Laserfiche WebLink
(6) I feel that enforcing tha rear setback of 25 feet. wovld <br />ba unfair in two waYs. The hou;� was desiazed cn the uasis <br />of incor.•ec': info:mation that I rcliad on 42ca+.i�e it came from the <br />prepe:^ auti::rity. Also as previously menti��ne�i, tne only reas�nable <br />orientaion oE a house on lot 9 is to hava the nort!1 �ide as t?ie <br />Eront and thi� is how the n�use on lot 3 has ueen consLructed. <br />With existinq satbacks being met what actually happens is that <br />5�7 feet is beinu required 3S 3 side ysrd between t�Ho houses instead <br />of tha bena:it of 15' which ail other PCOp9L'iy cwnprs have. <br />ithe house on l�t 8 is 25 feet fr�m my west borcier) <br />(7) I can fors�s no raasonable way that grant_n4 thi� <br />variance would ba in a:il waI har:n_ui �0 3aY �ther �roperty owner. <br />�ir, Bi�elow (owner of lot 8) nas rxpresse3 hi� int�nt cf srant the <br />nec=ssarv 83331i13;1C (siyn�d scatem�at incl•�ded). H� has indicated <br />it urould actually be a b�nefit to nim to have constructior� and <br />maintenanae costs shared on tiie l�na drive app n�acti to his lc�t. <br />f'the homes pr�sently locat:sd to r.he south and =:sst �� lot 9 are <br />situated in dense wo�ds and the placemenr. of my home h�s no <br />sfEect on them at all. 'Che wuods are so �isnse that i realli� can't <br />even sea their homes. <br />i8) MY vac•iancs re�uest in no way aEfects thr comorehansive <br />9eneral pla because it is zcned for sinele famil.y res:denr_e <br />and I am complying with that. <br />RICK RODEFICK <br />��� � t��c� <br />514 Washinqton Court <br />Mukilceo, Washin�ton <br />98275 <br />346-5850 <br />