administrative hearing or determination on the matter (Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110(B). Sincerely, 6 &pt.&x._. e E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk c: S. Lancaster, DCD Director; A. Pederson, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney; J. Jones, Code Enforcement Officer 03:25P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 P_05 ' Jan -25 -01 03:25P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 ,• ....� 1 .JUr zCCIC1C `LL LAURGNCe A. moaLER JAMESSCNERw!R PAUL ARNOLD WALLETROM• MICHAEL P. SCRUGGS SAMUCLM JAncem LINCOLN D. SIELVA DONALD A. MORRISON'• ' IN OReODN AND WASMINSTON "OF COUN68L HAINIIIDEUXEREn Ms. Jane Cantu City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Sounceenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 95188 Re: Appeal of Denial of Business License Regarding Property Located at 13030 37th Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Dear Ms. Cantu: Attached, please find our Appeal of the Denial of the Business License at the above - referenced site. Based on our conversation of last week, it is my understanding that there is no appeal fee nor is there any format or required contents for the Notice of Appeal. Please let me know immediately if I have misunderstood you on either of these points, or if anything additional is needed. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, MOSLER, ' CHERMER, W „ STROM, SCRUGG JACOB : & S SMJ:nbo Enclosure co: R Noe City Money IAwocmcgpa MOSLER SCHERMERWALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SI sumo son SE ATTL E. FOURTH SHNeT AVENUE 107 August 1, 2000 SAMUEL M. JACOBS ELER P.06 PAGE 01/02 AUG 0 1 2000 T p DNe I uloVILA • Roe) sza 1At �Z. � T f•�Ir��I� (MD 024 -8241 Email;',cobt®Iarseri.eom yy YY Jan -25 -01 03:25P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 coot cu./ < on t z: Sb 1db62' 22]. MOSLER SCFIERMER t. CONNECTIONS, INC. APPISA.L Or DENIAL OF TBT].$INE§S LICENSE The undersigned owners of the property and bu,i.ness in question hereby appeul dm denial of the Business License for Connections. Inc. at 13030 17* Avenue South, Tukwila, WA ?8168 (see the Notice of Denial contained in the letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A).. The reasons fan the appeal include, but are not limited to, the following: • The denial is based on the contention that the use in question is not a lawful use of the property. On the contrary, the use in question is a legal nonconforming use of the property under the Tukwila Municipal Code ar therefore is lawful. Dated this 1 day of 2000. P -07 PAGE 02/02 D • Jan -25 -01 03:26P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 P -08 June 1, 2000 To Whom it may Concern: This letter is in regard to the use of the building at 13030 37 Ave So. Tim Harlan Tint & Rebecca Harlan 13029 37 Ave So. Tukwila, WA 98168 (206) 242 -4887 The history of this building and it's uses date back to the 1.800's. The most current history of the building is that the building was rebuilt in 1941 by Mr. Ross, Sr. and used as a business for mechanic repairs and a steam cleaning business. His son Jerr Ross took over the business and building and for the last 25 years has used the building as a office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. We took over use of the building from the Ross's a couple of years ago and our use has been that of storage, office, and some auto repair. Since our occupancy we have also been doing general maintenance on the building, i.e. re- roofing, gutters, etc. and clearing the property of brush and debris. It is our intent to continue using the building for storage, office, and small equipment repair. I hope this answers questions surrounding the building and it's history and current use. If you have any questions, please feel to call or contact me at my home @ 206- 242 -4887 or my cell phone ()) 206-321-1111. • x .i.u✓1. r 'u .i. Si ,u i,dTnkn n..:dd xK:C�.Cac; r.s..eraw�.;4n ....., .0 +,...- .c...•.n ,.... n`:tii «:tr! " t ✓�. _._ Jan -25 - 01 03:26P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 provisions: 3. The lot was legally established prior to the effective date of any City of Tukwila ordinance that caused the lot to become nonconforming. (Ord 1819 §1(part), 1997) 18.70.040 Nonconforming uses. Any preexisting lawful use of land made noncon• forming under the terms of this title may be continued as a nonconforming use, defined in TMC 18.06, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following: 1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased or extended to occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title; 2. No nonconforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title; 3. If any such nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than six consecutive months, or a total of 365 days in a three-year time period, whichever occurs first, any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the district in which such use is located; 4. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zone in which it is located shall be structurally altered, except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; except where minor alterations are made, pursuant to TMC 18.70.050(1), TMC 18.70.060, or any other pertinent section, herein; 5. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be nonconforming by application of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use In its zone or a use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassi- fied Use category to another such use category as listed ■ Printed July 6, 1999 K remains otherwise lawful ubject to the following 1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its degree of noncon- formity. Ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure is permitted, pur ant . o TMC 18.70.060 including but not limited t pa' :ring, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, g, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and we therization. These and other alterations, additions r Pnlar2etnents may be allowed as long as the wo lot extend further into any required 1 any other portion of this title. Complei required of all work contemplated unde 2. Should such stn means to an extent of mo ment cost at time of destrw City's Building Official, it except in conformity wi except that in the LDR nonconforming in regard conformance at the tim reconstructed to their chi on the lot. 3. Should such reason or any distance u conform to the regulatior located after it is moved. 4. When a nonc structure and premises in abandoned for 24 consecutP structure and premises in c be required to be In confo of the zone in which it is 1 owner, the City Council oved for any .all thereafter in which .)* is forming structure, or mbination, is vacated or months, the structure, or !nation, shall thereafter ce with the regulations ted. Upon request of the y grant an extension of time beyond the 24 consective months. 5. Residential strucires and uses located in any single - family or multiplefamily residential zoning district and in existence at tlje time of adoption of this title shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provifons of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dim ions and bulk, but may not be changed except provided in the non- conforming uses section of chapter. 6. Single - family structures in single- or multiple - family residential zt}ie districts, which have legally nonconforming buying setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the building line(s) if the existing distance from she nearest point of the structure to the property line I not reduced. 7. In wetlands, atercourses and their buffers, existing structureshthat do not meet the requirements of the Sensitivg Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that P.09 TITLE 18 — ZONING e yed by any its replace- ment of the econstructed )f this title, res that are but were in ion may be and location Page 18 -117 z I I- ~w 2 00 U) o w J = F- � U w c m a z = F-- o w ~ U • � o - O H w LLO w z = P. I T z Jan -25 -01 List owners/partne officers: Date: Renewals* New business foo Date issued: 03 :26P Madrona Planning and 2000 License No.: City of Tz..cwila 6200 Southcenrer Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188-2599 206 - 4331800 This is an APPLICATION ONLY, and NOT a license to conduc duc You must obtain a business license PRIOR to condu4 - " ALL LICENSES EXPIRE DECEMBER 31 Business License: U RENEWAL Business Name r c , • i, kecIrL'• , ) --I -'? C Local Street - > , Address / 'x s 4; // . - ..?,? ..(4 1 il�c. ff •r (Be sure to Include zip �, i.....;__( fi �• f� % % �, code, 4-a/pit extension) " Local PO box & zip, if applicable , C; Business Phone (include area code). 2,. Local manager (include name a_ d h ome ph one): — The r ((( Are you PIRESENTLV doing any: construction or remodeling? installation of commercial storage racks? change of slgnage? Show 1999 City of Tukwila Business License. Is your business use different than the previous use of this building/space? OFFICE USE ONLY Receive Receipt No.: Paid: Cash `St:)' • -?heck No.: , ::; ) (.1.i.9 4 1 Building: Planning: 0 Building/sign permit attached Zoning de ignau Police: Fire: Corporate Phone: :. 2�- ..... K{u . }�. ?�� Indicate ownership status: t-i Individual I f1 Corporation; I Home Address city /State/Zip Ph Tt ` ii __S is your Door -to -door sollcltation/poddler? .•FrNo f. i Yes business: Telephone solicitation? Pi-NO ❑ Yes Contractor based outside City? u No U Yes It "Yee', showJobsite address in space below Operated from your Tukwila residence? 0 No I J Yes if "Yes'; read information on reverse aide end sign Description of busi (give d ails; also. list types of products sofa or stored): Will retail sal 6s b co r ucted? C I Yes ,1J No Total employees at Tukwila location, includ. management Fuli•time: art - time: _ �" � .� Wholesale: Manufacturing: Warehousing: Ottier. To you use/store/discharge flammable, hazardous, or biohazardous materials? In case of emergency, notify: U No 1...I Yes If °Yes ", state type and quantity: 1 • 2. Number of employees in each type of employment ❑ Yes yoT a ere a new building owner or planning to building - please note The alarm nstallation provisions on reverse side n: .fi: No, •�' o) n Yes Print Name' _ _ ... Title/Office: ; --�-- Please return completed application with fee to Tukwila City Hall at address shown above, Attention: City Clerk's Office Cleve 206 297 2301 Appi► .tion for 2000 City Business License FILL OUT THIS FORM IN ITS ENTIRETY INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED high a — 2 Z 211 Getpuratezilattress: f a ' Qilriwhili Lu E 7C - i - ; NEW Application Date: Any gambling and/or gambiirig devices on prerr :INo OYes Any amusement devices on premises? 0 No U Yes No. of devices: . Signatur© Size of floor space used iJ No. of CYR "affected employees" et the site for which this business license applicadon Is filed: (Read CTR lnfotmation.on reverse side) P - 10 G Original opening date of business in Tukwila: elan: v Appropriate building permits MUST be obtained prior to es If Yes start of construction or rack installation. .o Separate sign permits required. Copies of the final ' C 1 Yes approved permits MUST accompany this application. If business name has changed in past year, list former name: LICENSE FEE (based o ,2' 0 to 5 $50.00 number of employees) f71 '6 to 100 $100.00 CHECK ONE r 0 101 and above ... • $200.00 WA State Sales Tax No. or ' UBI number (9 digits): � ') 2 C.` I C) ' I certify the Information contained, herein is correct. I understand that any untrue statement Is cause fyrevb — dart of my license. 2 z it ~ w U W = t- �_ u. WO t CL i = W Z = W U • O O - O I- H L-I O z 1 *Jan -25 -01 03:27P Madrona Planning and Deve 206 297 2301 5.04 Licenses Generally 5.08 Cabarets 5.10 Adult Cabarets 5.12 Peddlers /Solicitors 5.16 Card and Pool Rooms 5.20 Certain Gambling Activities Prohibited 5.32 Trailer Parks 5.36 Rock Quarries 5.40 Massage Establishments 5.44 Tow Truck Businesses 5.48 Amusement Centers and Devices 5.50 Pawnbrokers and Second Hand Dealers 5.52 Panoram Devices 5.56 Adult Entertainment Cabarets 5.60 Safety in Overnight Lodging. Printed September 14, 2000 TITLE 5 — BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS 5.04.010 5.04.020 5.04.030 5.04.040 5.04.050 5.04.060 5.04.070 5.04.08(.1 5.04.090 5.04.100 5.04.1 10 5.04.1 12 5.04.114 5.04.115 5.04.116 5.04.120 Definitions. Application and fees required: Renewal. Prorating fee. Fee increase for late acquisition or renewal. Transferability. Change in nature of business. Required - Display. Exemption. Failure to pay fee. i.)ettial - Revocation. Appeal of notice of denial, suspension or revocation. Violations. Penalties. Effect of denial or revocation. - Regulation adoption and publication - Failure to comply. P_11 S. oy. &1 o Derit4 Mows For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: 1. "Business" means any operation per- formed by any person which involves, the manufac- turing or processing of materials of any type, the sale of goods. wares or merchandise, the rendition of services or the repair of goods, wares or merchandise to the general public or a portion thereof for any consideration at each established place of business, store. office, shop or yard within the City limits. 2. "Person" means any individual. receiver, agent, trustee in bankruptcy, trust, estate. firm, copart- nership, joint venture, company, joint stock company, business trust. corporation. society, or group of individ uals acting as a unit, whether irniinat], cooperative, fraternal, nonprofit or otherwise, 3. "Person engaged in business" means the owner or one primarily beneficially interested in lawful business for profit and not employees. o y, o z o 4 ?PL1 C k orki. AND ft=rS REVAteD A. Any person desiring to establish'i conduct any business enterprise or undertaking within the corporate limits of the City shall first apply to the City Clerk for a license to conduct such business. The application shall be upon a form furnished by the Clerk on which the applicant shall state the 'company name and address: the nature of the business activity or activities in which he desires to engage; the place where the business will be conducted: 'the number of employees. whether full or part - time. on the payroll as Page 5-1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED JANUARY 30, 2001 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor A public hearing will be held on February 13, 2001 before the City Hearing Examiner to contest the Denial of a 2000 City of Tukwila Business License for Connections Inc. APPLICANT: Tim Harlan, President, Connections Inc. FILE NUMBER: L01 -008 Denial of Business License AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT: Samuel Jacobs, Attorney LOCATION OF BUSINESS: 13030 37 Avenue South REQUEST: Reversal of the Denial of Business License for operation of connections Inc, a telephone answering service, in a Low Density Residential Zone (LDR). This file can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this matter. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on Monday February 12, 2001. The public hearing will be held 1:30 p.m. Tuesday February 13, 2001 at the City Council Chambers, Renton City Hall 1055 Grady Way, Renton, WA. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670 to ensure the hearing is still scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cut -off date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the issue before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this issue contact Art Pederson, Contract Planner in charge of this file at (206) 297 -2106. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 DEC 22 '00 12 :22PM TUKWILA DCD /PW November 27, 2000 TO WHOM IT MAX CONCERN: P.O. Box 73 Hansville, WA 98340 -0073 I will be happy to provide additional detail if this would be helpful. P.2 /7 aw% sms kr) I am very familiar with the property bearing the King County Assessor's Parcel No. 733240 0035. My parents,.Rodrick and Bernice Ross purchased the property in 1941. Some of my knowledge of this property comes from my own personal observations and experience, while other information has come from my parents and other older persons familiar with the property. Some time prior to 1941, a structure had been erected on this property which was used as a community center for the Riverton Heights community. Dances, public meetings and other community events were held there. At other times, the building was used as a store. When my parents bought the property in 1941 the former structure was either severely dilapidated or, perhaps, had burned. In 1941 nr 1.942, my father built the building that presently exists on the property, using the foundation of the former structure. He used the building for a number of years as a commercial engine repair and general automotive garage which was open to the public. e so d an office in the building. In about 1979, I commenced a commercial heavy equipment repair business in the )' building. I did work on marine engines, earth moving machinery and other large equipment. Oa While some of my business was done off premises, I set up a complete machine and equipment repair shop in the building on the property in question and did most of my component (engine, transmission, etc.) repair work in this facility. I also maintained an office within the building. 71 - ✓Sera AS M y parents sold t h e property t o t h e present o w n e r , Tim and Rebecca Harlan, in 1999. y , 4 a C Throughout the period during which my parents owned the property, from 1941 through the time of the sale, my father and/or I operated a business on the property and used the property for business purposes continuously and on an ongoing basis. It was never used as a residence. � T4 DEC 22 '00 12 :23PM TUKWILA DCD /PW Samuel M. Jacobs Re: Tim Harler property. Dear Mr. Jacobs, My wife, Eleanor, and I sited our Mobile Home on the property of 13016 37 Ave. S., in King County, in September 1984. This is the property just north of the Tim Harler property in dispute. This building, to the South of us, was used as a garage for repairing vehicles, mostly trucks, until the time Tim purchased the property. I worked with the Committee for annexing this area into the city of Tukwila. It was my understanding that my mobile home and the garage were grandathered into the city of Tukwila. When Tim Harler purchased the property, the lot was covered with all kinds of debris which was offensive to the eye. We helped with the removal of truckloads of debris. Since Tim purchased the property he has done much to improve the appearance of the property. The large amount of soil used to expand his parking area for the lower part of the building concerned us. Since he has planted and put straw on the steep slopes, we are no longer concerned. We think the improvements Tim has made are of benefit to this neighborhood. We are happy that Tim has this property and is able to have his business there. We consider Tim a good neighbor. Phil and Eleanor Smith P.3,7 14 December 2000 t�ti...: r:.1�., "F:'�4?t�::ix,'`.r}.;� �':+ �.".:. i+:: fii4'_ �: Lti tF� '.f<.e:'1':t.5e::i�5.4^';w.v'S. tidy- �3. �tii !