WVE-66-86
.
BOARD Y
COUNTF ADJUSTMENT OF 4°O~y C b ~y
' WASH I NGTON F001/~i
yryF
ryC~~F
IN THE MATTER OF REVIEWING THE
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE SPOKANE )
COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR, IN A DECISION ) FINDINGS & ORDER
TU OENY, IN PART, WAIVER OF VIOLATION )
#WVE-66-86; C. R. FULLENWIDER )
THIS MNTTER, Being the consideration by the 6oard of Adjustment for Spokane
County, is an appeal of an administrative action by the Spokane County Zoning
Adjustor DENYING in part, the Waiver of Violation #WVE-66-86, for the purpose
of allowing two segments of a residential fence, constructed in violation of
the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, to remain as constructed, hereinafter
referred to as the "Proposal" and the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County
haviny held a public hearing on December 17, 1986, and having fully considered
all testimony presented thereat, and having rendered a decision on the 17th
day of December, 1986, DENYING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is generally located south of and adjacent to the
intersection of 24th Avenue and 25th Avenue, approximately 240 feet west of
Vercler Itoad in the Spokane Valley. The Assessor's tax parcel number is
27543-2408 and the street address is E. 12528 25th Avenue.
2. That the proposal, before the Board of Adjustment, consists of a request by
the applicant, C. R. Fullenwider, for approval of a Waiver of Yiolation for
two, of three, seyments of a residential fence constructed in violation of
Section 4.17.04U of the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance; both of which were
previously denied by the Zoniny Adjustor. The three fence segments originally
in violation were described as:
1. A forty-two (42) inch high chain link fence constructed alony the
lot's southeasterly property line within the reyuired twenty-five (25)
foot front yard setback (as measured f rom the f ront property line common
wj th the 25th Aven ue ri ght-of-way 1ine
2. A six (6) foot high cedar fence constructed along the lot`s
southwesterly property line within the required thirty (30) foot front
yard setback (as measured f rom the front property line common with the
25th Avenue right-of-way line).
3. An eight (8) foot high cedar fence, approximately thirty (30) feet in
length, constructed along a portion of the lot's southNesterly property
line.
Fence seyment #1 was previously approved by the toning Ad3ustor and was not
part of the appeal before the Board of Adjustment. Denial of fence segments
#2 and #3 is the appeal before the Board of Adjustment as brought by the
applicant.
3. That the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor held public hearings on Augus_t 26,
1986 and uctober 8, 1986, concerning Waivers of Violation for all three fence
seyments, and that on October 20, 1986, the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by
Conclusions of Law and Findinys of Fact did render a decision to approve fence
seyment #1 and deny fence segments #2 and #3.
4. That on October 30, 1986, an appeal f rom the decision of the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County to deny the Waivers of Yiolation for fence segments
#2 and #3 was filed by C. R. Fullenwider, the applicant. Reasons for the
appeal, as stated by the applicant, were:
1. The Zoning Adjustor's decision of October 20, 1986, is arbitrary and
capricious in light of the facts and law in this case.
~ .
~ Z
2. There is justification in the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining
property for granting the requested variance.
3. There has been error in application of applicable law and ordinances
to the facts in this case.
4. The applicant reserves the right to amend this notice of appeal as
necessary at time of hearing.
Reason #4 was deleted by the applicant's representative, Jerry Trunkenbolz, at
the Board of Adjustment's public hearing. The Board of Adjustment further
notes that the action before them was a Waiver of Violation and not a Variance
as referred to in appeal reason #2.
5. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County have been met.
6. The Board of Adjustment heard considerable testimony and received several
exhibits f rom both the proponents and opponents to the Waiver of Violation.
Testimony offered generally duplicated the material presented at the Zoning
Adjustor's hearings of August 26, 1986 amd October 8, 1986, and documented in
the Zoning Adjustor's written decision of October 20, 1986. Material offered
as Exhibits also duplicated previously submitted information with a few
exceptions. Exhibits presented to the Board of Adjustment, by both sides,
consisted of (exhibit identification is continuous f rom those of the Zoning
Adjustor):
PROPUNENT'S EXHIBITS:
F. Series of 14 photographs, 9 of which are various views of the fence
segments in question and 5 photographs which are views of four different
fences or hedyes in the area which were claimed to be contrary to fence
requirements of the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance.
G. A plan of the applicant's original design concept for fencing.
H. A plan of the contractor's layout of the fence along with installer's
time sheet indicating completion date of April 4, 1986.
I. Contractor's invoice, dated April 3, 1986, noting the additional
material for 8 foot tall fence, and showing account paid on April 16,
1986 by check #1774.
OPPONENTS EXHIBITS:
J. A letter from James A. McDevitt to the Board of Adjustment, dated
December 16, 1986, discussing problems with Waiver of Violation criteria
and laopholes that encourage use of the Waiver of Violation procedure as
an "after the fact" variance process.
K. A series of approximately 30 photographs depicting the fences from
various views. (Originally submitted to the Zoning Adjustor.)
L. A letter from J. 0. Carlson, dated Oecember 17, 19869 to the Board of
Adjustment stating opposition to the fences.
M. Two photographs showiny fence seyments #2 and #3.
N. Three photographs showing before and after scenes of fence segment
#2.
U. Four photographs showing views of applicant's back yard and fence
seyment #3.
P. Four photographs showing views of backyards adjacent to the
applicant's property and fence segment #3.
~ .
L 3
7. Throuyh proponent`s Exhibit F. it is claimed that at least 4 sepsrate
fences or hedyes in the imnediate vjcinity fail to comply with fence standards
of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Adjustment notes that
testimony indicated no Variances or Waivers of Violation have been considered
or approved for the examples submitted. While the Board of Adjustment doesn't
make determinations as to the legality of the fence examples submitted, they
do find that there are no precedent actions in the immediate area legally
allowing fences beyond the standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
If it is felt that there are fence violations in the area, then a request for
a Zoniny Investiyation should be filed with the Planniny Department by any
interested party.
8. That the 6oard of Adjustment concurs with all Findings made by the Zoning
Adjustor in the written document of October 20, 1986, and the 6oard of
Adjustment adopts those Findings as their own together with those stated
above.
From the Findinys, the Board of Adjustment comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the Board of Adjustment concurs with all conclusions made by the
Zoning Adjustor in that written document of October 20, 1986 and the 6oard of
Adjustment adopts those conclusions as their own.
1. That the Board of Adjustment concludes that the three reasons stated for
appeal of the Zoning Adjustor's decision to deny fence segments #2 and #3 are
without merit. Both the Zoning Adjustor and Board of Adjustment considered
all relevant facts in the case, as stated in the above findings, and applied
the criteria for review of a Waiver of Violation, as contained in Section
4.25.030 (f) of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance, to those facts and the
case. Those criteria don't include any requirement to look for comparable
precedents in the area as does the Yariance criteria. However, with that in
mind, the Board of Adjustment found no leyally established fence precedent in
the area as noted in the Findings above.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Board of Adjustment DENIES
the appeal and therefore UPHOLDS the Zoniny Adjustor's decision DENYING the
Waiver of Violation application for fence segments #2 and #3 with the
following stipulations and conditions.
1. The followiny shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in
interest.
2. Failure to comply with this decision shall constitute a violation of
the Zoniny Ordinance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are
appropriate.
3. The Waiver of Violation is denied with regard to the S foot tall
section of fence erected on the southwest property line (fence segment
#3). The fence is therefore directed to be reduced to the same height
as the fence sections on either side of the 8 foot section within 30
days from the siyning of this order or the final resolution of any
appeal hereto.
4. The Waiver of Yiolation is denied for the 6 foot portion of the fence
erected in the f ront yard along the southwest property line (fence
segment #2). It is directed to be reduced to 36 inches in height to a
distance 30 feet from the f ront yard line on the private property
section within 30 days from the signing of this order or the final
resolution of any appeal hereto. Technically, the Board of Adjustment
cannot adaress the portion of the fence constructed within the right-of-
way; that is, from the f ront property line to the curb. The Board of
Adjustment stroncl y encourages the County Engi neer's Offi ce to take
action to cause the fence to be removed f rom the right-of-way or be
reduced to a height of 36 inches.
.
.
c ~ 4
;
BOARD VOTE: 6,t'o 1(Mr, Hume voti ny ,nay )
OATEO THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 1987,0
.
SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Of~SP ' NE COUNTY, WASH NGTAN
-
f
0
~ •
E~. B. BLIN
/ -
.
o B z
ERNb e
. r,
,
3MN7~
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parti es of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Off,ice
,4) Spokane County~ Dept,e of,6u11 di ng
8 Saf,ety
5) Planni`ng Dept,. Cross Reference
File and/or`Electronic File.
.
` ~ .
ZOPdIN a ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUPJTY, WASHINGTON
iN THE r1ATTER OF RECONSiDERATION OF ) FINDINCS OF FACT, DECISION
VE-197-82; JOHNSON ) AND CONDITIONS
THIS MaTTER, Being the reconsideration by the Zoninq Adjustor of Spokane
County, app roving the application (VE-197-82), for the purpose of building an
addition to a sinqle family residence, he reinafter referred to as the "Pronosal",
and the Zoning Adjustor of Snokane County havinq held a public hearinq on January
5, 1983 and having fully considered all testimony oresented thereat, and furthe r
havinq visited the site and vicinity in ouestion, and having rendered a decision
on the 17th day of January, 1983 approvinq said p roposal, does make the follow-
inq:
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. That the proposal is oenerally located at the northeast corne r of 32nd
Avenue and avalon Street in Section 27-25-44.
2. That the pronosal consists of extending a resicience to within 15' of
the front yard property 1 i ne.
3. That the adopted Spolcane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use
Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal.
4. That the s7te is zoned aqricultural Suburban. 5. That the existing land uses in the area of proposal are predominantly
sinale family residences.
6. That the existinq residential lot has already an attached two car
garage and a detached garaqe at the rear of the 1 ot.
7. That the requested variance would allaw more home space for the appli-
cant and correct access problems to the qaraqe.
1
8. That the f ront yard setback standards of the Spokane County Zoninq
Ordinance were established to protect and maintain the nublic health, safety and
general wel fare. The appl i cant has shown that hi s exi sti nq dri veway apnroach
creates a potenti al for i njury and acci dents when the dri veway i s covered Vri th
snolq or ice. The apolicant must make a running start from his qaraae to climb
the dri vetqay clrade and encounters ri sk of hi tti nq other cars on Aval on or
possibly a pedestrian.
9. The aoplicant has demonstrated that with the addition he will still
be able to nark his autos in the driveway but ot,tside the public rlqht-of-way and
will in no way obstruct views of traffic at P,4al_sri and 32nd Avenue.
10. That the applicant cannot othenriise expand his house without obtain-
jng a va riance (towards the flankinq street) or encounterinq excessive expense
throuah relocation of his septic tank drainfield at the rear of the prooerty.
11. That no one in the area has spoken in opposition to the nroposal or
otherwi se raised concerns reqardi nq i t.
12. That the orooosal is compatible with existin4 uses in the area.
13. That the nroposal is not detrimental or otherwise harmful to the nublic
health, safety and welfare.
14. That the prone r leqal requirements for advertisinq of the hearinq be-
fore the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
~ o
,
~ , .
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS PACE 2
RECONSIDERATION OF FILE # VE-197-82; Johnson
DECISION
From the foreqoina Findinqs, a review of the Planning Denartment File No.
VE-197-82, testimony at the public hearing, and a site visit, the Zoninq Adjustor
hereby in anorovina the proposal makes the following conditions:
A. COUNTY PLANfd IN G DEPARTIMEPIT
1) Applicant shall develon the p roperty consistent with the plot plan on
file with this anplication.
2) Anplicant shall comply with all othe r provisions of the Agricultural-
Suburban Zone.
B. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
1) Al1 buildinqs and structures require buildinq nermits as per Section
301 of the Uniform Building Code.
~
DATED THIS 17_ DAY OF , 1983.
-fti
DO (;LAS . ADA"1S, ONIPJG A JUSTOR
SPO KANE COUPJTY, WASH I NrTOPJ
►
.
ZOPdING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, I4ASHINGTON
~
.
IN THE PIATTER OF RECONSIDERATION OF ) FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION
VE-197-82; JOHNSON ) AND CONDITIONS
THIS MATTER, Being the reconsideration by the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County, approvi ng the appl i cati on (VE-197-82 for the purpose of bui 1 d7 ng an
addition to a sinqle family residence, hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal",
and the Zoning Adjustor of Sookane County havinq heid a public hearinq on January
59 1983 and having ful ly consi dered al1 testimony oresented thereat, and further
havinq visited the site and vicinity in auestion, and having rendered a decision
on the 17th day of January, 1983 approvi nq sai d proposal, does make the fol ] ow-
.
ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is Qenerally located at the northeast corner of 32nd
Avenue and Avalon Street in Section 27-25-44.
2. That the proDosal consists of extending a residence to within 15' of
the front yard property 1 ine.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use
Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal.
4. That the site is zoned Agricultural Suburban.
5. That the existing land uses in the area of proposal are predominantly
sinale family residences.
6. That the existing residential lot has already an attached two car
garage and a detached garage at the rear of the lot.
7. That the requested variance would allow more home space for the appli-
cant and correct access problems to the qaraqe.
8. That the f ront ya rd setback standards of the Spokane County Zoninq
Ordinance were established to protect and maintain the nublic health, safety and
general welfare. The applicant has shown that his existing driveway aporoach
creates a potential for injury and accidents when the driveway is covered with
snow or ice. The apolicant must make a running start from his qaraae to climb
the dri veway grade and errcounters ri sk of hi tti ng other cars on Aval on or
possibly a pedestrian.
9. The aoplicant has demonstrated that with the addition he will still
be able to oark his autos in the driveway but outside the public riqht-of-way and
will in no way obstruct views of traffic at Avalon and 32nd Avenue.
10. That the applicant cannot otherwise expand his house without obtain-
ing a variance (towards the flankinq street) or encounterinq excessive expense
through relocation of his septic tank drainfield at the rear of the prooertx.
11. That no one in the area has spoken in opposition to the proposal or
otherwi se rai sed concerns regardi nq i t.
12. That the nroaosal is compatible with existinq uses in the area.
13. That the nroposal is not detrimental or otherwise harmful to the nublic
health, safiety and welfare.
14. That the prope r leqal requirements for advertising of the hearinq be-
fore the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND CONDITIONS PAGE 2
RECONSIDERATION OF FILE # VE-197-82; Johnson .
~
DECISION
From the foreqoinq Findings, a review of the Planning Department File No.
VE-197-82, testimony at the public hearinq, and a site visit, the Zoninq Adjustor
hereby in aporovina the proposal makes the following conditions:
A. COUNTY PLANPJIN G DEPARTMENT
1) Applicant shall develon the property consistent with the plot alan on
file with this anplication.
2) Applicant shall comply with all other provisions of the Agricultural-
Suburban Zone.
B. DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY
1) All buildinqs and structures require buildinq nermits as per Section
301 of the Un7form Buildinn Code.
AY OF , 1983.
DATED THIS 17~~-- D
~
~
401, LA S . ADAMS, 'Z/O A JUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASNINCTON
-2.5-44
.
. .
T ~
} 1 ~ ~ ~ i 4~ • ts--" r 1 1 1 \ ~ ~ 1 ~
~ ~ 4 ~ • a > ~ _ ~ ~ . i r : j `
3 ,
c ,
a t y1r '
14 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILbING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
;
~r i i
,
PHOME 456-2205
ry
" ~ ► n U % ~ . a.
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260
'r 7 r It
January 17, 1983
SPOlcANE COUftTr GpURT NOUSE
RECONSIDERATION OF FILE # VE-197-82; JOHNSON
The Zoning Adjustor was asked to reconsider the above application based upon
additional information submitted by the applicant consistinq of:
l. A letter detailing the current access problems encountered by
residents due to the slope of their driveway.
2. Photographs of a11 adjacent properties indicatina that no others
have to contend with a down slope to their garage.
3. An on-site inspection where the applicant demonstrated that the
proposed addition would enable him to cure his access problem and
at the same time would nose no visual or other hardships to traffic
or ad,jacent properties.
The application was accepted for reconsideration on January 14, 1983 and revised
findinqs were made on January 17, 1983.
D C A4SADAMS, ZONINC ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
~
~
; - t
rI- 2s-44
j ' -
REcglVer)!
, ZONING AD JUSTOR uDIANf eAepTy Impniki
,
t L SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ,
JAN fl 7 983
.
. .
• ~ . 'IN THE MATTER OF %-8 , JOHNSOCJ ) FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISI 1401" " RELAXATIOiV OF FRQN STBACK AND CONDITIONS fte..l.., IREQUIREMENT
THIS MATTER, Beinq the consideration by the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane
County, denying the appl i cati on (VE-197-82 fo r the purpose of bui 1 di nq an
addition to a single family residence, hereinafter referred to as the
"Proposai", and the Zoninq Adjustor of Spokane County having held a public
hearing on January 5, 1983 and havinq fully considered a11 testimony are-
sented thereat, and fqrther having vis7ted the site and vicinlty in question,
and havirig rendered a'decision on the 7th day of January, 1983, denyinq said
proposal, does hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is generally located at the northeast corner of
32nd Avenue and Avalon Street in Section 27-25-44.
2. That the proposal consZSts of extending a residence to within 15'
of the front yard property 1 i ne.
3. That the adopted Spokane County Generalized Comprehensive Land Use
Plan indicates Urban usage of the area encompassed by the proposal.
4. That the site is zoned Agricultural Suburban.
5. That the exis ting land uses in the area of proposal are predominantly
sinQle family residences.
6. That the existing residential lot has already an attached two car
garage and a detached garage at the rear of the lot.
7. That the requested vari ance uroul d al 1 ow more home space tor the
applicant.
8. That the front yard setback standa rds of the Spokane County Zoninq
OrdinanCe we,re established to protect and maintain the public health, safety
and qeneral wel fare and shoul d be compl i ed Uri th, unl ess the prooerty owner
would be deprived of a reasonable use of the oroperty.
9. That to approve the variance would be a qrantinq of a special
privilege in that all other residences 7n the area generally meet the required
setbacks anai the proposal does not meet Zoninq Ordinance provlsion 4.25.030 (b)
for approval of variances,
10. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of tne hearing be-
fore the wZoninq Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
;
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings, a review of the Planning Department File No.
VE-197-82, testimony at the public hearing, and a site visit, the Zoninq
Adjustor hereby da, nys the proposal.
DATED TH IS ~DAY OF , 1983
WO-0
DO GLAS S. 498 2 ING A SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-2-
► , • ' .
. SPXANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR (Continued)
' AGENDA: JANUARY 5, 1983
1 :15 P.M.
3. UE-197-82 RELAXATION OF FRONT YARD SETBACK
((;enerally located in the Spokane Valley, north
of 32nd Ave., and east of Avalon in Section
1,"f ov~ 27-25-44). -
e
7~ 3•,
PROPOSAL: An addition to a sinQle family dwellinq
to have a 15' f ront vard setback where-
as the Spokane County Zonina Ordinance
Section 4.05.110 (al) requires a 25
ft. setback.
SITE SIZE: Approx. 12,000 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: La rry and Sandra Johnson
4. VE-213-82 RELAXATION OF FLANKINr STREET SETBACK
(Generally located in the Spokane Valley, north of
Sharpe Ave., east of Farr Road and west of Sunder-
land Road in Section 17-25-44).
PROPOSAL: To allow an approximatate 2' flankinq
street setback for a qaraqe (replacina
an exi sting qarage) whereas the Spokanr
County Zoninq Ordinance, Section
4.05.110 (b3) requires a 20 ft. set-
back.
SITE SIZE: Approx. 10,400 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Patrick Theil
5. VN-214-82 (A - F) TWELVE ROAD FRONTAGE VARIANCES (6 under each
VN-215-$2 (A ~ F) application) (Generally located in northern
Spokane County, south of Bridqes Road, and east
of Sherman Rd. in Section 13-29-42).
PROPOSAL: To allow one single family dwellina on
each of the 12 parcels, havinq no road frontaqe
whe reas the the Spokane County Zoninq Ordinance,
Section 4.13.020 requires 65 ft. of public road
f rontage for each p arcel. Access would be via two
private easements, each 60 f t. wide and extendinq
southerly f rom Bridqes Road to the sites.
SITE SIZE : Approx. 10 acres per parcel
APPLICANT: Robert Hermanson
~ •-r:,~,.
. : • i.
l- . . ~ .
~
~ ~.u=li:a:.. _ 'u• t~'~ u~_aa~
Lr
~ _••Y~r.; l. ~~~~Y ~ ~ .
0 I O T►+ f
C,
Af~
CLo
12TN AvE ► ~ ~ ~ AVE ' - ( 1
2 . T H . , . L .
, x~;~. 3 r~ .'E ( 3 ' ' , ' ` 'i . .
IY rrt
~ ~•'t►'~ ' ) . . ' ~i
w I ! TN tp~
Z t ~ J or. nl it1 ~
4.1 L T~ i H 1.3 T N z'
. 1 T H ~ E W ~ • EW,GR E E N r-- -
~ . . . . T"h iR Hi GH : ' .
~ " I - T V ~ • - ~ _ _ ; ~
~ a Q ~ ~ ~ ~ v t h 1
c 17 T - _ ~ •o- ~le - ~
z '
M =i
H ~ W S.Q .v,r. • ~ i~ Y C - , = • ' , r P .
T J
~ i~ CTE Y 1 ISDo
i g1n •Q y t
CLO
20Tt+ G1»u
^ ~c~' J zor `r ~ W ~ l~
ac
~ • \ ~ ` - Z/9r e _ r-~ : !
`C~,n f
. ~~D ~ a ~V J J ~ ~~Cd ^ji' ?
2 4 T H 2 24 T►y ¢
f --7 Z • . . , r '
~
`
j ~~~N~~~~ _
? P, ,STr--.Hr~:
2 5 ~ T
~ 'AM 26 T►.-1 r.~
Li .
-"!4~J
2 i -r~-,
,
? r r ~ ~ _ ~ ~►r` • - , ~ \ \ ' ,
2 8 T34
- ~ _ 0 k ` ' N
~
~Ou
~ ~ ✓ ^r`~~~ ~ ~ . ~ . la C ~i . ~ \ '
z~
y o~ . ~ i., ?1 r
, ~ ~ ~ • . ^
„
~ n_...._ . . _ .
0 '-9 3ZwD ' •
Yr'- ~-'~-a - - • - - : • ~
~ ~ I, 4 , ~ i_ Y ~.'n ' - i ~ • ; -
I,~_ I.~
:
SR2T ) N
~
VE=197~82
~
, ~1 ~1 • ~ ~
. . . e . !
, 1 11-1000 ,
' i .
. ~
~ i
r~Qr o~' Q' an ~ o~ he rrorr'/y s~~d sa~d fat or
tfx~ ,
~
►trve.d ~~ac~c. Q r7~a~e ,vvor/ab
o ~ Est~c 1
~q s~~cs ~ h ~ ~o . ~
s
/d 30
ka,_ ;~t' ~ .~,.x•,a~
c e
.;t . - ~
. ` , , .
