4931 NICHOLS PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

Steve Bartluw Cons[ruction Jariance 14-89 Page -3- 7. Ordinance +11323-87, Section 12.A.�1)H grants the Everett Hearing Examiner jurisdictional authority to make decisions in matters regarding compliance with conditions imposed pursuant tu any land use permit or decision which has been issued by the Everett Hearing Examiner. Decause the 1985 variance was granted by the Hearing Examiner and because the subdivision ordinance has been amended to grant the Everett liearing Examiner jurisdictional authority to make decisions, tne Hearing Examiner has authority Co hold the hearing on the variance and to issua any final decisions. 8. Pursuant to EMC 19.70.060, tlie following criteria are reviewed for a variance request. They include: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zones; B. That such variance is necessary Eor the preservatlon and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the Applicant possessed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity or zone; C. That the authorization of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the vicinity or zone in which the property is located; D. That the granting of such variance will not adversely affect the Comprehensive General Plan. 9. The Everett Planning Department revieWed the Applicant's building permlt. .4t the time of the building permit it was noted on the application that there was a canti-levered section on the front of the house that must comply with the 20' setback. This notation was made by the Everett Planning Department on the plat plan and it was also communicated to the Applicant on various occasions. 10. The house, after the building permit was secured, was started. It waen't until after the house was constructed that the encroachment in the front yard setback was noted. After it was determined that the encroachmenc existed, the Applicant requeated the variance. I.ater, upon further review, it was determined that a portion of the houae on the side also encroaclied one yard into the side yard setback. 11. Based on directlon from the Planning Department and Huilding Department, the Applicant proceeded to develop the subject property. liowever, confusion existed on the restrictions of [he satbacks. The confusion res�lted in the Applicant having an understanding that he could build into [he established setbacks when, in fact, it was prohibited. It was not until construction was nearly complete that it was determined that the encroachments were in violation of the established setbacks and the variance would be needed.