4009 NASSAU PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

.. . � � �.�axl� City of Everett Board of Adjustments June 28, 1982 Page - 2 protection left in the zoning laws. Prospective property would have little confidence in nominal would hesitate to purchase in the zone area where meant little inview of arbitrary , free and easy iances. In Section 25.164 of McQuillen's, it stated: purchasers of standards and the zoning grants cf var- Generally, the grounds for variances or administrative exceptions relate to unneces- sary hardship arising from strict observation of zoning restriclions; that is to say, they relate to unique and not merely general hard- ship; and furthermore, it may be observed, they relate to hardsh=p which is unnecessary in order to effect the general zoning intent and plan. It was further stated: It is no grou�d for a special use, variance or exception that one seeks or desires to erecL- a bui.lding,pursue a business use or use land or buildings in violation of zoning restric- tions nor is a desired need or justified change in a zoning scheme or ordinance a ground for a variance. In Section 25.166, it was noted, "A variance from a set-back or sideline restriction may be permitted or denied according to a finding of unnecessary hardship. But it has been said that- mere hardship alone is not sufficient to justify granting a variance." It is fundamental that the difficulties or hardships must be unique to justify a variance; they must be peculiar to the appli- cation of zoning restrictions to the particular property and not general in nature. In other words, the plight of an applicant for a variance must be due to a particular circumstance or condi- tion and it must be special or unique in contrast with that of otlier property owners in the same district. If there is a hard- si:ip in common to the whole neighborhood, it may be a ground for an �exemption or special use permit, but generally in such case the remedy is to seek a change of the ordinance, rather than a variance.