~ ~ .
a y~ 7 ~ 1 ~~~t.~ k1' . . •/r~ ~ . ~'~~~~i✓:w~ . ~ J ~I ~ ' , ~ . . •'F
sto ~ ~ ~ ~s• i
' ; " ' f~~~`J ~ ~ . ~ . ' ~
l'`~t? ~ ~ :qp ` ~ . r, ~ ' ~ ~
, , ~j'''~-~ ~i~~r r;, ' ~ t~ 1'C' „C~,~, ~`~`~'~'f"f ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ t ~a
~e
~
~►~1i"` ,ex+C~.~
:r-~'f"~~,,'~ ~ y'~i.or~ec~ . ~ ~ • ~ . . , a~
%9
~t,~g
~
' • ~ , , , , . ~ .
' • ~ ~ ~r,~', ts
A-K
~L `
, w ~
W1:
1 • Mr. i t,, . t, ~ ~ t 1
: t • ..~t, " js . ~ - + t f~ ,..y
~~f'
I ~ r• ~ , ~ } ~t1 y(t e I}~ t S l;nv ~'1 . -a ~ ,
~t - . ~ . ~4 . i..J~'~ ~ y~~ i•y~ ~f.~7 (r. ' ~i'i~., 1~. ` , ~ _ . F ~
~i i . J~!t" ~J ~~r T " .j ~ N. ! Yl~ 1~1 ri1~+ ~ ~rl• ~ l~~.„~ ~*y C
}Q~ ti 1~ ',~j~~~ 'M j ' •,l ~ }1-~~ ' ~ , . ! ~ , ~~:j j ,
~ 3.R ~ if~ ~ ~ ~ t j'y1C ~ ~ ~}Mi t 4 1~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ i ♦ .
~i ,c ~.i`'.• . t ~
~ ' 1-~ ~ tyy 3 ' } ~ e. t~~ s t ~ i~M ~ ~ t 4 _ . 1 ,
J.' ~7•~ } i .~~~~'y~i~ 1 ~i,`~ ii~ utt7, ~ a L,
s • t ~9~ t*r t ~ - ~~tY It ~ . '?4` - + - ~ ~
~~n~~ 4.',~t151 t ~ ~ ~ Y ~ A ~t`~ ~.t . ~~t h~~•.if ~ .iy ~~',l i <
a ~ ~ ~ 1 q t ~
N • . .
,K t 1 k tt r 1 i +~,~~~~fi~ ..1, t, j. • K 5,F • ,~~~r"~`~". .
~'W~~ . ~ ~~1~ a~t ~~I j.l•~ 1 1 :P" ~ k ' ^ `i , t{t ~ 1 !i. ~l is'.' . . ' . ' .
. . . , , , , ; . ~ . ,~;,t''.w~►O~"~'~~~ ' ";~,:t ~ ^ . .
_ ~.I'~ ' , •f ' , . . .
~,,,e~',,, ~ ~ . ; .i~►~e ~ hfte
,*,r ~ ~?'.'ie ~✓.retlf_!~''~'/'~ ' f . ,
lt~ ~ '%'•Y, r,' . . ' . ~ .'if
2, d , Q; ;a,,~'~,~ , . ` '
,,LO 6~t `,!'I"7 ~,,`d,~+`~r'~'~ 6' ~ , r~ . . ~
{!T! fr~4C
~ r~,:t;~~~~';~ +d• ` . +q
G be,t~`es
J•T~' ' 1 ~ I ~r . r 4
~ • i~_`~Y'r t ' ~1-'~~`~' ' : r i e ••~t, ~ t ~
a~ ~ , . . . . .
~
t c~ ~ ~ ~ - .t.. ~ J`
j ~r...c,ol
~
' PLAN NUfteER , AppLICATION/PERMIT PEFIMIT NUMBER
SPOKANE COUNTY - BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT
NORTH 811 JEFFERSON / SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 /(509) 456•3675
~
APPLICANT: COMPLETE NUMBERED SPACES - PRESS HARD TO MAKE 3 COPIES
JOB ADORE55
~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION - SEE ATTACHED ~2* ~ 51' 00
t. ~ . 3 ~ ~ ~
LOl LOCK PARCEL NUMBER/S ^ Q
~ U l. 2. ~ ~ tl1~)UBDIVIbION
rv% I ,v ~ LEw
OWNER PNONE 3 2
3. SA~IAZ~ ~Q l. Hrv~-'GN a7-42-1 - f3ti q Z"7544' ~►(t'7 c
ADORESS ZIP Actual Set 6acks In Feet
s. .-'-7?1I /ti
q VA~b/j ~ ~1 ~IZico North ISouth LJ~ IEast IWest
CONTRACTOR PHONE Size oi Parcel Zone Classitlcation
` 445 A►--% E `75x 1(.G.B' I AG. 5ur3kne0ar•►
ADDRESS Zip Type Const. Occupancy Sprinklered
❑Yes ❑No ❑ Req'd.
DE5IGNER PHONE Va ation Building Area In Sq. Ft.
I ~i
5' ADDRESS ZIp Main Floor Upper Floors GarageArea Storage
II 574 I +
CHANGE OF USE FROM ~TO Area of Decks I Finished 8asement I Untin, 8asement
6. '
No. Baths No. Stories No. Rooms No. ot Dwellings
OFPE " NEW ❑ ALT. ❑ AD'N. ❑ RPL. ❑ MVE. 0 OTHER I , I ,
WORK IdBLD.1 ❑ PLMB. ❑ MECH, ❑ M.H. ❑ POOL CERTIFICATE Req'd. Rec'd, ot Rqq'd,
of EXEMPTION I I r ~
DESCRIBE WORK Enum, Dlst. I Locatlon (Area)
8.1 6TAC. CtA~Q,~A(,-l E V~ /C'Z4~CZE}~ fEESCOLLECTED
VALUATI N SOURCE GAS ~LECTRIC WATER SEWER Ownership USE CODE
9. IUTI~TIES~ I I ISep j1c Puhlic ❑Prlvate
Single $
I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and have read the "NOTICE" provisions included
on reverse side, and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this guilding ckp
t type of work will be complied with whetiier specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume ,
to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating construction or the
performance of construction, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR REQUIRED INSPECTIONS Plumbing
DATE OF APPLICATION 7 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT .i Mech.
SPECIAL APPROVALS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: NAME DATE Plan CheCk
~ E al i SEPA
lanning /
Fire Marshall Mobile Home
K Co„Engineer Other (SpeCify)
utiFities tOTAL $
PWnAxaminer
~d1 ':Zj-:LR, CD WHEN MACHINE VALIDATED IN THIS SPACE, I'
SE PA Checklist TH IS BECOMES A PE RMIT. ~
, i 1;' `IF 1 I 0 J
~ Buildin9 rechnician PERMIT IS NONTRANSFERABLE '1~;~~ 2 1 28' Q Z ~ 5~ 0 0
~f
T~~~~~I~S~ _~~....~►f~ __I PERMIT EXPIRES ONE YEAR FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE DATE ISSUED PERMIT NU. TOTAL
13 8. ~
~
~
~r
, .
~ ~ ~ •
y.
~ 'T
~ o
~
~ . ~
ti
~
. ~ cr
~
. ~ . _ .
• .
.
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Date Jaiiua ry 3 19 84
.
Inter-office Communication
To Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
from Bob M+cCann, Plat Inspector
Subject Agenda Items Scheduled for Hear n2, 1-~-~33
VE 194-82 - No comments concerning this applicatioii.
VE 197-82 - No comment coacerning this application. Applicant should be advised that an
approach permit must be obtained from the County Engineer prior to acccssinc;
. : -n : r ~ t.' r '3 .
3~.~nci _AA, F5 Tl t r o I. 1 r~~ Cj t_ t I ~ i. r l' cI r f F l~ C. j) i. ~
VE 13 -L)~. bC' appI`:J vc:t: ~.~-l:l~jul:L LfJ t.t1:' 1.01.1lJWl" I18 CCU?lVit
1. That the existing garage as shown on the attached plot plan be removed.
2. That the proposed garage shown on the plot plan be situated on the lot
in the manner depicted on the plot plan.
~ 3. That the door openings of the proposed garage be oriented in the direc-
tion depicted on the attached plot plan.
4. That prior to place ment of the proposed garage on the parcel, the ap-
plicant shall verify with the County Engineer the acceptabillty of the
location, the building driveway and approach. S. An approach permit must be obtained from the County Engineer for any new
driveway approaches to the County road system.
BMc/set
~
y
;
2~
,
BEFORE THE BOARO OF AOJUSTMENT UF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
yryF
~G~~FFR
IN THE MATTER OF REVIEWING THE )
ADMINISTkATIVE ACTION OF THE SPOKANE )
CUUNTY ZUNING ADJUSTOR, IN A DECISION ) FINDINGS & ORDER
TU UENY, IN PART, WAIVER OF VIOLATION )
#WYE-66-86; C. R. FULLENWIDER )
THIS MNTTER, 6eing the consideration by the Board of Adjustment for Spokane
County, is an appeal of an administrative action by the Spokane County Zoning
Adjustor DENYING in part, the Waiver of Violation #WYE-66-86, for the purpose
of allowing two segments of a residential fence, constructed in violation of
the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance, to remain as constructed, hereinafter
referred to as the "Proposal" and the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County
haviny held a public hearing on December 17, 1986, and having fully considered
all testimony presented thereat, and having rendered a decision on the 11th
day of December, 1986, DENYING said proposal, does hereby make the following:
i -
FINOINGS OF FACT
1. That the proposal is generally located south of and adjacent to the
intersection of 24th Avenue and 25th Avenue, approximately 240 feet west of
Yercler Koad in the Spokane Valley. The Assessor's tax parcel number is
27543-2408 and the street address is E. 12528 25th Avenue.
2. That the proposal, before the Board of Adjustment, consists of a request by
the applicant, C. R. Fullenwider, for approval of a Waiver of Violation for
two, of three, seyments of a residential fence constructed in vivlation of
Section 4.17.04U of the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance; both of which were
previously denied by the Zoniny Adjustor. The three fence segments originally
in violation were described as:
1. A forty-two (42) inch high chain link fence constructed along the
lot's southeasterly property line within the reyuired twenty-five (25)
foot front yard setback (as measured from the front property line comnon
with the 25th Avenue right-of-way line).
2. A six (6) foot high cedar fence constructed along the lot's
southwesterly property l i ne wi thi n the requi red thi rty (30) foot front
yard setback (as measured from the front property line comnon with the
25th Aven ue ri ght-of -way 1 i ne
3. An eight (8) foot high cedar fence, approximately thirty (30) feet in
length, constructed along a portion of the lot's southwesterly property
line.
Fence seyment #1 was previously approved by the Zoning Adj ustor and was not
part of the appeal before the 6oard of Adjustment. Denial of fence segments
#2 and #3 is the appeal before the Board of Adjustment as brought by the
applicant.
3. That the Spokane County Zoning Adj ustor held public hearings on August 25,
1986 and Uctober 8, 1986, concerning Waivers of Violation for all three fence
seyments, and that on October 20, 1986, the Spokane County Zoning Adjustor, by
Conclusionb of Law and Findinys of Fact did render a decision to approve fence
seyment #1 and deny fence segments #2 and #3.
4. That on October 30, 1986, an appeal from the decision of the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County to deny the Waivers of Yiolation for fence segments
#2 and #3 was filed by C. R. Fullenwider, the applicant. Reasons for the
appeal, as stated by the applicant, were:
1. The Zoniny Adjustor's decision of October 20, 1986, is arbitrary and
capricious in light of the facts and law in this case.
+1
t
2
2. There is justification in the surrounding neighborhood and adjoining
property for grantiny the requested variance.
3. There has been error in application of applicable law and ordinances
to the facts in this case.
4. The applicant reserves the right to amend this notice of appeal as
necessary at time of hearing.
