1614 EDGEMOOR LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

i � � Plat of Crestwood _ Subdivision Alteration 2-88 Page -B- - 2. A reduction of the building setbacks for lot 17 so that they are consistent wit�+ the R-1 zoning requirements. Zhese requested subdivision alterations aze denied because the provisions of RLT�T 58.17.215 have not been satisfied. In particulaz, the Applicant has failed to provide the signatures of the majority of those persons having an ownership and interest of the lots of the subdivision. Fluther, the subdivision is subject to restrictive crovenants which caere fi7ed at the time of the approval of the subdivisirni and the application is fo: the alteration of one of these c�ovenants, �It�e Applicant has not pcovided ar: agreement signed by all parties subject to the crovenants stating that the parties agree to terminate or alter the relevant covenants to acccm�plish the purpose of the alteration. �e key elements in this application were that the restrictive covenants of the Ccestwood Plat, arr3 in particular Sections 2(C) and 3, aze covenants that aze enforceable. Rhese oovenants, by incorporation, include the final plat map which shows a 20' setback on lot 17 and the Crestwood-Buildinq Fhvelope and View Orientation Plan which shows a 20' setback from the south boundary of lot 17. 4hus, these setbacks and the easement aze restricted to alteration pursuant to the provisions of RCW 58.17.215. it is noted that the 15' easement will not be detrimeetai to lot 16 ar:d will not provide aocess to lot 18. However, the rtanner in which it is listed on the plat map, and thereby included as part of the recorded crovenants, leaves no other method for alteration other than that as provided in FaC.W 58.17.215. It is noted that this decision is made by an application of the la!vs of the State of Washington. Zhe Applicant's atte�ts to appease the owner of lot 16 are noted. Obviously, the Applicant and the owner of lot 16, Mr. Braa, have had difficulties and it appears that the Applicant has gone out of his way to accomplish the desires of Mr. Braa. In a forian of equity it is cronceivable that the subdivision alterations would be allowed and that lot 17 would be able to be developed under the R-1 zoning standards. How�ever, in interpreting the laws of this camunity, equity gives way to the written ordinances and statutes and RC�1 58.17.215 is explicit as to the procedure that is to be followed in order to allow alterations of subdiv'_sions subject to restrictive crovenants. A000cdingly, lot 17 cannot be developed pursuant to the R-1 zonin9 standards and the easement is not extinguished. 7t�e only method in which this can be done is throuqh the procedure of RLW 58.17.215. Done and dated this 18th day of November, 1988. �� . a"� �). ' �cc.cc� �v. James M. D[1sco11 4he decision on this application has been rtade by the Eiearing F�caminer based on the authority granted in Ordinance 692-80 as amended. It is final unless the following procedure is followed: