Laserfiche WebLink
October 2, 1972 <br />The regular meeting of the City of Everett Board of Adjustment was held at <br />7:30 p, in. , October 2, 1972, in the City Hall Council Chamber, City Hall, <br />Everett, Washington. <br />Mr. Graff, President; Mr. Champion, Mr. Ingram, and Mr. Dickson were <br />present. Mr. Cronin was absent. <br />The reading of the minutes were dispensed with with the exception of Mr. Elmer <br />Walcker, 3501-172nd S. W. , Lynnwood, Washington, whose application was <br />postponed from the September 11, 1972 hearing. Mr. Walcker is requesting per- <br />mission to segregate two (2) platted lots into three (3) tracts, each tract to <br />have 12, 000 square feet. <br />There was no representation in the audience either for or against Mr. Walcker's <br />application. <br />After visually viewing the subject property and considering all the facts it was <br />moved by Mr. Champion, seconded by Mr. Ingram and unanimously carried to <br />deny the applicant's request for the following reasons: <br />1. There was no hardship shown by the applicant. <br />Z. The segregation into three (3) lots will be detrimental to <br />surrounding property owners. <br />3. If the variance is granted it would be in non-conformance <br />with the comprehensive general plan. <br />Under new business a hearing was held on the application of. Sam Babich, 2715 <br />Saratoga Lane, Everett, Washington, for a variance from Section 15. 04. 075 <br />E. C. C. (Zoning Ordinance) subsection E-Rear Yards, for permission to waive <br />the rear yard requirements and to construct a sun deck to within five (5) feet <br />of the rear property line. Saratoga Heights, Lot 2 (2715 Saratoga Lane) <br />Everett, Washington. <br />Dr. David Stewart and Dr. Ken Voyles, neighbors of the applicant, complained <br />that their privacy would be impeded and the deck is closer to the property line <br />than the applicant stated. <br />Mr. Mike Carlson, also a neighbor, stated that most of the residence of the area <br />are non -conforming in lot size and yard setbacks. Also, Mr, & Mrs. Babich <br />would sustain considerable damage in their loss of view if the deck would sustain <br />considerable damage in their loss of view if the deck would not be permitted. <br />After visually viewing the subject property and considering all the facts and <br />testimony, it was moved by Mr. Champion, seconded by Mr. Dickson and <br />unanimously carried to grant the applicants request for the following reasons: <br />