Reason #4 was deleted by the applicant's representative, Jerry Trunkenbolz, at
the Board of Adjustment's publ i c heari ng. The Board of Adjustment further
notes that the action before them was a Waiver of Violation and not a Variance
as referred to in appeal reason #2.
5. That the proper legal requirements for advertising of the hearing before
the Board of Adjustment of Spokane County have been met.
6. The Board of Adjustment heard considerable testimony and received several
exhibits from both the proponents and opponents to the Waiver of Yiolation.
Testimony offered yenerally duplicated the material presented at the Zoning
Adjustor's hearinys of August 26, 1986 amd October 8, 1986, and documented in
the Zoning Adjustor's written decision of October 20, 1986. Material offered
as Exhibits also duplicated previously submitted information with a few
exceptions. Exhibits presented to the Board of Adjustment, by both sides,
consisted of (exhlbit identification is continuous from those of the Zoning
Adjustor):
PROPUNENT'S EXHiBiTS:
F. Series of 14 photographs, 9 of which are various views of the fence
segments in question and 5 photographs which are views of four different
fences or hedyes in the area which were claimed to be contrary to fence
requirements of the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance.
G. A plan of the applicant's oriyinal design concept for fencing.
H. A plan of the contractor's layout of the fence along with installer's
time sheet indicating completion date of April 4, 1986.
I. Contractor's invoice, dated April 3, 1986, noting the additional
~ material for 8 foot tall fence, and showing account paid on April 16,
1986 by check #1774.
OPPONENTS EXHIBITS:
J. A letter from James A. McDevitt to the Board of Adjustment, dated
December 16, 1986, discussing problems with Waiver of Violation criteria
and loopholes that encourage use of the Waiver of Yiolation procedure as
an "after the fact" variance process.
K. A series of approximately 30 photographs depicting the fences from
various views. (Originally submitted to the Zoning Adjustor.)
L. A letter f rom J. 0. Carlson, dated December 17, 1986, to the Board of
Adjustment stating opPosition to the fences.
M. Two photographs showiny fence seyments #2 and #3.
N. Three photographs showing before and after scenes of fence segment
#2.
0. Four photographs showiny views of applicant's back yard and fence
seyment #3.
P. Four photographs showing views of backyards adjacent to the
applicant's property and fence segment #3.
•
3
7. Throuyh proponent's Exhibit F, it is claimed that at least 4 separate
fences or hedyes in the imnediate vicinity fail to comply with fence standards
~of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance. The 6oard of Adjustment notes that
testimony indicated no Uariances or Waivers of Yiolation have been considered
or approved for the examples submitted. While the Board of Adjustment doesn't
make determinations as to the legality of the fence examples submitted, they
do find that there are no precedent actions tn the immediate area legally
allowing fences beyond the standards of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
If it is felt that there are fence riolations in the area, then a request for
a Zoniny Investiyation should be filed with the Planniny Department by any
interested party.
8. That the Board of Adjustment concurs with all Ftndings made by the Zoning
Adjustor in the written document of October 20, 1986, and the 6oard of
Adjustment adopts those Findings as their own together with those stated
above.
From the Findinys, the Board of Adjustment comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the"Board of Adjustment concurs with all conclusions made by the
Zoning Adjustor in that written document of October 20, 1986 and the Board of
Adjustment adopts those conclusions as their own.
2. That the 6oard of Adjustment concludes that the three reasons stated for
appeal of the Zoning Adjustor's decision to deny fence segments #2 and #3 are
without merit. Both the Zoning Adjustor and Board of Adjustment considered
all relevant facts in the case, as stated in the above findings, and applied
the criteria for review of a Waiver of Violation, as contained in Section
4.25.030 (f) of the Spokane County Zoniny Ordinance, to those facts and the
case. Those criteria don't include any requirement to look for comparable
precedents in the area as does the Yariance criteria. Nowever, with that in
mind, the Board of Adjustment found no leyally established fence precedent in
the area as noted in the Findinys above.
DECISION
Froin the foregoing Findinys and Conclusions, the Board of Adjustment DENIES
the appeal and therefore UPHOLDS the Zoniny Adjustor's decision OENYING the
Waiver of Yiolation application for fence seyments #2 and #3 with the
following stipulations and conditions.
1. The followiny shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in
interest.
2. Fallure to comply with this decision shall constitute a violation of
the Zoniny Orainance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are
appropriate.
3. The Waiver of Violation is denied with regard to the 8 foot tall
section of fence erected on the southwest property line (fence segment
#3). The fence is therefore directed to be reduced to the same height
as the fence sections on either side of the 8 foot section within 30
days from the siyning of this order or the final resolution of any
appeal hereto.
4. The Waiver of Violation is denied for the 6 foot portion of the fence
erected in the f ront yard along the southwest property line (fence
segment #2). It is directed to be reduced to 36 inches in height to a
distance 30 feet from the front yard line on the private property
section within 30 days from the signing of this order or the final
~ resolution of any appeal hereto. Technically, the Board of Adjustment
cannot adaress the portion of the fence constructed within the right-of-
way; that is, from the front property line to the curb. The 6oard of
Adjustment strongly encourages the County Engineer's Office to take
action to cause the fence to be removed from the right-of-way or be
reduced to a height of 36 inches.
N
✓
4
~
BOARD VOTE: 6 to 1(Mr. Hume votiny nay)
UATEO THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 1987.
.
SPOKANE COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
OF SPO NE COUNTY, WASH NG AN
r
1
~ • \
E. B. nEV BLIN
.
MARTIN . I66
e-.__
ERIVO .
-
. ~ ~ ~
CETI THM
B
FiLEU:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Dept, of Building
b Safety
5) Planning Dept. Cross Reference
File and/or Electronic File.
.
; ~
~
.
. ,
~
~__:,:_►~,L~,
1986
ZON ING ADJUSTOR . ~
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF CONSIOERATION OF A WAIVER )
OF VIOLATION REGARDING VARIOUS ILLEGAL ) FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
ASPECTS OF A RESIDENTIAL FENCE. (WYE-66-86);) AND DECISION
C.R. FULLENWEIDER )
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
Fencing was constructed at the applicant's residential property which was 8
feet tall at a location other than the front yard in one instance 42 inches
high in the front yard and in another instance 6 feet tall in the front yard.
Secti on 4.17.040 of the Spokane County Zoni ng Ordi nance requi res resi denti al
fences in the front yard to be no greater than 3 feet 0 inches high and that
other protions of the fences be no greater than 6 feet 0 inches unless a
variance is first obtained. Authority to consider and grant such a request
exists pursuant to Sections 4.25.010 and 4.25.030 f. of the Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance.
LOCATION:
The property is located in the south Spokane Yalley south of and adjacent to
25th Ave. at it's intersection with 24th Ave., approximately 240 feet west of
Yercler Rd, in the southwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 25, Range 44. The
Assessor's parcel number is 27543-2408. The address of the property is E.
12528 25th Ave. I
DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the
application, the Zoning Ad,justor both APPROVES and DENIES the application as
it specifically regards various aspects of the illegal portions of the fence.
Specifically, the decision is to DENY the Waiver of Violation for the 8 foot
tall fence on the southwesterly property line as well as the 6 foot tall fence
in the front yard on the southwesterly property line. This decision APPROVES
the Waiver of Violation for the 42 inch high fence in the front yard on the
southea sterly property line. The decision does not, and cannot by law,
address the fences constructed in the 25th Ave, right-of-way at both the
southwesterly and the southeasterly property lines.
PUBLIC HEARING:
The Zoning Ad3ustor examined all information in the file and visited the
subject property and surrounding area on two oc~Eastions. The Zoning Ad3ustor
conduc ted a public hearing on August 26, 1986 at which the only portion of the
fence adverti sed for the Wa i ver of Vi ol ati on wa s that secti on 8 feet hi gh on
the southwesterly property 1 i ne. The Zoni ng Adjustor conducted a second
hearing on October 8, 1986 regarding the portions of the fence which exceed 3
feet tall in the front yard area. The matter was taken,.pnder advisement in
both cases. A written decision is issued on October1986.
FINDINGS OF FACT
l. The proposal is located on 25th Ave., south of it's intersection with
24th Ave., approximately 240 feet west of Vercler Rd. in the Spokane Valley.
The address is E. 12528 25th Ave., and is further described as Assessor's
parcel number 27543-2408, bei ng more compl etely descri bed i n Zoni ng Adjustor
file WVE-66-86.
2. Testimony was permitted at both hearings regarding all of the
violations. This was established by general agreement of those parties
i
. .
.
Fi ndi ngs, Concl usi ons and Deci si on Page 2
WVE-66-86 Fullenweider
involved. Technically, only the 8 foot tall violation was advertised for the
first hearing. Legal counsel for the Zoning Ad3ustor advised that a second
hearing, regarding the violations in the front yard, should be advertised and
hel d to speci fi cal ly take testimony on those i 11 egal porti ons of the fence i n
the event any parties declined to come to the first hearing because it was not
advertised that they could discuss the front yard violations. The second
legal advertisement, that relating to the front yard fences, incorrectly
described the southwesterly c-hain-link fence as being 6 feet tall. Since this
advertjsed height exceeded the height actually there, (42 inches), the Zoning
Adjustor ruled that the hearing could proceed.
3. Legal counsel for the Zoning Adjustor also advised the Zoning
Adjustor that he had no jurisdiction over the fences constructed in the
right-of-way. The right-of-way in these areas is approximately 8 to 10 feet
if one assumes that the roadway was built in the middle of the right-of-way.
4. The two portions of 25th ave. which f ront on the northwest and the
northeast side of the property are different right-of-way widths, thus
creati ng di fferent si ze front yards on thi s parcel of 1 and. For the record,
the front yard on the northwesterly side of the parcel is 30 feet from the
front property line and the property line on the northeasterly portion of the
property is 25 feet from the front property line; THE PROPERTY LINES ARE NOT
TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE CURB-LINE.
5. Sorti ng through the vari ous testimoni es and documents wi thi n the fi 1 e
indicates the following sequence of events:
a1 3/27/86. Fenceman (a fence company) estimator Richard Ziesmer
completes job estimate and proposal contract is signed by the applciant.
Original document has been somewhat altered, but according to testimony,
it was generally agreed that it showed the 6 foot (illegal) height to the
street and the 42 inch (illegal) height to the street. General agreement
was that the notation regarding 30 feet of 8 foot tall fence was a
contract add-on at a later date. The information square intitled "permit"
was checked for "customer", as opposed to the "company" or "N-R" being
checked. (File Exhibit A).
b) 4/4/86. The neighbor, Hurst, called to report what he/she felt was a
fence height violation. This phone referral was apparently first filed in
the Planning Department and then decided between the Planning and the
Building and Safety Department to be handled by Building and Safety. The
Building and Safety inspector verified the excessive height, found no one
home and left no message. (File Exhibit B).
c) 4/4/86. Fenceman document indicates Don and Ed completed the fence
after 1 1/2 hours of work on this date. (File Exhibit C).
d) 4/13-4/15/86. Neighbor Hurst testified that fence completion occuring
sanewhere between 4/13 and 4/15. It was most likely on 4/15/86, according
to Hurst, that the 30 foot section of fence was adjusted to a height of 8
feet because work was done from the Hurst property. In collaboration of
this, notation from the Building and Safety Department indicates that the
adjacent property owner again notified the Department of Building and
Safety on 4/15/86 that work was in fact proceeding (presumably to raise
the fence to 8 feet). The inspec tor verified and left a notice at the
si te. (File Exhibit B).
e) 4/16/86. The applicant wrote checks to the Fenceman Company for the
balance of the fence payment. (File Exhibit B and D).
f) 4/22/86. Written notice was sent by the Department of Building and
Safety to the owner/applicant regarding the lack of and/or need of one or
more permits. (File Exhibit B).
g) 4/24/86. Hurst filed written complaint with Spokane County Planning
Department regarding the various violations of the fence regulations
pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. (File Exhibit E).
r
Fi ndings, Conc1 usi ons and Deci sion Page 3
WYE-66-86 Fullenweider
6. Legal counsel #or the Zoning Adjustvr advises that the owner of a
parcel of 1 and i s ul timately the party hel d responsibl e for violations af
various land use and building regulations. Legal counsel further advfses that
thi s responsi bi1 i ty for 1 egal compl i ance with the vari ous bui 1 di ng and 1 and
use 'taws cannot be passed an by any form af civil tontract, insofar as the
County wi 11 not recogni ze any shift i n responsi bi 1 i ty. The Zoni ng Adjustor
takes no posi ti on wi th regard to any contraetural rel ati onshi p between the
vwner/appl i cant and contractor Fenceman wi th regard to res,pansi bi 1 i ty or 1 ack
there of as it pertains to obtaining permits for canstruttion work performed
by the contractor.
