Loading...
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