1979, 12-07 Zoning InvestigationZONING INVESTIGATION SHEET
Property Address E. 12121 Marbfield
Directions (if nec.)
Nature of Investigation illegal setbacks of apartments
(Include any relevant dates)
File Plumber
Date Received
Investigator
Taken By
Date Resolved
12-7-79
Occupant
Address
Owner
Ed L. Smith
Address E. 12121 Mansfield, Spokane
Phone
Zip
Phone
Zip
99206
Complaintant
Address
--CONFIDENTIAL--
Phone
Zip
Parcel No. Zoning of Property Ag.
Legal Discription 9-25-45
Applicable Permit No.'s
Effective Date
Sections of Ordinance Applicable
Previous Violations
File #'s
Non -Conforming Use
a ! - 3
„garzz4 k14.44.4:1(//- p.t/po
--u „t2/4.1r Carte
/ %✓ cat // �i�<,
CONTACT RECORD
DATE
TYPE
COMMENTS
/-19g-(o
& /e f/W 1(s
f I -d W,f-l-i 001 AcIc.ma‘ The, hcatie no+ ypiiad {eP, 0, wa've4 _ db.
1 • Zl• So
-Ea ' P yiJ 56 )i N -ForLoA121v ro pjE05 m_ a F
ilk•&0
1041°
MA viNcao
r6 toi- ca IV?)
volgogt 51Atottiiu
. i4-. Geo (646
— itko
/bo4I-Lou k3 W4 (00
f
o 910 MI tittTk ow
*4A L OA- o i /WI big. 1'1J -also
s v ,WD
CtDl`gohm'
/ I
To- orr; N
+ `r5—rtII)
4
—1015kL
nt •
h
''(' 1
.�-,111wdto/ - L
covn1,1 ink
6 045
t61, 1 !aft 5 `-t-k's A{ orC '.
Ina va
cil(si
,--(si r wa;1/43-e.
12- w) cAA. n .f 0,1006--Vb4\ QcotAadk_
1 n-)
_,
&mita,
Petar -
lactoilvIr
Nod S- go 110 *3 Loks
I
ee RAerA
'5 4
f iz• la • pc. --rLstAD 11 4 --
Stiut
`( k� ks. j
(L(4 -
'
'1, 80
- cad 04,13.14kb
cehiva— rk
loamt"
rico c zdkiw '.a # 61.t kilr
wowa•
kitme Jr° CO• 4i./fv.. . (left*e_
couaof
J‘i}it (-oh of viiLt . vii---
-1-;
col,..tvoox
wa,.
hAiiL
ea
eel - e)cpioeufW P
DIaL_ •
4 -7544 it-
wtt
lict, 814
1 .
1. iZ _
1 --i
4
4o t It ( u'f Oesse et - os.. a icy.,— Tik o� 5 ft& i0 1�f
- oistAtA at~ OtkAJ fit, ( aft Joj
L-,--,.
I. !3.4,
,
!Mt
ZONING VIOLATION LNV..t6T1L iiUN rtnuvi
File Number: - 9J•
�G� GJ�/ Date Received: 1 - 7- 71
G`�o
G Investigator:
Nature of Investigation:
ic) L4-1/8-0.41
Property Address: % U O O
Occupant: Telephone/
Legal Description: Section ? Township •- �Range y
Zoning of Property: Effective Date:
Section of Zoning Ordinance Applicable: Non -Conforming Use?
Previous Violations: File Numbers:
Owner: C..01�
Address: ,r
Informer: - PCO—O.Lw
)11/41$14 Address:
Telephone: Telephone:
Letter Correspondence
Letter #1: Date Sent: Occupant: Owner:
Results:
Letter #2: Date Sent: Occupant: Owner:
Results:
Field Inspection
Inspection #1: Date: /2—%2 --9 T Comments: EGG ,4,
r)A/may �k1
Inspection 42: Date: Comments:
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE
BUILDING CODES DEPARTMENT
BUILDING —SIGN BOARD —GAS —HEATING —PLUMBING .
