CUE-18-91/VE-20-91BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR'S
DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A PRIVATE KENNEL
[CUE-18-91 & VE-20-91]
RITA EMMETT AND LARRY SLYE
ADDRESS: 602 NORTH CONKLIN ROAD
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS,
AND DECISION
APPLICATION OF DESCRIPTION: This matter, being an appeal of a Zoning
Adjustor's decision denying a Conditional Use Permit for a private kennel.
The Board of Adjustment, hereinafter referred to as the "Board", having held a public hearing
on November 8, 1991, an having fully considered all testimony, as well as Files CUE-18-91 &
VE-20-91, do hereby make the following:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant requests permission to operate a private dog kennel
(10 or fewer adult dogs) on property containing an existing personal residence. Section
14.616.240.5. of the Zoning Code of Spokane County allows this use upon issuance of a
conditional use permit. Additionally, the applicant requests a variance to allow a 4 foot sight -
obscuring fence; whereas, section 14.616.240.5.c. requires a 6 foot sight -obscuring fence
associated with a private kennel.
PROJECT LOCATION: Located in east Spokane County, east of and adjacent to Conklin
Road and approximately 650 feet north of Valley Way, in the SE 1/4 of Section 13, Township
25N, Range 44 EWM; 602 N. Conklin Road.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
Diane Hunter Linda & Anthony Rockhold Shirley & Greg McManamon
Dorothy Riegel Helen Sievert Shirley & Robert Torb mson
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The proposal is described above and detailed in documents contained in the file.
2. The adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the
proposal as Urban. The proposal is generally consistent with the Urban category of the
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The site is zoned Urban Residential-3.5, which allows the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
4. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include single family residential
and some animal pasturing activities. Typically, uses listed as a conditional use are assumed as
permitted in the underlying zone, subject to the listed conditions and any other conditions
needed to assure compatibility.
CASE NO. CUE-18-90SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 2
5. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Environmental
Policy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (1) (c) and the Spokane
Environmental Ordinance 11.10.070 (1) (c).
6. The proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
7. The applicant has built a new porch/addition to the existing house to keep the dogs
in. This addition is insulated and has a solid door according to testimony given by applicant.
8. The applicant has indicated that metal sheeting has been installed on the inside of the
fence with the slatted chain link fence exposed on the outside.
9 . The applicants stated that they have seven cocker spaniels and that they do not
intend to get more dogs or a larger breed of dogs.
10. The applicant has stated that 5 of 7 dogs have been debarked.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Granting the variance for a 4 foot sight obscuring fence will not act or be
materially detrimental to or injurious to property in the vicinity provided the breed of dog is
cocker spaniels or other small breed of dog.
2. The proposal will not be detrimental to surrounding properties if operated consistent
with this decision, Animal Control regulations and the Zoning Code.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Board of Adjustment
APPROVES the appeal to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a Private Kennel. The Board
also approves the variance to allow a 4 foot sight obscuring fence as conditioned herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
I. GENERAL
1. The following conditions shall apply to the applicant and owner.
2. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision
shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code for Spokane County and be subject to such
enforcement as is appropriate.
IL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RP/GA-APPEAL DEC/-CUE-18-90-EMMETT-12/4,91
CASE NO. CUE-18-90SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT -- PAGE
1. The proposal shall comply with all applicable standards of section 14.616.240.5 of
the Zoning Code of Spokane County unless deviations, variances or exceptions have been
lawfully granted.
2. This permit expires on December 1, 1993 unless renewed under the following
terms:
a. Application for an administrative renewal should be made by October 1, 1993.
b. Small Animal Control must submit a report reviewing the operation of the
kennel and a history of complaints from December 1, 1991 to application date.
c. The permit must be renewed biannually by an administrative action unless the
situation deteriorates to the point a hearing is needed to consider revoking or
rescinding the permit.
d. Only the present owner/applicant may apply for renewal. That is, this permit
does not run with the land; it vests only in the applicant.
3. If the Zoning Adjustor believes there are extenuating circumstances associated with
the renewal of the permit, he/she may cause there to be a public hearing and reconsideration of
the permit; the expense shall be that of the county if such reconsideration takes place.
4. The applicant shall develop subject property generally in accordance within the
concept presented to the Hearing Body. Variations, when approved by the Planning
Director/designee, may be permitted, including, but not limited to building location, landscape
plans and general allowable uses of the permitted zone. All variations must conform to
regulations set forth in the Zoning Code for Spokane County, and the original intent of the
development plans shall be maintained.
5. This permit does not allow commercial boarding of dogs.
6. The 4 foot fence shall be constructed with metal sheets on the inside of the fence
and chain link with slats on the outside, exposed to the outside surrounding properties.
7. This permit is only valid for the current small breed of dogs, cocker spaniels. A 4
foot fence would not be adequate for larger dogs.
III. DIVISION OF BUILDINGS
1. The issuance of a building permit by the Division of Buildings is required for the
addition to the existing house.
IV. DIVISION OF UTILITIES
None applicable.
RP/GA-APPEAL DEC/-CUE-18-90-EMMETT-12/4/91
CASE NO. CUE-18-90SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 4—
V. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
1. The Spokane County health District's Rules and Regulations for Solid Waste
Management and Handling address the disposal of wastes from animals in the following ways:
Section 1.06.200 (2) (h-j) On Site Storage, Collection and Transportation Standards for
Solid Waste. S%
h. Disposal of wastes from household pets may be by burial, to the sanitary sewer
system if acceptable to the sewer operating entity, into a tied bag for collection as
garbage, or by other methods as approved by the District.
i. On site storage and disposal of solid wastes from animal kennels, shelters, or
stables shall confoiln to the standards of this section, and sections 1.06.300 and
.420, as applicable.
animal wastes shall not be collected, deposited, or allowed to remain in any place
to the prejudice of other persons as described in RCW 7.48.140 (1).
In regards to the wash -down wastewater from cleaning the pen areas, there are no
permits required for its disposal. However, the kennel should be operated and maintained in a
manner so as to not create a nuisance.
j•
VI. DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND ROADS
None applicable.
DA 1'ED this 18th day of DECEMBER, 1991.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASGTON
Martin�E' ibbs, ChairSerson, Pro Tem
Robert M. Wills
RP/GA-APPFAt DEC/-CUE-18-90-EMMETT-1214/91
CASE NO. CUE-18-90SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PAGE 5
Paul E. Eichin
D�Wayne D. Powel, Ph.D.
P1LFT):
1) Applicant (Certified/Return Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
RP/GA-APPFAT DEC/-CUE-18-90-EMMETT-12/4,91
~
ZONING ADJUSTOlt- SEP 1 91991 - - SPOKA.NE COUNT'Y, WASHINGTON .
SP~.` , c , s4iNCER -
. IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL ,
USE PERMIT FOR A PRTVATE ) FINDINGS OF FACT,
KENNEL ) CONCLUSIONS,
[CUE-18-91 & VE-20-911 ) AND DECISION
RITA L. EMMETT & LARRY SLYE )
COMPAlvION FILES: NONE )
ADDRESS: 602 NORTH CONKLIN ROAD )
PARCEL NUMBER: 45134.0411
APPLICATION DESCRIPTIUN: The applicants propose to operate a private dog kennel
(10 or fewer adult dogs) on property containing an exisdng personal residence Authonty to
consider such a request exists pursuant to section 14.404 101 the Zoning Code for Spokane
County and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners resolution No. 89 0708, as
may be amended.
PROJECT LOCATION: Located in east Spokane County, east of and adjacent to Conkhn
Road and approximately 650 feet north of Valleyway, m the SE 1/4 of Section 13, Township
25 N, Range 44 EWM; 602 North Conkhn Road
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
Dorothy C Riegel
Anthony A. Rickhold
Edwui Kopf r Shirley McMana.mon
Shirley Torgnmson
Jason Kamp
Tom Crroesbeck
y Luida Rockhold
Diane Hunter PUBLIC HEARING AND DECISION: After consideration of all available information
on file, exhibits submitted and testimony received during the course of the public hearmg he d
on August 26, 1991, and the Zonuig Adjustor renders a written deGision on September ,
1991 to DENY the conchtional use permit; but to recognize the vanance request as approva le if
the condxtional use pemut is ultimately approved. Although tlus 1s a denial, based pnmanly
upon non comphance wnth the required standards, the applicants can conceivably meet these
standards and then possibly gaui approval through a subsequent application
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposal is descnbed above and detailed in documents contauaed u1 the file.
2. The adopted Spokane County Comprehensive Plan designates the area of the
proposal as Urban The proposal 1s generally consistent with the Urban category of rhe
Comprehensive Plan except that the Comprehensive Plan dzscourages actzvities zn the Urban
category which would cause disruption to or be incompatible with the pzedomunate a.ntended
~
CASE NO CUE-18-91/VE-20-91 SPUKANE COL;fNTY ZONING ADNSTOR PAGE 2
.
use of the Urban category, which use is residential. The applicants' present operation is
disruptive to the verge of a nuisance Attention to reducing the barking noise through
soundproofing and sight obscwnng fencing and animal waste clean up may reposition the
apphcants for approval ul the future
3 The site is zoned Urban Residential-3.5, which allows the proposed use upon
approval of ttus application.
4. The existtng land uses in the area of the proposal include suigle fa,muly residenaal
and some animal pasturing acavities Typically, uses hsted as a condi.tional use are assumed as
pemnitted in the underlyuig zone, subject to the listed condinons and any other conditions need
to assure compatibility in the given instance. But, pursuant to 14.404.101, the requested
condidonal use pernmt may be denied if the Heanng Body cannot find that the requested use
will be compatible unth other pernutted uses. Secrion 14.616.240 S. hsts certain conditions to
achieve compatibihty, some of wluch the Hearuig Body may exercise nominal d.iscretion to
achieve the overall intent of compatibility with surrounding propemes Cleariy, 14.404.102
allows the Hearing Body ta impose any and all manner of addinonal conditions and
reqturements in an effort to aclueve maximum compatibility In the instant situation several
factors bear on consideration of ttus conditional use pemnit
a. The pnvate kennel standards include subparagraph "c.", which states in part that the
"...yard area shall be enclosed with a six foot (6)-foot sight-obscuring fence,
board on board or cyclone with slats. (emphases added.) The applicants have
asked for a variance to allow a four (4) foot sight-obscunrig fence. The evaluation
of this requested variance will be dealt with below. However, the fence is to be
sight obscwnng and cyclone wnth slats is mentxoned in the Code. The apphcants
have installed some slats m the exisang four (4) foot cyclone (chaui link) fence
However, the verti.cal slats wluch have been installed the only provide about a 50%
sight-obscunng pattern, thus not complying with the standard. The apphcants
described that some solid aluncunum matenal was beuig ereeted m a test fashion on a
pornon of the south fence. This would ceztainly be sight-obscunng, but, the property owner to the south objects to its aesthetic appearance The Code dces not
address aesthetic appearance specif'ically, but, it is addressable as we try to achieve
compatibihty through the standards and conditions of approval. At dus point the
apphcants have not demonstrated that a sight-obscuring fence will be installed,
regardless of whether it is four feet or six feet. The aluminum matenal which is
described as being installed is, in the opinion of the Zonulg Adjustor, one which is
not amacnve on the side which will be faced toward the property to the south and
will likely have a dilaterious effect on that property and generally not be compaable
with the property to the south In this instance, the apphcants have failed to submit
adequate uiformation to clearly deternnne that a site obscurmg fence of a suitable
aesthetic appearance is intended to be installed; thus, compliance wnth subsection
"k." of the pnvate kennel standard has not been compiled with.