7. Essenti al ly, the twa cri teri a the Zoni ng Adjctstor needs to exami ne ta
act favarably upan an appl itati on for a Waiver of Vi01 ati on are: (1) whether
the applicant erected the pro3ect in good faith and with every intent to
comply wi th the provi si ons of the Zoni ng Ordi nance; AND (2) wtri 1 e not
complyi ng wi th every detai 1 of the pravi si ons af the code, does the
constructz on vi olate the spi ri t ar intent of the ordinance?
a) With regard ta the applicant's good faith and intent to comply with
the provi sioras of the Zorri ng Ordi nance, there wa s a consi derabl e amount of
c+onflicting testimany. The complaining neighbors, Hursts, are not on
speaking terms with the app7icant, Fullenweider; therefare, no direct
communication took place between the twpo of them with regard ta early
notification of possfible illeqal construction. The Hursts can simply say
that they turned in reports to the proper Spokane County agencies in a
timely fashfon and that they, on more than one occasion, spoke to the
contractor regarding his construction af an illegal fenCe. We knaw that
the Hurst's cantacts to the Spakane County agencies did not prvduce a
result in a timely fashion capable of stapping the constructian of the
illegal fence portions. It also appears that any contact with the
contractor did not reach the applicant in a manner persuasive enough to
have him cease the construction. None of these however, reflect upon
applicant Fullenweider's good faith and intent to comply. Testimony from
Mr. Zeismer, the Fenceman estimator for the Job who was braught to the
hearing by the Hurst's attorney (oppositian), indicated that the applicant
was made aware of the need to seek permits and obtain variances for the
illegal heights. Howeaer, upon cross-examination by Mr. Ful'tenweider's
attarney, Mr. Zeismer said that he "believed" that he told these things to
Mr. Fullenweider; that it was his standard procedure to review each of the
items on tMe contract proposal and that in the process of doing so, he
would have gone over the square which Is checked on the contract as the
owner's responsibility to obtain permits. On the ather hand, Mr.
Fullenwe3der categvrically denies that any such canversations took place.
Therefore, the Zoning Ad3ustor is essentially going to ignore the
testimony of bath of these persons and rely i nstead vn that i nformation
whi ch is i n wri tten form. That i nfomati on, i n i t's most important form,
is that the owneriapplicant signed a cantract for fencing which indicated
that he was assuming responsibility for permits. At the very best, Mr.
Fullenweider stated that he asked the Fenceman employees whether or not
the fence could be raised to 8 feet and they are alleged to have said,
"You're in the Yalley, aren't you?", and proceeded to buila the S foot
high fence. This may well be true, but it does not absolve the applicant
from ul ti mate responsi bi 1 i ty tor obtai ning permi ts far constructi on work
performed on hi s property.
b) Regarding whether or not the project viQlates the spirit or intent of
the Ordfnance, the Zoning Adjustor notes that various height limitatians
have been set forth in the Zoni ng Ordi nance wi th regard to fences based on
rea sons which are not cl ea rl y spe11 ed out in the Ordi nance. However, a
zoni ng ordi nance i s based on ser►eral general pri nci pal s. These pri nci pal s
are usual ly descri bed a s p41 i ce pawer regul ati ons far the purpvses af
protecti ng the heal th, safety and general wel fare of the cf ti zens,
Yarious bu1k, height and setback standards as prescribed by zoning
ordinances are usually descri bed as bei ng for the purposes of provi di ng
1ight, ai r and ci rcul ati on. The Zoni ng Ordi nance parti al ly def i nes a
(front) yard as "an open space...unoccuppied and unobstructed from the
ground upward". t}ne must assume that the limitation of 6 feet of height
in every place except the frant yards, wherein 36 inches is prescribed,
wa s desi gned to achi eve those ki nds of pri ncipal s. Any excesses of these
height 1 imi tatians rould therefore have to be ronsi dered
• r ~ Findings, Conclusions and Decision Page 4
WYE-66-86 Fullenweider
to one degree or another, not consistent with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance. Dealing with each violation seperately, the Zoning Adjustor
makes these observations:
i) The ei ght foot ta 11 secti on of fence immedi ately opposi te the
Hurst dwel l i ng uni t certai nly provi des pri vacy to the appl i cant from
viewing by neighbor Hurst. But at the same time: the 8 foot fence
severely reduces the natural light available to the Hurst's
sub-ground 1 evel rooms; creates a 1 i abi 1 i ty of presently dimi ni shed
aesthetic appearance from within the dwelling and consequently, a
diminished economic value, thus making the Hursts "victims" and
certai nly restri cts the vi si bi 1 i ty whi ch the Hursts mi ght otherwi se
have, even i fit i s only of an al l owed 6 foot tal l fence and varyi ng
amounts of the Fullenweider property improvements and other property
improvements in the area. The 8 foot tall fence is constructed 33%
in excess of the standard provided in the code.
ii) Regarding the 42 inch high chain-link fence on the southeast
property line in the front yard, the Zoning Adjustor notes that the
height excess is only 6 inches or less than 17% in excess of the
standard. The chain-link fence is also not sight-obscuring and was
not the subJect of any i ntense cri ti ci sm.
iii) Regarding the 6 foot high sight-obscuring cedar fence on the
southwest property line, the Zoning Adjustor notes this fence to be
100% in excess of the 3 foot standard. There was considerable
testimony that this portion of fence was a problem with regard to
safety in the neighborhood. However, much of thi's testimony was
addressed at that portion which exists in the 8 to 10 foot wide
right-of-way for 25th Ave. and is not part of the Zoning Adjustor's
territory of authority. The County Engineer's Office observed this
fence area in the right-of-way and felt that it did not significantly
i nterfere wi th vi si bi 1 i ty. On pri nci pal , the Zoni ng Ad3 ustor f i nds
that neighborhoods which have no sidewalks have a special problem
which should be delt with by minimizing or eliminating landscaping
and structure improvements wi thi n the ri ght-of-way i n an effort to
provide walking area for pedestrians. When the right-of-way is
continually broken up by impassable shrubbery and fences, the
pedestrian is forced to walk in the street and, if cars are parked
along the curb, (which is not illegal in this area), the pedestrians
are forced to walk around automobiles and into very close contact
with moving vehicles; such cannot be considered in the best interests
of the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens. The
purpose of the 36 inch high fence in the front yard was possibly to
disuade people from cutting across lawns from one house to another
and from walking through shrubbery and flowerbeds. But the 36 inch
height was also designed, in the opinion of the Zoning Ad3ustor, to
allow viewing of activities from one yard to another, including
children playing at or near these fences, and to allow for thorough
vi si bi 1 i ty of the traffi c on the streets as persons are exi ti ng fran
their driveways, usually while in the process of backing up and when
visibility is significantly restricted.
8. The Zoning Adjustor concurs with attorney McDevitt who criticized the
criteria the Zoning Adjustor must use to evaluate whether or not to grant a
Waiver of Yiolation. However, that does not relieve the Zoning Adjustor from
havi ng to use those cri teri a.
9. any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding
herein is hereby adopted as such.
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. Statements made by a party that they did not know of a law and hence
di d not i ntenti onal ly vi ol ate i t when ac ti ng contrary to the provi si ons of
that law, cannot be viewed as an indication that a party acted in good faith
and wi th every i ntent to comply wi th the 1 aw. One need not descri be the
^ _ .
,
Fi ndi ngs, Concl usi ons and Deci si on Page 5
WVE-66-86 Fullenweider
degree of breakdown of society i n general whi ch woul d occur i f that pri nci pal
were allowed to prevail. So the law therefore set up to hold each property
owner accountable for knowing and being responsible for adhereing to the
various land-use and building laws. The law also assumes that it is
reasonable to expect a property owner who enters into a contract for
construction work and signs such a contract with clear reference to the fact
that it is his responsibility to obtain the necessary permits, that in fact,
the person signing the contract has read the contract. It took the Zoning
Adjustor approximately 4 minutes of perusing the contract to conclude that the
person signing the contract was assuming the responsibility for various
permits. Therefore, it is not possible for the Zoning Adjustor to conclude
that thi s project was erected i n good fai th and wi th every i ntent to comply
with the provisions of the Ordinance. This conclusion applies to: (1) the
sec tion of the fence on the southwest property line which was raised to 8
feet; (2) the 6 foot tal l secti on af fence exi sti ng on the southwest property
1 i ne i n the front yard (30 foot front yard) ; and (3) the 42 i nch hi gh fence i n
the front yard on the southeast property line.
2. The second issue which the Zoning Adjustor must deal with is that
involving whether or not the project violates the spirit or intent of the
Ordinance. The conclusion reached is that the Zoning Ordinance and the
Planning Enabling Act of Chapter 36.70 RCW clearly intends that local
government be able to set various standards with regard to height regulations
and restrictions. The County has done that when it established a 6 foot
height for fences (unless a variance is sought and obtained) for every place
except the front yard, where it established a 36 inch height for fences. The
Zoning Ordinance defines the front yard to include space which is unoccupied
and unobstructed from the ground upward except as otherwise provided in the
code. It is saying that the basic front yard appearance on our residential
streets is one in which there are unobstructed views. A sight-obscuring fence
6 feet in height certainly obstructs views and does not leave the front yards
collectively unoccupied and existing as open space. A 6 foot sight-obscuring
fence is in fact a 100% increase over the standard provided for these
otherwise unoccupied and unobstructed spaces. The 42 inch high cyclone fence
is not sight-obstructing and is slightly less than 17% deviation from the
standard. The 8 foot section of fence restricts light to the Hurst's property
to the imnediate southwest and is a 33% excess over the standard. These
negative aspec ts outweigh any possible assets which the fence might provide to
both properties with regard to privacy. Obviously, the Hursts may pu11 their
blinds if they wish to have prlvacy, as can the Fullenweiders. If privacy at
ground-1eve1 in the back yard of the Fullenweider's residence is of concern to
Fullenweider, it is substantially achieved by a fence 6 feet in height, since
few persons eye-levels exceed 6 feet when standing next to a fence. It is
unlikely that the Hursts are going to spend time in their bedrooms peering out
windows into the backyard of the Fullenweider's. Nence, the conclusion is
that the 8 foot section of fence also violates the spirit and intent of the
Ordinance.
3. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion
herein is adopted as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Flndings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor both
DENIES and APPROVES specific portions of the Waiver of Yiolation application,
with the following stipulations and conditions.
1. The following shall apply to the applicant, owner and successors in
interest.
2. Fa i 1 ure to comply wi th thi s deci si on shal l consti tute a vi ol ati on of
the Zoning Ordinance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are
appropriate.
3. The Wai ver of Vi ol ati on i s deni ed wi th regard to the 8 foot tal l
section of fence erected on the southwest property line. The fenCe is
therefore directed to be reduced to the same height as the fence sections on
ei ther si de of the 8 foot secti on wi thi n 30 days from the si gni ng of thi s
order or the final resolution of any appeal hereto.