811 North Jefferson Street — Spokane, Washington 99260 ,
Telephone: 456-3675
JAMES L. MANSON, Director
�s 44/
December 7, 1979
Edward L. Smith
E. 12121 Mansfield
Spokane, Wa. 99206
RE: Duplex Structures 12000 Block of -Mansfield.
Dear Mr. Smith:
It has come to our attention that some of the duplex units constructed in
the 12000 block of Mansfield, bounded by Perrine Street on the west and Robie
Street on the east do not comply with County setback requirements from property
lines. These building locations do not agree with the approved plot plans
submitted to our office bearing your registered professional engineer's stamp.
The structures in question are two townhouse -type duplex structures and one
single story duplex structure abutting the north property line.
Among the options available to you to bring these structures into compliance
with County regulations are the following:
(1) Acquisition of additional property to the north of your property so that
these structures would be provided with the physical yards necessary
to comply with setback regulations.
(2) Obtaining necessary variance or waiver from the Planning Department to
allow the buildings to remain in their existing relation to the present
property line. If such permission is granted by the Planning Department,
the requirements for fire-resistant wall protection of buildings located
less than five (5) feet to a property line must be complied with as stated
in the Uniform Building Code.
(3) Removal or cutting back of the buildings to provide the required setback
distances.
Efforts to initiate compliance with these requirements must begin within 30
days of the date of this letter. Non-compliance with our requests will require that
this matter be referred to our statuatory legal councel for further action.
R ECEIVED
DEC ; 1979
SPOKANE COUNTY •
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PAGE TWO
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
456-3675.
EBW:pkh
cc:
Sincerely,
Wote'?)4t4.
Edward B. Wilczak
Assistant Director
Ted McCoury
Zoning Investigator
Spokane County Planning Commission
Blaine Johnston
Acting Chairman
Board of Trustees
Spokane Valley Elks Lodge No. 2328
P.O. Box 14033
Spokane, Wa. 99214
4
7 co *'C
Kocf.t
Pi
7
r
re;t4431uar V
,-� Tow NE
t/a �-t Ho wt (
SPOKANE COUNTY COURT HOUSE
December 26, 1979
Mr. Edward L. Smith
East 12121 Mansfield Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99206
Dear Mr. Smith:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BROADWAY CENTRE BUILDING N 721 JEFFERSON STREET
PHONE 456-2205
SPOKANE WASHINGTON 99260
CERTIFIED
This letter is in response to a complaint our office received about several
duplexes failing to meet the necessary set -back requirements. Upon our
initial investigation, we found several of the apartments did indeed violate
County set -back requirements. You must come in to our office and apply
for a Waiver of Violation on each of the apartments in violation. You
should get in touch with Doug Adams of this office to find out what proce-
dures you will need to follow. You will have just thirty (30) days in
which to apply for the Waiver of Violation.
If you have any further questions about the matter, please contact our
office.
Sincerely,
•
Colin R. Craig
Assistant Zoning Investigator
CRC:wji
PS Form 3800, Apr. 1976
TOTAL POSTAGE AND FEES _ IS
POSTMARK OR DATE
CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES
I POSTAGE
P.O., STATE AND ZIP CODE
Spokane, Wa. 99206
SENT
Mr Edward L. Smith
STREET AND NO.
E. 12121 Mansfield Ave.
OPTIONAL SERVICES
CERTIFIED FEE
RETURN RECEIPT SERVICE
f RESTRICTED DELIVERY
SPECIAL DELIVERY
SHOW TO WHOM, DATE AND
ADDRESS OF DELIVERY WITH
RESTRICTED DELIVERY
SHOW TO WHOM AND DATE
DELIVERED WITH RESTRICTE
DELIVERY
SHOW TO WHOM, DATE,
AND ADDRESS OF
DELIVERY
SHOW TO WHOM AND
DATE DELIVERED
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
lIVIN 031311a30 UOd 1dI303d
0 StNDt K. Complete JuCMS 1, t, and s.
Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on
reverse.