b In subsection "d." it snpulates that, "The structure(s) housing the anunals...shall be
adequatety soundproof to meet WAC 173-60 as deternuned by the noise levels
for the aYUmals to be kept dunng a normal operaaon. Certainly the intent of this is
that there be reasonable, if not substantial, efforts on the part of the apphcants to
demonstrate that the dogs will be kept in a relatively soundproof location dunrig the
RP/GA-C[J&18-91/VE-24-91FlNDINGS-9/13/91
•
r
CA.SE NO: CUE-18-91/VE-20-91 SPOKANE ,COI.TNTY ZONING A.DNSTOR PAGE 3
.L~ t!. lL 1 I
required hours (10 p.m to 6 a m) Nearly everyone who testif'ied at the heanng
was against granting the condiuonal use pemnit and described hearing the
applicants' dogs barking during the night time hours. These comments are too
much to ignore after the Zoiung Adjustor had specifically questioned the apphcants
about theu faclhties for confimng the dogs during the rught The apphcants
descnbed the confinement as bemg on the back porch, which porch has a wooden
Iower part, glass windows and an alumunum storm/screen door. Tlus is intended to
be a permanent location for four of the seven dogs, as the applicants said there are
heat lamps used during the wlnter in order to keep the dogs warm. Numerous
comments regarding barking dog noise at night uidicate that not only is the sound of
the barking dogs heard by su.rrounding neighbors at night, the dogs are obviously
able to hear noises which disturb them and cause them to bark. The Zoning
Adjustof's opuuon is that the spuYt and intent of subsection "d." of the private
kennel standards is not met and, therefore, the apphcant has failed agaun to comply
vvith subparagraph "k " which requires adequate mformaxion be submittecl to
determine that the vanous standards are satisfied. Furthernaore•
i. The apphcants testlf'ied that the dogs are first let out of their confinement at
approximately 5 a.m. to 5:30 a.m, an hour to one-half hour pnor to the ti.me
set forth in the Zoning Code subsection "e "
ii. The applicants also stated that the dogs are out all day long and that there is
frequendy not a supervising adult present dunng the day to control the dogs
or put them ulside if they begin uncontrolled barlang
ui. The Anunal Control Office reports that one barking complauit was received
March 3, 1990, pnor to the application. An August, 1991, inspection
determined the operation met the reqwrements of the Anunal. Control
Ordinance regarduig kennels.
5. The above circumstances (descnbed in number 4) substantiate a denial of this
condltional use perrnit pursuant to Section 14.404.101 of the Zoning Code, whereul it says that
a request for conditional use may be derued where it cannot be shown that the request would be
companble wxth other pernutted uses in the zone Zoning Adjustor's opuuon here is that
enou,gh uiformanon has, not been submitted, and did not come forth in the hearing, to indicate
that tius particular pnvate kennel proposal is or can be made compatible with the surroundulg
neighborhood and pernrutted uses in the UR-3 5 zone. That is not to say that the applicants
cannot resubmlt an apphcation in which the issues of noise and sight-obscuring fencing could
be adequately answered. It is just that the Zoning Adjustor is not in a position to imagine the
solution and, based on past expenence with kennel proposals, is not willing to approve an
apphcation far a private kennel on the presumption that problems can be overcome. The
history in tlus area of the Code dces not demonstrate that such an approval is a wise decision
Clearly the applicants need is to demonstrrate before hand that they are in compliance or that a
sohd plan exists (possibly with bonchng to enswre performance) to comply vvith the standards
for a pnvate kennel.
6 The proposal is exempt from the provisions of the Washuigton State Environmental
Pohcy Act, Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to WAC 197-11-800 (1) (c) and the Spokane
Envuonmental Orc~nance 11.10 070 (1) (c)
RP/GA-CU&18-91 NE-20-91 FMINGS-9/13A 1
~
.
I
GASE NOQ. CUE-18-91/VE-20-91 SP4KANE COUNTY 70NING ADJUSTOR PAGE 4
6 w
7 The proper legal requmments for advertising of the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met ~
8 The proposed vanance, if associated with a condinonal use pernit to be approved
sometime iin the future and a small breed of dogs, is approvable for the following reasons
a. There are special circumstances apphcable to the property in that the four (4) foot
tall fence praedates the applicant`s interest m estabhshing a pnvate kennel
Additionally, atthough not relevant to the property, a particular physical stature of
the dogs involved makes a four (4) foot site-obscuring fence able to accomphsh the
purpose and intent of the Zoning Code
b The simple height of the fence at four (4) feet will not act or be matenally
detnmental to or injunous tfl property in the vicuuty.
c Requinng that a six (6) foot tall fence replace the four (4) foot or that a two (2) foot
a.ddition be added to the four (4) foot tall fence would be unreasonable 1n hght of
the purpose to be served by a six (6) foot fence However, if other dogs were
associated with the property, tall enough to see over the fence, this would be a
problem and the vanance may not be valid for other types of dogs
9. Adverse tesiinaony or wntten comments were receYVed regarding the proposal as
follows:
a. Comments regarding the unattractive fence, both in the form of a slatted fence and
the qtempts to utilize solid pieces of alununum were mennoned.
b. Odor from anvmal waste has been a problem in the past and the usual routine of the
apphcants was to clean up waste approxunately only once a week. ('The apphcants
contend that the animal waste is cleaned up on a daily basis and kept in plastxc bags
for pick up by garbage dzsposal).
c. The dogs are disturbed by people walking up and down the street because fencing,
as previously existed or as it now exists, does not satisfy the sight-obscunng need.
d Numerous people reported filing complauits with the Anunal Control Office, ui
conflict with the Anunal Control Office havuzg record of only one registered
complauit.
e Even slight noise disturbances at rught will set the dogs off and the dogs can be
heard from cons2derable distance away. The back porch where four (4) of the dogs
are kept is nat sufficient or adequate to subdue the noise and mamtann noise control.
