Laserfiche WebLink
r'1r• blahlu:u told th�� P.oird }�� ���d lieen granted a v�riance two <br />(2) years aqo for thi, same request, but ber_ause of economic <br />conditions he was unable to build the proposed garage. So <br />acLually he was asking for an extension of the 1972 variance. <br />Thcre was no objection from the audience. <br />nrtcr visual observation of the subject prop-�rty and considering <br />all the facts, it was moved by Mr. Ingram, s>conded by Mr. <br />t�aird and unanimously carried to gx•ant the aFolicants request <br />for the following reasons: <br />1. There will be no sight obstruction as there i.s <br />adequate distance fram the yard and street. <br />2• T}�e applicant should be allowed to enjoy the same <br />property rights as others in the area. <br />3. T}ie garage will not be detrimental to the surroundi�g <br />area. <br />9. The granting of the variance will not adversely <br />affect the comprehensive plan. <br />A}iearing was held on the applicati�n of Ray Moore, 1201 <br />BerY.shire, Everett for a variance from E.C.C. 15.04.0500 <br />(Zoning Code) Land Use for ncrmission to divide Lot 6, Block <br />1 P1. Deverly Park Division No. 2 with one lot to have 55 <br />feet of frontage on 63rd Street and the cther lot to have 20 <br />feet of frontage on 63rd Street t�tal frontage of Lot 6, <br />Block 1, N. Beverly Park Division, No. 2 is 75 feet. The <br />minimum reguirements are forty (40) feet of frontage ��n a <br />public dedicated street. Approximately 1707 - 63rd Street. <br />Mr. Moore explained to the Board that it is not economically <br />feasible to build less than two (2) duplexes on the property. <br />He had been dealing for the property for a short time and <br />would immediately start to build if the variancc is granted. <br />Mr. George IIrandvold, a neighbor, was opposed to Mr. Moores <br />application because of the increased traffic the buildings <br />would create. <br />After visually viewi.ng the subject property and considering <br />all the facts, it was moved by b7r. �aird, seconded by Mr. <br />Ingram and unanimously carried to deny the applic�nts request <br />for the following reasons: <br />1. The applicant indicated that h� was neither the <br />contract purchaser or legal owner of the property, <br />therefore the Doard of Adjustment denied the application. <br />7'he 1>oarc9 cnde the motion to hold the nc�;t publ.ic hearinq <br />of Lhc [3o�ir�1 uf ,-,�IjucCr,�ent on Septcrnber 7, 197n becausc <br />Sc•ptemher 2, 1974 is � leg�l hol id�y, <br />