Resolution 2589 - Laserfiche WebLink

' Charlotte Seymour Appeal Appeal 1-85 Page - 6 - 4 . No noise, dust, smoke, glare or other nuisances would be emitted as the result of the proposed beauty salon. 5 . No products would be sold or displayed on the premises. 6 . There would be no receipt or distribution of products on site. 7. Only the Appellant would be employed within the beauty salon. 8. No more than one-quarter of /the total floor area of the dwelling would be used for the occupation. 9. Access to the work space would be from within the structure. 10 . There would be no sign advertising the home occupation. 11. Section 19 .44 .030 sets forth the specific considerations that the building officials of the City of Everett must use in granting or denying a Home Occupation Permit. The application of the Appellant does not satisfy all of these considerations. 12. The small single chair beauty salon would not have a significant impact on the residential character of the Appellant 's neighborhood and would not create aesthetic privacy nuisance or traffic problems. Further , the use would not endanger the overall integrity of the Appellant' s neighborhood. 13 . It is the intent of Section 19. 44 . 030 to preserve the stability of the City ' s commercial areas. Beauty salons are not listed as a permitted use for R-1 zoned property but are listed as a permitted use for commercially zoned properties. As a result, the granting of a Home Occupation Permit in a R-1 zone would not be preserving the stability of the City' s commercial areas. 14 . The listed hardships for the granting of a Home Occupation Permit as set forth in Section 19. 44. 030 do not include any hardships that the Appellant has stated. 15. The City of Everett has recommended denial of the appeal. 16 . The Appellant has recommended approval of the appeal.