Laserfiche WebLink
,-�°r ,� , <br />(6) I feel that enforcing the rear setback of ?5 feet would <br />be ��nfair in two ways. The hotise was desia.^.ed cn the basis <br />of incorrect inEormation Y.hat I relied on because it came from the <br />Areper authority. Also as previouslY menticne3, tne onl'1 reasonable <br />ori.entaion oE a house on lot 9 is tv hava the north �ide as the <br />front and this is how the nouse on lot. 8 has ueen constr•ucted. <br />With existin4 se.tbacks bein4 met what actually happens is that <br />50 feet is beine required as .s side vsrd between two houses instaad <br />ot the benefit of 15' �vnich ail other pro�=.rty cwnFrs have. <br />ithe house on loL 8 is 25 feet from my west border) <br />(7) I can forsos no raasonable way that qrant9ns this <br />variance would ba in any wai narnful to aaY other property owner. <br />b1r, gigelow (owner of loc 8) has expressed hi5 int�nt of qrant the <br />necessary aas=me:it (si3ned statem:nt incl•3de3). Ha has indicated <br />it o�ould actually be a b�nefit to nim to have constructior� an3 <br />maintenance costs shared on the lon3 drive approach to his .lot. <br />fhe homes presently locatcd to t.he south and east u." lot q are <br />situated in dense wo�ds and the placement of my home has no <br />effect on them at all. The wuods are s� �i=nse that i rea11Y can't <br />even see their homes. <br />l8) My va��ianca request in no way affects thr comcrehensive <br />general pla becaus= it is zaned for sin9le family residenr_e <br />and I am complying with that. <br />RIC[i RODEfiICK <br />�i�-����c <br />61q LJashin�ton Court <br />tilukilteo, Washin3ton <br />98'75 <br />34�-Sa50 <br />� <br />