2902 HEWITT AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

, In Lewis v. Afecina , 8� t9n. 2d 15 , Sqg, p, 2d ].0°3 (] y7G; , � the Washinaton Court affirmed the denial of a varience by a Aoard o: Adjustment, where the "hardship" of a lot being too small to meet the zoning ordinance,' s minimum lot size was created by the owners oMr. � action in oarticipating in the sale of adjacent property. The ohmer � failed to,meet an essential requirement of the ordinance there in � question: to de„ionstrate that the plight of the owner not be a result j of the owner' s action. � The court in Lewis does not =ay that a self-imposed hardship is insufficient to constitute an .Urnecessary hardship only where the i � ordinance specificali� so provides. It simply b��ses its decision on � this analysis because the ordinance in question did explicitly so 'provide. , In fact, the aeneral rule of American Zoning law, that a self- imposed harship is not a ground f.or granting a variance, as articulated by the Americar. Law of Zoning, supra, exists whether. or not i�'s . specifically articulated in the zoning ordinance. This rule Iogically � is derived from the variance ordinance' s (Everett Municipal Code � 19. 70. 060) authorization for the issuence of a variance onlY where, owing to special conditions pertaining to a specific piece of prqperty, the literal enforcement of the provisions or requirements of this title wou.ld cause undue or unnecessary hardship. As noted in t`�e exerptfrom American Law of Zoning, §18.49. quoted above at 11 , when a hard- ship is self-imposed, it is caused by the conduct of the applicant, not by the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Yn summary, it is arbitrary and capricious and ultra vires conduct to grant a variance based on uatiecessary har�ship where such hardship was self-imposed and me-ely involved the imposition of a � -12-