2021 CHESTNUT ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

� t (c) That the variance will only grant the subject property the �:,rne general rights enjoyed by other property in the same area and zone as the subJect property. (d) That the variance is the minimum necessary to aliow the subject property the general rights described in Criterion C. (e) The granting of the variance is not (nconsistent w(th the Goals and Policies of the Everett General Plan. (� The need for the requested variance is not the result of a self- created hardship. 22. With the replacement of the 300 foot tali wooden tower, the actual maximum height needed by the Applicant is lower. Because of ths unique nature of the fac(lity, its historical location on the subJect Nroperty (no records appear to be available as to when the tower was const�ucted) and the community need, special circumstances exist for the allowance of the 150 foot tail monopole. (Exhibft 1) 23. The requested monopole will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area or to the City as a whole. It will provide a needed service to the community. (Sullivan testimony) 24. As noted, the Applicant has operated for a significant period of time with a larger tower on-site. The proposed monopole will reduce impacts from what currently exists. The variances will allow the Applicant to enjoy the same rights as other propertfes in the area. (Exhibit 1) 25. The requested variances are a minimum variance in order to provide necessary service of the Applicant. (Exhibit 1) 26. The proposal is consistent with the Everett Comprehensive Plan in the manner as set forth in finding #14. (Exhibit 1) 27. The requested variances are not the result of a self-created hardship. It is necessary in order for the Applicant to provide services to the local and state communities. (Exhibit 1) 28. The City of Everett was designated as the responsible o�cial for reviewing the environmental impact of the proposed development. On March 10, 1998, the City issued a SEPA Mitigated Determination of Non- 7 ■