(The applicants contend that the dogs do not bark at any noise or at slamrmng
doors. Apphcants contend that the dogs do not bark at night, sulce it would
awaken them as well.)
f. Oppanents of record also identified that the apphcants yelling at the dogs was as
disturbing as the dogs barking themselves
RP/GA-CUS 18-91 /VE-20-91 FMINGS-9/13/91
1
CASE NO. CUE-18-91/VE-20-91 SPOK:ANE COI;rNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 5
g. Opponents of record complained that the dogs were left out at ttmes when persons
are gone over the weekend. ('The applicants contested that ttus occurred very
frequently, possibly only one or two times).
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
conditianal use pernut proposal and recognizes the variance request is approvable ff the
conditional use pernait is to be ultimately approved. The followuig observations are made for
the benefit of all parnes involved:
1. If the applicants resubmit this application, they should specifically deal wzth
effecave measures to control the dogs barlang dunmg the day and night, givmg pamcular
attention to reduculg the visual contact which excites the dogs to bark dunng the day and
adequately sequester the dogs at rught so they are nnvaimally incluied to start barlang at rught
and disturb surroundulg residents with that barking.
2. The variance is granted in pnnciple; but, is practLcally speaking, denied because a
conditional use permit is not approved.
3. It is noted that at Ieast a four (4) foot tall d.iagonal fence will have to be erected at a
distance 50 feet from the corner of the house to the south ui order to comply with the
provisxons for pnvate kennels.
4. Unless a subsequent application is received and approved for a pnvate kennel or the
apphcant appeals ttus denial of theu application to the Board of Adjustment and it is
subsequently approved, the apphcant does not have authonty to mauitain more than four (4)
dogs at thxs residence.
5 Any zoning enforcement acnon vvith respect to the number of dogs on the property
must be commenced through noimal Planning Department zomng violaaon processes. The
Zorung Adjustor does not start zorung enforcement.
DATED this ~ day of September, 1991
~
THO G. MOSHER, AICP
u~g djustor
Spokane ry, Washuigton
FILID:
1) Apphcant (Cemfied/Return Receipt Mail)
2) Opponents of Record
3) Spokane County Division of Engineering and Roads
RP/GA-C(JE-18-91/VE-ZO-91FIrNINGS-9/13/91
~
CASE NO. CUE=18-911VE-20-91 SPC)KANE COLTNTY ZUNING ADNSTORJFAGE 6
4) . Spokane County Health Distnct
5) Spokane County Divislon of Utiliaes
6) Spokane County I?ivision of Buildings
7) Sgokane County Small Ani.mal Control
8) Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic Ffle
NOTE• ONLY TTHE A►PPLIC;ANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MA.Y FILE AN
APPEAL VVITBIN TEN (10) C;A.LENDAR DAYS OF Z'IIE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNIlVG.
APPF.AL MUST BE ACCOMPA►NIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPF:ALS MAY BE FII.,ID AT
. TI-E SFOK:ANE COLIIVTY P G DEPARINMNT, BROADWAY CEr[TRE
BUILDING, 721 NORTH JEFFERSON STREET, SF4K:ANE, WA 99260 (Section
14.412.042 of the Zorung Code for Spokane County).
ii
f `
RP/GA-CUE 18-91 / VE-20-91 FDVDINGS-9/13/91
(
BLDG. PERMIT # - or - FILE #
Date to Review Time #
Date Received
Project N a m e 104- No. Lots No. Acres-3°~1,220
~ - ,
SITE ADDRESS PARCEL # lS ~
s - t - r
Sponsor's Nama~C , T Phone # 2 ~1-7 ~
,
~
Address
`Work # 7 4 S
~
Date conditions mailed 2z-
Contact person Phone #
FLOOD ZONE Yes _ No _
Engineer / Surveyor's / Architect's Name
Water _ Address
Sewer _
Schoo]
Planning Contact Person Phone #
.
Date Submitted Description Initials
' •
r ^
r t, i I sa { H ~
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r,
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
,
'd PNONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
SPO'cANE COUNTY COUR7 HOUSE
~Olr11C1CI SIPO1A1A1V1L'I ~OU1VIrY lLdG1Vff1VN.1J ADSU~~OIZ ?VJIlYILffC
ILU 11'I 1i1RJl MG
DATE • August 26, 1991
TIME: 10:30 a. m. or as soon thereafter as possible
PLACE: Spokane Counry Plantung Department
2nd Floor Heanng Room, Broadway Centre Building
721 North Jefferson Street
Spokane, WA 99260
AGENDA ITEM 4
File: CUE-18-91 & VE-20-91
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE KENNEL AND A VARiANCE
OF FENCE REQUIREMENTS:
LOCATION: Located in east Spokane Counry, east of and ad3acent to Conklin Road and
approximately 650 feet north of Valley Way, in the SE 1/4 of Secnon 13, Townstup 25N, Range
44 E'WM, 602 N. Conklin Road.
PROPOSAL: Apphcant requests pernussion to operate a pnvate dog kennel (10 or fewer adult
dogs) on property contmrung an existing personal residence Secnon 14 616.240 5. of the Zorung
Code of Spokane County allows this use upon issuance of a condiaonal use pernut Additionally,
the apphcant requests a vanance to allow a 4 foot sight-obscwing fence; whereas, section
14.616 240 S.c. requues a 6 foot sight-obscunrig fence assoclated with a pnvate kennel Some of
the specific, requued standards may be altered as a result of the heanng process
EXISTING ZONING: Urban Residenaal3 5(UR 3-5)
SITE SIZE: Approxunately 32,200 Square Feet
APPLICANT: Lazry and Rita Emmett
602 N Conklin Road
Veradale WA 99037
NOTE ONLY THE APPLICANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL
WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS OF TT-E ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT TBE
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNIlVG DEPARTIVIENT, BR4ADWAY CENTRE BUII.DING,
NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260 (Section 14.412.042 of the Zoning
Code of Spokane County)
RP/CUE-18-91-VE-20-91 Agenda/7/26/91
. , i
SP4KANE COUIv TY P;~.,, . G DEPART'MENT
APPLY CATI NS BEF0.RE'"THE ZONING ADJUSTn$
Certificate of Exemption No.: Application
Y
Name of Applicant: ,7!~,~,~ .~44 ~ ~-ApGxAx Agent Y . .
