5512 S 1ST AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

r � z 3 4 5 G 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 i4 35 3G 37 possessed by the owners of other properL•ies in the same vincinity 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. VIII. Parkridge v. Seattle, 89 Wn2d 459, reguires that actions such as was taken in this case must be founded upon and supported by testimony in the record and the Finding and Conclusions and reasons for the decision must be set forth. IX. The Order of the Board of Adjustment entered in this case falls far silort of ineeting the Parkridge requirement. For in- stance, the Conclusion �nder "a" is not a conclusion but a , further. Finding of Fact. Under "b" there is nothing in the re- '� cord to supoort the finding relative to other duplex units in �I the city on 6,000 �quare foot lots. x. Under "c" the first portion is a repetition of the words in the Ordinance, as is the first paragraph of "d" and the conclusion under "d" has nothing to do with the problem at hand. XI. Frcm the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court enters the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Order of the Soard of Adjustment for Variance No. 32-83 entered October 10, 1983, is not suoported by evidence in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law - 4 �.w �,�„<<, DERRILL T. BASTIAN JJO FIRyi irylCq]14l BONn BWLOWG IJUS IUtl�n SIHLLI S K LVNNNOU[� WsyMitlull)N 90U]fi �3Uti� )]5 6001