Loading...
180 - 2nd Ave S Zoning ConfirmationCITY OF EDMONDS 121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `nc. 18y1i November 17, 2020 CRE Zoning 24 N. High St. Ste. 103 Akron, OH 44308 Amanda Hays amanda@cresurveys.com (330) 957-3192 Subject: Zoning Confirmation Letter for 180-2nd Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020 (Parcel # 27032300409000) File Number STF2020-0014 The City of Edmonds has requested a Zoning Confirmation Letter regarding property located at 180 — 2nd Ave South. Specific answers to each of your questions are below: 1) The current zoning classification of the subject property is: BD-4 (Downtown Mixed Residential). 2) According to the current zoning ordinance, the zoning district for the abutting properties are: North: BD 4 South: P- Public Use East: BD 4 West: BC —Commercial Business 3) According to the zoning ordinances and regulations for this district, the current use of the subject property is a: Permitted Use By Right The Edmonds Landing Senior Living Facility is a permitted primary use within the BD4 zone, pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 16.43.020 (convalescent homes or rest homes). The subject property was graded a conditional use permit in 1999 (file no. CU- 1997-115). At the time of the conditional use permit application, the site was located in the BC zone which requires a conditional use permit for convalescent homes as a primary use. Therefore, a conditional use permit for the assisted living facility was required. A copy of the conditional use permit is attached. Now that the property is located in the BD4 zone, convalescent homes are a permitted primary use without the need for a conditional use permit. 4) To the best of our knowledge, the subject structure(s) was developed: In accordance with Approved Site Plan and is Legal Conforming to approved site plan. If any non- conforming issues exist with respect to current zoning requirements, the subject property would be considered legal non -conforming. No nonconforming issues have been identified at this time. The structure on the subject property was constructed consistent with the requirements of the BC (Community Business) zone. Since the zone has changed to the new BD4 zone, it is possible that there are now nonconforming issues on the site because the BD4 zone has different site development standards than the BC zone. Since the site was approved and constructed consistent with the BC zone, any discrepancies would be considered legally nonconforming. 5) Information regarding variances, special permits, exceptions, ordinances, or conditions: Conditional Use Permit (attached) As noted above, a conditional use permit was granted for the facility under file number CU- 1997-115, which is attached. 6) Rebuild: In the event of a casualty, in whole or in part, the structure located on the subject property: May not be rebuilt in its current form, except upon satisfaction of certain conditions, limitations, or requirements. The rebuilt structure would be required to meet zoning code requirements of the current BD4 zone. 7) Code Violation Information: There do NOT appear to be any outstanding/open zoning, building, or fire code violations that apply to the subject property in the City's permitting database. 8) Certificate of Occupancy, status: A valid Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the subject property and is attached. If you have any other questions regarding this property, please let me know either at Amber.Groll@edmondswa.gov. r (00 Amber Groll, Planner City of Edmonds' Planning Division Encl: Zoning Map CU-1997-115 Certificate of Occupancy Site Plans r City of Edmonds STF-2020-0014 Art �� er. no rj..� .. . .BD2♦♦ .. ... A>, 7 �M •. 1Moun:l..• S %,6 01WIN : f +'1��♦:�� ♦•�♦: l±•♦ Legend 13 Rezones ♦❖�:•♦ 1♦♦❖:, '�♦��r6� ♦ RoW 78 �6 ��♦ ♦•♦♦•♦•♦•♦®� i ,�♦�♦•♦ Zoning �������BD ••♦•♦• ♦:♦♦� i♦�♦' RS-10 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦•♦•♦ ♦•♦�♦.•♦•♦•♦�•♦•♦ ♦�'�j16�•♦�♦� El RS-MP Mllp ;.. ;. F ♦ ♦�♦•♦ ♦ ♦ ♦•♦. �A.,.�♦• •,•♦.tM♦- •♦•♦�'�i•,♦' _. .. z `♦•♦•�•�t' ,� Alliance RM-E W ZLIY .d ♦ ♦ ♦��♦w�� �\ 3D2 BD3 3D5 �1 I ♦� OR WMU BP BN ® FVMU ♦- ` - 1: 2,257 O — — — — BC Notes 180 2nd Ave 0 94.04 188.1 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, -- Zoning Map S WGS_1984_Web _Mercator _Auxiliary —Sphere © City of Edmonds current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION b rSt. 18gv CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY RECE[Ii$fa R 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 77 (-02211 tip HEARING EXAMINER APR 0 6 1999 P x:iib:e-�i DEPT. