Laserfiche WebLink
Crit�rion No. 2- <br /> That such variance is necessary for �he preservation and en- <br /> joyment of � substantial property right of the appellant pos <br /> sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or <br /> zone. <br /> a. Finding: There are several other homes in the vicinity <br /> tY.at have large rear decks and some of them appear to <br /> exceed the height limitation. <br /> b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the owner <br /> a property right alreadf possessed by others in the <br /> vicinity and zone. <br /> Criterion No. 3• <br /> That the authorization of such variance will not be riaterially <br /> detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in fhe <br /> vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br /> a. Findina: The ueck does not block anyone's view and the <br /> adjacent owner to the north where the deck exceeds the <br /> height limitation had constructed a six foat high board <br /> fence on the property line prior to the applicant <br /> buildinq the deck. The privacy screen constructed on the <br /> north end of the deck also provides additional privacy <br /> for the home to the north. <br /> b. Conclusion: It does not appear tliat granting this <br /> variance would be detrimental to the public welfare or <br /> injurious to other property in the viainity and zone. <br /> ���ritoriOn NO. 4• <br /> That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the <br /> Comprehensive General Plan. <br /> a. Findina: The Everett General Plan designation is single <br /> family residential and the use is single family <br /> residential. <br /> b. Conclusion• Granting this variance would not adversely <br /> affect the Everett General Plan. <br /> RECOMENDATION: <br /> APPRQ`�E the variance as requested by applicant with the following <br /> conditions. <br /> 1. Obtain a building permit for the deck. <br /> Prepared by �\.%�,�,:( � /-�r�i�it <br /> Reviewed by �// b{ � <br />