Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />q <br />10 <br />I1 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />IS <br />16 <br />I7 <br />lII <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />t'.3 <br />�n.�,4 <br />25 <br />2G <br />27 <br />20 <br />�9 <br />;30 <br />:i 1 <br />3s <br />� <br />i—. <br />d. That the granting of such variance will not adversely <br />affect the comprehensive general plan. <br />I�i authorizing a variance. the Board may attach thereto such <br />conditions regarding the location, character and other features' <br />of tlie proposed strt:ctures or use as it may deem necessary <br />to carry out the spirit and purposes of. L-his ordinance and in th�= <br />public interest, provided however, that a variance so authorieed <br />shall become void after tl�e expiration of one year if no <br />substantial construction lias taken place in accordance with tlie <br />plans for which such variance was authorized. <br />Under the case of 1'arkrid9e vs Seattle, 89 Wn. 2d 459, <br />actions such as these must be founded on and su�ported by tlte <br />record and findings made and conclusions or reasons set out. <br />The order appealed from falls far short of ineeting the <br />Parkridge requirement. For instance, the conclusion under <br />"A" is not a conclusion but a further finding of fact. Under <br />"S" there is nothing in the record to support the finding <br />relativc to other duplex mtits in the ci.ty on 6,000 square foot <br />lots. It was suggested with no citation of authority that the <br />Board could take judicial notice and hence make the finding under <br />"B", This contention is, in tlze Court's opinion, unsound. If <br />followed, ir would effectively do away witit necessity of <br />presenting :nany facts essential to make a recon3. <br />Under "C" thc first purtion is a repetition of the words <br />in the ordinance as is tlie first paragraph of "D" and thc <br />conclusion iinder "D" lias notl�ing to do with the problem at hand. <br />In view of tlie foreyoing, the Court reverses the order <br />appealed from. Ex�''`�'�7 <br />DONE IN OPEN COURT this 1'�-day of Dfay, 1989. � <br />MSh10RANDUhi OPINION <br />� <br />,' r�'��`/� I <br />c L <br />Su{wriur cnun <br />Snohumish Comny C��ur�huuse <br />Lvcreu. N•n 9N2o1 <br />(2061 259•Y4:1 <br />