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Julie Brockman / NW Care Management, Inc. CASE NO.: CU 97-115 and ADB 97-116 LOCATION: 141 Dayton St. APPLICATION: Consolidated Permit Application for a Conditional Use Permit for an 83-bed "Assisted Living Care Facility" and compliance with the City's Architectural Design Board Design Criteria. (Exhibit A, Attachments 2, 3, 4 and 6). REVIEW PROCESS: Conditional Use Permit: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. The Architectural Design Board (ADB) has reviewed the proposal and has made a recommendation. MAJOR ISSUES: (1) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.53 (Community Business - BC). (2) Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 10:55 a.m., April 1, 1999, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at I2:08 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Attachment 5 hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record (Exhibit A). He noted this is a consolidated review for both design and use. He also noted that after the Architectural Design Board (ADB) review of the proposal, the applicant redesigned the roof to provide modulation in accordance with the ADB motion. From the Applicant: Julie Brockman, Applicant, reviewed the proposal and discussed the assisted living concept. Charlie Wright, Johnson Architects, explained the revised plans and said they had attempted to mitigate view impacts. From the Community: Shirley Faris, neighbor, asked questions about the ratio of employees to clients, hours of construction, length of construction, noise, access to the trash area, and deliveries to the site. She also expressed concerns about traffic and parking related to the proposal. Sterling Jensen, neighbor, said he too was concerned about parking (including visitor parking) and had a strong objection to the loss of Landau parking, which now uses the site. He asked where the mechanical equipment would be placed. Merrill Younkin, neighbor, took exception to the view analysis that was submitted with the revised plans. He expressed concerns about loss of views from the El Capitan condominiums and he expressed concerns about loss of parking in the area. Response from the Applicant: Julie Brockman responded that there will be maximum of €5 staff on site during any shift. She also said after construction 24 parking spaces will be provided to Landau and that Edmonds Financial will provide the other €2 spaces. Jeff Saboda, Johnson Architects, discussed the parking issue and responded to questions about the location and design of the trash enclosure. He said construction would take place over a period of 12 to 14 months and noted that parking may be able to be staged on site during construction. He said they plan to locate much of the mechanical equipment in the garage. Dale Watkins, Traffic Engineer, said the use will be a low traffic generator and only 14 trips are expected during the PM peak_ He said he doesn't foresee any congestion problem. hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-1151ADB 97-116 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE: Two letters, with attachments, were submitted by Karen Wiggins (Exhibits B & Q. She expressed an issue about the parking easement her firm (which leases to Landau) has which needs to be addressed prior to commencement of construction. REVIEW BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD The ADB met on March 17, 1999 to review the request and adopt a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit A. Attachment 2). The following recommendation for approval was made: Boardmember Sullivan moved, seconded by boardmember Chalupnik, to recommend approval of ADB-97-116 and CU-97-115 to the Hearing Examiner, because the Board finds that: • The applicant has successfully met the requirements of ECDC section 20.10.070.A.6, that all sides of the building be adequately modulated, • Although the proposal does not meet the requirements of ECDC section 20.10.070.A.6 and 20.10.070.C.3, in discussions with the applicant, it appears that it could be modified to meet these requirements; • It should be noted that the roof as proposed does not meet the roof modulation requirements; With these modifications the application is found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies, it meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and satisfies the criteria in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Motion Carried The Board's major concern was that the ridgeline of the roof that runs north and south the length of the building be broken up to allow for view corridors of Puget Sound to the west to be maintained for properties to the east of the proposed building. In discussion between the applicant and the Board it appeared that the applicant could make some changes to their proposal to address the Boards concern. Drawings have been submitted which reflect the Board's request (Exhibit A, Attachment 7). With this design, the Board would recommend approval of the roof as a modulated design. All other element of this. proposal met with the approval of the Architectural Design Board, including landscaping and materials. licdring Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 4 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION a Facts: (1) Land Use: The subject property contains a single warehouse type structure. 