Laserfiche WebLink
'�;;, r i � <br /> C. Public Welfare: <br /> Finding: The wall erected in July 1982 serves to enclose a walkway. <br /> Conclusion: The action benefited only the property owner and not the general <br /> public. <br /> D. Comprehensive Plan: <br /> Finding: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as residential. <br /> Crnclusion: The variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> The request for a variance from Everett Municipal Code Sec. 19.16.050 (B) Side Yard <br /> to allow an enclosed walkway to remain within five inches of the property line is <br /> denied for the following reasons: <br /> 1. The enclosed wall<way was constructed without proper permits and public review. <br /> 2. The particular request in question does not exhibit special circumstances which <br /> deprive it of privileges commonly enjoyed by other properties in the area. <br /> 3. The enclosed walkway as built would require encrnachment on the adjacent <br /> proper:y for maintenance of the wall. <br /> DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OCTOBER 4, 1982 <br /> VOTE: FOR AGAINST ABSENT ABSTAIh <br /> � <br /> � <br /> Mr. Hoagland: x � <br /> Mr. Wilson: x _ , <br /> Mr. Zook: x <br /> Mr. Eckstrom, Sr. x <br /> Mr. Barnett: x <br /> H F <br /> �3 '.' <br /> ��-o-��_���-��... i a � <br /> Chainnan, Board of Adjustment T� � � <br /> r. <br /> � <br /> � �. <br /> � <br /> � = <br /> � � <br /> H f <br /> � J <br /> � Y� <br /> � r <br /> � � <br /> � C <br /> . �: <br /> K <br /> c <br /> f <br /> 6 <br /> . ' <br />