S treet Address: /"d.i' r~~~ . . -
, ♦ . ZiP c Phone - Home:
City: 6's S tate: Code: Work: 41I-4' CJ~S
. Agent's No.:
Name of Pz-operty 'Qwner(s): 44 rr I/ P, :S lv--e .
i
Street Address: 6 o 4 N. Co~v ~/,~v A,~{. , ZiP Phone - Home: 92. 7
Ciry: t'a4'~e S tate: wL~- Cod.e: q-03 7 Work: ff 3*-- 319G
REQtTESTED ACTION(S) (C' pna
Variance(s) Conditional Use Pennit Expansion of a
4ther: Nonconforming Use
FOR STAFF USE ONLY ~ violation/ ~..DY .
Section f.~ Township -)S Range Enforcement: Y
•Lot and legal checked by: •Easement Iegal checked. by:
-CWSSA Water (purveyor): •ULID Agreement needed: Y N
•Existing zone. Is C' e A p'cable Section: Iy..~~L, a~o
•Arterial Road Plan designation: t aN~ <<'~ f -A; ComP. Plan desi 'gnation c~~P.c~
•Fire District: •Personnel dozng preapp conf.: _;-i/
•Othertprevi.ous Planning Department actions involving this property:
•Hearing Date: QI -~_-l - 91 •Maint agreement checked by:
ABOUT THE PROPERTY
•Existing use of property: _ NT/Ar. L-- . •Describe proposed use of -the property: 14~11'v,a r"<,- AV n, ~v e-~-
~
-~,q.«ance application state the Code standard and describe the variance sought in comparable
terms : fl, C u~le 19ASG vr -e W )CP ~vr_ -c-
~.P \ . •If a conditional use permit, applicati.on, does propo eet all standards? Y(N.'; If not, has one or more variances been requested.? Y N. •What is the size of the original parcel if this proposal is a recent or proposed division? ~/47
Ar ,
•S treet address of property (if known): ~Cz N /le.1xy`"a -FSo3 ? -
•Legal description of property (include easement, if applicable):
•Parcel No(s).: 4 S 13 q / I
•Source of legal: ~?a l~-vt-•J ~ ~o u ni ~l ASS ~~SLo a ~~lC.~ ~GO(~D S •
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor andJor agent: -rl dt-! f=_-
•What i.nterest do you (applicant) hold in the property? Q wNJ-tr 2,
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) S S
COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) .
I SWEAR; UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I?+..M THE OVVNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORI7ED AGENT FOR TEE PROPOSED STTE; (2) LF NOT TF-IE OVJNER, WRITTEN PERMISSIQN
FROM S AID OWNER AUIF-4RIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING D S ARE Ivi.ADE
TR Y AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
Signed:
' Ad ss: __a02/~/ Ph ne N ~ : Date: 7/~/4 / N
.
tary 'c in and-~'or the st te f~Vashington, residing at
~ ~ . y appointm.ent expzres:
4 ' ~~A/ u(.r
`i ~,•:QE5: ppP.~~'~C~ Page I of 2 .
.
~<ARY P~~,~•
. . a
A. BURDEN OF PROOF
is ne,cessary for thc applicant or hislher represent,ative to establish the reasons why the
REQUESTF_D ACTI4N.should bc approved and to literally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving the application. Accorduigly, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional usc, etc.) designed to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Zoning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and zeturn
it with your applicarion. ' B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTI'. DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT . 2~ Proposed method of water supply: _ .
7 b) Proposed method of sewage disposal: Gv!/..c -rt_PLn--J/~/~n--;
N Vil' '
A preliminary consultation has been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The applicant has been infoRned
_ of require t st.an ~ds. ~1~~..~ s~ T~ l~ t 9~y-
` , ~ignature) (Date)r (Sign-off Waived)
02.. SP KANE COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
. A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the.pr.oposal. The applicant
has bee informed of require en,~s and standards. .
(S/gn ature) (Dat:e) (Sign-off Waived)
•3. SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
. . . . if outside WWMA)
- A prelimina ry consultation has been held to d.iscuss the proposal. The plicant has been infornled
of requirements~and standards. . _ .
„ .
(Signature) (Date) (Sign-of~' Waived by Planning?)
/
~ The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with !~i&
. to beconle informed of water system
requirements and standards. (See #4 below)
- The aPPlicant is rNuired to discuss th:e"P.roposal with 1v~
t . . . ' ~ . :to.become informed of sewage disposal
requirements and standards. (See #S below) . WATER PURVEYOR:
. ~
a) The propos.al isfis no[ located within the boundary of our future service area. .
b) The proposal isf1s not located wi.thin the boundary of our current district.
c) We areJal-e- no able to serve this site with adequate water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements hayrlhave not been made.to,serve this proposal:
, .
(S ignature) (Date)
~
OR: A preliminary consultation has bc:en held to discuss. the proposal, Tne applicant has been infonnzd
of requirements and standards. (S ignature) (Date)
,
, . . , . . . . ,
- . . . . ; . . . . _ . _ .
. . - . ' . . _ _ . . ,~,~•i~'~re•,,,.!„r
Jp•~ !
J*
► L
_ - • ' .i7 s,.. • t'i
. ' . It
v
~a f? f~~•'i.
page2of2 vf . ~
7~ •O•r •f .f.-.
,Y► C'~%i' f
: AIM r
[1~
REY; I /91
' •
. - . r ~ .
VARIANCE BURDEN of PROOF Form NAME:
• C..() ig-- 1 $r `'9 1
FILE NUMBER Ve-=- -r--0 q /
Inmoduction to this form:
A"variancc" is the means'by which an adjustmcnt is madc in the application of the specific
rcgulations of the zoning classification for a particular (the subject) piecc of property. This
property, because of special. circumstanccs applicable to it, is deprived of privileges commonly
cnjoyed by other propertics in. the viciniry and in a similar zonc classification. This adjustment
remedies the d.ifference in privilcgcs. A variance shall not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in
the zone classification in which the property is located.
