2931 NASSAU ST 2018-01-02 MF Import

AWN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDER VARIANCE NO. 17-88 Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Tim Vardy 2931 Nassau St. Everett, WA 98201 hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from E.M.C. 19.42.020, Fences, to allow a 48-inch high fence in the front yard instead of the 42-inch height allowed by code and to allow a 60-inch high fence in the north side yard where the principal building on the adjoining lot is closer than ten feet instead of the 42-inch height allowed by code. on the following property commonly known as: 2931 Nassau St. The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on June 6, 1988 and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and order: That there have been e:-ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the in- tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. Finding: The subject property is a 25 foot by 120 foot lot with a single family structure. The property is zoned R-4, Multiple Family and to the east abuts a C-1 zone. Immediately across the alley to the east is the parking lot for the Providence Health Club. The Applicant has installed chain link fence all around the property to provide security since all the neighbors have been burglarized or had things taken from their yards or boats, and also to provide a safe play area for their two and one-half year old child. In addition, the fence was needed to keep strangers from cutting through their yard to get from the Providence Health Club parking lot to Nassau. Prior to installing the fence, the Applicant had a survey done to verify the property line. The Applicant had originally asked the fencing company to install a five foot high fence in the front yard, but the fencer told her that forty-eight inches was the maximum height for front yard: and made no mention of any height restrictions in the rear yard in relation to the house on the adjacent lot. The Applicant relied on the fencing company to know the height limitations and has spent a considerable amount of money and tried to do the job properly. b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applying to the property due to the fact of the small lot sizes in the area and nonconformity of structures in relation to side setback, and there are unusual circumstances relating to the use because of the need for security and also to pr vide a safe play area for their child in an area adjacent to a busy parking lot and street.