V-00-103 HE decision w attachments.pdfFINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ,.,
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
APPLICANTS: Mr. and Mrs. Saul for Ms. Braun.
CASE NO.: V-00-103
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
LOCATION: 9207 Olympic View Drive (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 4).
APPLICATION: A street setback Variance (see Exhibit A, Attacluuents 2 and 3).
REVIEW" PROCESS: ✓,ariance; Hearing Exarniner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCE,S).
MJ MI°vIARY OFRECOMMENDATION MENDATION ANI) DECISION:
Stal'fR.c:co�nrner:dation: Approve with conditions
Vle,tring Exarninc r Decision: Approve with conditions
PUBLIC HEARING:
After jE vietivittg ta�� official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
ud ;Cilie v;1siling dl site, flat �l�arir,�� J`x Tnnner conducted a public hearing oil the application,
Pe 11carlrq< oil Iho i3raura applica'iafl was t pened at a.m., October 19, 2000, in thc: City
' isilingtoll, and closed at 9.�t2 a.rn. Participant_; at the puhlic hearing and the
f�ib�ts
Offered ;and entcrcd are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is
.]t ailably ire the Planning Division.
Incorporated August .1 1, 1890 11
C:,.a..... r`:— Tom..,_:..._.... T_.__._
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 2
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record.
From the Applicant:
Susan Saul said she concurred with the staff advisory report.
From the Community:
Elaine Yard said she lives next door to the property and has no problem with the garage
She said she supported the request for a variance.
CORRESPONDENCE:
Correspondence in support of the variance request was received from John and Mary Polikowsky
(see Exhibit B).
INTRODUCTION:
Ms. Lynn Braun is the owner of a small single family home located on the private road called
Maple Manor Road just off of Olympic View Drive. This is an older community that in the early
to mid 1900's was likely a weekend/vacation home community. Because of this, the homes and
lots were small and a separate lot was created for parking for the last five lots. In the 1940's, a
structure was built that provided garages for three of those lots and the last two lots continued to
park outside.
In the early 1980's, the previous owner of Ms. Braun's property, Mr. and Mrs. Saul, built an
addition to the garage building that provided one additional garage space for their lot. This
construction was done without the benefit of a building permit, and since that was a requirement
in the 1980's, the addition was illegal. A complaint was filed with the city in early 2000, and
after an investigation of the site, the current property owner was notified that they had an illegal
structure that would need to be removed or have permits granted.
Because the lot created for parking was so small no addition to the garage building could be
made without necessitating a variance. So, the applicant is proposing a variance that would
allow this garage addition to the legal nonconforming garage building built in the 40's. If
approved, the applicant will move ahead with a building permit application to legitimize the
entire building.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 3
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION:
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS -12).
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a
four -car garage.
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The existing topography is relatively flat. The site is so
small there is relatively no vegetation
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North, West, South and East: The properties are zoned and developed or being
developed under the RS -12 standards.
(2) The formal plat under construction to the east provided a buffer tract to provide
separation from the Plat road and the subject garage.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE:
1. Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in an RS -12 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.20. They include a 25 -foot street setback, 10 -foot side setbacks and a
25 -foot rear setback. Because the site is so small and because it is surrounded on
three sides by streets the entire site is constrained by setbacks.
b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS -12 zone as
set forth in Chapter 16.20 with the approval of the subject variance.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would
result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 4
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These
criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted;
the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
(2) Applicant's responses to the Variance criteria (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2):
(a) The size of the lot that the house is on is so small that it does not allow for
room to park. Therefore, the original developers provided a separate lot to
park on. This lot is extremely small as well and is entirely covered with
required setbacks.
(b) It is not a grant of special privilege in that four other adjacent property owners
already have the same thing.
(c) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in that this is a residential area and a residential use is proposed.
(d) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance
in that it is a residential use in a residential zone.
(e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental in that it will not
reduce any property values or create any hazards.
(f) The applicant states that this is the minimum variance in that the lot is quite
small and there is nowhere else to put it.
(3) Response:
(a) The Hearing Examiner agrees with the applicant about how the project meets
the variance criteria.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances exist in the shape of the property. The lot set aside for
parking is entirely covered with setbacks and without the requested variances
would not be able to be developed at all.