I. The following sen ice is requested (che(k one).
O Show to whom and date delivered ... ,c
❑ Show to whom, date, and address of delivery,._Q
CI RESTRICTED DELIVERY
Show to whom and date delivered ....
RESTRICTED DELIVERY.
Show to whom, date, and address of delivery. S—
(CONSI'LT POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO:
Mr. Edward L. Smith
E. 12121 Mansfield Avenue
Spokane, Wa. 99206
3. ARTICLE DESCRIPTION:
REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO.
408677
1 (Always obbin sipnatwe o1 addressee or spent)
I have received the article described above.
SIGNATURE ❑ A ressee ❑ r u ent
a
DA= D[rEfj
•. POSTMARX
ADDRESS
5- (Complete only i/ repuestef)
6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE:
"INITIALS
.,} 000. sae-vz-zzz
TO
DATE- c'• TIME
while y u we out
OF
URGENT! ❑
Called You ❑
Please Call ❑
Returned Your Call ❑
Was Here To See You ❑
Will Call Again ❑
Wants to See You
TELEPHONE NUMBER
MESSAGE: z-7/(7.5 &77
a'k; SiIl�
SF 8023- 3
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS E SE"T�rAVDVYM� T
Print your name, address, and ZIP Code in the space br ee
• Complete items 1, 2, and 3 on the reverse. P STA E,
• Attach to front of article if space permits. Ot
affix to back of article.
Endorse article "Return Receipt Requested" adja- J AN 3 1980
cent to number.
T.McC.
RETURN 111
TO
SPOKANE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
("7:3Th..
UsirrilliAl L.
Spokane County Planning nPpartmPnt
North 711 Jefferson Street
Spokane, Washington 99201
it itt. SCur. ,:n,l 711'
from the desk of .. .
HOWARD C. GORST
Assistant Director
Building Codes Department
C^ (27s ex
"46 6-/ehey
6-C_6_ & C . / s cam- ()3
JUc-c-� IL((S T6 s 1-fAN y (,A)
G lc t7b Zvk /L/
SPOKANE VALLEY LODGE No.2328
B. P. O. ELKS
P. O. BOX 14033 - PHONE 926-2328
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99214
November 8, 1979
Inspector Larry Murray
Inspector Herb Schlosser
Spokane County Building Codes Department
North 811 Jefferson
Spokane, Wash. 99201
Re: Spokane Valley Elks' Property
Encroachment by Adjoining Property Owner
(Our File No. 10903)
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the Board of Trustees of Spokane Valley Elks' Lodge
Property owner of land in Pinecroft addition, desires to set forth
regard to the County Building #2328, as a
Code set -back re an area of concern with
requirements.
(See accompanying map showing an enlarged portion of Tract 33 in Pinecroft Addition, on
which map Ed Smith's property is south of the
quarter section line and the Elks'
property is north of the
quax'ter section line.)
The common boundary between the Elks' property and the propert
the centerline of Tract 33.
Y of M r. and Mrs. Smith is
As a result of an error,
An arprty ol, Mr. Smith built some structures on his property which encroached
ging the
Elks. Subsequently, Mr, Smith, upon being adivsed of the
encroachments.
encroachment and Bey done by Mr. Adams in September, 1977,
removed the physical
However, the Elks are concerned as to what effect, if any,,
have because of the proximity to the Mr. Smith's present structures
haveld, in anyway,Property line. The affect the future use of the property Elks theo not feel thethatf the error
s
ment or sale of the property to a third Y by Elks or future develop-
I�rty.
The Elks would appreciate a responsee to this letter advise
be any adverse effect on the usethe
of thenpr s position to
Very trulyproperty by the Elks.
yours,
3POKANE VALLEY ELKS LODGE NO. 2328
'rank Larson
hairman, Board of Trustees
c: Mr. Jerry Neal, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
ZZ Z 3�
.Jet ►Jo
kiNt-
• h. r••.„.
ill
557 7o'
•
4/.5
.o
DG rr3 'T1
� I
1
ti
1
53 7o'
/HIP S",A7rL A q yr
0
11,
P.0T P!4f
DC C - (2) 5,e
35'
•
••••Ag..--• -...•-•••••••••••••*?••••••.- ZL:V3711:112,461,r4s1.••
' •
&37a1
e • L0.2- - (9-74 /1A(2577fLO
)
St.A.Le:
Pion 1014n
64.1.,06 () _Bits 70wi7Nousrf E4x.A1
41110V747:0 4q5etrzoPt:Aelf-nrrr
•
from the desk of .. .