�Y.i!.f.'ikXd`+�::�5'u•..iW 1 13016 37 Ave South, Tukwila, Washington, 98168 February 04, 2001 To the Department of Community Development City of Tukwila, Washingtonn Attn: Steven M. Mullet, Mayer, Steve Lancaster, Director, Art Pederson, Contract Planner in charge of file L01 -008 Gentlemen: We are writing in behalf of Mr. Tim Harlan, concerning a request to contest a denial of a City of Tukwila Business license for operation of a telephone answering service in a Low Density Residential Zone. Mr. Harlan has not solicited our involvement in this particular hearing. However we live next to the building he is using for his business, and we feel favorable to the operation of the business. Reasons we are positive about his request: 1. The business is a "clean" operation, that is, not generating fumes, noise or traffic buildup in the neighborhood. 2. We have observed that Mr. Harlan has upgraded the building, improving the interior, and also working on the exterior. He removed and insisted the former owner remove a great deal of garbage from the premises and has controlled growth of weeds and blackberries. We were disturbed that former owner was letting the building deteriorate, and neglecting the lot. Mr. Smith even took our mower over to cut some of the grass and weeds, as nothing was done to clean things up when the former owner was in charge. The place was a neighborhood eyesore before Mr. Harlan purchased it. 3. Mr. Harlan has discussed with us further plans he has to improve the area, as he has finances, and time to do so. We feel he is well motivated. 4. We understand reluctance to have a business in a residential area. However we feel our neighborhood is unproved with Mr. Harlan's efforts. you can grant him a business license. Sincerely, "tie 4 RECE1VEU FEE; 0 r hpµ y ., C " y ,• Tv / Eleanor . Smith Philip R. Smith We hope i^u;i� : �i' �. �x.C! i:: YT- �+',`+ S`.'w 7: 3: �,*: XZ�kl''+ zKdi+ �% w• ii:: l,' ��..: 3; iiiui:$ 6yC :�i::+.ufst!;!t^:�.�'awa��:ki LAURENCE A. MOSLER JAMES SCHERMER PAUL ARNOLD WALLSTROM* MICHAEL P. SCRUGGS SAMUEL M. JACOBS LINCOLN D. SIELER MAURICE YOUNGS•• • ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON **OF COUNSEL VIA FACSIMILE /FIRST CLASS MAIL (425- 430 -6523) City of Renton Office of Hearing Examiner 1055 South Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 Dear Mr. Kaufman: LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE, 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 February 6, 2001 Re: Appeal of Denial of the 2000 Tukwila Business License Application by Connections, Inc. E -Mail: jacobs @lawserv.com This letter is a follow up to a recent telephone conversation your office had with Art Pederson on behalf of the City of Tukwila. I represent the Appellant in the above - referenced matter. TELEPHONE (206) 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624-8241 /7 RECEIVED FEB 2,2.2001 COMMUNITY iTY DEVELOPMENT This matter has been rescheduled for hearing on February 13, 2001. This date is very problematic and inconvenient for my client for two reasons. First, Mr. Harlan, the president of Connections, Inc., and a necessary party at the hearing, is expecting his second child shortly. Mrs. Harlan's pregnancy is high risk, and her doctor has told her that the baby must be delivered by Cesarian section. While her due date is not until mid - March, she is already experiencing contractions. Her physicians would like to delay the delivery as long as possible, but she may need to be taken to the hospital at any time for an emergency C- section if she goes into labor. Second, Mr. Harlan is presently quite ill. The doctor initially thought that he had pneumonia, but the tests came back negative. However, he is very weak, and feels very ill and has been instructed by his doctor to rest as much as possible. While, I believe, Mr. Pederson had initially talked to your office about a continuance until the middle of March, we would strongly prefer a continuance until April, to allow time for Mrs. Harlan's delivery and postpartum recovery. Mr. Pederson indicates that City will agree to continuance into April and that he is available on April 3r (his preferred date), April 17` and April 24` (He is not available on April 10 The Appellants are agreeable to continuing the hearing to any of the dates in April when Mr. Pederson is available. ,.::,�:'.:..`tii��s :..;:W�..uss:3��:= w;v�':�:�3; �'�Y •�tE�13S5?+s,wi��r ..., City of Renton Office of Hearing Examiner February 6, 2001 Page - 2 SMJ:nbo cc: Art Pederson/ Tim Harlan Sincerely, EL M. 7• COBS Thank you very much for your courtesy in continuing this matter. Please contact me if you have any questions or if there will be any difficulty in continuing this matter as requested in this letter. MOS ER, SCHERMER, WALLSTROM, SCR I GGS JACOBS & SIELER Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION /, /,f &Y/ C6.,,, HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Number: Determination of Non - Significance Person requesting mailing:a Pew Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /( `I '' day of Hach in the year 20 01 P:GINAWYNLTI'A/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM • a4li�y3+.+ lzA. �i:.i::tiG:x�3:.x.SL`:itttit..:3< 7;m14.i.e.-3::i:1:5 r•:::Pt� {:�' Y` Project Name: (.vennec -tio Project Number: Mailer's Signature: 044, Cg-- Person requesting mailing:a Pew Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this /( `I '' day of Hach in the year 20 01 P:GINAWYNLTI'A/FORMS /AFFIDAVIT -MAIL 02/09/012:17 PM • a4li�y3+.+ lzA. �i:.i::tiG:x�3:.x.SL`:itttit..:3< 7;m14.i.e.-3::i:1:5 r•:::Pt� {:�' City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING DATED MARCH 20, 2001 A public hearing will be held on Tuesday April 3, 2001 before the City Hearing Examiner to contest the Denial of a 2000 City of Tukwila Business License for Connections Inc. APPLICANT: Tim Harlan, President, Connections Inc. AGENT FOR THE APPLICANT: Samuel Jacobs, Attorney LOCATION OF BUSINESS: 13030 37 Avenue South REQUEST: Appeal of a Denial of an Application for a 2000 City of Tukwila Business License pursuant to the zoning regulations for Low Density Residential Districts (LDR), TMC 18.10. Connections Inc., a telephone answering service and computer repair business, proposed to locate in a LDR zone with five employees in a structure that is not a residence nor accessory to a residential dwelling. TMC 18.10 does not permit a business in a Low Density Residential District that is not a home occupation, has more than one non - resident employee and is not accessory to a residential dwelling unit This file can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this matter. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on Monday March 26, 2001. The public hearing will be held 1:30 p.m. Tuesday April 3, 2001 at the City Council Chambers, Renton City Hall 1055 Grady Way, Renton, WA. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431- 3670 to ensure the hearing is still scheduled for this date. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cut -off date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the issue before the Hearing Examiner. If you have questions about this issue contact Art Pederson, Contract Planner in charge of this file at (206) 297 -2106. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Wynetta Bivens - Connections Inc., 13030137th Ave S (denial of 2000 City of Tukwila h'isiness license) Page 1 From: "Frogrock" <lindsay -kerr @home.com> To: <tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us> Date: 3/18/01 11:15AM Subject: Connections Inc., 13030 37th Ave S (denial of 2000 City of Tukwila business license) I just received the Notice of Public Hearing Dated 3/20/2001 regarding the denial of a business license for Connections, Inc. Please consider this email my submission of written comments regarding this situation. My name is Alison K. MacLeod, and I reside at 12839 37th Avenue South in Tukwila. As a resident of the adjacent block to the proposed Connections Inc. and, now that I understand a little more about what Connections Inc. wanted, I AM OPPOSED to their being given a business license for this purpose at this location at this time. Let me see if I understand this correctly... It sounds as though Mr. Harlan wants to start up a business in a supposedly non - residential building which happens to be located in a neighborhood (also called residential). Since no owner will be on site or reside on site, sounds like a BUSINESS to me!! I imagine Mr. Harlan is simply trying to avail himself of the benefits of pre- existing housing (interesting word, housing) instead of incurring additional costs to pay for "real" office space. Well, I'm sorry, but I live in a neighborhood because I want to see HOMES all around me, not businesses. Just the additional influx of five (5) employees (and that's only a starting point, folks) would blow out the church at the corner (of 37th and 130th), and the overflow would trickle down the hill into my block, since it can't go uphill -- there IS no uphill. (Also, if this doesn't sound like enought already, please consider ALL the NEW business down at 35th South. If THAT hasn't changed the scheme of things and volume of new people driving on and around my block, and I don't know what has!) So please put me (and mine) down on the record as ADAMANTLY OPPOSED to giving Mr. Harlan and Connections Inc. a license to do business in my neighborhood. Thank you SO much for doing what you do, and for listening to me, Alison K. MacLeod Tukwila Homeowner 07/09/2001 12:41 2066248241 iIo' II471 -rco - sl e-lull AGREEMENT MOSLER SCHERMER WALL p.2 PAGE 02/07 Dp This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, a Municipal z corporation ( "Tukwila ") and Connections, Inc., a Washington corporation and Tim and Rebecca w Harlan, husband and wife (collectively "Connections ") for the purposes and under the terms and ,J U U to conditions set forth below: w� I. ECITATIONS U u_ w 1.1 Connections' application for a year 2000 Business License to operate a business at u. the property located at 13030 37'' Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98168 (the "Property ") co = w was denied by Tukwila. That denial was appealed to the Hearing Examiner, which affirmed the ~ _ Z denial and denied Connections' Request for Reconsideratinn. C'.onnectinns applied for and Z O 2 obtained a Business License to operate a business at the Property for the year 2001, which v 0� application was initially granted and then revoked by Tukwila. That revocation was appealed to w w U the Hearing Examiner, which appeal is presently pending. The Property is in a residential zone, ti.. 0 z and the Hearing Examiner, essentially, decided that the Commercial Activities (as defined below) did not retain the legal non - conforming commercial use rights of the former commercial Z uses on the Property. 1.2 Connections operates a telephone answering business on the Property and a computer repair business (collectively the "Commercial Activities "). It will take at Icast several months to find an alternate location for the telephone answering service, to have the phone lines transferred and otherwise to successfully move that business without substantial disruption to its customers. 1 '':i".i..`'.ii.;'- :Sa✓!y :. ee. 4iiiAL :.:37.a�.:;Md.i::3.i:.;:r.: IS CI I J v I I 07/09/2001 12:41 2066248241 1.1 UI I ICI .^J I'ud, rldl 1 '? D C_ G /U / 1 MOSLER SCHERMER WALL PAGE 03/07 1.3 The City and Connections would like to resolve this matter, without further appeals or litigation, in a manner which would allow for the orderly cessation or the Commercial Activities on the Property without unruly interfering with those business. ii. AGREEMENT In consideration for the foregoing Recitations and for other good and valuable consideration.. the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Tukwila and Connections agree as follows: 2.1 The foregoing Recitations are hereby incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 2.2 Connections shall refrain from filing a Petition under RCW Chapter 36.70C, or otherwise, to challenge the denial of the Business License for year 2000 and shall dismiss its appeal of the revocation of the 2001 Business License, consistent with the provisions of this' Agreement. 2.3 Connections shall cease all active business of the Commercial Activities on the Property not later than November 10, 2001 and shall thereafter refrain from engaging in any active business of the Commercial Activities on the Property; provided, however, that certain passive vestiges of th Cotiimer ' al- Activitie may remain on the Property thereafter, including, but not limited to, passive storage of business equipment and files and use and maintenance of telephone switching and other telephone and electronic infrastructure (collectively "Storage and Infrastructure "). 2.4 Connections may operate the Commercial Activities on the Property untl November 10, 2000. Tukwila agrees not to initiate any enforcement activities or levy or attempt 2 p.3 Z Z t" W r4 2 6 -J 0 0 co W= U w w 0 u_ ? = w Z I Zo tu U0 0 - oI- w . ti O . Z W U '_ O Z .. ... lows i uv Icso ricir5 all YC /U /1 o tI n'Irzu01 12:41 2066248241 to levy any tines or penalty of any kind regarding the Commercial Activities on the Property for any period up through November 10, 2001. Tukwila also agrees that Connections may maintain the Storage and Infrastructure on the Property after November 10, 2001. If Tukwila believes that Z '~ W Cuwtetlions is not in compliance with thus Agreement, it shall informally contact Tim Harlan to 6 = J 0 discus:, the matter and allow Connections at least seven days to infnrrnally resolve the matter to to 0 to W w= print- to initiating any formal enforcement action. -J N w. w 2.5 Within seven days of executing this Agreement, Connections shall place $1,000.00 2 in the trust account of its attorney, Samuel M. Jacobs of Mosier, Schermer, Walistrom, Scruggs, u- � Jacobs & Sieler, to be held and disposed of pursuant to the letter, a copy of which is attached Z W hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. z O 2 � 2.6 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterpart originals with like v affect as if all signatures appeared on one original document, and all such counterpart originals o t-- ww shall be construed together as one original. I L L - O U . O t— By: Its: Date: CITY OF TUKWILA w(j) CONNECTIONS, INC. By: Its: Date: 3 MOSLER SCHERMER WALL p. 4 PAGE 04107 f / ti/zuul 12:41 2066248241 TIMOTHY J. HARLAN Date: REBECCA HARLAN Date: I CI I I I T L. U t 1 MOSLER SCHERMER WALL P. PAGE 05/07 May 9, 2001 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Harlan: Sincerely, g . Cet..44. e E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 C: F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S.Lancaster, DCD Director M. Bradshaw, Associate Planner, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney J. Jones, Code Enforcement 00 2001 D �' -.u� Iv J4iL, -L VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7686 7619 RE: HEARING DATE ON NOTICE OF REVOCATION — 2001 TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE Your letter appealing the revocation of your 2001 Tukwila Business License for your business located at 13030 — 37 Ave. South was received by the City on April 27, 2001. The Hearing Examiner will consider your appeal on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will take place at the City of Renton, City Council chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Council chambers is on the seventh floor. You are entitled to appear in person, and to be represented by counsel, and to offer such evidence as may be pertinent and material to the Notice of Revocation. If you are unable to be present at the hearing, please notify the Office of the Hearing Examiner at (425) 430 -6515. If you have questions regarding the appeal procedures, you may contact me at (206) 433 -1800. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor :S7 •;'�'�"S4i:ti:.fi� `� i�+ �%s7�^i(6<J'dicsV:i: %d;n�u Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing the appeal and pertinent to the appeal. Exhibit No. 2: Declaration from Mr. Ross other documentation Exhibit No. 3: Original of November 27, 2000 letter Exhibit No. 4: Excerpt from Tukwila City Code, from Mr. Ross Office Definition Exhibit No. 5: Photo of Connections, Inc. Exhibit No. 6: Business license application for approval, 2001 Exhibit No. 7: King County Assessor's description of property REPORT AND DECISION APPELLANT: SUMMARY OF APPEAL: PUBLIC HEARING: OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF TUKWILA MINUTES The following minutes are a brief summary of the April 3, 2001 hearing. The official record is recorded on tape. The hearing opened on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, at 1:34 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the seventh floor of the Renton City Hall. Parties wishing to testify were affirmed by the Examiner. The following exhibits were entered into the record: Parties present: Representing Appellant: Sam Jacobs, Attorney Mosler, Schermer, Walstrom, Scruggs, Jacobs & Sieler 600 University Street, Ste. 2701 Seattle, WA 98101 -1176 Representing City of Tukwila: Robert Noe, City Attorney Art Pederson, Contract City Planner Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal of Denial of Business License Appeals denial of 2000 business license by City of Tukwila 4 . L.,,,..