3711 W MUKILTEO BLVD VOICESTREAM WIRELESS ANTENNA 2018-01-01 MF Import

(c) That the variance ��ill only grant the subject property the same general rights enjoyed by ��tfier property in the same area and zone as the subject property. (d) That the varianrP is the minimum necessary to allow the subject property the general ric�hts described in Criterion C. (e) The granting of the varianc:e is consistent with the Goais and Policies of the Everett General Plan. {� The need for the requested variance is not the result of a self- created hardship. 28. Because of the eMraordinary circumstances, including the location of the subject property and the policies of the Snohomish County PUD restricting separation of the wireless facility from the utiliry lines, a special circumstance exists for the grant of the variance. (exhibit 1, Tyler testimony, Babcock testimony) 29. The variance will not be materially detrimental to the property or to the area as a whole. It will allow co!ocation of utilities while eliminating the need for an additional pole. (exhibit 1, Tyler testimo,iy, Babcock testimony) 30. The grant of the variance will allow the Applicant the same opportunities as other wireless providers in the area. Similar faciiities would be evaluated in the same manner as the ApplicanYs request. 31. The requested variance is the minimum to allow the Applicant the right to provide the wireless service consistent with the Everett Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan and State and Federai regulations. (exhibit 1) 32. The requested variance is not the result of a self-created hardship but of the technology limitations and the topographical constraints to that technology. (exhibit 1) Jurisdiction: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold a hearing and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Hearing Examiner enters the following Conclusions: 9h