HOWARD C. GORST
Assistant Director
BuildlinCodes Department
figa-of
Mu-eY eCK s
rf /p4 i/ci(L /ayssrk6
/51±',0-/,c_
(/(vdig-/-
-c«�+►,� S�q ��61�no
(N. (.05 °;4°C tiotivt.;41_
,id` lk>;4.D' 1�r fvf'°(Pir
per,.
e`-'`A4\''
>3 -7f
v
La C6RJat _rot V t0
f io [oR-- No U i a.
pa- q.ges)
To 2 „e,,i. --
Date // f Time ' tr—
WHILE Y,lioU WEE CUT
M �C-e2'-!1.!- ems/
of A-
Phone 5-7
Area Code Number Extension
TELEPHONED
X
PLEASE CALL
f C
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAI N
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
Message
RETURNED YOUR CALL
?efvokt t emg t rz-TA
6elbevlar SOL Ok- lo let-
t kitiA o f CsI nbfeihY19.r lootAki-
cmaiof ('P?) File C? .
? y2L ---
Operator
EFFICIENCY® LINE NO. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCT 60 SHEETS
i
-iY)a,
To /' kL'
J
-,;
tej
•
Date / 0 Time (,r9.5
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M l,� v),�L
wad
of
Phone ~
Area Code Number Exte
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
I,
CALLED TO SEE YOU
.7
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message ty ,L4� L
L�,�[.y
cLAc2�
r,
aty g0-76,NvCA-Let,iZ a-
a,
di 7
Operator
EFFICIENCY® LINE NO. 2725 AN AMPAD PRODUCT 60 SHEETS
At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of
this application.
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
TIME:
PLACE:
1
Wednesday, November 5, 1980 1:15 p.m. '
N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference room, 2nd floor
WAIVER OF VIOLATION
WVE-10-80, LOCATION OF 3 DUPLEXES IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
a. Location:
b. Applicant:
Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM
That part of Tract 33 lyg and being in the NE 1/
of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9, Twn 25N, Range 44 EWM
in Spokane County, Washington, and Tracts 39, 40
41, and 42 Pinecroft, according to plat recorded
in Volume I of Plats, page 35, in Spokane County
Washington. Parcel #: 09544-0901 and 0902
Edward L. Smith
E. 12123 Mansfield
Spokane, WA 99206
c. Existing Zone: Multiple Family Suburban
e. Waiver Requested:
Applicant asks for a waiver of violation in that
constructed 3 duplex in the above area in violat
of the setback requirements of the Spokane Count
Zoning Ordinance. Applicants action was taken
in reliance on an erroneous survey and was not
done intentionally.
f. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f)
• 0
Q
.4
Nl
VE 10 80
M...L I t I F
Ari
•Jp ,I
r.RMva.t•;
C!
1��
?kt y1� aL. t.
: a Itir at _ G
•/��`.!v4TJ
I !'f.l•;rFIF1 it
9� M n N F l L D �.��,.:��
� ~
r� �.: T- 1
1• `32�-�.iats-. '.y:JcSi.K� itJ- "'�.r,
. U V' �� .--a_�n.—•'' Mt NTGOMERY
to
E.UCLI D
A>irc
a
DO
rs`EC Pr .I
rQ I
BOONE-
r) ' nj.••., DESMET A.vc
Z .♦
DES'"El
Pc
M155ION
C/ TALDU
Mtu_t.0"( GT.
ak
A
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANK I11r; DEPARTMLNf
ZONING ADJUSTOR HEARING TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
TIME:
PLACE:
Wednesday, November 26, 1980 1:15 p.m.