(_/5‹ After reviewing the Appellant's written request for a hearing and examining the available information on file, the Examiner conducted a public hearing on the subject as follows: Tim Harlan, Appellant 13029 37th Avenue S Tukwila, WA 98168 May 17, 2001 RECEIVED MAY 18 2001 CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 2 Nora Geirloff, City Planner 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 The Examiner explained that the appeal was an administrative appeal held pursuant to various ordinances and was the only administrative review to occur on the matter. The matter may be submitted back to the Examiner for reconsideration if the parties are not satisfied with the decision. He stated that the appellant had the burden of demonstrating that the City's action was erroneous, and would have to show clear and convincing evidence that the City's determination was incorrect. At that point the City could respond, if they chose to do so. As a preliminary matter, Sam Jacobs, attorney for the appellant, stated that the procedural posture for this case is unusual. It is being portrayed as a land use matter, but it is really a denial of a business license. Mr. Jacobs objected to the fact that the City of Tukwila used a type of notice that would be used if a land use permit were being applied for. The City and Mr. Harlan have stipulated to the matters contained in the brief dated March 27, 2001. In addition Mr. Jacobs and the City Attorney had extensive conversations in an attempt to narrow the focus of the issues. In a nutshell, the issue is whether the uses and activities Mr. Harlan engages in on this property still the enjoy the clearly established and accepted non - conforming use rights of the prior owner and user of the property. There are three elements that have to be proven in order to have a legal non - conforming use. They are: (1) the use is now illegal, but started before there was a zoning code, (2) the use was legal at the time, and (3) that it hasn't been abandoned. The issue is whether the nature and character of what Mr. Harlan is doing in the building on the site enjoys or has lost those non - conforming use rights. Robert Noe, City Attorney, City of Tukwila stated that the City did stipulate to the facts set fourth in the appellant's brief. The City also has agreed that the fact that a business license had not been acquired is not dispositive as to whether the use could be considered legal for non- conforming use purposes. It was decided that the space where the various uses were located within the building would not be at issue. The City's position is that there is a substantial change as far as the code is concerned in the nature of the use. The Tukwila Municipal Code provides that if there is a change in the use, the new use has to come into conformance with the zoning requirements. Art Pederson, Contract Planner, City of Tukwila stated that he was sorry if his report was misleading in making it seem like the non - conforming use was secondary. There are two sets of criteria for denial of a business license. One is whether it fits into the zoning regulations for LDR Zone. If it does not, then is it a legal non- conforming use or a continuation of a legal non - conforming use. We feel that both of those criteria are equal. We are prepared to address the second half, with agreement on the first half. In his opening argument, Mr. Jacobs stated that his position is that the uses engaged in on the property are legal, non - conforming uses and they do not constitute such a change as to be considered an abandonment of previous non - conforming uses. He went on to discuss specific uses by Connections, Inc. and why these uses do not constitute such a change as to be considered abandonment of previous non- conforming uses. Janice Ludington, 13007 37th Avenue S, Tukwila 98168 stated she has lived at her current address since 1980 and is a trustee of the church located on the same block. She lives across the street and two houses down from Connections. Inc. Ms. Ludington stated that Mr. Harlan has fixed up the property and keeps it in better condition than the previous owner. Mr. Harlan's business is also quieter than the business located on the property previously. Ms. Ludington stated that she has no objection to Mr. Harlan's business being located on Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 3 the property in question. She has spoken to the other trustees of her church, and they likewise have no objection to Mr. Harlan's business at the present location. z z►= Joseph Wade, 13200 37th Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 stated that he has lived immediately south of Mr. w re Harlan's business since 1995. He knew the previous owner of the property quite well and was inside the business many times. Mr. Wade described the nature of the work done on the property by the previous owner and the layout of the office and work areas. He stated that Mr. Harlan maintains the property very well. The cn 0 building has been upgraded and fits in well with the character of the neighborhood. w = JF.. Tim Harlan, 13029 37th Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 stated that he maintains a PO box address for his w 0 business because he did not want to have any type of public traffic at the property. Mr. Harlan has lived in the 2 house exactly across the street from his business since March 1986. He acquired the property where his g business is located in 1999. He was acquainted with the previous owner of the business and was inside the c a building many times. Mr. Harlan described the layout of the previous business and the purposes for which = w t — _ various areas of the building were used. He described the nature of the activities that took place in various Z 1 — areas of the building. Mr. Harlan stated that he told the previous owner that if he ever wanted to sell the 1— O property he would like to purchase it and take over the use as a business because of its proximity to Mr. w w Harlan's home. Mr. Harlan explained how he improved the property and the building after he purchased it. He U 0 s that he uses the same area for an office as the previous owner. Mr. Harlan described the nature of his O cn business and explained which areas of the building are used for various activities connected with the business. 01-- He explained his reasons for wanting to continue to keep his business at the present location and what the = U hardships would be if he were required to move the business elsewhere. Mr. Harlan stated that he has done his L im best to comply with the City's requirements for obtaining a business license and did not foresee any of the Z current problems with the use of the building when he purchased it. ti co U = O~ Mr. Jacobs submitted Exhibits 2 through 4 for the record. Mr. Pederson submitted Exhibits 5 through 7 for the record. The issue for the City is determining whether this is a continuation of a non - conforming use. The City differentiates between kinds of commercial uses in determining whether a use is allowed. Under the previous owner, the building was used primarily as a mechanical repair shop, with use as an office being secondary. The City requires that if a non- conforming use is going it be continued, it must be a similar use. In this case the use has gone from mechanical repair to a telephone answering service. The computer repair business Mr. Harlan does is also not a similar use. Mr. Pederson reviewed the sections of the Zoning Code having to do with non - conforming use, explaining what they do and do not allow. Mr. Pederson reiterated the City's position on the changing use of the business. The City's Zoning must be adhered to and not allowed to vary based on neighbors' opinions. In closing, Mr. Jacobs stated that the property in question has been a commercial use going back almost 100 years. He reviewed the history of the use of the property. He reiterated his position concerning what constitutes non- conforming use and continuation of non - conforming uses. He questioned the City's position that the office use is secondary in this instance. Mr. Jacobs stated that the Tukwila City Code does provide some latitude as far as changing the nature of the activity of a non- conforming business Robert Noe, City Attorney, City of Tukwila, clarified the legal issues from the City's perspective. He stated that both the previous use of the property and the present use are abhorrent to the Zoning Code and the - i7i'"x3t �d'«i A 'rl+te�.t;d i >r sun'a u `'k'':tiSYic= 4R*4.44 s Z Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 4 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. They are non - conforming uses. There may be some property rights to those z '~ w hearing closed at 4:50 p.m. 6 U O co o cnw J non - conforming uses, but the appellant has the burden of establishing those. The Examiner called for further testimony regarding this appeal. There was no one else wishing to speak. The FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS & DECISION Having reviewed the record in this matter, the Examiner now makes and enters the following: FINDINGS: � u uj 0 u_ j . 1. The appellants, Tim and Rebecca Harlan for Connections, Inc., filed an appeal of the decision by the • d City Clerk of Tukwila to deny a business license. = w z � 2. The appellants operate two businesses at 13029 37th Avenue South in the City of Tukwila. One of the Z O businesses is a telephone answering service. The second business is a computer repair business. LLI c o 3. The parties stipulated that the property has always been zoned for Low Density Residential since its o H WW U 4. It was also zoned for residential purposes prior to annexation. u 0 .. z 5. It was apparently first zoned in the 1960's, as no prior Zoning Map could be located. co O ~ 6. Roderick Ross, who acquired the property in the 1940's, and his son, Jerry Ross, have used the property z for non - residential purposes. The former used it for repairing equipment. The latter used it for repairing engines and as an office. The spaces in it were not well demarked between the repair and office uses. The parties stipulated that the layout of the space was not an issue. annexation to the City. 7. The senior Ross sold the property to the appellant in 1999. At that point the appellants established their businesses. 8. Neighbors who visited the earlier business or were familiar with it, established that the prior use was equipment repair and office use. 9. The property was annexed to the City in 1989. Prior to that time it was in unincorporated King County. Since annexation, no business license for any purpose was issued for this property. 10. The appellants reside in a home across the street at 13030 37th Avenue S. 11. Undisputed is that fact the current uses are non - conforming uses. What is disputed is if one or both of those uses are a continuation of the prior use or uses, or constitute an abandonment of a previous legally non- conforming status. tit 3sx•��' x'sjSrt3:a�id:Sis ' ; Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 5 12. The City maintains that any office use by the prior owner was merely secondary to the operation of the repair business. They maintain it was never a primary or separately functioning business use. The City Z does not believe that the prior office uses, the support for either the original primary business or the steam ship business and the current telephone /mail business, are similar in nature. H w CL 13. The prior owner had apparently purchased a steam ship and ran its operation out of this office as a 6 0 smaller, possibly sideline, business. There were apparently no additional employees of these earlier co p businesses. w = J F.. 14. No patrons come to the business, and as a matter of fact, the appellant prefers that they not know its al al 0 physical location for security reasons. It is used both for telephone messages and as a Post Office Box for clients. It operates 24 hours a day with between 3 and 5 employees. g u_¢ (o 15. The matter came to the attention of the City when the garage -like structure was being converted to z w office space without any permits. The City sent a Correction Notice to the appellant on June 7, 2000. Z H The appellant then applied for a business license on June 12, 2000. The City followed its normal 1— 0 procedures and had the Planning Division of the Department of Community Development review the w 1 license for land use compliance. The Planning Division found that the use did not comply with Home 2 D Occupations, since it was a primary use rather than an accessory use of a structure in the Low Density U co Residential District and it would have five (5) non - resident employees. It also found that the use p H "would not be a continuation of previously existing legally nonconforming business use, but a new and = w different nonconforming use." 1— `. 16. The appellant was notified by the City Clerk of the denial on July 20, 2000. tii u) U— H= 0 ~ 17. The appellant filed his appeal request on August 1, 2000. 18. The City argues that it distinguishes between gradations of use and does not lump all commercial uses together so, to use their example, "automotive services" and "high -tech uses" are separate uses. They, therefore, argue that telephone answering service and computer repair are different from "office supportive of heavy equipment repair" and heavy equipment repair, respectively. 19. Code Section 18.06.565 provides the definition of use: Use. "Use means the nature of the occupancy, the type of activity, or the character and form of improvements to which land is devoted or may be devoted." 20. The definition of a nonconforming use is contained in Section 18.06.590: Nonconforming use. (Ord. 1758, 1995) "Nonconforming use" means the use of land which does not conform to the use regulations of the district in which the use exists. 21. Code provides in Section 18.70.040 the criteria for nonconforming uses: Any preexisting lawful use of land made non - conforming under the terms of this title may be continued z Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 6 as a nonconforming use, defined in TMC 18.06, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the following: CONCLUSIONS: 1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased or extended to occupy a greater use of the land, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title; 2. No nonconforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title; 3. If any such nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than six consecutive months, or a total of 365 days in a three -year time period, whichever occurs first, any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the district in which such use is located; 4. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zone in which it is located shall be structurally altered, except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; except where minor alterations are made, pursuant to TMC 18.70.050(1), TMC 18.70.060, or any other pertinent section, herein; 5. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be nonconforming by application of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and /or the City Council. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as listed within the zoning code. 6. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter con -form to the regulations for the zone in which such structure is located, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed. (Ord. 1819, 1997) 22. It appears that the entire business continues to operate during the pendency of the appeal. 1. The appellant has the burden of demonstrating that the decision of the City was either in error, or was otherwise contrary to law or constitutional provisions, or was arbitrary and capricious. TMC 5.08.080(C) requires that the decision of the hearing body on an appeal from a decision of the Clerk shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of proof shall be on the appellant." The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the action of the City should be modified or reversed. The decision is affirmed. Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 7 2. Arbitrary and capricious action has been defined as willful and unreasoning action in disregard of the facts and circumstances. A decision, when exercised honestly and upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances, is not arbitrary or capricious (Northern Pacific Transport Co. v Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, 69 Wn. 2d 472, 478 (1966). 3. An action is likewise clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing body, on the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. (Ancheta v Daly, 77 Wn. 2d 255, 259 (1969). The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the decision was founded upon anything but a fair review of the code sections as they apply to the appellant's uses. The appellant has failed to demonstrate with cogent evidence that a mistake was made. 5. The City has a right to have non- conforming uses terminated to protect the low density residential zoning it has enacted for the area, including the subject site. Zoning, particularly for residential uses, needs to be protected and protective. The City has enacted provisions which make any change of use sufficient to trigger the termination of a legal non- conforming use. Section 18.70.040 (5) provides: If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be nonconforming by application of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process ... 6. There are two businesses operating out of the building. A computer repair business and a telephone /message service center. Both businesses are significantly different from the prior business and its supportive office. Computer repair is not repair of heavy equipment. Computer repair is substantially different even if it is less, even much less, intense. 7. Computer repair is not the same use as heavy equipment repair. It is a different use. And it is not a use that has received either a permit for conditional use or unclassified use. 8. Similarly, an entirely separate business office that employs five people is not the same as an office that was secondary to operating the heavy equipment repair business. Also the five person, 24 hour per day office is significantly different than any office the prior proprietor may have had running a small steam ship operation. Ross the was the only "employee" of his business and employed no other people on the premises. 9. Finding that this new office with five employees who come and go over a 24 hour period in a low density residential neighborhood is the same use as an single owner /employee and is a continuation or the same scale of office use would be too open ended and the non- conforming status would never be rectified. 