The following questions will hclp to detcrmine the outcome of your rcquest. Your request
requires accurate and completc responses. First circle eithcr the "ycs" or the "no" answer(s)
followi.ng the questions bclow as thcy apply to your situation and thcn cxplain as necdcd (in the
spacc provided) to maYc your uniquc situation clcar. Certain phrascs from the Spokane County
ZAIl1Ilg COdC- SCGLIOA-Ofl••vari.a.nces are-ineluded in these questions: They are underlined.- If your rcqucst is a ROAD FRONTAGE VARIANCE please answcr only questions'A;$,-~3;
and E.
~
A. Will this variance peizrut a use which is otherwise prohibited in this zone? Yes ~ No~
Explain:
B. Are there apecial ci.rcumstances (lot size, shape, topography, location, access,
su,rroundings, etc.) which apply to the subject property and which may not
not apply to other properties in the ' i i ? Yes' No
;
Expla.in :
. . , f ~ .
C. Is the subject propcrty de ' 1)rMl.eEcs commonlv,enioyed bv ot -
=P:cr-dcs in the vicinity and in asimilar zone classification? Yes No
~
Explain :
D. Will this variance be harmful to the public welfare or to other properties in
the vicinirv and asimilar z~,onc classification7 Yes ` No
Explain:
~
E. Are there other sim.ilar situations in the vicinity_ in a.5imilar zone classification? ~Y~es QINC,
Are they permitted uses ? Yes No Are they "nonconforming" uses? 'Yes
~
Expla.in:
,
' At. G1k~~~ Fti~;i.,jr IS' rr Gr►- t_ : . , .
. . r.~_., . : i .•i . it . - i ~ .i' ' ri .A' •.'Y,.- '[n
~
F. Could the subject property be put to a reasonable and permitted use by you or ~
another person without the requested variance? Yes
Explain:
G. If t! _
j: r: -
energy conserving, or will it promote the use of an historic property? Yes /
~ Nc
Expla::,: `
C1ver please
Rev: 5l22/90 Page :
i
~
H. rf this variance is granted, will the broader public need or interest be served? (Yes, No
Explain:
I. Will this variance be inconsistent with the purposc of the zoning which applies
to the subject property? Yes j No
Explain: 61~ . , , . . ...:1.~. . . . r.. ~
A3-I ~ - /
J ~ i
J. Will approval of this variance grant to the subject property the privileges of a different
zone classification (in other words would this be a"de facto" zone change)? Yes ~ No
~ -
Explain:
K. Will this variance be inconsistent with the general purpose and inten[ of the
Comprehensive Plan? Yes (No
Explain r." AV
1 /
L. Is this variance required for a reasonable economic return fmm the subject property
or is the cxisting structun too small? Yes c~No `
Explain:
M Did the Rractical difficultv which caused you to apply for this varianct exist
before you owned thc subject property? Yes ` No
ExPlain.
- . 1' . ~ .4 . i . , ' . , l _ • ^ , ' , . ~n. ,
N. If approved, would this variancc affecc land use density rcgulations which exist
to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Aquifer? Yes TIo}
.
Explain:
The following space is for furthcr explanation. Your application will get better considerarion if
what, how, and why you propose your applicaaon is clear. Attach an add.itional page(s) if needed.
You are invited to present additional photographs, diagrams, maps, charts, etc. in support of
this application (we have the equipment to display video tapes). No such additional material
is required and in any case it must be BRIEF and descriptive of issues rvhich need to be
considered in relation to this requested variance. If you have questions about the procedure
to be fotlowed feel free to contact the Spokane County Planning Department (456-2205).
Page 2
. . • ~
. •
~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BURDEN OF PROOF FORM
~
Name: L Y4:;- / C-7/v,-L (
Fi1e: G tJ C-- !y:~
.
V. CONDM0NAL USES State Law, Section 36.70.020 (7), clarifies that the County
regulations must specify the stand.ards and criteTia that shall be
applied in the review by the Zoning Adjustor. Additionally,
condirion of approval may be added to assure compatibility with
other uses in the same zone.
A. Assuming the progosal is listed as a"permitted" conditional use, do you believe the
proposal meets all of the required, established and applicable standards?
/T/l
B. If you cannot meet the conditional uses required standards, are you seeking relief by
applying for an adnainistrative exception or a Variance? e No (Circle One)
C. What have you done or could you do to:
1. Make the use compatible with other pernlitted activities in the same vicinity or
zone?
T,'ii i J ~I~ /„~~..~+f{ria% ,.{eF. ~i✓lI ~~~~f.~rnr
.J
Y ~
2. Ensure against imposing excessive demands upon public utilities?
D. Explain how or why the proposal will not be detrimental to:
1. The Comprehensive Plan: ALZ_S7~-~;~i
J
. ; and
2. Surround.ing property. i' 'l, • ~~Gn.-.~~~ ~ ~ `{,1i f r; V~ (i!..•rI-
J
r~ /.•r'IrJ( .
J "
E. What reasonable restrictions, condirions or safeguards will uphold the spirit and intent
(health, safety and general welfare) of the Zoning Code QND mitigate any adverse
effect upon the neighboring properties including but not 1'uruted to: 1) time limits; 2)
front, side or rear yard greater than minimum stated; 3) suitable landscaping; 4) signing;
5) off-srreet parking; and 6) others?
~ i/.1 :ct~rlf ,'/}i .,.i<i •Fi,./ I,•• /.f ~`sici. /.~i-/.1~!/.