N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg.
Conference room, 2nd floor
WAIVER OF VIOLATION
WVE-10-80, LOCATION OF 3 DUPLEXES IN VIOLATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
. a. Location:
b. Applicant:
Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM
That part of Tract 33 lyg and being in the NA
of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9, Tin 25N, Range 44 EWM
in Spokane County, Washington, and Tracts 39,y&
41, and 42 Pinecroft, according to plat record'
in Volume I of Plats, page 35, in Spokane Coun
Washington. Parcel ii: 09544-0901 and 0902
Edward L. Smi th
E. 12123 Mansfield
Spokane, WA 99206
c. Existing Zone: Multiple Fancily Suburban
e. Waiver Requested:
Applicant asks for a riuivcr of violation in th
constructed 3 duplex iri the above area in viol
of the setback requirements of the Spokane Coo
Zoning Ordinance. Applicants action was taken
in reliance on an erroneous survey and was not
done intentionally.
f. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f)
BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTOR OF
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF:
APPLICANT: EDWARD L. SMITH
REQUEST: WAIVER OF VIOLATION
COUNTY CODE: 4.25.030 (f)
FILE NUMBER:
PARCEL #:
DATE OF HEARING:
DATE OF DECISION:
) DECISION
) FINDINGS OF FACT
) CONCLUSION OF LAW
WVE-10-80
09544-0901 and 09544-0902
November 26, 1980
December 10, 1980
REPRESENTED BY CHRIS ASHENBRENER, ATTORNEY
DECISION
TO GRANT THAT ALL VIOLATING STRUCTURES ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY
LINE MAY BE EITHER LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY LINE PROVIDING THAT
SAID STRUCTURES HAVE A ONE -HOUR FIRE RESISTANT WALL WITH NO
OPENINGS, OR BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF (3) FEET FROM THE NORTH
PROPERTY LINE WITHOUT THE ONE -HOUR FIRE WALL REQUIREMENT. NO
STRUCTURES OR ANY PART THEREOF MAY BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND ACROSS
A PROPERTY LINE.
INTRODUCTION
This matter being the consideration by the Zoning Adjustor for Spokane
County and pursuant to Chapter 4.25, Section 4.25.010, the Zoning Adjustor
has the authority to hear and decide such matters coming before him. After
conducting a public hearing to receive all public testimony and after re-
viewing the public record, examining available information, and visiting the
property and surrounding area, the Zoning Adjustor in accordance with Chapter
36.70.810 Revised Code of Washington, and Section 4.25.030 of the County Zon-
ing Ordinance, hereby makes the following:
The applicant, Edward L. Smith, filed an application on October 1, 1980
requesting a waiver of violation for three duplex structures built in violation
of the yard requirements as specified by County Code, Section 4.07.130.
The property is located on Perrine Street in Section 9, Township 25, Range
44. This matter was heard before the Zoning Adjustor on November 26, 1980.
The announcement of the decision was set for December 10, 1980 at 1:15 o.m.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
The subject property was zoned Multiple Family Suburban. on August 13, 1970
(refer. Resolution 70-475). The Zoning Ordinance requires that duplexes be set
back a minimum of 5 feet for side property lines and 25 feet for rear yards.
The applicant has developed the property for multiple family residential living.
II.
The violating structures are duplexes as shown on a survey made by Robert
S. Adams, a certified professional land surveyor and submitted as part of this
file. (This survey is identified as Exhibit A by the Zoning Adjustor). The
date of the survey is September 1977. This survey has been accepted as a true
and correct survey showing the property line and locations of the duplexes.
The following facts are knownregardinq location and construction:
1) Duplex marked No.1 on Exhibit A was contructed in 1974 and is located
1.8 ft. at its closest point to the north property line, whereas, the
Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 5 feet for a sideyard setback.
The side wall of the structures has a sliding glass door as an opening
however, there are two other points of entry located to the front and
rear. In addition, there is a roof overhang extending approximately
18 inches toward the north property line.