10. The two business functions are not a continuation of the prior uses that occurred over the years. Code requires that any new use either has to be a legal conforming use or must be a true continuation of the uses the prior tenancy operated. If that is not the case, the use is improper as a legal non- conforming use. owskvilit plmfat Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 8 11. The office realizes that this business location is very convenientand that, at this time, neighbors do not object to the changes. But neither of those factors change the outcome. Most people would prefer a short commute, and a change in ownership of a neighboring property could change the opinion of a neighbor. The Zoning Code and the integrity it brings to a community deserves to be protected. The code should be allowed to operate as to its provisions for terminating non- conforming uses. Neither of the current uses is a true continuation of what occurred on this site prior to the appellants' acquisition of the property and the establishment of the current two uses. 12. Since the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant, this office can only conclude that the City made the correct determination. The decision below must be affirmed. DECISION: The appeal is denied. The decision below is affirmed. ORDERED THIS 17th day of May, 2001. TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 2001 to the parties of record: Sam Jacobs, Attorney 600 University St., Ste. 2701 Seattle, WA 98101 -1176 Art Pederson Madrona Planning 5604 28th Avenue NW Seattle, WA 98107 Joseph Wade 13200 37th Avenue S Tukwila, WA 98168 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor John McFarland, City Administrator FRED J. KA HEARING E Tim Harlan 13029 37th Avenue S Tukwila, WA 98168 Robert Noe, City Attorney 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Janine Ludington 13007 37th Avenue S Tukwila, WA 98168 TRANSMITTED THIS 17th day of May, 2001 to the following: AN MINER Nora Gierloff, City Planner 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Rebecca Fox, Associate Planner 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 .. ...,....�.i t_. ,x ._.... . i. e. d.... t,`: �a: K:.:. nSt' w�' r` Y..,. ��v;,.: t{ iP�t'��3"si.'.:.!»ra�.- ?:e:�`•- Tim Harlan Connections, Inc. Appeal re Denial of Business License May 17, 2001 Page 9 Reconsideration must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m., June 6, 2001. Any aggrieved person feeling that the decision of the Examiner is ambiguous or based on erroneous procedure, errors of law or fact, error in judgment, or the discovery of new evidence which could not be reasonably available at the prior hearing may make a written request for a review by the Examiner within twenty (20) days from the date of the Examiner's decision. This request shall set forth the specific ambiguities or errors discovered by such appellant, and the Examiner may, after review of the record, take further action as he deems proper. The appeal provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Court are unclear on the time for filing an appeal. The appeal shall be filed with King County Superior Court within 20 days of this decision. z I I- ;,- z 6 0 0 u) D: u)w w J H CD w w 0 LL Q � d w Z �. o . Z I- • D 0 - D I W.T. W U` • O Z : Ili CO O ~ ' z 1• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 !ECEJVED ) "A r r is JUN o s 2001 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA CITY OF TUKWILA CITY CLERK APPEAL OF DENIAL OF 2000 BUSINESS ) LICENSE BY CONNECTIONS, INC. AND ) MOTION AND REQUEST TIM AND REBECCA HARLAN REGARDING ) FOR RECONSIDERATION PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13030 37 AVENUE ) SOUTH, TUKWILA, WA 98168 ) The Appellants, Connections, Inc. and Timothy and Rebecca Harlan, husband and wife, hereby request the Hearing Examiner to reconsider the May 17, 2001 decision in this matter (the "Decision "). I. INTRODUCTION The Hearing Examiner has authority to reconsider the Decision based on, among other things, ". . . errors of law or fact [or] errors in judgment . . ." (page 9, paragraph 1 of the Decision. Appellants contend that the Decision contains such errors with respect to the following:' 1.1 The Decision incorrectly places the burden of proof on the Appellants and applies incorrect legal standards, regarding the question of whether the nonconforming use has been abandoned. These issues do not necessarily constitute the complete list of all aspects of the Decision to which the Appellants object and believe are in error and on which they may seek judicial review once the decision on reconsideration is issued, to the extent issues remain relevant. J MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRU:GGS JACOBS & SIELER $..ITE 27:' :PIE iJYION =CLA E i,7■11/ERS -' - SE./.77:2_ WASHING =N E613' - ' 176 12061 621 F ;tiiMz (2Cr_; rt62j' 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1.2 The Decision otherwise generally uses an incorrect standard of review. 1.3 The Decision incorrectly interprets and /or applies the provisions of the Tukwila Municipal Code which allow some latitude in the change of a non - conforming use. As a result of these errors, the Decision is incorrect. We request the Hearing Examiner: 1) reconsider the Decision; 2) hold oral argument and /or require additional briefing from the parties if the Hearing Examiner would find this helpful; and 3) issue a new decision approving Connections, Inc.'s use of the property as an answering service office as a legal nonconforming use. Each of the errors referenced above will be summarized below. We have also included, for reference of the Hearing Examiner, a copy of Appellants' Prehearing Brief which contains additional argument and reference. II. THE DECISION INCORRECTLY PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE APPELLANTS, AND APPLIES INCORRECT LEGAL STANDARDS, REGARDING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THE NONCONFORMING USE HAS BEEN ABANDONED The Decision errs in imposing upon the Appellants the burden of showing that the office use of the property has not been abandoned. For a non - conforming use of property to be legal, it must pass three tests: (1) that nonconforming use existed prior to the adoption of the zoning code which made it illegal; (2) that the use was lawful at that time; and (3) that since the zoning code has been in effect the use has not been abandoned (State v. Pierce County, 65 Wn. App. 614, [1992]). We do not believe that there is any dispute regarding the presence of the first two elements: The issue before the Hearing Examiner is whether the previously established nonconforming use has been abandoned. This is recognized in the Decision. See Findings of Fact 11. 2 As indicated in footnote 1, page 3 of Appellants' Prehearing Brief, the issue of whether the computer repair activity on the property in question is a legally nonconforming use is probably not before the Hearing Examiner and therefore is not within the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction. Appellants, in this Motion and Request for Reconsideration, will therefore limit their arguments to issues related to the answering service office use of the property. MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.1176 12061 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624.8241 mc a.+r.rnrrrl'WItn= 4459 z I I-- ~ W J 00 U) 0 J • w w o 2 � rn = a w z 1 — o z I— w U • � o f O 1- ww I- u. ..z w U= O ▪ ~ z 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 While the party claiming nonconforming use has the burden of showing that the first two elements cited above are present, the burden shifts to the party claiming abandonment to show that the nonconforming use has been abandoned. See Van Sant v. Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641 (1993). For easy reference, I have enclosed a copy of the Van Sant decision. In Van Sant, much like the case before the Examiner in this matter, there had been a change in the nature of the commercial activity taking place on the property over the years. It had initially been a recycling station, then used for making neon glass and for storage before Van Sant who was attempting to use it for an auto detailing business. The court in Van Sant made the following holdings, all of which are germane to the issue before the Examiner and demonstrate significant errors in the Decision: 2.1 The burden of showing that nonconforming use has been abandoned is upon the party claiming abandonment. "Because Van Sant had established the prior existence of a nonconforming commercial use, the burden shifted to the City to prove abandonment or discontinuance of that nonconforming use." (69 Wn. App. at 649). 2.2 To meet this burden, the City must demonstrate a concurrence of two factors: " ... (a) An intention to abandon; and (b) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use" [citation omitted] (69 Wn. App. 648). 2.3 "Nonconforming uses are vested property rights which are protected." [citation omitted] (69 Wn. App. at 649). 2.4 "Protected property rights cannot be lost or voided easily. There is properly a high burden of proof that must be met by the City before Van Sant loses what was a vested property right." (69 Wn. App. at 649) The court in Van Sant reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner in that case because the Examiner placed the burden of proving that nonconforming use had not been abandoned on the property owner. MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 (2061 624.7600 FACSIMILE (2061 624-8241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Similarly the Decision improperly places the burden of establishing that the nonconforming office use was not abandoned on the Appellants. It also fails to recognize that the City has made no showing on an intent to abandon, nor overt act of abandonment. Further, the Decision fails to . recognize that nonconforming use of the property is constitutionally protected, and fails to recognize that the City has a high burden to show abandonment. As a result, the Decision is in error and must reversed. III. THE DECISION OTHERWISE GENERALLY USES AN INCORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW The Decision is founded on the premise that the Appellants have not met their burden of establishing that the answering service office use is legally nonconforming. With respect to the issue of abandonment — which is the real issue before the Examiner — the burden is on the City, and it is a high burden (see Section II above). However, the Decision otherwise also imposes an impermissibly high burden on Appellants. It appears to require that the Appellants show that the City Clerk's denial of the business license was either arbitrary or capricious or clearly erroneous or in error based on clear, convincing and/or cogent evidence. Conclusion 1 of the Decision cites T.M.C. Section 5.08.080(C) for the standard of review as "the preponderance of the evidence". "The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the evidence establish the proposition at issue is more probably true than not true" (Dependency of H.W. 92 Wn. App. 420, 425 [1998]). In other words, it is a 50% plus test; if the issue is at all more likely than not to be true, preponderance of the evidence is established. However, the Decision appears to require a much higher standard of review. Conclusion 2 of the Decision cites the "arbitrary and capricious" standard, obviously a much higher standard 3 Although Chapter 5.08 of the Tukwila Municipal Code does not specifically apply to appeals of denials of business licenses, Section 5.08.080(C) is broadly enough written to apply to appeals of business license denials, and the undersigned is not aware of any other more specific reference to a standard of review. MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 (206) 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624 -8241 4 1* 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 than preponderance. Similarly, Conclusion 3 of the Decision cites the "clearly erroneous" standard which, while not as strenuous as Arbitrary and Capricious, is still a much higher burden than is preponderance of the evidence. Further, the first paragraph on page 1 of the Decision indicates that the Appellants must show that the City's Decision is incorrect by " ... clear and convincing evidence ... ", and Conclusion 4 seems to establish a standard requiring that the Appellants present ". . . cogent evidence . . ." that the City erred. These are higher standards than preponderance of the evidence. See, for example, Dependency of HW, at page 425 which states: " ... Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence exists when the ultimate fact in issue is shown to be `highly probable.'" [citation omitted]. Again, this is a much higher standard than preponderance of the evidence. Although it is not entirely clear what standard the Decision is based upon, - whether the arbitrary and capricious standard, the clearly erroneous standard or the cogent, clear and convincing evidence standard — it is clear that the preponderance of the evidence standard was not used. The first sentence to Conclusion 4 of the Decision makes this obvious; it indicates that because the Appellants failed to demonstrate that the City's decision was based on anything other than " ... a fair review of the code sections as they apply to the appellant's issues. ", that the appeal must fail. This is not the preponderance of the evidence standard, under which the Hearing Examiner must review the facts and the law presented and decide on a more likely than not basis whether the party with the burden of proof has met that burden. IV. INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE PROVISIONS The Tukwila Municipal Code clearly contemplates and allows that some change in the nature, extent and type of nonconforming commercial business is permissible and, in essence, 4 As described in Section II above, the burden is on the City to show abandonment, and it is a "high burden ". While the Van Sant case does not articulate the precise standard, it would be significantly higher than preponderance of the evidence, given the constitutional right to continue legal nonconforming use. MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.1176 (2061 624.7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624-8241 " - 4 2gtY4 .,::iT+nil'di'tttr.:� 'tom'- •r`: }',T.ur.�:kvwr - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 constitutes a continuation of legally established nonconforming use. Section T.M.C. 18.70.040 regulates nonconforming uses. Paragraph 5 of that Section reads in part: For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as listed within the zoning code. [emphasis added] In other words, as long as you stay within the same use category in the zoning code, preexisting nonconforming use rights are not abandonment. The Decision properly finds that the prior owner and users of the property maintained office use in the building. Connections, Inc.'s use of the portion of the building for an answering service is clearly an office use. I believe the City stipulated to this at the hearing. As the existing use is an office under the Zoning Code, and the prior use was an office under the Zoning Code, there has been no change of "use ", and the existing office continues the prior legal nonconforming use rights of the prior offices. The Decision fails to recognize that the Code allows for some change and, further, appears to establish standards regarding change in use which are simply lacking in the Tukwila Municipal Code (and are also contrary to the Van Sant case). This is manifested in various portions of the Decision, perhaps most specifically in Conclusion 10 which purports to require that in order to be legally nonconforming, the current use must be a ". . . true continuation of the uses the prior tenancy operated." True Continuation - whatever that means - is not the standard in the Tukwila Municipal Code. Under that code, nonconforming use right are preserved as long as the use category of the former and current use are the same. 5 The evidence before the Examiner demonstrates that both Roderick and Jerry Ross maintained an office in the building during their periods of use (see Exhibits 2 and 3). MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 6 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.1176 (2061 624-7600 FACSIMILE (2061 624 -8241 TireNV 1• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Both the prior use and the current use are properly categorized as "Office" under the Tukwila Municipal Code. As such there has not been a change in user and Connection, Inc.'s use of a portion of the building as an answering service is legal and may continue. V. CONCLUSION Appellants respectfully submit that the Decision contains significant errors and that, based on the record before the Examiner, the correct application of the law to the facts and the proper allocation and nature of burden of proof, the Hearing Examiner should decide that the Connections, Inc's use of the property for an answering service office use is a legal and protected nonconforming use of the property and may continue. As indicated above, Appellants are available to provide additional documentation and argument, either oral or written, if this would be helpful to the Hearing Examiner. Respectfully submitted this 6 day of June, 2001. MOSLER, SCHERMER, WALLSTROM, SCRUG S, JACOBS & SIELER 6 Nor does the answering service use violate any other provisions of TMC 18.70.040. The fact that the prior office uses may not have had any employees other than the proprietors and the current office uses might have, from time to time, more than one employee, is not sufficient given the totality of the circumstances and the evidence before the Examiner to establish that constitutionally protected nonconforming use rights have been lost. MOTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION - 7 SAMUEL M. JOBS, WSBA No. 8138 Attorney for A . ellants LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1176 (206) 624 -7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624.8241 itxvcs�aXwfyi�V,�a; z ~ w re JU 00 CO • LLI J = N LL w LL Q . = • a I- In Z = I- 0 z I— w U • � o - o � wW 9 .. z w U _ O~ z • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF TTJKWILA 8 APPEAL OF DENIAL OF 2000 BUSINESS ) LICENSE BY CONNECTIONS, INC. AND ) PREHEARING BRIEF 9 TIM AND REBECCA HARLAN REGARDING ) OF APPELLANTS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13030 37 AVENUE ) 10 SOUTH, TUKWILA, WA 98168 ) ) 11 , ) 12 I. INTRODUCTION 13 This Hearing Brief is submitted by Connections, Inc. and Tim and Rebecca Harlan, 14 husbanid and wife,'the Applicants in this matter. This brief is intended to provide a general 15 overview of the main legal and factual issues involved in this matter and outline what will be 16 presented at the hearing. 17 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 Connections, Inc. applied for a 2000 City of Tukwila business license regarding property 19 owned by its president, Tim Harlan and his wife Rebecca. By letter dated July 20, 2000 the City 20 denied this application, and that denial was timely appealed. 21 III. ISSUE PRESENTED 22 The letter denying the business license indicates that it was denied under Tukwila 23 Municipal Code § 5.04.1.10.A2, because the City concluded that the property could not be used as 24 contemplated in the application. As will be explained more fully below, the real issue on appeal ' 25 26 PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 1 • uw ran :iCN yywsur�a�trXntaMr!*!Yph�tpa!rz 'sa:arnwv!F+•��a:..