•
Fi ndi ngs, Concl usi ons and Deci si on Page 6
WYE-66-86 Fullenweider
4. The Waiver of Vi ol ati on i s deni ed for the 6 foot porti on of the fence
erected in the front yard along the southwest property 11ne. It is directed
to be reduced to 36 inches in height to a dlstance 30 feet from the front yard
1 i ne on the pri vate property section withi n 30 days from the signi ng of thi s
order or the final resolution of any appeal hereto. Technically, the Zoning
Adjustor cannot address the portion of the fence constructed within the
right-of-way; that is, from the front property line to the curb. ?he Zoning
Ad3ustor stronqy encourages the Coun~t E,9n ineers Office to take action to
cause the fence to be remove~#ro~n theri ght-of-way or be reduced to a iefght
of 36i nches.
5. The Zoning Adjustor APPROVES the Waiver of Yiolation for the 42 inch
tall fence constructed along the southea sterly property 1ine. The same
conment i s made to the County Engi neers wi th regard to the porti on of that
fence actually constructed within the public right-of-way.
DATED THIS„ D'~ OAY OF OCTOBER, 1986.
oma . os r,
Zoning Ad3us , Spokane County
Wa shi ngton
FILED:
1) Applicant
2) Parties of Record
3) Spokane County Engineers Office
4) Spokane County Health District
5) Spokane County Utilities Dept.
6) Spokane County Dept. of Building & Safety
7) Planning Dept. Cross Reference File and/or Electronic File.
NOTE: ANY PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THIS DECISION MUST FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THIS DATE.
0053z/10-86
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Date T 9 _
Inter-office Communication
T O . . . V u ~ , . 1
From
Sub ject '
I
~ ab it relates ro the publzc road right-ul-way was noGed. 1 alsu .
~ , . _ . . . ,
~ . ')rh Avenue,
:~:lisrance is adpounte to rhe Norrh frorn 12524 E. 25fh and t .
iAtc3tL LI: Ct ~li l -'L L6 ; l'-I
--cil a,ld 25rh Avenues is being conducted. If a problem exists ar rh<it 1«k-~:' t
rnnert't• wi 1 1 bo cnrC;;rtE=d hv t-hu- Coiinfv Er.prir.per'-, Ofric, .
~
' August 26, 1986
Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
North 721 Jefferson Street
Broadway Center Building
Spokane, W A 99260
RE: Hearing August 26, 1986 - 3:30 p.m., WVE-66-86
Dear Su:
This letter ls written to offlcially request that you deny the request for walver of
violatlon for a fence on the property at East 12528 - 25th. My request for your denial is
based primartly for (1) the safety of children and pedestrians; (2) malntenance of value of
adjoining property; (3) for the maintenance of Lllumunation (sun) of adjoining property;
(4) the malntenance of aesthetlc value of the adJacent homes.
The prlmary safety issues are:
(1). Blocks the vislon to the corner
(2). No clear vlew to 25th (South)
(3). 25th (South) heavily traveled
(4). Spokane Transrt Route and school bus route
(5). No sldewalk - requues walkung in the street
(6). Slx foot fence limit vlew to the corner of 24th and 25th
(7)• Cannot effectively utilize Blockwatch '
(8). Line of sight at the corner 24th and 25th is above the 3 ft. sight line.
"fhere are three violations of the Spokane County Code regarding a fence:
(1). Violatlon of the 25 f t. setback at 3 f eet hlgh (current fence 6 f t. high
from curb - adjacent to Hurst's)
(2). Violation of the 6 foot high fence (current fence Ls 8 feet hlgh adjacent
to Hurst's resldence)
(3). Violation of the 25 foot setback at 3 feet hlgh. (Current fence ts 3 feet
6 inches) adjacent to Shelton's).
Based on the safety factors and others menttoned above, I am requestmg you deny the
request for variance, and lnstruct the property owners to bring the three listed vlolations
up to code wlthin established time lines.
I wtsh to thank you for your attentative review of this matter, and hope and pray your
decislon will enforce the current code regarding fences.
Sincerely,
C
~
Harrell H. Hurst
~
Frank and Judy Price
E. 12525 25th
Spokane, Washington 99216 Ect, ~
August 18, 1986 '~~G 2,
1980
PIA sOIf qlVE Co
N~ RN,,
Spokane County Planning Dept. DEPA
T MENI
N. 721 Jefferson St.
Spokane, Washington 99260
lte: File # WVE-66-86
Dear Sirs;
We have been a neighbor of the Fullenweider's for a number of years.
During this period in the neighborhood, they have been what may be considered
model home owners. All aspects of their home improvements have done
nothing but enhance their home and those of us around them. Thefr new
fence follows in these standarda and that minute section of eight foot .
height which is not visible to anyone in the neighborhood with the ex- -
ception of their neighbor when they are in their eight foot wide walkway ~
down the side of the houses. The fence does supply a bit of seclusion :
which normally one is afforded from the builder of a home but in their
case it was overlooked.
The fence poses no problem with regard to setting a standard for the neigh-
borhood in general.
We have no objection to the variance being issued.
Sincere
Frank Price
. f
,
l- ~
~
/ F
r
Judy Price F
cc: Mr. and Mrs. Fullenweider
E, 12528 25th '
Spokane, Washington 99216
_ ' T~ ~
.
O
~
~
.~--'"r Z'~. r2 T*~ ~ ~y E
Ir r+ G` ~ ► ~,h- ~3TM
~ I4Y'►t
o t ~4 t'N . 1 ~
or ~ G ` • ` 1
l ~
e~ • ' T ,
d . - ar ri C3
'r ! • ~
w ~ rpp*g
2
07 1►A
~ V
r EL
pf nes A.
1 i t ~:~ct,~ry ~ QJ
C ~ rd M 4 dd.~ t M . J ~ ~+dAko
~ Y
y ~
1 # VA
• •t
` ~i►
! w ~
~ ~wt ~ ~`~R'~~`♦ ~ i ,.,R A~ a►
il
~ii► a` ~r~~~~ ~
G~~
~
s . .
.
" r IK
fi,~-~'i
4 ~ ~ J.~ • ~ Tfr4
. ,
6 TM s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 4 , 1 • ~'ip ~ ~
~
i a~► ` ~
• • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'T~ G ~
T YM ~ ~ ~ .
ve 66
,
Jqt ~ ► '
%A ~ ~ •
~ Z ~a
• _ ~ ~d9 j'~ - `
.
. •1?,~.,
,
~
ta 40
. ~ + • •~i~,~r ~i ~
AOOO
• 1
+4v~ 4 ~ ~ J ~ ~ _
. ~
1
a7-~ 5-44
wc_ ,
. i3r'~J~ 4 1 ~ L 1~ ~}'tlk lil/ {Ea`L I ! ~ t
i' ~
~ 13 0i
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROAOWAY CENTfiE BUILOING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
C ~ R °1
PHONE 456-2205
. ~
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
r "
SPOKAHE COUNTY COURT MOUSC
RIECLll 1Y L6(!lJ
MEMORANDUM DEc 5 1986
T0: Spokane County Board of Adjustment SPO"PyE COUNTY ERSGINEER
FROM: Thomas G. Mosher, AICP, Zoning Adjustor
DATE: December 3, 1986
SUBJ: Report to the Board from the Zoning Adjustor pursuant to WVE-66-86;
Appeal of the denial of a Waiver of Violation.
The case before the Board involves several fences constructed without
buiiding permits and without variances from the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance. The fence segments Nhich are in violation are the following.
1. The front side-yard easterly property line wherein a 42 inch
chain-link fence is constructed to a height of 42 inches, whereas the Zoning
Ordinance stipulates a maximum of 36 inches.
2. The west front side-yard property line, wherein a solid, cedar-board,
6 foot tall fence is constructed, whereas, the Ordinance stipulates it should
not exceed 36 inches in height.
3. The west side-yard property line where the fence is constructed to a
height of 8 feet for approximately 30 feet in length opposite the one-story
house to the west.
Note that the fences are constructed to the curb, which includes
construction within the approxinately 8 to 10 foot wide right-of-way. The
Zoning Ordinance technlcaTly does not regulate height within the right-of-
way. Hence, the Board's decislon, as well as the Zoning Adjustor's decision
is confined to the front-yard area. We must rely on the Spokane County
Engineer's Office to deal with the presence of the fence in the right-of-way.
Mr. McCann spoke of making a second inspection and possibly may have a revised
position on this matter.
~
~
I noticed that the appellant has attempted to leave an open-ended appeal
f by closing his appeal statement with the following, "Applicant reserves the
right to amend this notice of appeal as necessary at time of hearing." I'm
not so sure that the Board needs to deal with an expansion of appeal in that
manner. I would certainly like to make myself available for a response if, in
fact, the applicant does expand the appeal during the hearing.
To grant a Waiver of Violation, a two-fold test must be met. As I am
prone to say, I believe the decision basically speaks for itself. Regardless
of what else the Board may hear in the process of what will most likely be a
long hearing, the fact remains that the applicant signed a contract in which
he assumed the responsibility for obtaining the necessary permits. I am
advised by legal counsel that the owner/applicant is ultimately responsible
for any illegalities with regard to construction occuring on his/her
property. Had the applicant made any inquiries whatsoever with regard to
fences of 6 feet and 3-1/2 feet of height in the front yard, he would have
been advised that these fences needed variances before construction. He would
also have found upon inquiry that the 8 foot section of fence required a
variance also, as well as a building permit, because it's height exceeded 6
feet. The applicant did not make any inquiries about permits, thus not
assuming responsibility as indicated by his signing the contract. Therefore,
in no way could i find that he acted in good faith and with every intent to
comply with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
With regard to the second criteria for consideration of a Waiver of
Vioiation, the question arises as to whether the construction violates the
spirit and the intent of the ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance sets forth
front-yards, in 4.03.020 66., as open space, unoccupied and unobstructed from
the ground upward, most likely for "aesthetic" values, observation associated
with pedestrian safety and vehicular ingress and egress from private
property. Therefore, I concluded the 6 foot tall, front-yard fence violates
the spirit and intent of the Ordinance and also anrounts to a 100% deviation
from the 3 foot standard, a deviation greater than should be allowed. The 42
inch fence, I concluded, was not a gross deviation and therefore not a
violation of the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
With regard to the 8 foot ta11 section of fence, it is the intended
purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for adequate light, circulation of
air, general visibility over and around side-yards and rear-yard fences, while
sti11 maintaining the privacy of the immediate ground-level back yards and
ground-level floors of structures. I concluded the 8 foot fence does not
allow for adequate light and casual visibility of tree canopies in the area,
and sky. It certainly does insure privacy of the ground-level area of the
applicant's back yard; but at the expense of selectively narrowing the view
from inside the dwelling unit to the west with regard to things which should
ordinarily be visible from the windows without invading the privacy of
~
~ the applicant's situation. Obviously, an argument can be made that the fence
is needed to break up the line-of-sight from the ground-level bedrooms of the
dwelling unit to the west to the upper-level rooms of the applicant's house.
However, I would submit that the responsibility for blocking this possible
invasion of privacy rests inside the applicant's house in a form of drapes,
curtains or blinds and not at the edge of the property line with a fence 8
feet tall.
Finally, let me comment upon the stated reasons for appeal as submitted in
the appeal request form. The appellant states that the Zoning Adjustor's
decision is arbitrary and capricious in light of the facts and the law in this
case. Quite to the contrary, the Zoning Adjustor held two hearings, visited
the site numerous times, listened to an enormous amount of testimony and
arguements from attorneys on both sides, carefully weighed the evidence,
sought legal counsel with regard to what factors and points of law were to be
considered and then made a decision. The last time I checked the Washington
State court cases on arbitrary and capricious, it would be impossible to claim
that I acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
The appellant also claims that there is 3ustification in the surrounding
neighborhood and adjoining property for granting the requested variance,
(emphasis added). The case before the Zoning Adjustor was not a variance and
the variance criteria of the law was not used. The case is, of course, a
Waiver of Yiolation and the standards to be used are quite different.