WVE-10-80
Page 2
This single story structure originally had a garage and concrete
driveway constructed on the adjoining property, but has since been
removed by the applicant.
2) Duplex marked No. 2 constructed in 1977 has an encroachment of 1/l0th
of a foot onto the adjoining property. This also has an eave over-
hang of an estimated 18 inches. The required setback for this struct-
ure is 25 feet from the north property line since it is violating the
rear yard setback requirement.
This structure was constructed as a two story duplex and originally
had two porches with steps attached to the north wall. The applicant
has removed these structures, however, the two glass openings are still
remaining on the north wall. The structure has two other points of
entry for each unit located away from the north side.
3) The third violating duplex marked as number 3 and constructed in 1978
is also a two story structure located 4 feet from the north property
line whereas the ordinance requires 25 feet rear yard set back.
Porches have also been constructed, however, the porch located on the
west side of the duplex has been removed. The porch on the east side
is remaining and appears to be encroaching onto the adjacent property
by an inch or less. There are two other points of entry for each unit.
III.
Each of the violating duplexes do not meet fire protection requirements of
the Uniform Building Codes because of the existing locations to the north pro-
perty line. Section 504 (b) of the Uniform Building Code requires that exterior
walls shall have fire resistance and opening protection of a one hour file wall
and no openings for dwellings located less than 3 feet from the property line.
IV.
The applicant testified that the present locations of the duplexes were
located in accordance with a survey made on behalf of the appliant by Joseph L.
Dickinson, a registered professional land surveyor. A copy of that survey dated
July 1971 has been submitted to this file and marked Exhibit B by the Zoning Ad-
justor. This survey shows that part of tract 33 lying south of the half section
line has a width of 73 feet. However, the corrected survey, Exhibit A, and
verified by the Plat of Pinecroft shows the true width to be 54.4 feet.
V.
The file contains a letter dated December 7, 1979 from the Building Codes
Department to the applicant officially notifying him of the setback violations.
The letter specified options available to bring the structures into compliance.
One such option is the aquisition of additional property to the north.
VI.
Testimony was received by the applicant describing efforts made to acquire
additional lands. No purchase agreement has been reached between the applicant
and the property owner to the north. This adjacent property is under the owner-
ship of Spokane Valley Elks 42328 and was represented at the Hearing by Robert
McKanna, Attorney.
VII.
From on -site review, it is found that the adjacent property is vacant and
because of severe slope may have limitations for suitable building sites. The
property is part of the ownership of the Elks Lodge. The Zoning Ordinance,
Section 4.24.370 , requires such uses to have a minimum lot size of 15,000 square
feet. The,,Lodges' ownership conists of approximately 3.7 acres.
VIII.
The opportunity was afforded at the hearing to any interested person to
testify regarding the applicant's proposal. Testimony was received on behalf
of the Elks Lodge's attorney, Robert McKanna, and a representative of the Lodge,
Blaine Johnston. The concerns expressed are infringement of the rights and privil-
eges as property owners, uniform application of fire and building codes, and
further stated that compromise is not the issue but whether county codes have
been violated.
WVE-10-80
Page 3
From the above noted Findings of Fact, the Zoning Adjustor enters
these:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
I.
That the Zoning Adjustor of Spokane County has jurisdiction to hear and
decide the request by the applicant pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 36.
70.810 RCW and Section 4.25.030 of the Spokane County Zoning Ordinance.
II.
That the applicant submitted an application to the Planning Department
requesting a public hearing before the Zoning Adjustor, and that pursuant to
Chanter 36.70.840 and Section 4.25.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, notice for a
nublic hearing was given through the United States mail to all property owners
within a radius of 300 feet from the subject property.
That all citizens notified and public agencies having jurisdiction were
afforded the opportunity to testify or submit written comments on the applicant's
request.
IV.