2 Zoning : The subject property is located in a Community Business (BC) zone (Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (3) Terrain and Vegetation: The site is relatively flat with a slight slope from east to west side of the property. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: 1 Fact: The property is surrounded on the north, east and west by the BC zone and commercial and mixed -use development. The property across the street to the south is the City wastewater treatment plant. 2 Fact: The ferry holding lines are adjacent to the property on the west. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Fact: SEPA is required of any project, which requires a Conditional Use Permit, A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance was issued November 13, 1997, based on a submitted traffic study. No comments or appeals were received. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2) A Critical Areas Checklist (CA-97-170) was submitted and the requirement for a study waived. b) Conclusion: The applicant has met the requirements of the Critical Areas Ordinance. 2. Compliance with the Community Business (BC) Zoning Standards a Facts (1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to development in the Community Business (BC) zone is set forth in Chapter 16.50.020. (a) Street Setback: (b) Rear Setback: (c) Side Setbacks: (d) Height: roof or design) hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-1151ADB 97-116 Page 5 0 feet 0; 15 feet from residentially zoned property 0; 15 feet from residentially _zoned property 25 feet (up to 30 feet with a 3-in-12 pitched an approved modulated b) Conclusion: The applicant has provided a proposal, which complies with the Community Business (BC) zone standards. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit a Fact: (1) Chapter 20.05 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby the following findings and criteria must be met. The criteria are as follows: (a) The proposed use must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (b) The proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the purposes of the zone district in which the use will meet all applicable requirements of the zoning ordinance. (c) That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. (d) The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. b) The applicant has submitted the following declarations with their submittal which address the decisional criteria (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4): (a) The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it is in Edmonds, and it is zoned Community Business. (b) The project is consistent with the Zoning Code in that the BC zone states as one of its purposes: "To allow for multiple dwelling units(s) as a secondary use to the business uses. (c) The project will not be detrimental in that the proposed use does not put a great burden on surrounding properties or uses. The typical resident will be 84 years old, not drive their own car and have occasional visitors. The pleasing look of the building will help ensure that it will not be detrimental to the community. (d) 1_wring Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 6 The applicant has requested that this Conditional Use Permit "run with the land" and be allowed to transfer if necessary- 0 Conclusions: (1) The Comprehensive PIan designation for the site is part of the Downtown Activity Center with a Mixed Use Designation. The application is in compliance with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: A.1. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by positive mixed -use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. A.S. Support a mix of uses downtown without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. A.6. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment, which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented.character. Existing height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate needs of senior citizens. A.1 L Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. (2) The proposal will comply with all aspects of the Community Business development standards of the ECDC. (3) The type of use proposed generally does not generate as much traffic as a typical residential use, and is appropriate to be located in a mixed use area with its potential access to transit. If approved with conditions addressing parking during construction and visitor parking after construction, the use should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or to nearby private property or improvements. (4) Staff recommended that the permit be allowed to transfer to future owners