20190913_Pool and deck setback variance.pdfP.O Box 1478 ⬧ Everett, WA 98206 ⬧ P: 425.303.9363
F: 425.303.9362 ⬧ info@insightengineering.net
ZONING CODE VARIANCE JUSTIFICATION
We are requesting a zoning variance to allow the existing pool deck to remain within the
property line setback.
POINT 1.
Several special circumstances that apply to the subject property. Unlike several
neighboring newer developments, this project is proposing to preserve the existing house, along
with several of its outbuildings, including the pool and the concrete pool deck. This pool deck
stabilizes the surface underneath it. It would be extremely cost-ineffective and potentially
destabilizing to the slope to remove the pool deck. Thus, the site has unusual features that make
it infeasible to follow the setback restrictions to the letter.
POINT 2.
The variance would not be a granting of special privileges to the applicant. The reason for
the keeping of the pool deck is its role in stabilizing the slope. If the applicant were to keep
strictly to the standards, it would potentially endanger neighbors by destabilizing the slope. If
this variance weren’t granted, the parcel couldn’t subdivide like several of its neighbors. As a
result of the preceding, it is not a special privilege, but even a necessary action to preserve the
safety of neighbors.
POINT 3.
The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The density remains at the
density that is envisioned for the area. The use is single-family, which is the envisioned use for
the area.
P.O Box 1478 ⬧ Everett, WA 98206 ⬧ P: 425.303.9363
F: 425.303.9362 ⬧ info@insightengineering.net
POINT 4.
The proposal is consistent with the purpose of the zoning code. The zoning code seeks to
“[regulate] the use of individual parcels of land to prevent unreasonable detrimental effects of
nearby uses.” If a strict adherence to the code were to cause the removal of the pool and pool
deck and subsequent destabilization of the slopes, it can then be argued that a variance to prevent
that negative consequence is, in fact, in keeping with the overall intent of the zoning code. In
addition, every other setback is respected throughout the plat.
POINT 5.
The proposal is not detrimental to neighboring property. In that it prevents the
excavation of the pool deck, which could cause destabilization of slope, it could be argued that
this variance, in fact, preserves property value, scenic views, and use of surrounding properties.
It will not be injurous or harmful, but rather, a measure to preserve safety of neighboring parcels.
In that it prevents harm, it does the opposite of cause detriment.
POINT 6.
The variance asked for is the minimum necessary. Without the line where it is, the new
parcel would not have enough width. As mentioned previously, digging up the pool deck would
destabilize the slope and potentially endanger the neighbors. Thus, the variance asked for is the
minimum that is needed to make the project work. The alternative of removing the pool deck
would have the aforementioned consequence of slope destabilization, which is worse than the
variance requested.