1705 FULTON ST 2016-01-01 MF Import

. . _ �'C' � �•...., �U! Q��d C/T y j8 O BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT A°`ic �F ` .. �99p O FINDINGS, CONI�LUSIONS AND ORDER �o,�`F 4'' RFT'.'.••.. VARIANCE NO. 17-90 O�, T A� Based upon the written request for a v,iriance from the City's zoning cc�de by: Applicant: James R. Thompeon 12421 48th Street Marysville, WA 98270 hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance fr�m Section 9, Rear Setback, to allow a rear setback of less than 20 feet that would legalize an existing single faniily structure in its present location which has an approximate 10 foot rear setback instead of the 20 feet required by code. � on the property commonly known as: 1705 Fulton I The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on July 9, 1990, and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: F_3�iDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS• Criterion No. 1: That the varian.ce is necessary because of exceptional or ex- t�aordinary circumstances regarding the size, shape, t000graphy, or location of the subject property; or the loca- tion of a pre-existing improvement on the subject property that conformed to the zoning code in effect when the improvement was constructed. a. Findinqs: A building Permit was issued in 1959 to moVe a single family structure onto lots 3 and 4 of Block 357. The plot plan that was submitted with the application shows a rear setback of 12 feet instead of the 20 feet re- quired by code. The applicant has now submitted an application for a building permit to construct a second story on the house. Since the original structure is not in conformance with the setback requirement, the City is requiring that a variance be obtained. The structure can not be considered nonconforming even though a building permit was obtained since it did not meet the zoning code setback requirement at the time the structure was placed on the site. b. Conclusions: There are unusual circumstances applying to this property since a building permit was issued when the plot plan only showed a 12 foot rear setback. C�iterion No. 2: That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the property in the area of the subject property or to the City as a whole. a. Findings: The building has been in place since 1959 and no complaints have been recorded. If the building had been in place since 1956 (the date the zoning code was adopted) , it would be considered a .legal, nonconforming