�r; 5FS: OZ.V;x±.jZ`y,:' jt "kR . _n. • LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-1176 12061 624 -7600 FACSIMILE 1206) 624 -8241 1• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 _ _ _ ..... ...z .lf 'r PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 2 is whether the Applicant's uses of the property are permitted as legal nonconforming uses. Further, based on our conversations with the City, we believe that the only genuine issue in dispute is whether the Applicant's use of the property is a permissible continuation of the prior owner and user's clearly established legal nonconforming use rights. W. GENERAL STATEMENT OF FACTS At the hearing, the Applicant intends to submit witnesses and evidence to support the following facts: 4.1 At the outset, please note that in order to expedite the hearing, the City and the Applicant have stipulated to the following facts: A. Prior to 1950's there was no zoning or other similar land use controls on the subject property; B. The first applicable zoning map that can be located is from the early 1960 -'s which designates this area as Suburban Residential; C. :As far as can be determined, the zoning on the subject property remained Suburban Residential until it was annexed into the City of Tukwila, which apparently took place in the late 1980's; D. Since annexation into the City of Tukwila, the subject property has been continuously residentially zoned and is presently zoned for "Low Density Residential "; and E. The parties stipulate to the authenticity of the November 27, 2000 letter from Jerry Ross (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A) and agree that all facts stated therein are accurate. 4.2 Commercial use of the subject property commenced well before the early 1940's. The property has never been used for residential purposes. In the early 1940's, Roderick LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 1206) 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624-8241 sM.yrr• .aw. - sw., o+ a, a- mm. Nm.,... rnceyray. vi::, �vz•^.: Sn�ur :;.�mm.Y+:v.�r:^�'n.r+'fifxs; tx6TtW'�.'d4!fhs'A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Laxsl..�. PA ,� •. W .z V git�I . VEL - .n Ross built the present structure on the property, using the foundation of the previous commercial building. He had an equipment repair facility and office use in the building on the property. Commencing in the late 1970's, Roderick's son, Jerry, used the same portions of the building for. equipment repair and office uses, and these uses continued until his parents sold the property to the Harlans in 1999. 4.3 The Harlans have lived in the house they own across the street from the subject property for approximately 15 years. They bought the subject property so that Mr. Harlan could conduct his business in close proximity to his home. They would not have bought the subject property, which is not suitable for residential use, had they not thought they could use the property for Mr. Harlan's business. They will suffer substantial harm if they cannot use the building as they had intended. Upon purchasing the property, Mr. Harlan commenced his business activities on the subject property, which continue to the present. His business activities include a telephone-answering service office and a shop where he repairs computer equipment.' The area that he uses for office is the same area as was used by the prior owner and users for office, and the area he uses for computer repair is the same area that was used by the prior owner and users for their repair businesses. 4.4 There is strong support among the neighbors of the subject property for the continued use of this property for Mr. Harlan's businesses. The neighbors do not experience any problems or negative impacts from these uses of the property and support the continuation of these uses. ' Strictly speaking the question of the status of the repair use on the property is probably not before the Hearing Examiner. The business license application that was denied and which is the subject of this appeal only listed the telephone answering business. Therefore, the status of the computer repair business may not be within the Hearing Examiner's jurisdiction. PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 3 LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98101.1176 (206) 624 -7600 FACSIMILE (2061 624 -8241 ust:�:f.'»�»xmw. seesaw. �.. xma+ e:mw.�r.,•ro...,- «...�,,.•�.�.M ,.R.,..�...•.,.,c.. x _ +:_a.,v>:�r,.:; z _~ '~ w J U 00 I) W W J = H LL W 2 � Q w Z = I- 0 Z I- LL/ w o� W w 1- w z U Ci) 0 z 1: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 4 V. LEGAL ISSUES AND ARGUMENT Both under established case law and the Tukwila Municipal Code, the Applicant's use of the property is legally nonconforming and the Applicant is entitled to a business license. Nonconforming use of property is a legally protected property right Rhod- A -7alea & 35t Inc. v. Snohomish County, 136 Wn.2d 1, 959 P.2d 1024 (1998). The general purpose of nonconforming provisions is to avoid substantial hardship and the potential nationality that would result from strict application of the use standards of newly adopted zoning codes to preexisting uses. Id. at 7. Although variously stated, our courts have generally held that a use is legally nonconforming if it meets the following three tests: 1. That the use existed prior to adoption of a zoning code which made it illegal; 2. That the use was lawful at that time; and 3. . That since the zoning code has been in: effect, the use has not been abandoned. State v. Pierce County, 65 Wn. App. 614, 829 P.2d 217 (1992): We do not believe that there is any serious dispute or question regarding the first and second elements_ The Applicant and the City concur that commercial use has been made of this property since prior to the early 1940's. From the early 1940's up to the time the property was sold to my client in 1999, part of the building on the property was used for office use and part was used for vehicle and engine repair. There was no zoning or other similar land use control applicable to the property until some time during the late 1950's or early 1960's. Clearly, these uses of the property predated the adoption of any applicable zoning code. The first element is met. LAW OF OF MOSLER SCERM¢x WALLSIROM SCR[:GGS JACOBS & SCR SUITE 2701 0!E LIPIICW SQUARE 600 LW/L= 1TY S Hz= t SFATTLE. WASHDIGTON 98101-1176 0061 624 -7600 FACSiWRE 12C6) 624-8241 1• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 :r � - ... :.s e-►z ; -tom •+.,. " Further, a use that was established prior to the adoption of any applicable zoning code is construed as a legal use of the property. University Place v. McGuire, 102 Wn. App. 658, 9 P.3d 918 (2000). The second element is met. The only issue in dispute is whether the change in ownership with attendant change in the nature of the activities taking place in the building constitutes an abandonment of the nonconforming use rights. While the burden of establishing the existence of a nonconforming use rests on the party claiming it, the burden shifts to the municipality or other part challenging nonconforming use to show that such use has been abandoned or discontinued. Van Sant v. Everett, 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 (1993). There is no dispute that office use and repair use has continued on the property from at least in the 1940's to and through the present. However, the City claims, in essence, that a slight change in the nature of the uses on the property by my client constitutes an abandonment of the previously established legal nonconforming uses. Under both Washington case law and the Tukwila Code, the change in the activities involved in this case does not constitute a change of use and therefore is not an abandonment or discontinuance of the nonconforming use of the property. Perhaps the most similar factual case in the State of Washington to the matter before the Hearing Examiner is presented in Van Sant v. Everett. In that case, the structure in question had two separate uses going on within it. The upper floor of the building contained residential units, while the first floor of the building was used for commercial activities. While the current owner was proposing to use the first floor for an auto detailing business, the previous owners had used it as a recycling station and for making neon glass and for storage. In Van Sant, the court held that the second floor residential use had not been commenced at a time when it was legal to conduct 2 Clearly a change in ownership does not destroy or otherwise affect nonconforming use rights. See Van Sant v. Everett. PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 5 r • 'd' r t; LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 (2061 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624 -8241 1• 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 6 such a use and therefore was illegal. However, as the commercial use of the first floor had commenced when it was legal to have commercial use of the property, that the first floor of the property continued to have nonconforming commercial use rights. The fact that the nature of the commercial use apparently changed from a recycling station to a neon glass plant to an auto detailing shop did not destroy the nonconforming use rights. The Van Sant case is strikingly similar to the case presented here in two respects. First, in each situation there are two separate uses of the building and second as ownership changed, the nature of the commercial activities changed without destroying nonconforming use rights. In the case before the Hearing Examiner, part of the building was used by the Rosses for office use from the early 1940's up through the time it was sold to the Applicant in 1999, and since that time, has been used by the Applicant for office use. The nature of the activity in the office may have changed but the fact that it is an office use has remained constant. In another part of the building, the Rosses basically engaged in engine repair activities from the early 1940's through 1999, and now my client engages in computer equipment repair. While engine repair is not strictly the same activity as computer repair, they are probably more similar to each other than is auto detailing to making art glass and a recycling station. If changing from a recycling station to making neon glass and storage to auto detailing did not destroy the nonconforming use rights in Van Sant, then changing from engine repair to computer maintenance - and changing the nature of office use - should not destroy the nonconforming use rights in this case. It is also clear that under the Tukwila Municipal Code my client may engage in the activities it is conducting - - especially the office use, as a legal nonconforming use. While nonconforming use rights are recognized at common law, municipalities may tailor these provisions for their communities. Meridian Minerals Company v. King County, 61 Wn. App. 195, 810 P.2d 31 (1991). LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 1206) 624-7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624 -8241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 use. PREHEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 7 `, 4. f) ' ' _ ;ire For the convenience of the Hearing Examiner, we have attached a photocopy of Tukwila Municipal Code § 18 :70.040 Nonconforming uses as Exhibit B. Paragraph 5 of that Section specifically discusses change of use, and the last sentence of that paragraph reads as follows: "For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassified Use category to another such use category as listed within the zoning code." In other words, a property does not loose its nonconforming use rights if the activity being conducted has changed, so long as both the old and new activity are within the same "use category" under the zoning code. Under Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.18.020, regarding permitted uses in Office Zones, Paragraph 14 lists as a permitted use category "Offices" . It is uncontested that the prior owner and users had an office use on the property. Since acquiring the property, my client has operated an answering service on the property, which is clearly an office Since the early 1940's and continuing to and through the present a portion of the building on the property has been used for office purposes. There should be no question that under Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.70.040(5) this current office use is legally nonconforming and may be continued. Finally, although the question of legal nonconforming use status does . not depend on the support or opposition of surrounding property owners, the affects of the use on the neighborhood is germane One of the reasons for specifically regulating nonconforming uses is to eliminate or lessen the negative impacts on the surrounding area. In this case the Applicant's use of the property has no negative impacts on the surrounding area and is supported by neighbors. 3 The other commercial zones within Tukwila list "Office ", sometimes with various limitations, as a use category. With respect to the repair activities in the other portion of the building, the Tukwila Municipal Code is less clear regarding what use category the prior engine repair activity would fit into as well as what use category the current computer repair would fit into. LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 -1176 (206) 624 -7600 FACSIMILE (2061 624 -8241 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 t. p'r HEARING BRIEF OF APPELLANTS - 8 VI. CONCLUSION The only real question presented to the Hearing Examiner is whether legally established and recognized nonconforming use rights for the subject property have been abandoned or otherwise destroyed because the precise nature of the activities conducted on the property has changed? Under the case authority cited above and, at least with respect to the office, under the Tukwila Municipal Code, my client retains the nonconforming use rights of the prior owner and may lawfully engage in the activities currently conducted on the property. A business license for the telephone answering office should be issued. Respectfully submitted this j2 of March, 2001. MOSLER, SCHERMER, WALLSTROM, SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER r1 J • 'd BS, ' SBA No. 8138 Attorney for C e ► . tions, Inc. Tim and Rebecca Harlan • LAW OFFICES OF MOSLER SCHERMER WALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER SUITE 2701 ONE UNION SQUARE 600 UNIVERSITY STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101.1176 (206) 624 -7600 FACSIMILE (206) 624 -8241 ..'.seer r�++: *rYeere�7, ..n�ASxhP7 �. November 27. 2000 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: P.O. Box 73 Hansville. WA 98340 -0073 I am very familiar with the property bearing the King County Assessor's Parcel No. 733240 0035. My parents. Rodrick and Bernice Ross purchased the property in 1941. Some of my knowledge of this property comes from my own personal observations and experience, while other information has come from my parents and other older persons familiar with the property. Some time prior to 1941, a structure had been erected on this property which was used as a community center for the Riverton Heights community. Dances, public meetings and other community events were held there. At other times, the building was used'as a store. When my parents bought the property in 1941 the former structure was either severely dilapidated or, perhaps, had burned. In 1941 or 1942, my father built the building that presently exists on the property, using the foundation of the former structure. He used the building for a number of years as a commercial engine repair and general automotive garage which was open to the public. He also had an office in the building. In about 1979, I commenced a commercial heavy equipment repair business is the building. I did work on marine engines, earth moving machinery and other large equipment. While some of my business was done off premises, I set up a complete machine and equipment repair shop in the building on the property in question and did most of my component (engine, transmission, etc.) repair work in this facility. I also maintained an office within the building. My parents sold the property to the present owner, Tim and Rebecca Harlan, in 1999. Throughout the period during which my parents owned the property, from 1941 through the time of the sale, my father and/or I operated a business on the property and used the property for business purposes continuously and on an ongoing basis. It was never used as a residence. I will be happy to provide additional detail if this would be helpful. EXHIBIT ,!:�3+ittl`'•.' +• "aS�'"^. :;E+;4;ix{'` "�»'3.' S�,"tY3;:+cai - s,.n,,..o, 3. The lot was legally estabt__ad prior to the effective date of any City of Tukwila ordinance that caused the lot to become nonconforming. (Ord 1819 §1(parr), 1997) 18.70.040 Nonconforming uses. Any preexisting lawful use of land made noncon- forming under the terms of this title may be continued as a nonconforming use, defined in TMC 18.06, so long as that use remains lawful, subject to the followin 1. No such nonconforming use shall be enlarged, intensified, increased or extended to occupy a greater use of the Iand, structure or combination of the two, than was occupied at the effective date of adoption of this title; 2. No nonconforming use shall be moved or extended in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel occupied by such use at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this title; 3. If any such nonconforming use ceases for any reason for a period of more than six consecutive months, or a total of 365 days in a three -year time period, whichever occurs first, any subsequent use shall conform to the regulations specified by this title for the district in which such use is located; 4. No existing structure devoted to a use not permitted by this title in the zone in which it is located shall be structurally altered, except in changing the use of the structure to a use permitted in the zone in which it is located; except where minor alterations are made, pursuant to TMC L8.70.050(1), TMC 18.70.060, or any other pertinent section, herein; 5. If a change of use is proposed to a use determined to be nonconforming by application of provisions in this title, the proposed new use must be a permitted use in its zone or a use approved under a Conditional Use or Unclassified Use Permit process, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. For purposes of implementing this section, a change of use constitutes a change from one Permitted, Conditional or Unclassi- fied Use category to another such use category as listed within the zoning code. 6. Any structure, or structure and land in combination, in or on which a nonconforming use is superseded by a permitted use, shall thereafter con- form to the regulations for the zone in which such structure is located, and the nonconforming use may not thereafter be resumed. (Ord. 1819 §1(parr), 1947) 18.70.050 Nonconforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption of this title that could not be built under the terms of this title by reason of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards or other characteristics of the structure, it may be continued so long as the structure Printed Juty 6, 1999 remains otherwise I. ■ j subject to the following provisions: 1. No such structure may be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its degree of noncon- formity. Ordinary maintenance of a nonconforming structure is permitted, pursuant to TMC 18.70.060, including but not limited to painting, roof repair and replacement, plumbing, wiring, mechanical equipment repair /replacement and weatherization. These and other alterations, additions or enlargements may be allowed as long as the work done does not extend further into any required yard or violate any other portion of this title. Complete plans shall be required of all work contemplated under this section. 