(2) Special Privilege
No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will
allow an addition to consistent with existing structures.
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a
manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
designation of the site.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 5
(4) Not Detrimental
The proposed variance should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property
owners. If the garage were not allowed to be built, the property would still be used
for parking, but a vehicle would be visible from the adjacent properties instead of a
garage that is an extension of the pre-existing garage to the south.
(5) Minimum Required
The requested variance appears to be the minimum necessary.
Since the applicant appears to meet all the criteria for a variance, the setback variance
should be approved with the condition that it comply with the site plan submitted and that
a building permit must be applied for and must receive approval.
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a variance is approved,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The setback variance will be limited to the site plan submitted.
2. A building permit must be applied for and approved.
Entered this 24th day of October 2000, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
C9
Ron McConnell
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and
appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should
contact the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 6
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
APPEALS:
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR:
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 5 attachments
B. Letter from John and Mary Polikowsky, dated 10/16/00.
PARTIES OF RECORD:
Charles and Sue Saul
5715 128" St. SW
Mukilteo, WA 98275
Elaine Yard
9209 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Engineering Division
Fire Department Parks & Recreation
Division
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-00-103
Page 7
Lynn Braun / Ukich
PO Box 222
Port Gamble, WA 98364
John & Maly Polikowsky
9205 Olympic View Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020-2396
Public Works Division
Planning Division
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
To:
Connell, Hea '
Ex miner
From:
4SteBullock
2
B. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................2
II.
Project Planner
Date:
OCTOBER 12, 2000
File:
V-00-103
...................................................... 3
III.
Saul/Braun setback variance
Hearing
Date, Time, And Place:
October 19th, At 9:30 AM,
4
3rd Floor Meeting Room
4
Edmonds City Hall
5
IV.
121 5th Avenue North
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
Ms. Lynn Braun is the owner of a small single family home located on the private road called Maple Manor
Road just off of Olympic View Drive. This is an older community that in the early to mid 1900's was likely
a weekend/vacation home community. Because of this, the homes and lots were small and a separate lot
was created for parking for the last five lots. In the 1940's, a structure was built that provided garages for
three of those lots and the last two lots continued to park outside.
00103sr.doc /October 12, 2000 /Staff Report
Section
Page
I.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................
2
B. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................2
II.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................2
A. Site Description.................................................................................................................................2
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
...................................................... 3
III.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS............................................................................4
A. Request for Reconsideration.............................................................................................................
4
B. Appeals.............................................................................................................................................
4
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals..................................................................................
5
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................5
V.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................5
VI.
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................5
VII.
PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................5
I. INTRODUCTION
Ms. Lynn Braun is the owner of a small single family home located on the private road called Maple Manor
Road just off of Olympic View Drive. This is an older community that in the early to mid 1900's was likely
a weekend/vacation home community. Because of this, the homes and lots were small and a separate lot
was created for parking for the last five lots. In the 1940's, a structure was built that provided garages for
three of those lots and the last two lots continued to park outside.
00103sr.doc /October 12, 2000 /Staff Report
Ukich / Saul Variance
File No. V-00-103
Page 2 of 5
In the early 1980's, the previous owner of Ms. Braun's property, Mr. and Mrs. Saul, built an addition to the
garage building that provided one additional garage space for their lot. This construction was done without
the benefit of a building permit, and since that was a requirement in the 1980's, the addition was illegal. A
complaint was filed with the city in early 2000, and after an investigation of the site, the current property
owner was notified that they had an illegal structure that would need to be removed or have permits granted.
Because the lot created for parking was so small no addition to the garage building could be made without
neccessitating a variance. So, the applicant is proposing a variance that would allow this garage addition to
the legal nonconforming garage building built in the 40's. If approved, the applicant will move ahead with
a building permit application to legitimize the entire building.
The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the applicant's
submittal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Saul for Ms. Braun.
2. Site Location: 9207 Olympic View Drive (see Attachments 1 and 4).
3. Request: A street setback Variance (see Attachments 2 and 3).
4. Review Process: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS -
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85
( VARIANCES).
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
Approval of the setback variance with the following conditions:
1. The setback variance will be limited to the site plan submitted.
2. A building permit must be applied for and approved.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Residential Single Family (RS -12).
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a four
car garage.