,f ti f N
r i'N . t 1 ~'rt ! lb f
/ / t r
/ ✓ i: i ' . . . y:i ic^~-t'/ i•., . . • 'fdi.~~ . /i Jrl~I C ~~r. ^~~.?..i
~ ' 1 ~ .Cf 'f~~ /`•':'.,c r.'.'::i f
i+ / /
CUP, BURDF]V OF PROOF PORM
REV; 1 /91
. . . . 9/
2
S POK:.ANE COUIv 'I'Y P . . . - G DEPARTMENT ~ ~
APPLICATIONS B,FO.RL~THE ZONINT AD T-TSTQR . . . . . . ~
Cemficate of Exemption No.: Application No.:~ ~ Name of Applicant ,e; Agent Y N . . ' _ : S treet Address:
. . Zip Phone - Home: r73:' ~Ci ,
ry. -l ~ State: Code: Work: ~ G.~
~ Agent's No.:
Name of Property Owner(s): ~f~- !'T ~1 :S l✓-e .
i
S treet Address: 0 2, N• Co~v ~/~~v d~.
Zip Phone - Home: 92. 8'5/y 7
Ciry: 1l~ra4-1~e State: tt,,A- Caie: 703 7 Work: _V*1 - 3/9G
REQtJESTED ACTION(S) (C' pna ~t~ '
~
Variance(s) Conditional Use Permit Expansion of a
0ther: ~ Nonconforming Use.
FOR STAFF USE ONLY .
~ ~ ~ Violationl ~Section Township S~ Range Enforcement: Y ~.DY
•Lot and legal checked by: -Easement Iegal checked by:
•CWSSA Water ~urveyor): - . " •ULID Agreement needed: Y N.
•Existing zone. GXP I. t- Cite Applicable Section; IyA~ L, ayo •Arterial Road Plan designation: •Comp. Plan designation_Lg_.cA
•Fire District: ~ •Personnel doing preapp conf.:
•Otherfprevious Planning Departiment actions involving this property: . ; ~ . .
•Hearing Date: •Maint agreement checked by: 1
ABOUT THE PROPERTY •Existing use of property: •Describe proposed use of the property: e~-
Pg ULJ~_J-~ Vigza 1 si E7U
-a-~u ~ance a plication state the Code standard 'and describe the variance sought in comparable
termS: (v ' D C v I+le W ~Po nV_..~ -v A- h~ u.r -e W Ae Avc -f- .
Cp "
. . ~ •If a conditional use permit. application, does propo eet all standards? Y~If not, has one or more variances been requested? Y N. . •What is the size of theoriginal parcel if this proposal is a recent or proposed division? /v/,4-
A- . . ,
• S treet a.ddress of property (if known): e- 0 2 N C b NkIItl -7
•Legal description of property (include easement, if applicable):
'Q ll
•Parcel No(s).: ~S I u
•Source of le al: a 1~-A-~r C~ -
g~ ~ ovN~ S~~-~'cos 6 Cop S,
•Total amount of adjoining land controlled by this owner, sponsor and/or agent: t-l dN E
•What interest do you (applicant) hold in the property? Q waff tL
S TATE OF W AS BINGTON ) S S COUNTY OF SPOKANE
I SWEAR, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR
AUTHORLZED AGENT FOR THF_ PROPOSED STTE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITI'EN PERMISSION
FROM SAID OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTTONS ON HIS/= BEHALF IS ATTACHED: AND (3)
ALL OF THE AB4VE RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING D S ARE MADE
TRUTHFULLY AND TO TFE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
Signed: ~
' Address:
Phone No.: Date:
NOTARY SEAL: a°Notary Public in and for the state of Washington, residing at
. My appointment expires:
PaSe1 af2 I
~v.
. . . , ,
. .
' ' . • ~;M ' . ' : "'r! . •
A. B URDEN OF PROOF
is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the reasons why the
REQUESTED ACTION.should bc approved and to litcr.ally put forth the basic argument in favor
of approving -thc application. Aacordingly; you*should have been given a form for your requested ~
acdon (variancc, "cond.tuonal usc, ctc.) dcsigned to help you present your case in a way which
addresses the criteria which the Z.oning Adjustor must consider. Please fill the form out and return
it with Your aPPlication: . . . . ~ . ~ .
B. SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY. DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER AGENCIES
1. SPOKANE COUNTY HEALTH DYSTRICT
Proposed method of water supply:
~U,~• b) Proposed method of sewage disposal:
A preliminaryconsultadon has been held to discuss the proposal. 'The applicant has been inforrned
. of requirements and~standards. . .
(Signature) ~ (Date) ~ .(Sign-off Waived)
102.. - . . . ' ~ ~
SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEERING 'DEPARTMENT
. A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss che.pr.oposal. The applicant
has bee infornied of require en~s and standards.
r _
(55 'gnature) (Date) . (Sign-off Waived)
•3. ~ SPOKANE COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Planning Department may waive
if outside WWMA)
A prelimina .ry consultation has been held to d.iscuss the pro,posal. The applicant has been infomzed
of requ irements" and standards. ~ ~ . - ~ . ~ . ~
~ . ' • . ~ . . . _ , . . .
(Signature) (Date) ~ (Sign-off Waived by Planning?)
The applicant is required to discuss the propos.al wich
- to 'beconie in formed of wa ter sys t em
requiremcnts and standards. (See #4 below) - ~
, . ! . . . • ' , . . , , . • . A• 1.'• t 11
The applicant- is required to discuss th`e proposai:,with, ~
' - ' . . . . , ~..r../.~~ '1 ~ N...i.
=to:become:informed.of sewage disposal
" requirernents and standards. (See #5 b~low)~~*~:;-,
. . . . . ~ _ . . . , : . :
. ~ WATER PURVEYOR:
a) The ProFosal isfis not located within the. bound of our fu(ure service area. I
, . .
b) The proposal-is[i s nQt located within'the, bounda'ry of our'current district.
c) Wc arelam not able to serve this site with a.dequate'water.
d) Satisfactory arrangements bave/have not been made _to.serve this proposal:
. ~ ~.Wy. . ~ ~ . • ~ . . - ~
~ (S ignature) ~ (Date)
OR: . . . . ~ . .