2. Should such structure be destroyed by any means to an extent of more than S0% of its replace- ment cost at time of destruction, in the judgment of the City's Building Official, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with provisions of this title, except that in the LDR zone, structures that are nonconforming in regard to yard setbacks but were in conformance at the time of construction may be reconstructed to their original dimensions and location on the lot. 3. Should such structure be moved for any reason or any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zone in which It is located after it is moved. 4. When a nonconforming structure, or structure and premises in combination, is vacated or abandoned for 24 consecutive months, the structure, or structure and premises in combination, shat thereafter be required to be in conformance with the regulations of the zone in which it is located. Upon request of the owner, the City Council may grant an extension• of time beyond the 24 consecutive months. 5. Residential structures and uses located in any single- family or multiple - family residential zoning district and in existence at the time of adoption of this title shall not be deemed nonconforming in terms of bulk, use, or density provisions of this title. Such buildings may be rebuilt after a fire or other natural disaster to their original dimensions and bulk, but may not be changed except as provided in the non- conforming uses section of this chapter. 6. Single - family structures in single- or multiple- family residential zone districts, which have legally nonconforming building setbacks, shall be allowed to expand along the existing building line(s) if the existing distance from the nearest point of the structure to the property line is not reduced. 7. In wetlands, watercourses and their buffers, existing structures that do not meet the requirements of the Sensitive Areas Overlay District chapter of this title may be remodeled, reconstructed or replaced, provided that EXHIBIT 5 Page 18 -117 PiATI 640 STATE v. DAVIS May 1993 69 Wn. App. 634, 849 P.2d 1283 Montana law, like Washington's, requires that the warden promptly inform a prisoner of any detainer lodged against him, and inform him of his right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment. Mont. Code Ann. § 46 -31 -101 art. 3(3). With no authority in the record to the contrary, we presume the Montana warden followed Montana law and in- formed Davis of his rights under the IAI). Davis' failure to request a speedy trial is a factor we weigh strongly in the State's favor. [4] With respect to the fourth factor, prejudice, the Barker Court identified three interests a speedy trial is designed to protect: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possi- bility that the defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because the inability of a defendant ade- quately to prepare his case skews the fairness of the entire system. (Footnote omitted.) Barker, at 532. Prejudice is not limited to the prejudice a defendant may suffer at his trial. Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 27, 38 L. Ed. 2d 183, 94 S. Ct. 188 (1973) ("no court should overlook the possible impact pending charges might have on his prospects for parole "); Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 378, 21 L. Ed. 2d 607, 89 S. Ct. 575 (1969). See also State v. Ange- lone, 67 Wn. App. 555, 562, 837 P.2d 656 (1992) (prejudice was "clear" because the defendant lost the opportunity to have his federal prison term run concurrently with a sen- tence on the Washington charges "due to the failure of the authorities to adhere to his requests for a speedy trial "). We find that Davis suffered no prejudice as defined in Barker. Pretrial incarceration was not oppressive because Davis was already incarcerated in Montana under a differ- ent charge. Davis demonstrated no "anxiety and concern" resulting from Washington's charges. And most importantly, Davis failed to show that his defense was impaired. Thus, in light of Davis' inability to show prejudice and his failure to express any interest in a speedy trial, we find Davis' Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights were not infringed. ... ci .' fiH j? ? J a: F t- ^, ', ', f 4 ^' 1 � r, ! Y?L h.,- f° r ' ° ' 31 ?� , '� = ?``.i�'.�``S'!'�Si May 1993 • Davis next contends he is entitled to credit for time served in Montana. [5] RCW 9.94A.120(14) states that credit for confinement served before sentencing is limited to confinement "solely in regard to the offense for which the offender is being sen- tenced." When concurrent sentences are imposed, the defend- ant is not entitled to credit for time served on other sen- tences. State v. Watson, 63 Wn. App. 854, 859 -60, 822 P.2d 327 (1992). Because Washington does not allow credit for time served on other sentences, we find no error. Affirmed. BAKER and AGID, JJ., concur. Reconsideration denied August 10, 1993. CRAIG VAN SANT, ET AL, Respondents, V. THE CITY OF EVEREIT, Appellant. [1] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Appellate Review — Standard of Review — In General. In conducting its own review of the record of an administrative proceeding, an appellate court applies the arbitrary and capricious standard to questions of fact and the error of law standard to questions of law and to mixed questions of fact and law. The court will generally give substantial weight to the administrative agency's view of the law, but it may substitute its own judgment whenever it deter- mines that an error of law has been made. [2] Administrative Law — Hearing — Quasi - Judicial Acts — Judicial Procedures — Applicability. An administrative agency acting in a quasi-judicial role in determining, for example, a zoning issue is not held to the strict rules of procedure govern- ing judicial proceedings. VAN SANT v. EVERETr . 641 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 [No. 28049 -0 -I. Division One. May 3, 1993.1 I z F- C W JU 0 U D U W W I H U LL W Q co = F w z = z1- w • w U 0 O - O H w 1L w z U W 1— _ O ~ z 642 VAN SANT v. EVERETT May 1993 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 [3] Zoning — Nonconforming Use — Abandonment — Burden of Proof — Test. Once a landowner establishes the existence of a nonconforming use, the burden shifts to the party claiming aban- donment or discontinuance of the nonconforming use to demon- strate (1) the landowner's intent to abandon the use and (2) the commission of an overt act, or the failure to act, which implies that the landowner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use. [4] Zoning — Nonconforming Use — Abandonment — Burden of Proof — Misallocation of Burden — Effect. A nonconform- ing use is a vested property right which cannot be negated unless the high burden of proving intent to abandon and action or failure to act that would constitute abandonment is met. Misallocating the burden of proof constitutes an error of law. [5] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Question of Fact — Independent Judicial Interpretation. A court reviewing an administrative agency's factual findings cannot reweigh the evi- dence or substitute its interpretation of the facts for that reached by the agency. (6] Certiorari — Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Conclusions of Law — Effect. Conclusions drawn by a trial court on its review of the record of an administrative decision on writ of certiorari are treated as surplusage by an appellate court. [7] Zoning — Nonconforming Use — Abandonment — Com- mercial Use — Failure To Obtain Business License — Effect. While the failure to obtain a business license or building permit, or the violation of a business and occupation tax regula- tion, whether or not related to land use planning, would not alone be a sufficient basis for finding that a nonconforming commercial use has been abandoned, it may be used as evidence of an intent to abandon and may constitute an overt objective failure to act. [8] Zoning — Nonconforming Use — Creation — Burden of Proof. The burden of establishing the existence of a nonconform- ing use is upon the landowner. Nature of Action: Action to review a city council's deci- sion adopting a hearing examiner's denial of a nonconform- ing use application. Superior Court: The Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 90 -2- 03337 -4, John F. Wilson, J., on March 12, 1991, entered a judgment reversing certain of the exam- iner's determinations and remanding the matter. .; �}'` 7`: " 3. w"; �;"• cjts�: 5 +;,r?z?s,c^,•rrr.,��.G:tia1 ^e•,� � . ' May 1993 VAN SANT v. EVERE'IT 643 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 Court of Appeals: Holding that the landowner had failed to demonstrate that a nonconforming residential use had ever been established, the court reverses that portion of the judgment reversing the hearing examiner's decision and reinstates the administrative determination. Holding that the burden of proving the abandonment of the nonconform- ing commercial use had been improperly allocated and that evidence of the landowner's failure to obtain a business license was admissible but not conclusive as to the abandon- ment of the nonconforming commercial use, the court affirms that portion of the judgment remanding the issue for recon- sideration. Bruce E. Jones, City Attorney, and Walter C. Sellers, Assist- ant, for appellant. Bradford N. Cattle and Law Office of Anderson Hunter, for respondents. KENNEDY, J. — The City of Everett appeals the Superior Court's reversal and remand of an Everett hearing exam- iner's decision. We affirm in part and reverse in part. FACTS Respondent Craig Van Sant filed an application for a non- conforming use permit for property located at 4228 South Third in Everett. Such permits are governed by provisions of former Everett Municipal Code chapter 19.56. Everett's direc- tor of planning and community development granted Van Sant a certification of nonconforming commercial and multi- family use on October 26, 1989, allowing automobile detailing on the main floor and three multifamily units on the second floor of Van Sant's property. Neighbors Carolyn Lively, Terry Slattern, Mark Sullivan and Joanne Wildman appealed the decision to the City of Everett hearing examiner. At the resulting hearing before the examiner, Van Sant presented evidence that in 1972 the City's board of adjust- ment had acknowledged the commercial nonconforming use right of the property by authorizing a previous owner to z ~ W CL 2 J 0 u) W I— • W WO • j • a = w I— I z F. l– O z l— w • w U� O 5 crF- W W I H 0 L i-1 O w z U= O ~ z 644 VAN SANT v. EVERETT May 1993 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 "utilize the vacant non - conforming commercial structure for commercial purposes." A multifamily residential use was not acknowledged or approved by the board of adjustment at that time or any later date. Van Sant also presented evidence establishing that when the prior owner, Mr. Cole, acquired the property a recycling business was being conducted on the premises. Van Sant contends that when Cole became the owner he used the first floor of the building for operation of a neon glass plant and for storage. Cole also blew glass on the premises as a hobby. Some neighbors confirmed that Cole used the premises to run a business. One neighbor, Don Fletcher, testified that he saw neon companies pick up products on a daily basis. Van Sant testified that he owned the house across the street from the premises in question for 10 years and he saw glassblowing and manufacturing going on. In contrast, other neighbors claimed that there was little evidence of a busi- ness being conducted on the premises. Marian Paine, an Everett housing inspector, testified that the City posted the building as illegal to occupy for residen- tial purposes in 1974. Paine also testified that Cole was uncooperative in getting permits and bringing the structure up to code and, therefore, no permits had been issued. Mr. Irvine, from city planning, testified that the City had no record of any federal, state, or local tax payments that would indicate that income was being generated on the premises. The City could find no record of a business license ever being issued. Nor were there fire inspection records on file. Cole testified that the work done on site was for other businesses and the taxes and business licenses were all handled through different companies. He stated that he never conducted a business using his own name or tax identification number and there were no commercial sales out of the site. Any income generated from the location was reported by companies that did not have an ownership inter- est in the site, and employees were paid by different compa- nies. Cole also stated that there was continuous use of the property for business purposes from 1972 to 1989. May 1993 VAN SANT v. EVERETT 645 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 Following the December 19, 1989, hearing, the hearing examiner issued a written decision on January 12, 1990, granting the neighbors' appeal and withdrawing the certifi- cation of nonconforming use. The following findings are of particular importance for this appeal: FINDINGS OF FACT 7. During the time Mr. Cole owned the subject property, no Business License was acquired from the State of Washing- ton or the City of Everett for the use of the property. No registration of the property was made with any of the taxing departments of the State of Washington. The build- ing was used in conjunction with Mr. Cole's business, a neon sign company, that had its main office in Seattle. 8. During the period of time Mr. Cole owned the property, his main place of business was in Seattle. The activity in the building on -site was done during off hours, or when Mr. Cole brought work home from the Seattle plant. Any non- conforming commercial use of the property has terminated because the variance of April 3, 1972, has lapsed, and, the commercial use has not been continuous since that time to the present. 11. The historical use of the building on the subject property includes numerous violations of City of Everett's codes... . 12. No non - conforming use of the property as a multi- family residence has existed for the building and property. CONCLUSIONS 3. Any non - conforming commercial use of the property that may have existed as a result of a variance that was issued on April 3, 1972, has terminated. The variance has lapsed. 6. The non - conforming commercial use of the property has not been continuous, and, therefore, the property is not a com- mercial non - conforming use. 7. No multi- family residential non - conforming use has been established for the subject property. DECISION The Applicant contended that the previous owner of the property established it as a commercial use. The basis of this contention is that the City, through the Everett Board of Adjustment, on April 3, 1972, established the non-con- forming commercial status of the building. According to the Applicant, the previous owner, who purchased the building w :'.d k*. 7�'•%*' r'+•" yl'+ ri"% '.�:..�gwYs..iEV�{xnWxrrf?;. —.+ ..;fc'w'�r ^y 2WL� ,w�;r.�.•1,• ,�c'.' .:� -x. v , .,n•w Z W Q! 2 JU 00 W= F— w 0 gQ � ▪ w z zI- LL] • w 0 O cn _ ff w W LI O Z W U= O 1 " z 646 VAN SANT v. EVERETT May 1993 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 on May 12, 1973, continued the non - conforming commer- cial use until he sold the property to the Applicant, who contends that the commercial use has been continued to the present. The weakness in the Applicant's argument is the fact that no licensed or taxed commercial activity has occurred on the site. At no time during the previous ownership was there a Business License issued by the City of Everett for the business activity on -site; and, at no time during the previous ownership were Business and Occupation taxes ever paid to the City of Everett for the business conducted on -site. ▪ . • Thus, because no official or documented activity has been transacted on the property, the use cannot be consid- ered non - conforming for commercial use in the R -2 zone. On January 29, 1990, Van Sant filed a request for recon- sideration of the January 12, 1990, decision. At a February 22, 1990, hearing more evidence was presented concerning commercial activity. In a decision dated March 8, 1990, the hearing examiner concluded once again that Van Sant had failed to establish a nonconforming legal use. Significant portions of this decision read: The activity on the subject property in the past has been in conjunction with other business uses. However, there are no business records, taxation records, or any permits from the City of Everett with regard to the commercial activity on the subject property noted. A complete review has been made of the Request for Reconsid- eration. The Applicant has failed to document the legal use of the subject property for commercial activity. As noted in the original Findings and decision of January 12, 1990, there is no specific proof that the activity on -site was a commercial activ- ity that was authorized or licensed by the City of Everett. Van Sant appealed to the Everett City Council which declined to review the matter de novo and adopted the hearing examiner's decision. Thereafter, Van Sant filed a writ of certiorari before the Superior Court for Snohomish County. The Superior Court heard argument on February 1, 1991, and, finding errors of law, issued its decision overrul- ing certain determinations made by the hearing examiner May 1993 and remanding the matter. The City of Everett appeals this remand order. DISCUSSION 1. Standard of Review [1] In reviewing a superior court's reversal of a hearing examiner's decision, the appellate court conducts its own review of the record before the hearing examiner. Grader v. Lynnwood, 45 Wn. App. 876, 879 -80, 728 P.2d 1057 (1986). On questions of fact the reviewing court applies the arbi- trary and capricious standard. Abbenhaus v. Yakima, 89 Wn.2d 855, 858 -59, 576 P.2d 888 (1978). On issues of law the court applies the error of law standard. Franklin Cy. Sher- iff 's Office v. Sellers, 97 Wn.2d 317, 324, 646 P.2d 113 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1106, 74 L. Ed. 2d 954, 103 S. Ct. 730 (1983); Fisher v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 63 Wn. App. 770, 773, 822 P.2d 791 (1992); Schmitt v. Cape George Sewer Dist. 1, 61 Wn. App. 1, 4, 809 P.2d 217 (1991). Under the error of law standard the reviewing court may substitute its own judgment. However, substantial weight is generally given the agency's view of the law. Franklin, at 325; Schmitt, at 4. The error of law standard also applies to mixed questions of fact and law. Devine v. Department of Empl. Sec., 26 Wn. App. 778, 781, 614 P.2d 231 (1980). [2] Proceedings before quasi-judicial administrative bodies, including zoning proceedings, are not governed by strict rules of judicial procedure. See Mitchell Land Co. v. Planning & ZoningBd. of Appeals, 140 Conn. 527, 536, 102 A.2d 316, 321 (1953); Woodbury v. Zoning Bd. of Review, 78 R.I. 319, 323, 82 A.2d 164, 166 (1951); National Heritage, Inc. v. Pritza, 728 P.2d 737, 738 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). 