Laserfiche WebLink
.- _, <br /> � ^ <br /> BOARD OF ADJi]ST![ENT <br /> FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDSR VARIANCE NO. 23-88 <br /> Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's <br /> zoning code by: <br /> Blue Bay, inc. <br /> 1001 Broadway, Suite A-10 <br /> Everett, WA 98201 <br /> hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from <br /> E.M.C. 19.42.040 (C) , Side Yards, to allow an eight foot side yard <br /> setback for a corner lot instead of the 10 foot setback required' <br /> by code. <br /> On the property commonly known as: 46�4 College Ave. <br /> v The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said <br /> � application held on July 11 , 1988 and further having reviewed all <br /> testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: <br /> ICriterion No. 1: <br /> That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstancesl <br /> or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the in-� <br /> tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other� <br /> properties in the same vicinity or zone. i <br /> a. Findina: When the Applicant applied for building � <br /> permits, the site glan submitted showed a 10 foot setback <br /> I and so the application was approved. It was not noticed <br /> i by City Staff at that time that the buildin�plans show <br /> I a portion of the structure is canti.levered two feet over <br /> the foundation and so extends into the ten foot required <br /> ' corner lot side setback area. This oversight was not <br /> � discovered until the structure was framed. <br /> b. Conclusion: The unusual circumstances applying to this I <br /> property is the fact that the building permits were <br /> issued based on the structure's location as shown on the ' <br /> site olan even though the buildin��lans did show the <br /> cantilevered portion of the building. <br /> Criterion No. 2: <br /> That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- <br /> joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos <br /> sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity ori <br /> zone. <br /> I <br /> a. Findina: The Applicant contends that issuance of building <br /> permits led him to believe that his plans were in , <br /> conformance with zoning requirements thereby giving him ' <br /> the right to build as shown on the building plans as have' <br /> others who have received building permits. <br /> b. Conclusion: Granting this variance will allow the <br /> applicant a property right possessed by others wno have <br /> obtained building permits. <br /> -1- <br />