3523 SHORE AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

. � ,�-. , . BOARD OF ADJUSTlIENT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ORDII2 VARIatiCE NO. 16-88 Hased upon the written request for a variance from the City's zoning code by: Rodney Heppell 3523 Shore Ave. Everett, WA 98203 hereinafter referred to as ��Applicant," for a variance from E.M.C. 19.12.050 (S) , Side yards, to allow an addition to an existing non-conforming building that has a fourteen inch side set back instead of the seven and one-half foot set back required by code. The fourteen inch east side set back would be extended for twelve and one-half feet to the south along the east property line from the existing non-conforming garage. on the following property commonly known as: 3523 Shore Ave. The Board of Adjustment, following a public hearing on said application held on June 6, 1988 and further having reviewed all testimony, makes the following Findings, Conclusions and Order: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION.�,_'., Criterion No. 1• That there have been exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property or as to the in- tended use thereof that do not ap�ly generally to other properties in the same vicinity or zone. a. Findina: The Applicant is proposing a 570 square foot addition to an existing 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 take advantaqe of the view, with the existing garage on the street side of the lot. The existing garage is nonconforming since it is only fourteen inches from the east side property line instead of the seven and one-half feet required by code. The Applicant wishes to extend the garage twelve and one half feet towards the front of the lot and match the existing nonconforming side of the existing garage. b. Conclusion: There are unusual circumstances applying to this property because of the location of the existing garage and the fact that it is c��nstructed of brick which would make it difficult to move to meet setback. Criterion No. 2• That such variance is necessary for the preservation and en- joyment of a substantial property riqht 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 granted to allow additions to existing nonconforming garages. b. Conclusion: Granting this variance would allow a property riqht possessed by others.