7901 BEVERLY BLVD 2016-01-01 MF Import

Findings and Decision of the Hear.ing Examiner of the City of Everett RE: AA-1-86 Page 4 of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the administrative decision of the Everett Planning Department disallowing the Appellants to seek a variance for the purpose of applying for a short subdivision of property located at 7901 Beverly Boulevard, Everett, Washington, is overturned. The Appellant may seek a variance for the purpose of subdividing said property. COMMENTS The controlling law for the allowance of the Appellants to seek a var- iance for the purpose of short platting 7901 Beverly Boulevard was set forth in Ordinance 1119-85 Section 6.a.1. That Section is not all inclusive and does not specifically proh�5it the Appell.ant from seeking a variance from the lot size requiren,ants for R-1 zoned pro- perty in the City of Everett. All that section 6.a.1. does is grant Appellants autho�ity to seek variances froT the lot requirer•ents as set forth in Ordinan�e 1119-85 Section S.c.14. If the City desires Section 6.a.1. to be all inclusive it shorld so state in the ordinance. Besides a legal reason for the g�ranting of a variance, it also appears that equity is on the side of the Appellants. Other lots in the vi- ' ci.nity are substandard in size. The allowance of a variance will not c�:eate a unique situation to the Appellants. It will allow the Appellants. to de�elop lots in conformi.ty with other properties in the vicinity. - Further it is noted that the houses on the subject property have been there for nearly 40 years. ThesQ houses are established and have been used for residential purposes. There will be no increasP in the density of the site and there will be no change in the use of the sit� other than . t.here will be a division of lots with one house on each lot. Clearly ri variance shuuld be ccnsidered for such purposes. Finally it is noted — that the Appellanis have expended large amounts of money for the improve- m�nt of these housea. This in itself is not reason for the allowance of the Appellants to seek a variance for the purpose of short platting. However, it does ahow good faith on the part of the Appellants to im- prove the neighborhood for the upgrading of the houses on the subject property. -- DONE AND DATED this i day of September, 1986. �l , ; � . ,.. JAMES M. DRISCOLL Hearing Examiner The deci�ion on this application has been made by the Hearing Examiner based on the authority granted in Ordinance 692-80 as amended. It is final unless the following procedure is followed: 1. An aggrieved party has filed a written request for reconsideration to the Hearing Examiner within ten (10) working days of the Hearing