4009 NASSAU PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

Leelle R. Cooper Doqeld d. Lydcrxon Thomee I.. Cooper June 28, 1982 C�. .i4xER, LY��YtSO4� & COG`"�ER AT?ORNF.1'S Thc N'etmorc flulldln9 A",10 N'cl�qorc �raquc Po�� orn�� nox iooz Evcrcll. N'eeh�np�on A�:ON City of Bverett IIoard of Adjustments City Hall Everett, WA 98201 RE; APPLICAi � VARIANCE Applicar* )N R. THOMPSON Address: 4�28 W. View Dr. Everett, WA 98203 I.Od12ifl�5.55fl Gentlemen: I represent IVAN L. JOHNSON, who is the owner of Lot 2 and half of Lot 3 in Terrace Addition immediately to the South of Lot 7, Nassau View Tracts owned by MR. THOMPSON. D1R. THOMPSON has requested a variance which would range from 6-15 feet from the rear property line rather than the 2U feet required by the City Code. My client is opposed to the grant of the variance primarily be- cause we question whether or not a variance should be granted in this type of situation. We recognize the purpose of a variance and that it is intended :�o permit- a lessening of the strict inter- pretation of the law in �ndividual hardships and to provide reliet against unnecessary and unjust invasions of the right of private property. We believe that variances sho»].d be authorized or permitted when they are warranted by ade_uate facts. Variances clearly are not allowed as corrections of error.s of judgment in zoninq laws and certainly do not amend the zoning ordinances. The general legal principles dealing with variances are quite clearly set forth in the recognized treatise McQuillen Municipal Corporation, srd �d., Revised,under the sub-topic of zoning. As pointe out in section 25.162 of McQuillen's, the general rule is that variances are to be granted sparingly, only in rare instances and under peculiar and exceptional circumstances. Clearly r.o one of us has a legal right to a variance. To sug- gest otherwise is to suggest that zoning regulations would Ue so totally emasculated by exceptions, that there would bn little � � r. tn H 1- y r.� H� � �: �� c � �: � `" � �� H �- �c O Y� �F= �� c� � f: C � :.