3523 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

BO�RD OF ADJUSTl�NT FINDINGS, COPCLUSIONS AND ORDER VaRI1WCE NO. 16-88 Based upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Rodney Heppell 3523 Shore Ave. Everett, WA 98203 I hereinafter referred to as "Applicant," for a variance from I E.M.C. 19.12.050 (B) , Side yards, to allow an addition to an � existing non-conforming building that has a fourteen inch side �at � back instcad c+f the seven and one-half foot set back required byj code. The fourteen inch east side set back would be extended for twelve and one-half feet to the south along the east property linel from the existing non-conforming garage. on the following property commonly known as: 3523 Shore Ave. i The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on June 6, 1988 and further having reviewed alll testimony, makes the followinq Findings, Conclusions and Order: ' � FTIIOTNGS ailD CONCLIISION$.:. � c�i�er;on No. 1: That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances � or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the in- i tended use thereof that do not apply generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: The Applicant is proposing a 570 square foot addition to an existi.ng 430 square foot garage. The property is a large, 19,600 square foot lot on a bluff overlooking the bay and the house is situated on the rear of the lot to iake advantage of the view, with the existing garage on the street side of the lot. The �, existing garage is nonconforming since it is only I fourteen inches from the east side property line instead i of the seven and one-half feet rea,uired by code. The Applicant wishes to extend the garaqe twelve and one half feet towards the front of the lot and match the existing nonconfarming side of the existing qarage. i b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applyinq to this property because of the location of the existinq garage and the fact that it is constructed of brick which would make it difficult to move to meet setback. (�ritori0ll NO. 2' That such var.iance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property right of the appellant pos ' sessed by the owners of other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: In the past variances have been qranted to allow additions to existinq nonconforminq qerayes. b. Conclusion: Grantinq this variance would allow a property right possessed by others.