Admittedly, the standards in evaluating a Waiver of Violation are sub3ective
and not subject to applying particular facts or circumstances against
measurable standards.
The appellant claims there has been an error in the application of
papplicable 1aw and ordinances" to the facts of this case. That is the task
with which the Board of Adjustment is faced. Obviously, I do not feel that I
erred in the appilcation of the law or the ordinances as I understand them.
If you be1 ieve I may have, please seek clarif ication from our legal counsel.
Pat Frankovic can make such arrangements, if he is notified in advance.
cc. Rob Binger, Deputy Civil Prosecuting Attorney
Bob McCann, Spokane County Engineers Office
♦
$PQKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PUBLIC HEARING
AGtNDA; October 8, 1986
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Oept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
WAIVER UF VIOLATION FOR A FENCE
This itern will he heard at 2:00 Gene rally located southerly of and adjacent to
p.m. or as soon thereafter as 25t h Avenue, approximately 240' westerly of
possible) Vercler Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 27-25-44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a waiver of
violation to allow a 6' high sight-
obscu rring cedar fence to remain on
the southwesterly property line and
a 6' high cyclone fence on the south-
easterly property 1ine. Sections
4.17.040 and 4.04 A.090 subject to
a.l. of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance requires; (a) that no fence
over 36" in height be e rected within
the 30' northwesterly front yard at
the southwesterly property line; and
(b) that no fence over 36" in height
be erected within the 25' northeasterly
front yard at the southeasterly prop-
erty line.
SITE SIZE: 9900 sq. ft. (approx.)
APPLICANT: C. R. Fullenweider
3. 'CUN-18-86 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY MANUFAC-
(This item will be heard at TURED H DEPE D IT REtA~I1~E
2:30 p.m. or as soon there- Generally located south of and adjacent to Jack-
after as possible) son Road in the NW 1/4 of Section 1-28-44.
PROPOSAL: To allow a temporary manufactured home
for a dependent ralative to be located
on the subject property. Section 4.13
.120 m, and 4.2 4.560 of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance allows such a
use in the Unclassified Zone with the
granting of a Conditional Use Permit.
SITE SIZE: 19.48 Acres
APPLICANT: James Kromer
Rt 2, Box 76
Elk, WA 99009
4. VN-103-86 RELAXATION OF FRONT YARD SET BACK REQUIREMENTS
(This item will be heard at Generany iocated north of and adjacent to
2:45 or as soon there- Bedivere Drive, in the SE 1/4 of Section 8-26-43.
after as possible)
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a variance to
locate an addition to a single family
resi dence, 19' 6' from the front prop-
erty line, whereas Section 4.04A.090
a. 1. of the Spokane County Zoning
Ordinance requires a 25' setback from
the property line in the R-1 Zone.
SITE SIZE: 16,700 sq. ft.
APPLICANT: Gary Nardwick, E. 705 Bedivere Drive,
Spokane, WA 99218
~
~ •
Vi ~
~ ~ yh
r
Y G ~ s
. , ,'0.00
~ A\
1 ~
r
~ go-ff~ '
F~,nT YAYd
a
.
~ ~ y ~
e~
~ . ~
. .
a~y ~
,
,
~Q, / ~~y ~
~
,
, CL
+9~ '
Q~~:~►~~~Q'W'~'a~
r~: ~~r~ry , ~TY
No "
~
.
, " . s~ ~ • t 121 ''AVE
/I~n Q+ ~ ~ ~ s.~•rs 12~M ,
~Ttt
•s~ .
~ww+ t !I.4T .
tM N AV
. .
rt ' 1
~ ~ .
.
i ~ ~ sM T v
-
~ ~ . • ~ P' ~ ~ _ TM ~ ~ ~ ` - •
` ~ • /~jA~s ~ ~ •
+Gt '~'M~~Ir~A . ~ +d ~
J ~
IV t ;
M ' E L. 20 TZeCs
r• n e s • ac ~ 1 ~ Y,,
4114me t ter a • i ."'c+t
~ ,~at MRdd.p ~ . ~ r,~s~ ' ~ ~
, d ~o.►o -
• ~ ~
,o • e ~ ~
• # . ' .
aca a♦ t9 ~t ~ ~ -
y ,r..t wr ~ • '
• 4 ' ~~tt to
AO ,
. • s~0~
, v P~' e;~ ♦ ~c y~tH
e~'~• ' ~
. •
~ ~ .
ob~ , , a • A~► ,
Q./ a .
~ T~ ~ • ° _ ~ 66-86
i
L '
'~1 • • .
~V
, 1A
u, ~ • ~z
~ ~ e ali 76. Wl ~jd ~l9
° , , , ; , • . " ~••t + a -
r.-.s-~:^►.
~ ~~6 r „t~. ~tM ~ : r.• ~
0•
~
. r p
~o
~ j .
r~~ ~VO •
N
` • :
~ •1► W i
s.tr„j.T►~ t~~~ • r
~
OFFICE OF COUNTY ENGINEER
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
pQte July 9 19 86
Inter-office Communication
To Spokane County Zoning Adjustor
From Spokane County Engineer ~,M, C
Su6ject Agenda Items Scheduled for Public Hearing Julv 23, 1986
1. VN 80-86 Rinck - Subject parcel is eerved by a private road easement which is 30
feet in width. The attached comments pertain to that private road easement.
2. VN 71-86 Staats - We have no comments concerning this application. An approach
permit must be obtained from the County Engineer prior to release of a building
permit.
3. WVE 66-86 Fullenweider - No comnenta concerning thia application.
4. VN 85-86 Borjessan - Subject parcel is served by a private road easement which is
18 feet in width. Spokane County Road Standard stipulate a minimum easement width
of 40 feet whea property ie outside of the Federal Highway Administration Urban
area boundary and when the density falls within the semi-rural/rural category. It
also provides that the ataadard is applicable when two or more parcels are served
by the easement.
It is recommended that the easement width be increased to 40 feet. This will elim-
inate the need for reviaions to the easement should future divisions of the proper-
ty take place. A 40 foot wide easement will assure that there will be adequate
space for roadway construction and maintenenace.
Please see the attached comments which pertain to the acces8 easement.
5. VE 86-86 Brady - Subject parcel ie served by a private road easement which is 30
feet in width. The attached comments pertain to that private road easement.
6. CUW 13-86 Burris - No comments relative to this application.
7. VS 84-86 Diana - No commenta relative to thia applicatioa.
BMc/lvb
SPOKANE COtriiTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUHLIC HEARING
AGENDA; July 23, 1986
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Department, N. 721 Jefferson St.
2nd floor hearing room
(VN-71-86 continued) lot's width. The parcel exceed
the allowed ratio insofar as
the depth is approximately 65
times the lot's width.
SITE STZE: 4.9 acres
APPLICANT: Jack Staats
3. -VM-=66=46 WAIVER OF VIQLATION FOR A FENCE
(This item will be heard Generally located southerly of and ad3acent
at 2:00 p.m. or as soon to 25tn Avenue, approximately 240' westerly
thereafter as possible) of Vercler Road in the SW 1/4 of Section
27-25-44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a
Waiver of Violation (Section
4.25.030 e. Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance) to allow an
8' hiqh (26' in length) fence
to remain on the southwesterly
property line. Section 4.17.04
of the Zoning Ordinance require
that no fence shall exceed a
height of 6' without first
obtaining a variance.
SITE SIZE: 9900 sq. ft. (approx)
APPLICANT: C. R. Fullenweider
4. VN-85-86 RELAXATIOV OF ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT
(This item will be heard Generally located in the SE 1/4 of the SW
at 2:30 p.m. or as soon 1/4 of Section 31-26-450 easterly of the
thereafter as possible) intersection of Plora Road and Wellesley
Avenue.
PRtJPOSAL: To allow a sinqle family resi-
dence to be located on a parcel
of land havinq 0' of County
road frontage, whereas Section
4.04.040 of tbe Spokane County
Zoning Ordinance requirea 100'
of continuous public road front
age in the Aqricultural zone.
Access is proposed by means of
an 16' wide easement road
extending easterly to tne site
from the intersection of Flora
Road and Wellesley Avenue.
SITE SIZE: 10 acres
APPLICANT: Loyd and Edith Borjessan
-2- continued
~ ~ ♦
■
i
i
► O
i
ow ~
~ r y~ ~AVE
' ~ so >
1211A
T N C` ' s 13
, • 2 7
; ~ ? t'!t♦" 4 T
tN 1 Av
< ~ V
~ d I . TN ~TM •
. a
. - r'~~ • ~ Mt'
r * , ~'p.t ~~n~s ~ ~ . , ~ ' • J v
Ca ~liry~ 4 ~ W
. . ; =
~ , j; Y' • `L
, ~ EL 207ZL~► ' "r'It,C
N ` p•,ne5 • ~t ~y q•~
ci.~sr ~ dd. W lT~ s~ dJ
t
~
~ . ~ R'OA►Q
- a ' o •
d
4 . r ~ t''
3 sT
. «~•~'w `~R~.~'~' 2. E ~
2 No t. 0*p~~-
` , SP Z~►
~ of yyTt~
' V ~ ~ , ~ •'w ~ • ♦ Z~'t-H
^
TM v y ~ ~ ~ ~ '
.
~
4
` • x ~ G 1
. .
~t~ ~ ~ ~
~
vie
~~N p • ! • ~3
~
~
,
~ - ' sp"
. -?6
. ~ ~4
~ L
. • • 12 ~
. . • • N t ~ - s ~ •
• a 11 ~r
, 1161
',:AQOO
• ~ + La ~ }1 ~ •j ~ ' r+
a''• ~i _J ~ j~
. ~
~ • t ~
~ +7T 1~ ~ ~
~r: ,r~
1
'NO
t ~
SPOKANE EOUNfiY pLANNING DEPARTMENT
{ APPLICaTIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTORJBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certi fi cate of Exemption Appl i cati on File #:V.AE-66-86
Name of Appl i cant: Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Fullenwider
Street Address: E~ 12528 25th Avenue
Nome: 926-0104
City: Spokane State: WA Zip Code:99216 Phone:Work: 456-2645
Name of P rope rty Owne r(s Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Ful lenwider
REQUESTED ACT ION ( S)( Ci rcl e App rop ri ate Acti on
Vari anceW Conditional Use Permi t Non-Conforming Lot/Use
aiyer op Yiolation orary Use/Structure Other:
*
* FOR STAFF USE ONLY
*
*
*Ci te 0 rdi n an ce Secti on :!K~• O1 d Code New Co de : t
*
~
*Se ct i on ~'7 Towns h i p Ran ge P rope rty Si ze : ~
* *
t
*Existing Zoning: F.L.U.P. Designation: L044-x
*
*PSSA: Q N UTA: Q N ASA: H FIRE DIST.: LEGAL CHECKED BY: _ ~
* Q
*Heari n g Date: 2:~ 11r~,G Staff taki rig i ri App1icati on : *
*
Existing Use of Property: Bes; denua1_ Qwner Occunied
Describe Intended Proposal: To remain the same
Street Address of Property: E• 12528 25th Avenue, Spokane, WA 99216
legal Descri ption of Property ( Iricl ude easement i f appl i cabl e),:
L,ot. 8 in Block 1 of HILLCREST ACRES FIFTH ADDITION
Parcel 27541-740 ~ SourCe of Legal t Transamerica Title Co.
