1988, 11-01 WVE-19-88 Findings, Conclusions and Decisionsq /n `� 1
ZONING ADJUSTOR
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF A WAIVER OF VIOLATION )
TO ALLOW A DWELLING TO REMAIN APPROXI- )
MATELY TWO (2) FEET FROM A SIDE YARD )
[WVE-19-88]; TERRY BROWN )
COMPANION FILES: BUILDING AND SAFETY )
COMPLAINT FILE
SUMMARY OF APPLICATION:
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND DECISION
The applicant's dwelling unit is built approximately 2'-2" to 2'-8" from the west property
line. Section 4.05 A.070 a. 2. of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance requires a side yard
setback of five (5) feet for each story of the building. This Is a one (1) -story building. The
applicant seeks a Waiver of Violation to allow the building to remain so located. 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.
PROJECT LOCATION:
The property is generally located in the Spokane Valley, south of and adjacent to 7th Avenue and
east of the Dishman Mica Road in the NW V of Section 20, Township 25N, Range 44EWM. The
property is addressed as East 9510 7th Avenue. The Assessor's parcel number is
20542-1705.
DECISION SUMMARY OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR:
Based upon the evidence presented and circumstances associated with the project proposal, the
Zoning Adjustor DENIES the Waiver of Violation and orders the dwelling to be modified to bring
it into compliance with the five (5) -foot side yard setback.
OPPONENTS OF RECORD:
1. Robert. McKanna
4. Ellen T. Schimpf
7. Carol McLean
1 0. Georgine Woolcock
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Blanche M. Rinker
5. Robert R. Long
8. Dan Forsyth
11. Ella M. Denny
3. Clyde B. Markeson
6. Elsie Long
9. Robert B. Schimpf
After examining all available information on file with the application and visiting the subject
property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor conducted a public hearing on September
28, 1988 and rendered a written decision on ilcicy6« / , 1988.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The project location is as set forth above under PROJECT LOCATION.
2. In 1976 Mr. Brown, Sr. (now the deceased father of the applicant), started with an
empty lot and essentially constructed the dwelling unit, involving a manufactured home and
site -built additions thereto to the present size and extent. The senior Mr. Brown neither
applied for nor acquired any building permits; hence, when the dwelling unit was constructed
illegally to within 2'-2" to 2'-8" of the west side property line, there was never a building
permit as a check -and -balance on the setback.
It was also brought out in the hearing that there may well have been some
substandard construction techniques and materials used in the building. There was no specific
proof to this point; only allegations were made.
The present applicant, the son of the senior Mr. Brown, lived in the house a short
period of time before graduating from high school. The senior Mr. Brown died in late 1981 or
1982. The applicant, Terry Brown, was residing out of the Spokane area and purchased the
dwelling unit from his father's estate, turning it into rental property until he and his family
CASE NO. WVE-19-88
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 2
could relocate to Spokane. At the time of purchase a title search was done, and the title search
did not turn up any side -yard violation. (NOTE: The Zoning Adjustor has handled some Waiver
of Violation cases which have been detected during a title search process.)
The applicant, Brown, decided that the dwelling unit, which had a leaking and sagging
roof on its west side (apparently a bedroom space) needed remodeling. Generally, he added a
pitched roof to the building, creating a sloping -roof where a relatively flat roof existed before;
patched the leaking roof; and put siding on the west side of the structure, generally compatible
with other siding on the building. The applicant acquired no permits, apparently feeling that
there had been permits issued originally and that the remodeling which he was to undertake did
not require additional permits. He gave no indication that he consulted anybody of authority in
this decision, although a simple phone call would have clarified the need for a permit. He did not
imply that anybody had given him misinformation or misled him. The applicant did most of the
work himself, so a contractor was not involved who might have otherwise drawn it to the
owner's attention that permits were required for such work.
3. Apparently, complaints from the neighbors brought about the involvement of
building inspection staff of the County's Department of Building and Safety. Ultimately, the
circumstances resulted in the applicant's applying for a Waiver of Violation in order to allow
the existing building to remain. It is unclear whether or not the building would meet
the building code regulations even if it were allowed to remain. Such
circumstances will be dealt with after issue of the side yard setback has been
settled.
4. The adopted Spokane County Future Land Use Plan designates the area of the proposal
as Urban.
5. The site is zoned Residential Mobile Home, which allows the proposed use upon
approval of this application.
6. The existing land uses in the area of the proposal include predominantly
manufactured homes located on small individual ownerships of at least seven thousand (7,000)
square feet in size.
7. The proposal is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 43.21C RCW pursuant to
WAC 197-11-800(c)(i) and Spokane Environmental Ordinance 11.10.070(1)(a).
8. Eric Olsen, inspector for Spokane Valley Fire District, Spokane County Fire
Protection District No. 1, stated in a letter of September 22, 1988 to Mr. and Mrs. McLean
that, from a fire department perspective, the minimum five (5) -foot setback should be
maintained to facilitate firefighting activities (presumably on either property).