(3) Terrain and Vegetation: The existing topography is relatively flat. The site is so
small there is relatively no vegetation
00103sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report
Ukich / Saul Variance
File No. V-00-103
Page 3 of 5
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North, West, South and East: The properties are zoned and developed or being
developed under the RS -12 standards.
(2) The formal plat under construction to the east provided a buffer tract to provide
separation from the Plat road and the subject garage.
b) Conclusion: The proposed development would be consistent with the surrounding
zoning and development.
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) The fundamental site development standards in an RS -12 zone are set forth in
Chapter 16.20. They include a 25 foot street setback, 10 -foot side setbacks and a 25
foot rear setback. Because the site is so small and because it is surrounded on three
sides by streets the entire site is constrained by setbacks.
b) Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS -12 zone as
set forth in Chapter 16.20 with the approval of the subject variance.
2. Compliance with requirement for a Variance
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code
may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would result in an
unusual and unreasonable hardship.
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria
include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted; the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
(2) Applicant's responses (see Attachment 2):
(a) The size of the lot that the house is on is so small that it does not allow for
room to park. Therefore, the original developers provided a separate lot to
park on. This lot is extremely small as well and is entirely covered with
required setbacks.
(b) It is not a grant of special privilege in that four other adjacent property
owners already have the same thing.
(c) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan in that this is a residential area and a residential use is proposed.
(d) The applicant states that the proposal is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance in that it is a residential use in a residential zone.
(e) The applicant states that the proposal will not be detrimental in that it will
not reduce any property values or create any hazards.
00103sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report
Ukich / Saul Variance
File No. V-00-103
Page 4 of 5
(f) The applicant states that this is the minimum variance in that the lot is quite
small and there is nowhere else to put it.
(3) Staff responses and additional information:
(a) Staff agrees with the applicant about how the project meets the variance
criteria.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Special Circumstances
Special circumstances exist in the shape of the property.
(2) Special Privilege
No special privilege will be demonstrated in granting this variance in that it will
allow an addition to consistent with existing structures.
(3) Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
Approval of the proposed variance would allow for the development of the site in a
manner consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan
designation of the site.
(4) Not Detrimental
The proposed variance should not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent property
owners.
(5) Minimum Required
The requested variances appears to be the minimum necessary.
Since the applicant appears to meet all the criteria for a variance, the setback variances should
be approved with the condition that it is for the existing building.
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial
decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or
presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the
subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific
references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of
application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
00103sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report
Ukich / Saul Variance
File No. V-00-103
Page 5 of 5
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is fled before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 5:
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Declarations for Setback Variance Requests
3. Site Map
4. Site Plan
5. Photographs
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD
Charles and Sue Saul Lynn Braun / Ukich
5715 128' St. SW PO Box 222
Mukilteo, WA 98275 Port Gamble, WA 98364
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks & Recreation
Division
Public Works Division
Planning Division
00103sr.doc / October 12, 2000 / Staff Report
OF N-N+� Zoning and Vicinity Map
1
Attachment 1
File No. V-2000-103
s
August 27, 2000
City of Edmonds
121 5t` Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Mr. Stephen F. Bullock, AICP
Dear Mr. Bullock,
A
Pursuant to the Adverse Possession Claim submitted in our letter dated 02/02/2000, you have advised us
that Mr. George Kairez has proposed a Lot Line Adjustment to allow additional footage behind the existing
garage structure servicing 5 households in Maple Manor. Currently this is under review and you indicated
you would contact us when a decision has been made by the City.
At this point in time, we felt it necessary to submit the Variance Application and move forward in this
process. Our Application is attached Please note that we are not the homeowners anymore; the property is
actually owned by Lynn Braun of whom has directed us to resolve the property line issue. The adjoining
property owners, within 300 feet of this property are:
George Kairez, 9117 Olympic View Drive/Edmonds, WA 98020
Mark Nirschl, 2327 Cedar Street/Everett, WA 98201
Mary Lou Marquardt, 9213 Olympic View Drive/Edmonds, WA 98020
Mr. & Mrs. Carson Graves, 9211 Olympic View Drive/Edmonds, WA 98020
Alan & Elaine Yard, 9209 Olympic New Drive/Edmonds, WA 98020
Mary Cobb, 92�05 Olympic View Drive/Edmonds, WA 98020
Lynn oQinur�� f�zQ7 .. .,
In order for the Hearing Examiner to approve this request, we will attempt to answer the following six
questions as follows:
1. How does the proposal meet the Special Circumstance Criteria? What special circumstances
such as lot size, shape, topography, stream location, wetland location, or other unusual
problems are causing an impact, which would require a variance?