2. Burden of Proof The City asserts that the record of proceedings does not establish that the hearing examiner improperly placed the burden of proof on the permit applicant. We disagree. [3] The City is correct that the initial burden of proving the existence of a nonconforming use is on the land user VAN SANT v. EVEREIT 647 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 Z W re J U 00 U O CO LIJ WI CO W W LLQ U � = d z = zI- w • w U D O 9- O F- ill W I H - tL O Z w U - R. O ~ z 648 VAN SANT v. EVERETP May 1993 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 making the assertion. 8A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corpora- tions § 25.188a (3d ed. 1986); Jacobs v. Mishawaka Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 182 Ind. App. 500, 507, 395 N.E.2d 834, 839 (1979). However, once a nonconforming use is established, the burden shifts to the party claiming abandonment or discontinuance of the nonconforming use to prove such. "Whether abandonment has occurred is a question of fact as to which the municipality has the burden of proof." 8A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 25.191. See also Jacobs, at 839. This burden of proof is not an easy one. The abandonment of a nonconforming use ordinarily depends upon a concurrence of two factors: (a) An intention to abandon; and (b) an overt act, or failure to act, which carries the implica- tion that the owner does not claim or retain any interest in the right to the nonconforming use. (Footnote omitted.) 8A E. McQuillin, Municipal Corpora- tions § 25.192. See also Jacobs, at 507; Andrew v. King Cy., 21 Wn. App. 566, 572, 586 P.2d 509 (1978), review denied, 91 Wn.2d 1023 (1979); Dorman v. Mayor & City Coun., 187 Md. 678, 51 A.2d 658, 661 (1947); California Car Wash of Allen- town, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 98 Pa. Commw. 209, 510 A.2d 931, 933 (1986); Derby Ref Co. v. Chelsea, 407 Mass. 703, 555 N.E.2d 534 (1990).' In the present case the hearing examiner seemed to give little weight to the fact that, in 1972, the City had previ- 'A growing minority of states hold that voluntary nonuse of the property in question for the time specified in a discontinuance ordinance terminates the nonconforming use, regardless of the intent to abandon. See Hartley v. Colorado Springs, 764 P.2d 1216, 1227 (Colo. 1988); Martin u. Beehan, 689 S.W.2d 29, 32 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985); Anderson u. Paragould, 16 Ark. App. 10, 11 -12, 695 S.W.2d 851, 852 (1985); Union Square Assn, Inc. v. Marc Lounge, Inc., 75 Md. App. 465, 470 - 72, 541 A.2d 1321, 1324, cert. denied, 313 Md. 612, 547 A.2d 189 (1988); Thxas Nat'l Theatres, Inc. v. Albuquerque, 97 N.M. 282, 287, 639 P.2d 569, 574 (1982); Sun Oil Co. u. Board of Zoning Appeals, 57 A.D.2d 627, 628, 393 N.Y.S.2d 760, 762 (1977). At least two cases have stated, in dictum, that failure to make any use of the premises for an extended period of time might evidence an intent to abandon any profitable use so that the nonconforming privilege would be lost. Dobbs v. Board of Appeals, 339 Mass. 684, 686 -87, 162 N.E.2d 32, 34 (1959); McCoy u. Knoxville, 41 111. App. 2d 378, 386 -87, 190 N.E.2d 622, 626 (1963). May 1993 VAN SANT v. EVERETI' 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 649 ously recognized a. nonconforming commercial use of the property at issue. The hearing examiner stated in his deci- sion of March 8: To change the use of the residential zoned property to a com- mercial zone at this time because of supplemental commercial activity that may have occurred on -site is not warranted. The limited activity does not warrant a Non - Conforming Use sta- tus .. Here the hearing examiner erred. Because Van Sant had established the prior existence of a nonconforming commer- cial use, the burden shifted to the City to prove • abandon- ment or discontinuance of that nonconforming use. The City should have been required to show (1) intent and (2) an overt act or failure to act which demonstrates that the owner does not claim or retain an interest in the right to the nonconforming use. The hearing examiner's requirement that Van Sant prove that the nonconforming commercial use had continued and had not been abandoned indicates that this burden was improperly placed on the owner of the vested property interest. The City asserts, in the alternative, that even if the hear- ing officer erred in allocation of the burdens of proof, the burden of proof issue is a red herring because the hearing examiner allowed in all evidence without restriction and made credibility determinations. Therefore, the City con- cludes, a remand would be a waste of time. We disagree. [4] The result of the hearing examiner's misallocation of the burdens of proof was not minor. Nonconforming uses are vested property rights which are protected. Missouri Rock, Inc. v. Winholtz, 614 S.W.2d 734, 739 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981); Martin v. Beehan, 689 S.W.2d 29, 31 (Ky. Ct. App. 1985). Protected property rights cannot be lost or voided easily. There is properly a high burden of proof that must be met by the City before Van Sant loses what was a vested property right. Here, the burden of proof is an important factor. The neighbors are saying that there is no nonconforming use. On the other hand, the property owner and his employees claim f i •`i 1 z Q• ~ W 1 J U 00 U° CO J 1— W 0 u_ ? = W H = z1.- 1— 0 W I— uj U � u)_ C) W W F— u. O ..z w U= O ~ z 650 VAN SANT v. EVERE'IT 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 132d 1276 that there is a nonconforming use. Because an arbitrary and capricious standard applies to that factual determination, the burden of proof may well decide who wins the case. Therefore, if the City is unable to prove (1) intent to aban- don and (2) action or failure to act that would constitute abandonment, Van Sant gets to keep his nonconforming use. Next, the City asserts that under State ex rel. Lige & Wm. B. Dickson Co. v. Pierce Cy., 65 Wn. App. 614, 829 P.2d 217, review denied, 120 Wn.2d 1008 (1992), the landowner claim- ing a nonconforming use has the burden of establishing all the elements of a nonconforming use. In Pierce the Court of Appeals affirmed a hearing examiner's finding of a noncon- forming use where the property owner had used his property as a storage yard for equipment and materials both before and after the zoning changed to prohibit such activity. Pierce, 65 Wn. App. at 623. However, Pierce is distinguishable as it involved whether the landowner could establish a nonconforming use, not whether a previously established nonconforming use had been abandoned. Pierce, 65 Wn. App. at 616. We believe that the Pierce court intended no departure from the normal burden of proof rules. But to the extent it may have so intended, we respectfully disagree. In conclusion, misallocation of the burden of proof was a significant error, warranting affirmance of the trial court's remand of the case. 3. Reviewing the Evidence [5, 6] Next, the City asserts that in setting aside the hearing officer's decision the trial court improperly sub- stituted its judgment on the issue of business license and business tax records. On factual questions the reviewing court cannot substitute its interpretation of the facts for the agency's interpretation or reweigh the evidence. Franklin, at 325; Balser Invs., Inc. v. Snohomish Cy., 59 Wn. App. 29, 36- 37, 795 P.2d 753 (1990). Rather, the superior court, like this court, must review the agency decision for arbitrary and May 1993 ;: >q� Syr �L , fa�,�x ;�s��a��;.�;g•;r� ,;,; May 1993 VAN SANT v. EVERE'VI' 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 capricious actions. Balser, at 36 -37. However, as this appeal requires a review of the agency action, rather than a review of the superior court record, the conclusions of the trial court are surplusage and do not require further analysis. Grader, at 879. 4. Business License and Taxes The City contends that the trial court's other basis for reversal, that the hearing examiner improperly relied on the absence of business licenses and records and tax records, is not supported by the record. We disagree. In examining the record, the hearing examiner's decision does indeed appear to be based primarily, and improperly, on the absence of a business license and tax records. In his original decision the hearing examiner stated that: The weakness in the Applicant's argument is the fact that no licensed or taxed commercial activity has occurred on the site. At no time during the previous ownership was there a Busi- ness License issued by the City of Everett for the business activity on -site; and, at no time during the previous ownership were Business and Occupation taxes ever paid to the City of Everett for the business conducted on site. ... Thus, because no official or documented activity has been transacted on the property, the use cannot be considered non- conforming for commercial use in the 11.-2 zone. Similarly, in his decision concerning the request for recon- sideration the hearing examiner made the following conclu- sions: The activity on the subject property in the past has been in conjunction with other business uses. However, there were no business records, taxation records or any permits from the City of Everett with regard to the commercial activity of the subject property noted. The use must have lawfully existed. No evidence has been submitted to prove that the use was a legal commercial use. Courts have repeatedly found that licensing and other regu- lations unrelated to land use approval, whether business licensing, business and occupation tax regulations, or building 651 z W Ce J 00 CO 0 CO W J H W WO � co = W I— z � I— O Z I— W • W U � O U - 2 O I— WW I- H Lt. w z O- z 652 VAN SANT v. EVERETT 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 May 1993 permits, are not per se determinative of the continuance of a nonconforming use. In Hooper v. St. Paul, 353 N.W.2d 138,141 (Minn. 1984), the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a trial court's determination that a nonconforming use was lost, in part because the property owners failed to get a building per- mit for a carriage house. The court held that "[v]iolations of ordinances unrelated to the land use planning do not render the type of use unlawful." See also Bartz v. Board of Adj., 80 Wn.2d 209, 221, 492 P.2d 1374 (1972) (affirming permit to expand a nonconforming use and stating that there existed a different forum to seek remedy for ordinance violations); Derby Ref Co. v. Chelsea, 407 Mass. 703, 711, 555 N.E.2d 534, 539 (1990) (rejecting argument that absence of a requisite governmental approval invalidated a nonconforming use); Trailer City, Inc. v. Board of Adj., 218 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 1974) (failure of owners of mobile home park to renew health license did not void park's status as nonconforming use); Board of Selectmen v. Monson, 355 Mass. 715, 716, 247 N.E.2d 364, 365 (1969) (failure to get license did not void nonconform- ing use where defect can be easily remedied); Mellow v. Board of Adj., 565 A.2d 947, 955 (Del. Super. Ct. 1988) (failure to get license does not void nonconforming use where law violated does not relate to zoning), aff 'd, 567 A.2d 422 (Del. 1989). Moreover, the City's cases are distinguishable. In In re Chamberlin, 134 Vt. 359, 360 A.2d 100 (1976) there was no previous finding of a nonconforming use. In Smalls v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 28 Misc. 2d 147, 211 N.Y.S.2d 212 (Sup. Ct.), aff Id, 14 A.D.2d 548, 218 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1961), the New York Supreme Court held a nonconforming use void where the landowner had relied on an illegal permit. The court held that the landowner's right to nonconforming use had never actually vested. Smalls, at 148. In contrast, in the present case the nonconforming commercial use clearly vested in 1972. [7] Still, violation of such ordinances may be evidence of an intent to abandon and may constitute an overt objective May 1993 VAN SANT v. EVERETI` 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 failure to act, as noted in Sullivan v. Zoning Bd. of Adj., 83 Pa. Commw. 228, 478 A.2d 912 (1984): Consequently, the abandonment of a nonconforming use and the consequent termination of any legal rights thereto results from a concurrence of facts, circumstances, and the intention of the owner of the premises or other person entitled to the use." The intent cannot be inferred from or established by a period of nonuse alone, but must be shown by the owner or occupier's overt acts or failure to act, such as written or oral statements evincing an intent to abandon the use, structural alterations to the building inconsistent with the continuance of the noncon- forming use, or failure to take some step such as license renewal necessary to the continuance of the use.. Sullivan, at 234 - 35 (quoting in part Marchese v. Norristown Borough Zoning Bd. of Adj., 2 Pa. Commw. 84, 95, 277 A.2d 176, 183 (1971)). Moreover, there is evidence in the record on appeal that the City of Everett business license ordinance is not entirely unrelated to land use planning. Everett Municipal Code 5.04- .020 is regulatory in purpose. Section 5.04.030(A)(3) requires applicants to comply with zoning ordinances. Section .030(B) provides that failure to so comply is grounds for denial or revocation of licenses. Section .030(0) provides that these requirements do not apply to general business license and business and occupation taxes assessed under chapter 3.24 of the code. Finally, Everett Municipal Code 5.04.060(B) enables the director of community development to inspect locations of proposed business establishments to determine whether the property is in conformity with the zoning code. In sum, the provisions of chapter 5.04 appear to have a dual purpose of ensuring compliance with land use regulations and are not entirely unrelated. Thus, it was proper for the hearing examiner to consider the property owner's failure to comply with chapter 5.04 in 'Sullivan was abrogated as an incorrect statement of the law regarding amor- tization provisions in zoning ordinances. PA Northwestern Distribs., Inc. v. Zon- ing Hearing Bd., 526 Pa. 186, 584 A.2d 1372 (1991). However, the abrogation does not affect Sullivan's logic regarding abandonment of nonconforming uses. z W CC 2 J 0 O 0 653 w J 1— U) U_ w uQ = • d 1— w Z = 1— z1- w • w U O P- 0 Ill il l I 0 w 0 z U (1) O • � z 654 VAN SANT v. EVERETT May 1993 69 Wn. App. 641, 849 P.2d 1276 determining whether the nonconforming commercial use had been abandoned. However, failure to comply with chapter 5.04 is not per se determinative of the question of whether the nonconforming use status had been abandoned. The examiner must look at the totality of the circumstances. We affirm the trial court on this point. 