9. The applicant has been made aware of the recommendations of various County/State
agencies reviewing this project, and he can comply with those recommendations.
1 0. Written statements of opposition were prepared for several parties by legal counsel
McKenna, Dianne Kaatz, Carol McLean, Blanche Rinker, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Schimpf and
Clarence Vedder. Mr. Vedder's document stated that he and his wife resided in the dwelling unit
on the subject property from September of 1986 to November of 1987. He mentioned that he
finished a portion of the interior 11' x 12' structure. He mentioned that, as of November1987,
there was still some unfinished space. He further stated that the two sections were resting on
stacked concrete blocks rather than on a solid concrete base. He said that the roof at that time
consisted of 2x4 rafters approximately twenty-four (24) feet long with sixteen (16) -inch
centers supported at the roof apex by a 2' x 3' wall upright. (NOTE: The applicant identified
Vedder as hostile and says the span is approximately 11'-6", and that the upright wall
supporting part of the roof weight is of 2x4 construction. (It is possibly this "structural
defect" which may have been partially dealt with by the applicant's recent construction.)
t
1. The proper legal requirements for advertising the hearing before the Zoning
Adjustor of Spokane County have been met.
1 2. Any conclusion hereinafter stated which may be deemed a finding herein is hereby
adopted as such.
CASE NO. WVE-19-88
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR PAGE 3
From the Findings, the Zoning Adjustor comes to these:
CONCLUSIONS
1. Neither the original Iocater/constructor of the structure (the senior Mr. Brown)
nor the applicant/present owner of the structure sought or received any advice from the proper
authorities regarding building permits. No building permits for the structure built in 1976
are of record. No building permits for the recent remodeling work to try to ease the structural
problems of the roof are of record.
2. The structure is, by survey of the applicant prepared by James F. Benthin,
Professional Land Surveyor, located 2'-2" to 2'-8" from the side property line. The property
line is identified by a 3' -0" -high chain link fence.
3. Based on the above information, it cannot be said that the project was erected in good
faith and with every intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. One should
demonstrate having inquired of the Planning office regarding setbacks, or minimally have
inquired of the need for a building permit, at which time the setback circumstances would have
arisen during the review of construction drawings and inspection of the property.
The 2'-2" setback amounts to a 2.83 -foot deviation from the five (5) -foot standard
required for a side yard setback, a fifty-seven (57) -percent deviation from the standard. The
Fire Department has stated that such a minimal clearance interferes with their ability to fight
fires for both this property and the property immediately to the east.
The close proximity of the' structure to the side property severely reduces the effect
intended by the Zoning Ordinance when it requires side yard setbacks. There is a loss of
privacy, a limitation of natural light and a limitation of the circulation of air. It also makes it
difficult to attend to the needs of repair and maintenance of property which is so close to the
property line. Such a minimal space also contributes adversely to the esthetics of the
neighborhood by creating such a small space, with such limited Tight, that grass and other
residential foliage will likely not grow. It is also a difficult space in which to attempt to
maintain grass and attend to it with a normal lawn mower.
4. Any finding hereinbefore stated which may be deemed a conclusion herein is adopted
as such.
DECISION
From the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the Zoning Adjustor DENIES the
proposal. The following is stipulated.
STIPULATIONS
I. GENERAL
1. The applicant, heirs, assigns or successors in interest are responsible for bringing
the property into compliance with the zoning laws and the building code laws.
2. A Title Notice shall be filed in the Auditor's office indicating the general extent and
degree of violations, in an effort to inform prospective purchasers that, at least until repaired,
there are zoning and possible building code violations at the property.
3. The owner or other responsible party shall bring the property into compliance
within one hundred eighty (180) days of signing of this order, or within one hundred eighty
(180) days of the outcome of any appeal of this order.
4. Failure to comply with any of the conditions of approval contained in this decision,
except as may be relieved by the Zoning Adjustor, shall constitute a violation of the Zoning
Ordinance and be subject to such enforcement actions as are appropriate. The Department of
CASE NO. WVE-19-88
Building and Safety shall
the building code and the
SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ADJUSTOR
PAGE 4
be the agency charged with bringing the property into compliance with
setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
DATED this / Sa/�,ay.
FILED:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
, 1988.
Thom
Spokane
Mos er, AICP
g Adjustor
unty, Washington
Applicant
Parties of Record
Spokane County Engineering Department
Spokane County Health District
Spokane County Utilities Department
Spokane County Department of Building and Safety
Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1
Planning Department Cross-reference File and/or Electronic File
NOTE: ONLY THE APPUCANT OR AN OPPONENT OF RECORD MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN TEN
(10) CALENDAR DAYS OF THE ABOVE DATE OF SIGNING. APPEAL MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
$100.00 FEE. APPEALS MAY BE FILED AT THE SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING, NORTH 721 JEFFERSON STREET, SPOKANE, WA 99260.
(Sections 4.25.090 and 4.25.100 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance)
TGM/rp