A preliminary consultation has bE;en held to d.iscuss. the proposal. The applicant has been infonned
of requirements and standards. . . : ~ . ~ . -
(S ignature) ~ (Date) : ~
, . . .
~
. . . ~ . . ~ .•i • , Y e 1 ~
' - ' • :~.y,~~' ' . . .
, • . ~ ' i Sl.. ~ Y~.j 7s' . .
_ . , , . :~i • . ,
, r . ~ t~,_ j!i 5'•- _ !r y~,. + ' . , .
• ' i:• ~ , . - . r - . . - 1t • ~ . . , ,-•c~' _o.. ~ • t' , , .
f . : i C . } ~ • t ti ~ y.• ,'p:; • ' e ~ .
• . y~._ ~:I„'. . . f ~ . ~ .
. . ~ . ' ' , . . . . . f i . . 1' 1
• ~4 - . . : s. - . , .
. " .
1 . N,' . • . . • . . `I 1 .t j~X t . r •
.4._ . . . . . . . . . ..1
• ~a. . . . • - . . ' . . . ♦ r'. . . ~:+1: ~`ta•.1 ' .
. . ~ . . . . . .i. .i: - . • '
. . . . ' „
. . • ' r v,' • ` . .
~ . `i• : s.• -
• . . ~ ~ '
. , . . ,
~ . . page 2 of 2
u: APP
. , . ~ , i'•
REY; 1t9l
• f'" ' • . . '
~ . •
,
~ .T .........~^~--i:~-
- Y~.~ • - ~Y .
r A
V12'i /~O ~ L3 4 8 3 $ 5V '
'v fleS PR[YAIE { ~ ~ - ~ .
~ sHlS SOTE
81J MD
1 T5. PU
, t{{eV~.a. , ~ ~ ti j ~ ~,~.,~k• 1, ~ i ;
1
~ ~ ~ : ,~-=~`r►~ , r - ~ ~ ~
8581 L34 a
~",,,~SLA~ ti ~ C~yF1 1t~'' .~~1• i...""''"'" ~ "MY
a"'_ - • s
` t ~ • , .
a E R
N U M
Cf
~
lP
~ .
R
. DATE
S ~
a REC;EtVED FRON1 RS
. DOLV{
" Address _
~
2 T2
5
¢ FOR
NDw PAID
~ ♦
ACCOUNT
cAyK
. C liF(, 'INNIN(. J ~
(5Al~1iJl i t ~ cHt C_1•
y AM()lPubl h5()'~ll l ~
~M~ ANCf
1711l
'
a
3
(_i ~ ~ i"j( ; ~ . i ~.ii ~ ; '
.~~`il.. . • ,'1 . . .i~ 11
II;N ..I ~~f`~~~i'aj._ ~ :.I~._~I~•i~ 1 %41~'~J1`.Ij
P, C1 ffl i. 1 i i, rt Ya 'r cl 1- _t
r ROM: S1-l.Jlt./'"'il'1E CL7UNTY FN(y .I. NF! . r
rIUR J: C l..a E ~I r-; T-
' . ~ ' . . . _ ~ .
1" rl e C~=l~_l 1-) t' L. -1 t':~ C-1 f~' l-_' 1~ .i :~l Q ~.l. cl f~• (111..~ 1 1~f t I cl fev1. C:."wf:'. c.I f, r l k:? ct l._1 c-.-'v' E' f~~_• 1' f:' i i
a.~'J p1 1 Cat 1c'1 I. ThE' f,-! 1 L.-+w1 fl Q cr-Iii1f11P_ fl ts, art? ~---f fereci f r 1 n r- 1 1_1s
• r-~ -i , . ~ , ; ~ , ~ . . , ~I , i ~ - 'r•~ :
the Fi n r.li n cis an d 0rr-l
I. - , ,
.
CL VNE=20=91
~ ~
,r
•-LL. v,~..,j._
~ ~ .
'
. `
~ • ~
~ G E
G'A RDER~~
\ N1 ~ ~ : v .1.V t
,
' s
.
\ ~ I
~9cr -
r/
; g. oAV
~ ~ BRIDGE ~ 90
Nf4 SO 6
0 J r • _ ~ ac
i Q .
rt °r+ L r ROA D /~Y HV E . _ - - - - - _
f) ~ .y Fire
S ta t i o n ~
~ oqre's's= -T
h DO . Q
t~ ct. r,Q
> ~
M •
. r
i
N, A ~►s ~ . a~ ►a ~hV ~j
r-J r ~ - - . . _ _ ~
~
J J. 1 a
J V
/ y~ s PRacuE w _
r ~
, . „
f!LDAr vs ~/L r AL~
~ ~ ~c• M. R-R Ga~ _
;
~ ~ ~ ` ~ r-- - - •
~N ' .
ri
I
~
T V Z '
'w1I
Q' W r
rr►
6 T M E 2 :.J lG' / 1 F V.~ ~V • d~ n 9 ~
\ r ~
C o N KI
,
t : • `
Or•,,e4JP►y4 r
Res o cNe ,
~ 3'- , z J~ CQsS
S~o~" ie
.
e1~
Y
`
yW~r~ ~ LI~A~~►~ ~'~f , ' ~
K,F~t~
N<<
; AREA y# xp'i
1 «,N
l, in►K ~
GATe ~ GaTeit - \ v` ~ r r
- - - - - - - - - - r
~ (jAr N o
c3
77"4 j-e►vt •
•
11' r1..~,n n .n ~7
n rl n f7
I n q .f1 /7 h
\
N t p ~ '
u' ~o/'Se
~ .
, .
~ ~~~kaNe,~,vlANd EMp~r~ I~G~.
N.bD2. ~
c oNk~,N ` ~ ~r, o~° ►v
,
~ . .
b ~
~ o
~
~
~
~
I •
F lor ~ ~t.~. .