5. Multifamily Residential Use Van Sant also contends that he should be allowed a non- conforming multifamily residential use for the upper level of the building. However, no nonconforming residential use was ever established. In 1972, when the City's board of adjustment approved the "non- conforming commercial struc- ture for commercial purposes ", the board also noted that the property could not be successfully renewed for residential use at that time. Thus, the burden of proof of establishing a nonconforming use was properly on Van Sant. [8] However, all he could show was that the prior owner's children resided there from time to time. In 1974, during Cole's ownership, the property was posted as unlawful to occupy for dwelling purposes. Paine testified that Cole was uncooperative in getting proper permits for residential use of the structure and in bringing the structure up to code. This evidence falls short of even a prima facie showing that a nonconforming use was established for multifamily occu- pancy of the second floor without color of the City's approval. Therefore, that portion of the hearing examiner's ruling denying Van Sant a nonconforming residential use is affirmed and reinstated, and the trial court's ruling, to the extent that it reversed such portion of the hearing examiner's decision, is reversed. CONCLUSION We reverse the Superior Court and reinstate the hearing examiner's decision concerning the nonconforming residen- tial use on the second floor of the building at issue. As for the ground floor, we affirm the court's order of remand. The trial court's ruling as to the burden of proof is affirmed. We May 1993 SNOHOMISH COUNTY v. STATE 655 69 Wn. App. 655, 850 P.2d 546 modify the court's holding as to violations of ordinances. Violations of ordinances do not per se result in abandonment of a nonconforming use. However, such violations may be considered in determining whether there was (1) an intent to abandon and (2) action which would constitute abandon- ment. COLEMAN and FORREST, JJ., concur. [No. 29611 -6 -I. Division One. May 3, 1993.1 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, ET AL, Appellants, V. THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ET AL, Respondents, FOREST PRACTICES APPEALS BOARD, Appellant. Ill Appeal — Decisions Reviewable — Moot Questions — What Constitutes. A case is moot if the court cannot provide the basic relief originally sought or can no longer provide effective relief. [2] Appeal — Decisions Reviewable — Moot Questions — Pub- lic Interest — Factors. In determining whether a moot case involves sufficient, public interest so that it should be decided, a court will consider: (1) the public or private nature of the question presented; (2) the desirability of an authoritative determination to provide future guidance to public officers; and (3) the likelihood that the question will recur. [3] Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Appellate Review — "Aggrieved Party" — State Agency. A state agency qualifies as an "aggrieved party" under RCW 34.05.526 in a case in which it is a named party, and it has standing to appeal a trial court ruling affecting its jurisdiction. [4] Logs and Logging — Logging Permits — Standing To Challenge — Environmental Organization — Private Land — Effect. An environmental organization can have standing to challenge logging permits issued for private forest land as well as for public forest land. June 19, 2001 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W Rants, Mayor Samuel M. Jacobs Mosler, Schermer, Wallstrom, Scruggs, Jacobs & Sieler Suite 2701 One Union Square 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 -1176 RE: Appeal of Denial of 2000 Business License by Connections, Inc. and Tim and Rebecca Harlan Dear Mr. Jacobs: This office has reviewed your request for reconsideration in the above matter and the response follows. The burden of proof applies to the overall decision to deny a business license, which is an administrative decision. Secondarily, it involved a decision as to whether or not a prior use of the property, a legal non - conforming use, had been abandoned. The decision may not appear to place any burden regarding that land use decision but the City effectively showed that the prior use of the space had been abandoned. The appellant did not rebut that evidence effectively since the current use was too dissimilar to the prior use. There is no reason to rehash the facts and issues in reviewing your request. Tukwila code is drafted to disfavor continuation of non- conforming uses if there is a change in class or category of use. The change here was beyond that permitted by Tukwila. The decision will not be modified. You may still pursue an appeal to Superior Court within the time limits defined by Code. If this office can provide any further assistance, please feel free to write. Sincerely, Fred J. Kaufman Hearing Examiner FKJ /kw Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 r, r'7r1d11 •ta0^, e /U /1 Ur t71Lnni 16:41 24366248241 1JSLER SCHERMER WALL July , 2001 Samuel M. Jacobs Mosier, Schermer, Wallstrom, Scruggs, Jacobs & Sieler Suite 2701, One Union Square 600 University Street Seattle, WA 98101 -1176 Dear Mr. Jacobs: CONNECTIONS, INC. EXHIBIT A Rc. $1,000 to be Held in Your Trust Account .i G :�:i Enclosed, please find our check in the amount of S1,000 (the "Funds "). The Funds should be deposited in your trust account and held and disposed of as set forth below. We are depositing the Funds with you pursuant to the Agreement (the "Agreement ") between this corporation, Tim and Rebecca Harlan and the City of Tukwila. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit A to that Agreement. You are to hold the Funds and dispose u1' divot uu the earliest of the following three events: 1. At such time as you receive a written communication from the City of Tukwila that it releases the Funds, you shall disburse the Funds as directed by the undersigned. Capitalized terms in this letter have the same meaning as those terms in the Agreement. 2. if by December 1, 2001 you have not received written notification from Tukwila that it has initiated formal enforcement activities with respect to a contention that Commercial Activities are still being engaged in on the Property then you shall disburse the Funds as directed by the undersigned. PAGE 96/07 p. 6 J AGR!EMFNT This Agreement is entered into by and between the City of Tukwila, a Municipal corporation cc/Tukwila") and Connections, lac., n Washington corporation and Tim and Rebecca Harlan, husband and wife (collectively "Connections ") for the purposes and under the terms and conditions set forth below: I. RECITATIONS 1,1 Connections' application for a year 200(1 Business License to operate a business at the property located at 13030 37th Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington 98168 (the "Property") was denied by Tukwila. That denial was appealed to the Hearing Examiner, which affirmed the denial and denied Connections' Request for ReconsitIctutlon. Connections applied for and obtained a Business License to operate a business at the Property for the year 2001, which application was initially granted and then revoked by Tukwila. That revocation was appealed to the Hearing Examiner, which appeal is presently pending. The Property is in a residential zone, and. the Rearing Examiner, essentially, decided that Connections' commercial•uses on the Property did not retain the legal non - conforming commercial use rights of the former cornniercial uses on the Property. 1.2 Connections operates a telephone answering business on the Property. It will take at least several months to find an,altcrnate location for the telephone answering service, to have the phone lines transferred and otherwise to successfully trove that business without substantial disruption to its customers. 1.3 The City i rid Connections would like to resolve this matter, witItuul further appeals or litigation. II. AG • EMENT ...�", vv, iuu•,u� wra_L In conuideration for the foregoing Recitations and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, Tukwila and Connections agree as follows: • 2.1 The foregoing Recitations are hereby incorporated by this reference as though folly eat forth herein. 2.2 Connections shall refrain from initiating any litigation to challenge the denial of the Business License for year 2000 and shall dismiss its appeal of the revocation of the 2001 Business License, consistent with the provisions of this Agreement. rmum u./td 1 (:4- f jUsti (AI +4) Z = I II— W U . 0 0 too W= J l— w � en a = w t— ? H 0 Z w ui 0 l— wW _ '-- pp �O .Z = O ~ Z CITY 0 J UKWttA By: 5 rwE r tki % Its: D Ric-4776A 1)c-5 , Date: 7 /U l CONNECTIONS, INC. Date: 7fl(Lq:Z____ 2 1 IVVL_._1\ .JVI IL.I'I lLI\ VVflL.L. 2.3 Connections shall cease commercial uses of the Property not later than November 10, 2001. 2.4 Connections may operate couvnercial uses on the Property until November 10. 2001. Tukwila egcces not to initiate any enforcement activities or levy or attempt to levy arty fines or penalty of any kind regarding the commercial uses on the Property for any period up through November 10, 7.001. If Tukwila believes C.etmections is not in compliance with this Agreement, it shall informally contact Tim Harlan to discuss the matter and allow Connections at least fourteen days to informally resolve the matter prior to initiating any formal enforcement action. 2.5 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterpart originals with like affect as if all signatures appeared on one original document, and all such counterpart originals shall be construed together as one original_ Af pr ,�:z� ,o 17 r 4M '1 cg17 ATro. /'S Date! /t� / Date: rt-lut b ,j/ Ui HP OffiiceJet Fax Log Report for Personal Printer /Fax /Copier Kenyonlaw#Firm Jul -11 -01 11:03 AM Identification Result Pages Type Date Time Duration Diagnostic 2066248241 OK 03 Sent Jul -11 11:02A 00:01:00 002582030022 1.3.0 2.8 Z _ , - '~ W • 6 5. J UO ' W W. W =; H N U. W O - LL Q W • I Z0 1.11 Lif U � = U .. u-1 �. O •., -..�,, v.. ua•• ..u�J 1101 X1101 Ls) JJC. /U 1 1 0i/09-/-2061-12:-41 2066248241 MOSLER SCHERMER WALL Samuel M. Jacobs July 9, 2001 Page -2 3. If you receive written notification by December l 2001 that Tukwila has initiated formal enforcement proceedings pursuant to paragraph 2 above, then you shall hold the Funds until completion of caul formal enforcement proceedings, including all appeals and reviews thereof and challenges thereto, and then pay to the City of Tukwila fines and other amounts awarded to it, assessed this corporation and/or Tim and Rebecca Harlan, up to 51,000, as a result of such formal enforcement proceedings and appeals, review and challenges. Thereafter any balance of the Funds shall be disbursed and as directed by the undersigned. Notwithstanding anything in this letter to the contrary, if, at any time, you believe the situation warrants it, you may deposit the Funds into the registry of the Kiiib County Superior Court, and initiate or join in an appropriate action and have the court adjudicate the rights of the parties claiming an interest in the Funds. Enclosure This letter i(dow r vocable. Sincerely, CONNECTIONS, Inc. By Its President Tim Harlan P.•' PAGE 07/07 Dpn Z z �. w U . 0 0 to w w = J � w 0 iL U O N ' ❑ 1— w w`, I 0 1 Z w O ~ July 20, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 Dear Mr. Harlan: City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 F r JUL 21 2000 C MUN r` j Eva o N /IENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7687 3566 RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED RE: NOTICE OF DENIAL - 2000 TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE Steven M Mullet, Mayor This letter will serve as a Notice of Denial that your application for a 2000 Tukwila business license has been denied under Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110 Denial - Revocation; A.2. — The building, structure, equipment, operation or location of the business for which the license was issued does not comply with the requirements or standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code. 57 G,.e S The Department of Community Development, Building Division, has reviewed your application and found that the building in which the proposed business would be located is in the LDR (Low Density Residential) zone and is not your residence or your primary residence. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.0 6.430 defines home occupation as "an occupation or profession which is customarily incident to or carried on in a dwelling place, and not one in which the use of the premises as a dwelling place is largely incidental to the occupation carried on by a member of the family residing within the dwelling place... ". Further, it states that, "The business involves no more than one person who is not a resident of the dwelling." Your letter of June 1, 2000 states that the previous owner, Mr. Ross, used the building for the last 25 years as an office, machine shop, storage, and mechanics engine and rebuild. Normally a history of". previous and similar legal usage of a site could "grandfather" that usage for a new owner; however, there must be no increase of the nonconforming use and this use must not have been discontinued for more than six consecutive months or 365 days in the previous three years. In this situation, there is no record of any business license for any type of business at this address during the past 12 years. Regardless of the stated or actual previous uses, none can be continued if they have been occurring illegally. You are hereby advised that it is illegal to conduct business in the City of Tukwila without a current business license. Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833 4 • Tim Harlan July 20, 2000 Page 2 You may appeal this Notice of Denial to the Hearing Officer, provided that the appeal is made in writing and filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the Notice of Denial. Failure to appeal within this time period shall constitute a waiver of all rights to any additional administrative hearing or determination on the matter (Tukwila Municipal Code 5.04.110(B). Sincerely, e E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk 6 c: S. Lancaster, DCD Director; A. Pederson, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney; J. Jones, Code Enforcement Officer •z u : 00: U) W UJ . W i J H. N L; WO L L co D ' a ± 1 1 E-0 Z I-• Q. U O— 0 F-' W W: • I . • LL O: Z • W O ~ • z MEMO RECEW UC 12 20(1(3 TO: Jane Cantu . •`^ CITY CL -FiK FROM: Art Pederson, Assistant Planner z DATE: July 11, 2000 ~ Z ` CC, RE: Business License for Connections Inc. JU 00 The application for a business license at 13030 37 Ave S must be denied for the following u w i w reasons. The building in which the proposed business would be located is not a residence or the primary residence of the applicant. TMC 18.06.430 defines home occupation as, "an u) o occupation or profession which is customarily incident to or carried on in a dwelling place, 2 and not one in which the use of the premises as a dwelling place is largely incidental to the g occupation carried on by a member of the family residing within the dwelling place... ". w Further it states that, "The business involves no more than one person who is not a resident z w of the dwelling." This is on the backside of the application that Mr. Harlan submitted. This Z ='. structure is not a residence, and as a recent site inspection has shown and his letter of June 1, F— o 2000 states, is a garage- storage - partial office space. u, uj n o. Also in the letter, Mr. Harlan gives a history of the owners and uses of this property. o u) Normally a history of a previous and similar legal usage of a site can "grandfather" that o 1 usage for a new owner. However there must be no increase of the nonconforming use and i 0 this use must not have been discontinued for more than six consecutive months or 365 simil L I in the previous three years. In this situation there is no record of any business license for any z id type of business during the past 12 years at this address. Regardless of the stated or actual o previous uses none can be continued if they have been occurring illegally. p I— z If there are any further questions please give me a call. : 9; ttiiaia6; 1123:. isEni�, il,'4:S'liJ.�i�. *'�?" ;d..., ;:.r 08/01/2000 12:50 206624 °')41 LAURENCE A MDSLER JAMES SCHERMER PAUL ARNOLD WALLSTROM' MICHAEL P. SCRUGGS SAMUCL M 4,4noRs LINCOLN D. SIELER DONALD R. MORRISON•. `'ADMITTED IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON "OF COUNSEL HAND DET.TVERF.T) Dear Ms. Cantu: SMJ:nbo Enclosure cc: R. Noe, City Attorney I AW QcFICE2 OF MOSLER SCHERMER "LL ^LL MOSLER SCHERMERWALLSTROM SCRUGGS JACOBS & SIELER Ms. Jane Cantu City Clerk City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 SUITE 3030 1001 FOURTH AVENUE PLAZA SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98:64 -1107 August 1, 2000 Re: Appeal of Denial of Business License Regarding Property Located at 13030 37th Avenue S., Tukwila, WA 98168 Attached, please find our Appeal of the Denial of the Business License at the above - referenced site. Based on our conversation of last week, it is my understanding that there is no appeal fee nor is there any format or required contents for the Notice of Appeal. Please let me know immediately if I have misunderstood you on either of these points, or if anything additional is needed. Thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, MOSLER, - CHERMER, WAJ,STROM, SCRUGG" JACOB , & SIC SAMUEL M. JACOBS PAGE 01/02 y' JIVE AUG 0 1 2000 Tit PHONe I UIkVII (206) G24 i aD CLERK?, 6 Z- � PA SIMILE v J, �( (208) 824.5241 E -Mil: Iecobeelawsvtv.corl 08/01/2000 12:50 20662. t1 The undersigned owners of the property and business in question hereby appeal the denial of the Business License for Connections. Inc. at 13030 37th Avenue South, Tukwila, WA 98168 (see the Notice of Denial contained in the letter, attached hereto as Exhibit A).. The reasons for the appeal include, but are not limited to, the foIIowing: The denial is based on the contention that the use in question is not a lawful use of the property. On the contrary, the use in question is a legal nonconforming use of the property under the Tukwila Municipal Code and therefore is lawful. Dated this l day of CONNECTIONS, INC. APPEAL OF DENIAL Or 'BUSINESS LICENSE 2000. MOSLER SCHERMER L PAGE 02/02 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: August 2, 2000 APPLICANT: Tim Harlen RE: D2000 -255 (Commercial Remodel) ADDRESS: 13030 37th Avenue South Your application has been denied. We have the following comments: Your property is located in Tukwila's Low Density Residential Zone ( "LDR "). The w l primary permitted use in this zone is a detached, single - family dwelling. Stand- i 0 alone commercial enterprises are prohibited. L o .z Cu "Home Occupations" are allowed only if they are clearly incidental to the use of the 0 _. premises as a single - family dwelling. Other specific criteria must also be met. For 1-- }— your reference, we are enclosing copies of the following: TMC 18.10 Low Density Residential (LDR) District TMC 18.06.430 Definition and Criteria for Home Occupations Steven M. Mullet, Mayor As you have been advised, no business licenses have been issued at this address for the past twelve years. For this reason, any business that may have been conducted at the subject property in the past was illegal and may not be "grandfathered ". Art Pederson is the planner assigned to this file. If you have any questions, he can be reached at 206 - 431 -3684. cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 z '~ w 00 cnw J = H CD w u_ Q u , Do. = a . I -w z o z �— w U !o - August 22, 2000 Tim Harlan, President Connections, Inc. P.O. Box 69007 Seattle, WA 98168 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor .. .._.,.. OEVELor VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3220 0000 7686 8050 RE: HEARING DATE ON NOTICE OF DENIAL — 2000 TUKWILA BUSINESS LICENSE Dear Mr. Harlan: Your letter appealing the denial of a 2000 Tukwila Business License was received by the City on August 1, 2000. The Hearing Examiner will consider your appeal on Tuesday, October 17, 2000 at 1:30 p.m. The hearing will take place at the City of Renton, City Council chambers, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Council chambers is on the seventh floor. You are entitled to appear in person, and to be represented by counsel, and to offer such evidence as may be pertinent and material to the Notice of Denial. If you are unable to be present at the hearing, please notify the Office of the Hearing Examiner at (425) 430 -6515. If you have questions regarding the appeal procedures, you may contact me at (206) 433 -1800. Sincerely, � ed.;- L dr, e E. Cantu, CMC City Clerk C: Samuel M. Jacobs, Attorney for Appellant F. Kaufman, Hearing Examiner S.Lancaster, DCD Director A. Pederson, Assistant Planner, DCD R. Noe, City Attorney J. Jones, Code Enforcement Phone: (206) 4334800 • City Hall Fax: (206) 433 -1833