An existing garage structure, originally built in the 1940's is in existence for 4 homeowners. The
5`t' garage was to have been included in the original construction but fundintran out. A concrete
pad was poured and a sign was erected to allow privileged parking for the 5 stall. The
homeowners in Maple Manor do not have attached garages or carports on their homes, which are
located directly on the bluff side of the single lane private road servicing these homes. Therefore
the homeowners need parking adjacent to their homes, on the east side of the private one lane
road The lots in existence are approximately 50 feet wide and there is no parking available. It
would create a dire hardship on the homeowners to not have anywhere to park their vehicles due
to lot size. Denial of the variance for this 5h garage would deprive the existing homeowner of
current use rights that have been in existence for decades (an Adverse Possession Claim has been
filed). The other 4 property owners have, and have had, this right for decades as well.
2. Explain why the proposal is not a Grant of Special Privilege. Is the proposal something that
is allowed to other property owners in the vicinity, but would be disallowed on your
property if the variance is denied?
This definitely is not a Grant of Special Privilege for the reasons quoted above, mainly due to the
fact that the other Rroperty owners have the same identical garages (4) which are aligned in a strip
fashion with the 5 garage attached on the northern most end. The 4 property owners that have
Attachment 2
File No. V-2000-103
had the existing garages have been using them since the 1940's, over 50 years. The denial of the
5t' garage would be a hardship for the property owner and against the same rights given to those
other 4 properties.
Explain how the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
While we do not retain a copy of the Comprehensive Plan for this property, it is residential in
nature solely. A granting of the Variance Request would not be personal to the homeowner (due to
age, disability, special ability to secure a scenic view or to make the property more profitable) and
would be in accordance with the existing residential use of the property in supplying the same
parking abilities already granted to the other homeowners.
4. Explain how the proposal is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and with
the Zone district in which the property is located.
This property is currently zoned residential. This proposal will allow one parking garage for the
homeowner (as is already the right of 4 additional homeowners) and not alter the zoning of the
property.
Explain how this proposal meets the criteria of Not Detrimental. Will the portion of your
proposal for which you seek a variance cause a loss of property value, scenic view, or use of
surrounding properties? Will the portion of the project for which you seek a variance be
physically injurious or harmful to any person on your property or surrounding properties?
There will be no loss of property value to the adjoining properties but it will cause a hardship to
the existing homeowner due to lack of parking facilities. There are currently 4 garages in existence
plus this 5 one. It is not physically injurious or harmful to any person or any surrounding
property, as is the case with the other 4 garages.
Explain how the proposed variance is the Minimum Variance needed to accommodate the
proposed project, or why there is not alternative other than a variance in order to complete
this project.
The variance would allow a setback from the property line to accommodate the 5h garage stall.
There is no other place to build a garage of this small size, this is where it was intended to be built
and this would be the minimum necessary to accommodate the size of the garage. It is only a one
stall garage of approximately 100 square feet. It is not excessive in size or stature. It is of the same
size of the other 4 garages that service the homeowners. Again, there is no other place to build a
garage due to the small lot sizes involved and the single lane private road.
A copy of our letter dated 2/2/2000 is attached for your informed review. It should also be pointed out that
if the garage structures were torn down, the existing homeowners would have nowhere to park and it would
definitely cause an undue hardship for those concerned in Maple Manor. Please favor us with a grant of the
Variance for a setback adjustment.
Sincerely yours,
Susan K. Pocock -Saul & Charles D. Saul, IV
MI
Attachment 3
File No. V-2000-103
dw
P,9 1 —,J:,— u u u I ; 30VIII r I ujjj� a i oanr i mr, a'Lc;rk 1116
. cqractoii" 0
132703-1-011-0006 1
,� Y- SA�
nr-
....... ...
Aftachment
File No. V-2(
`
h,
R
F
*
y
Xq
Yds
`
h,
R
*
y
Xq
Yds