Laserfiche WebLink
Prior to installing the fence, the Applicant had a <br />survey done to verify the property line (see Exhibit <br />4). The Applicant had originally asked the fencing <br />company to install a five foot high fence in the front <br />yard, but the fencer told her that forty-eight inches <br />was the maximum height for front yards and made no <br />mention of any height restrictions in the rear yard in <br />relation to the house on the adjacent lot. The <br />Applicant relied on the fencing company to know the <br />height limitations and has spent a considerable amount <br />of money (see Exhibits 4 and 5) and tried to do the job <br />properly. <br />b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applying to <br />the property due to the fact of the small lot sizes in <br />the area and nonconformity of structures in relation to <br />side setback, and there are unusual circumstances <br />relating to the use because of the need for security and <br />also to provide a safe play area for their child in an <br />area adjacent to a busy parking lot and street. <br />:Criterion No. 2: <br />That such variance is necessary for the <br />'joyment of a substantial property right <br />sessed by the owners of other properties in <br />zone. <br />preservation and en - <br />of the appellant pos <br />the same vicinity or <br />c^indina: Since the City does not require building <br />permits for installing fences, there are many other <br />fences in the City of Everett that do not meet height <br />requirements and unless there is a complaint the city <br />does not enforce. <br />b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow the <br />applicant a property right already possessed by others. <br />That the authorization of such variance will not be materially <br />detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the <br />vicinity or zone in which the property is located. <br />a. Finding: Public Works and Fire Department had no adverse <br />comments on this request and no adverse comments were <br />received in response to notice sent to property owners <br />within 300 feet. <br />b. Conclusion: Granting of this variance would not be <br />detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other <br />property in the vicinity or zone. <br />That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the <br />Comprehensive General Plan. <br />a. Finding: The Comprehensive Plan designation is multiple <br />family and single family use is permitted. <br />b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would not adversely <br />affect the Comprehensive Plan. <br />-2- <br />