Laserfiche WebLink
Blue Bay Inc. <br /> Appeal <br /> Page -7- <br /> 6. Although lots 11 and 12 do not satisfy the lot standards <br /> of EMC 19.16 .030, the lots satisfy the exception <br /> critecia of said ordinance. <br /> 7. Lots 11 and 12 of Block 34, the Plat of Pinehurst <br /> Division "B" , should be certified as non-conforming and <br /> a building permit should be issued for a zesidence on <br /> said lots . <br /> DECISION <br /> Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions , the <br /> testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and <br /> upon the impressions of the Everett Hearing Examiner of a site <br /> view, it is hereby ordered that the appeal is granted and that <br /> • lots 11 and 12 of Block 34, the Plat of Pinehurst Division "B" , <br /> in the City of Everett, Washington, are certified as <br /> non-conforming and a building pecmit snould be issued for � <br /> construction on said lots. <br /> COMMENTS <br /> Involved in this appeal is whether lots 11 and 12 of elock 34 , <br /> Plat of Pinehurst Division "B" , which ace zoned R-2, can be <br /> certified as non-conforming lots and developed with a valid <br /> building permit. The Everett 2oning Code (EMC) 19. 16 .030 <br /> establishes minimum lot sizes and widths for R-2 property and <br /> sets forth exceptions for lots that do not meet these <br /> standards . The main issue is whether lots 11 and 12 qualify as <br /> an exception. The specific language of the exception of EMC <br /> 19 . 16.030 is: ' <br /> Exception: Where a lot has less area than <br /> herein cequired as shown by the conveyance of <br /> record at the time of the passa9e of this <br /> chapter (December 1, 1956) this regulation <br /> shall not prohibit one private dwelling and <br /> its accessory building on such lot, provided <br /> all yard requirements of this section are <br /> complied with. <br /> Lots 11 an6 12 contain a total of 4 ,060 square feet and are <br /> nearly 1 ,000 feet less than the allowed minimum lot size for <br /> R-2 zoned pcoperty. The Appellant contends that the lots <br /> qualify as an exception while the City claims that the <br /> historical treatment of lhe lots cleacly prohibit their <br /> development as non-conforming lots . <br />