of the property. D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a Facts: (1) The ADB and Conditional Use Permit application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. No hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 7 department has any concerns that will significantly change this proposal. b) Conclusion: No technical problems have been identified- E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a Fact: (1) The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as part of the Downtown Activity Center with a Mixed Use Designation. The application is in compliance with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: A. 1. Extend Downtown westward and connect it to the shoreline by positive mixed -use development as well as by convenient pedestrian routes. A.5. Support a mix of uses downtown without encroaching into single family neighborhoods. A.6. Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment, which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Existing height limits are an important part of this quality of life, and remain in effect. A.7. Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate needs of senior citizens. A.H. Provide for the gradual elimination of large and inadequately landscaped paved areas. b) Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Design to allow and assisted care facility to be constructed is approved, subject to the following conditions: (1) The applicant must obtain all necessary permits and pay the required traffic mitigation fee (required in the MDNS) prior to any construction. (2) All landscaping per the approved landscape plan must be installed prior to Certificate of Occupancy. hoaring Examiner Decision Case No_ CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 8 (3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a construction parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The parking plan shall address: (a) How and where alternate parking for the 36 spaces now allocated to Wiggins Properties will be provided, and (b) How and where parking for construction workers will be provided. (4) Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit a visitor parking plan to the Planning Division for review and approval. The plan shall address how visitor parking can be readily provided during visiting hours at the facility. (5) The permit shall run with the land and be transferable. Entered this 5`s day of April, 1999, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and P Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 9 reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report B. Letter from Karen Wiggens, dated 3/26/99 C. Letter from Karen Wiggens, dated 3/29199 D. Modified site plans PARTIES of RECORD: Thomas Johnston Northwest Care Management 385 Ericksen Ave., Suite 123 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Julie Brockman NW Care Management 285 Ericksen Avenue, Suite 123 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Shirley Faris 200 James St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Charlie Wright 385 Ericksen Ave., Suite 123 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Sterling Jensen 200 James St. #101 Edmonds, WA 98020 Jeff Saboda 375 Ericksen Ave., Suite 222 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Merrill Younkin 200 James St #104 Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division Engineering Division Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-115/ADB 97-116 Page 10 Dale Watkins Lovell Sauerland 19400 33`d Ave. W Lynwood, WA 98036 Karen Wiggins Wiggens Propeties, LLC 152 3rd Ave. South, Suite 102A Edmonds, WA 98020 OTHER PARTIES REQUESTING A COPY OF THE DECISION: Roger Hertrich 1020 Puget Dr. Edmonds, WA 98020 Mark Kuhlman T4 Engineering 5823 NE Minder Poulsbo, WA 98370 V` Y7 �`.YY I TTTT-nTTT TNTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT 1. it it All it I n it it it it 11 11 11 11 , n 11 11 ITIT �.A 14 'n Of 1rt r. F. A. MPARTMENT 0r BUILPING8 . R UNIf 6fgfM BUILDINd CbM I. CTIdN At: E' B�Permit#: 2 Occupancy established by this ce cate: Dwelling. Units **83** No. Stories: 2 + basement +'lS3 . T nslrlcti V•1 hr sprin Basement: Yes t � �k�P J + � t P � �,`.