Total amount of acjoining land oontrolled by this owner/sponsm This ;,orgnert,y oaly
What interest d0 you hOld in the property; Pee si=le
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this propertyp none
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PERh1ISSION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BEHALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOYE
RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
Si gned: - ' -600
Address : ~ k g ~ A ~
Phone No.: ~9~ ~ ~vaP- Date: Zg Soviage oFt
, ~ .
• NOARY ~ Nota :
NOTARY SE . rY
PUBLIC Date : tu At l~ t 1°lb6 ,
`PI'
q~~, , l~, >
p~ ~~AS~►e~ j' (over)
,
~
,
A. BURDEN OF PROQF
It is necessary for the applicant or his/her representative to establish the
reasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to l iteral ly put forth
the basic case. Accordingly, you should have been given a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc. ) designed to help you present your case
in a way which addresses the criteria which the Zoning Acjustor must consider.
Please fi11 the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the P1 anning Department personnel for advi ce on how to proceed.
QB SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
1
COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
0
A prel iminary consultation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The appl i-
cant s
PI een informed of requi rements and standards.
30
gnat ( Oate) ISi gn-of 041i ved)
2 COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMEHT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The-appli-
4gn be i forn~ed of requi rements and standards.
' 30-A
Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
3. )C4UNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
,t<A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl icant een infornied of requi rements arid standards.
30~
gnature Date) ( Si gn-off Wai ved)
The applicant is required to discuss the proposal with
to become inforned of requi rements and
standards.
.
(District Si gnature) (Date) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
4. :.)WATER PURVEYOR (Waive i f outsi de CWSSA) NAME: (,(~~7&Z,
a) The proposal is/ismat located within the boundary of oLr future servi ce area.
b) The proposal fs/is not located withfn the boundary of our current district.
c) We are abl e to se rve th i s s i te wi th adequ ate wate r. AtmiKoYe3c-106-.
5 EmV e~D
d) Satisfactory arrangements have/ba4pe-nst been made to serve this proposal.
A(
gnature IDate~ S~gn-off Waived)
,
~
Nr"~ME: C_ R_ u11F±nwidar
FILE VE-66-86
II. WAIVER OF YIOLATION, (Section 4.25.030 f, of Zoning Ordinance)
A. Was project erected in good faith and with every intent to comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, explain how you exercised good
fai th and intent and sti 11 ended up in viol ati on of the Zoning Ordi nance?
When I built the fence I thought it complied with all applicable
provisions of the zoning ordinance. I went to a local reputable
fence contractor and explained the fence I wanted and he indicated
no problems with it. I relied upon him for expertise concerning
the zoning ordinance since it was his business. While they were
erectinq the fence, I requested that a portf.4n be raised to 8'.
The contractor replied, "you're in the valley aren't you," then
went ahead and built the 8' portion. I ds.d not intend to violate
the zoning ordinance and had no idea I had done so until I received
a letter from the Department of Building and Safety.
B. Whi le not oomplying wi th every detai 1 of the provisions of the ordinance,
explain how the project is consistent with the spirit o r intent of the
o rdi nan ce? •
The fence does not create a visual hazard from the street, and
does not obstruct the view of neighboring property any more than a
fence in complete compliance with the restrictions ordinarily
would. The one 8' section which is only 26" long, is essential to
provide privacy because of the ha.gher than normal elevation of the
windows in my west side neighbors' home. The fence is well built
with the highest quality material and workmanship available. It is
attractive and is essential to provide a visual buffer and backyard
privacy from the two streets which border my property. Additionally,
it increases security for all neighboring properties. The fence
accomplishes this with the minimum intrusion on neighboring property
owners possible.
.
rr
~
• ~
a ~
\
,
,
~ ~ P~
r
~
'
~
~
&tl
Noy-rh n
~
u F~ o rf T' )fA
.
a ~
~
♦ `
~
♦ ` ~
.
~ .
~ • `
.
~ • ~ ~ ~ `t I
y
~ a
~
r'9
f ~
hret 5-ry eQ ,-s IR Ye- 40. c~ , A e 14%
~
~
~V~ ~
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR - PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA: August 26, 1986
TIME: As set forth below
PLACE: Spokane County Planning Dept., N. 721 Jefferson St., 2nd floor hearing room
6. CUN-43-85 Continued
subjects of the hearing will be
confined to: (1~Ublic
Whether or not the
relative in question qualifies as a
dependent relative under the terms of
the Spokane County -Zonirag Ordinance;
and (2) in the event that a Conditional
Use Permit is granted, under what
conditions of approval regarding the
screening, if any, the manufactured
home should be subJect to in order to
protect adjacent properties.
SITE SIZE: 2 acres
APPLIEW : Ca1 t -Hanson
~
7. WVE-66-86 WAIVER OF YIOLATION FOR A FENCE
(This item will be heard at Generany iocated southeriy of-and adjacent to
3:30 p.m. or as soon there- 25th Avenue, approximately 240' westerly of
after as possible) Yercler Road in the SW 1/4 of Section 27-25-44.
PROPOSAL: The applicant requests a Waiver of
Violation (Section 4.25.030 e. Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance) to allow an
8' hlgh (26' in length) fence to remain
on the southwesterly property line.
Section 4.17.040 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires that no fence shall
exceed a height of 6' without first
obtaining a variance.
SITE SIZE: 9900 sq. ft. (approxl)
, APPEICANT: C. R. Fullenweider
-4-
~ SPOKANE COUNTY pLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPLICATIONS BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Certi fi cate of ExerrQtion Appl i cation File #:LAAE-66-86
Ndme of Appl i cant: Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Fullenwider
Street Address: U* 12528 25th Avenue
City: Spokane State: wA Zip Code:99216 Home: 926-0104
Phone:Work: 456-2645
Name of P rope rty Owne r( s): Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Fullenwider
REQUESTED ACT ION ( S)( Ci rcl e App rop ri ate Acti on
Yariance(s) Conditional Use Permit Non-Conforming Lot/Use
~ aiYe1^ of Yi ol atiori orary Use/Structure Other:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * # * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*
* ZI 426~F AFF USE ONLY *
* Ci te 0 rdi n an ce Se cti on : ~&1:7• *
* 47410 01 d Co de New Co de : t
*Se ct i on __27 Towns hi p Ran ge 14~ P rope rty Si ze : t
*Existing Zoning: F.L.U.P. Designation: t
*
*PSSA: Q N UTA: Q. N ASA: Q N FIRE DIST.: LEGAL CHECKED BY. • ,
*
*Heari ng Date: 27, l~z6 Staff taki rig i n ApT1 i cati on : *
*
Existing Use of Property: Residential Owner OcciixDied
Describe Intended Proposal: To remain the same
Street Address of Property~ E. 12528 25th Avenue, Spokane, WA 99216
Legal Description of Property (Incl ude easement i f appl i cabl e),:
L.ot 8 in Block 1 of HILLCREST ACRES FIFTH ADDITION
Parcel ,27541-2- nR Source of Legal; Transamerica Title Co.
Total amount of acjoining land vontrolled by this owner/sponsors Th,.s proper y only
What interest do you hold in the property: F'ee s~mn~~
Please list previous Planning Department actions involving this propertw: none
I SWEAR, UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY, THAT: (1) I AM THE OWNER OF RECORD OR AUTHORI-
ZED AGENT FOR THE PROPOSED SITE; (2) IF NOT THE OWNER, WRITTEN PEDIISSION FROM SAID
OWNER AUTHORIZING MY ACTIONS ON HIS/HER BENALF IS ATTACHED; AND (3) ALL OF THE ABOVE
RESPONSES AND THOSE ON SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ARE MADE TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF
MY KNOWLEDGE.
O~ Signed: •
~~Q E► ~ Address :
7! ~c-
'~io~ Phone No. : ~'z ~ avp ~ Date : ~e
NOTARY SE L: ~0~~~~ ~ Notary:
~ PUBLIC
L°' Date : S,AY 1 °tb(,
~t•~, ~ ~ ~
q~,~. , 15► ~ ~c,'~ ,
Ivoll ps~►e~ j (over)
e
~I
A. BURDEN OF PROQF
It is necessary for the appl i cant or his/her representati ve to establ ish the
reasons why the requested proposal shoul d be approved and to 1 i teral ly put forth
the basic case. Accordi ngly, you shoul d have been gi ven a form for your requested
action (variance, conditional use, etc. ) designed to help you present your case
i n a way wh i ch add res s es th e c ri te ri a wh i ch the Zon i n g Adjus to r mus t cons i de r.
Please fill the form out and return it with your application. If you didn't get a
form, ask the Planning Department personnel for advice on how to proceed.
B SIGN-OFF BY COUNTY DEPARTMENTS
1 COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT
A prel iminary consul tation has been hel d to discuss the proposal. The appl i-
cant s een inforn~ed of requi rements and standards.
' PF~-30
S gnat (Date) ~Si gn-of Wai ved)
2 COUNTY ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT
A preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The appli-
cant h be i formed of requi rements and standards.
".30-~
OCN
iS gna u Date) (Sign-off Waived)
3. )COUNTY UTILITIES DEPARTMENT (Waive if outside WMAB)
qg 0orA preliminary consultation has been held to discuss the proposal. The
appl icant een infornied of requi rements arid standards.
. V30~
na Thate) (Sign-off Waived)
The appl icant is requi red to discuss the proposal with
. to become infonred of requi rements and
standards.
(Distri ct Signature) (Date) (Si gn-off Waived )
4. WATER PURVEYOR (Wai ve i f outsi de CWSSA) NAME: _ffPa<A,_
.
a) The proposal is/4zwoet located within the boundary of our future service area.
b) The proposal is/is not located within the boundary of our current distri ct.
c) We areable to serve this site with adequate water. '-w%aY cac-I&J&,
d) Sati s facto ry a rran gements have/bave-~~et been made to s e rve this ropos al .
~ _ ~ ~ ~ <5-' 2~- 8-4
~ gnature) IDate) (Si gn-off Wai ved)
~a-
.
NAME: Fullenwider
FILE # V)VE-66-86
II. WAIVER OF YIOLATION (Section 4.25.030 f, of Zoning Ordinance)
A. Was project erected in good faith and with every intent to comply with the
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, explain how you exercised good
faith and intent and still ended up in violation of the Zoning Ordinance?
When I built the fence I thought it complied with all applicable
provisions of the zoning ordinance. I went to a local reputable
fence contractor and explained the fence I wanted and he s.ndicated
no problems with it. I relied upon him for expertise concerning
, f
the zoninq ordinance since it was his business. Wh31e they were
erecting the fence, I requested that a porti~on be raised to 81.
The contractor replied, "you're in the valley aren't you," then
went ahead and built the 81 portion. I did not intend to violate
~
the zoning ordinance and had no idea I had done so until I received
a letter from the Department of Building and Safety.
6. Whi le not complyi ng wi th every detai 1 of the provisions of the ordinance,
explain how the pro3ect is consistent with the spi rit or intent of the
o rdi n an ce? '
The fence does not create a visual hazard from the street, and
does not obstruct the view of neighboring property any more than a
fence in complete compliance with the restrictions ordinarily
wou],d. The one 8' section which is onlY 26J WonJ. is essential to
provide privacy because of the higher than normal elevation of the
windows in my west side neighbors' home. The fence is well built
with the highest quality material and workmanship available. It is
attractive and is essential to provide a visual buffer and backyard
privacy from the two streets which border my property. Additionall
it increases security for all neighboring properties. The fence
accomplishes this with the minimum intrusion on neighboring propert
owners possible.
y,'~ t;
f
~ . ~ ~4le-
d
,
- ~ ~
. _ ~
~ - ~
~
~
~ .
~ ~
, .
.
~ e
• ~ 4~ y~, ~ry
' • ' p ~ y+~
~ .
G
~ ♦
h-~
r"-rYeQ*~
M
r