6427 BEVERLY LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

No, 1169-I As pointed out, under C.ity Code G 15.04.330, the lloard of Adjust- ment is expressly empowered to review and set aside a decision of the building in�pector interpreting the provisions of the zoning code. In the instant case we cannot say tY.at- the IIoard of Ad- justment interpretation was not a permissible one. The subject of accessory uses has bee:� considered in several cases elsewhere. None of the cases, hotvever, involve an ordinance with language either identical or similar to that here quoted. See Presnell v. Leslie, 3 N.Y,2d 389, 144 N.E.2d 381 (1957); [•;riqht v. Vogt, 7 N.J. 1, 80 A.2d 108 (1951i; Skinner v. 2oning Bd. of Adjustment, 80 N.J. Super. 360, 193 A,2d 861 (1963). Presnell holds that the radio tower involved, under the ordinance there invoked, is not an accessory use. The other cases cited hold to the contrary under the language of the particular ordinances considered. Assuming, arguendo, t}ie proposed radio tower is an acces- sory building or use within the meaning of City Code § 15.04.030 n(1), the board coiild have found that the proposed radio tower was a"building" within the meaning of subsection B(5). If it were a building, then under City Code § 15.09.030 B(22) and 5 15.09.090 F the maximum height limitation was •"thirty-five feet above the average elevation at the fout of the building." The permit desired here was for a radio tower of 72 feet, clearly in excess,of the 35-foot permitted maximum. I The trial court concluded that the building inspector's interpretation "was erroneous and contrary to said code .,," Conclusion No. 9 states that the decision of the IIoard of Adjust- I ment "was not arbitrary or capricious, was honestly exercised I I and given upon due consideration of all of the facts." The � conclusion meets the required standard in Washington. In Lillions ( ' . ,,, I �I . � �, 4. i,<<��