`r5• Ex a f F� i� , Maximum �i� .B.C. 1002j irims. �d '�:•'. C 1 Y :Owner o. Buiitti,. ., Ed �� . Is ` •, m 'Sr r a 1H6 # " in'',. HA r ©WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1997 E'DITI .'N H J .4;IM BULL. • I' �D D ]VISION OF OCCUPANCY AND THE USE FOR WHICH THE PROP- 400CCUPANOY ISO '.. S.. i issued this J�h 2001 C AL r BY: , i •file CaMMlcate shall be posted In a conspicuous public area and anell not" removed, mutilated or obscured and enap be meintalned In legible condition stall timsa. Any change d occupancy or use requires a bullding permit and anew iCertd,cate of Ctoupancy Issued by the City of Edmonds Building CAIcIal. Attachment 6 SR IG4 *1111Y 401� LAIN111 - -- ----- ------ ----------- $B DIUM 111T .1 ------ ----- -- ----------- ----- - ------ - ---------- 9 ----- -------- ---- -------- j 9 MEMOM r No, a am H OWN T NDTEtt icy GARAGE T.O. SLAB EL. 9,5 FIRST FLOOR FIN. Fl-R. EL, 20.25 SECOND FLOOR FIN, FLR. EL.31.58 araeer --4 I lAl ---------------- ---------- ---------- ------ -------------------------- II IMMMM AV I . . ....................... ---------------- R� --- EXISTING EDMONDS FINANCIAL CENTER 121 �r -c- 2ND AVENUE S. CRE Zoning 24N. High St. Ste.103 Akron, OH 44308 Amanda Hays amanda@ci,esurveys.com (330) 957-3192 Subject 180 2nd Avenue South Property: Edmonds, WA 98020 Parcel: 27032300409000 Type of Business: Assisted Living Facility Acreage: 1.4 10/22/2020 In response to your request for information regarding the above -referenced property, we have researched our files and present the following: 1. The current zoning classification of the subject property is: 2. According to the current zoning ordinance the zoning districts for the abutting properties are: North: South: East: West: 3. According to the zoning ordinances and regulations for this district, the current use of the subject property is a: [ ] Permitted Use by Right [ ] Permitted Use by Special/Specific Use Permit [ ] Copy Attached [ ] Copy Not Available (see comment) [ ] Permitted Use by Conditional Use Permit [ ] Copy Attached [ ] Copy Not Available (see comment)= [ ] Legal Non -Conforming Use (no longer permitted by right due to amendments, re -zoning, variance granted or other changes. See comments) [ ] Non -Permitted Use Comment: 4. To the best of our knowledge, the subject structure(s) was developed: [ ] In accordance with Current Zoning Code Requirements and is Legal Conforming [ ] Non -conforming (see comments) [ ] in accordance with Previous Zoning Code Requirements (amendments, rezoning, variance granted) and is Legal Non -conforming to currentzoning requirements. [ ] Prior to the adoption of the Zoning Code and is Grandfathered/Legal Non -conforming to current zoning requirements [ J In accordance with Approved Site Plan and is Legal Conforming to approved site plan. If any nonconforming issues exist with respect to current zoning requirement; the subject propelty would be considered legal non -conforming. Comirient• 5. Information regarding variances, special permits, exceptions, ordinances or conditions: [ ] There do not appear to be any variances, special permits/exceptions, ordinances or conditions that apply to the subject property (seecomments): [ ] The following applytothesubjectproperty (see commen ts): [ ] Variance -Documentation attached orisotherwise, no longeravailable (seecomment) [ ] Special Permit/Exception/Conditional Use Permit Documentation attached or is otherwise, no longer available (see comment) [ ] Ordinance Documentation attached or is otherwise, no longer available (see comment) [ ] Conditions Documentation attached or is otherwise, no longer available (see comment) 6. Rebuild: In the event of casualty, in whole or in part, the structure located on the subject property: [ ] Maybe rebuilt in its current form (i.e. no loss of square footage, same footprint, with drive through(s), if applicable) . [ ] May notbe rebuilt in its current form, except upon satisfaction of certain conditions, limitations or requirements. Comment: 7. Code Violations information: ] There do NOT appear to be any outstanding/open zoning, building, or fire code violations that apply to the subject property. [ ] The following outstanding/open [ ] zoning/ [ ] building / [ ] fire code violations apply 8. Certificate of Occupancy, status: [ ] Avalid Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for the subjectpropeltyand isattached. [ ] Certificates of Occupancy have been issued and are in effect for all buildings and, if required, for all units at the Propelty; however, we are unable to locate a copy in our records. Tile absence of a copy of the Certificate(s) of Occupancy will not give rise to any enforcement action affecting the property. [] Certificates of Occupancy for projects constructed prior to the year are no longer on filewith this office. The absence of copy ofthe Certificate(s) of Occupancy will notgive rise to any enforcement action affectingthe property.A Certificate of Occupancy will onlybe required for new construction. [ ] A Certificate of Occupancy is not required for the subject property. Comment: This information was researched on by the undersigned, per request and as a public service. The undersigned certifies that the above information contained herein is believed to be accurate and is based upon, or relates to the information supplied by the requester. The Authority assumes no liability for errors and omissions. All information was obtained from public records, which may be inspected during regular business hours. By: Printed Name: Title: Department: Date: