Laserfiche WebLink
May 1, 1972 <br />The regular meeting of the City of Everett Board of Adjustment was held at <br />7:30 p, m. , May 1, 1972, in the City Hall Council Chambers, City Hall, <br />Everett, Washington. <br />Mr. Cronin presided. Mr. Ingram, Mr. Champion and Mr. Dickson were <br />preaent, ivtr. Graif was absent. <br />The reading of the minutes of the April 3, 1972 meeting was dispensed with. <br />IA hearing was held on the application of Mr. C. W. Sebers, 190q Pinehurst <br />�Ave., Everett, for a varianr_e from the R-2, Single Family High Density <br />i Residential Zone re,quirement of a 5 foot side yard setback to allow him to <br />build to within two (2) feet of his west properCy line. Lot 21 and 22, Block 2, <br />Plat of Yinehurst. <br />j After visual observation of the suUject property and considering all the facts <br />�i and Iestimony, it was moved by Mr. Champion, seconded by Mr. Ingram and <br />lunanimou,ly carried to grant thc applicanl's request for lhe follo�ving reasons: <br />1, To locate the shed clsetvhcrc would damage thc applicant's property. <br />2. Thc shed in its proposed locaLion will not be delrimental to the <br />surrounding area. <br />3. OCher properCies in thr. vicinity are enjoying the risht to encroach <br />inCo the sideyard setUadc with accessory buildings. ' <br />4. The granting of the variance wil] not adversely affecC the Coinprehen- <br />sivc Plan, <br />A lieariii� was held on the requcsC of Mr. Pele Pappas, 7723 - 47lli Ave. N.\1', <br />Marysvillc, \VashingCon for a variance from Che R-2, Single ramily High <br />Densily Residential 7one requirement of a mitzimu�n lot area of 7, 500 sq, it. <br />lo allow him lo �conslruct a dupler, on a lot �viCh a maximum area of 6, 000 sq. <br />ft. Lol, 1 and 2, Block 348, Plat af EveretC Div. 'L'. (S.L, corner of 17th - <br />Street and tiVetmorc. <br />Aftcr visual obscrvation of Che suUject properCy and considering all [lie facts <br />and teslimony, it was moved by Mr. Champion, secmided by Mr. Dicicson and <br />unanimously carried Co deny the applicanC's requesC for the tolloNing reasons; <br />1, No hardship was proven Uy the applicant. <br />2. There would Ue too great a discrepancy in Nie minimum allowable <br />sq. footagc (7, 500) and that of applicanC's properCy (6, 000). <br />3. There are �io otlicr duplexes in thc arca on parccls of. land of si�nilar <br />SLT.C, <br />0 <br />