The 7nninq Adjustor concluded that the applicant did act in good faith with
the intent to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted
in Finding IV, a survey was prepared by a license land surveyor which has been
found to be in err. Further, when the applicant was first made aware of a potent-
ial error, by the adjoining property owner no survey was presented to indicate
that the applicant's survey was not correct, nor was any county official notif-
ied of a pending code violation. As supported by Finding No. V, the County
Building Codes Department was not made aware of a problem until December 7, 1979.
V.
The requirement for the issuance of a waiver of violation depends upon find -
inn that the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance is not being violated.
From site review it is found that there are special circumstances such as topo-
graphy, location, and surrounding buildings that this action, if properly condi-
tioned, will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the adjacent property
and improvements. The adjacent property is currently vacant.
VI.
The purpose of requiring setback distances from property lines is to pro-
vide assurances that adequate distances between structures are maintained for
public safety, welfare, light, air and aesthetics. Since the adjoining Property
is currently vacant the intent of yard requirements are being met.
VII.
The Zoning Adjustor concluded that conditions imposed with this action will
offer the adjoining property owner adequate safeguards and that said owner will
not be deprived of any rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity.
VIII.
The Zoning Adjustor does not have jurisdiction to resolve or grant any ex-
centions regarding structures or any portions of structures which extend across
property lines. This is viewed as an encroachment which can be resolved only
by the removal of or by acquisition of additional property. As noted in Finding
II (2), the duplex marked No. 2 does extend beyond the applicant's property line.
Further the applicant has voluntary removed those accessory structures which
were encroaching onto the neighboring property.
WVE-10-80
Page 4
IX.
The Zoning Adjustor has concluded that the concerns expressed by Attorney
McKanna are valid. In reaching a decision, these concerns are being addressed
in the following manner:
(1) Infringement of rights and privileges: The Zoning Adjustor finds that
the owner of the adjoining parcel is not being deprived of any rights
and privileges. If in the event that development does occur, compliance
with this order by the applicant will assure the property owner that
adequate safeguards will be provided to meet the intent of all county
codes.
(2) Uniform application of County Codes: The two applicable codes which
may be applied are the yard requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for
a given zone classification and the required setbacks for buildings
as specified by the Uniform Building Code. It is noted that the Zoning
Orldinance setback requirements are more restrictive whereas the purpose
of the Uniform Building Codes requirements is to provide minimum
standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property and public welfare
by regulating and controlling the design and construction for buildings.
These standards include location on properties, as well as fire and
opening protection (refer to Section 504 of the Uniform Building Codes).
According to the Uniform Building Code, the minimum distance between resident-
ial structures having a one -hour fire wall and no openings would be a "zero" set-
back. If on the other hand no fire wall is contemplated the minimum distance
between two residential structures would be six feet.
The Zoning Ordinance would require a minimum distance between two resident-
ial structures of 5 feet of each story of the structure from the property line
assuming said structures meet the definition of a side yard. Therefore the mini-
mum distance for two single story structures would be 10 feet.
Therefore the owner of the adjoining property would still be able to utilize
his property for development without being penalized as a result of the Zoning
Adjustor's action. Assuming that the subject property line would be the side
yard, the Elk's Lodge would be permitted to develop to within 5 feet of the south-
ern property line. Further it is concluded, this property because of size and
view potential, the preferred building sites would be away from the property line
and the subject duplexes owned by the the applicant.
(3)
Compromise: As noted hereinabove the Zoning Adjustor does not have the
jurisdiction nor authority to force an agreement between two private
parties. The issue being addressed with this decision is to resolve
as equitably as possible the code violations without infringing or
damaging properties and improvements and to offer through attachment
of conditions adequate public safeguards.
X.
Any Conclusions of Law hereinabove stated which is deemed to be a Finding
of Fact is adopted as the same.
That from these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law hereinabove
stated, the Zoning Adjustor as a means to uphold the spirit and intent of County
Codes and to provide public safeguards and protection of adjacent properties
enters these:
CONDITIONS
I.
In order to validate this action, the applicant shall submit to this file
evidence that these violating duplexes are in compliance with the Zoning Adjustors
decision as stated hereinabove.
ENTERED THIS /(,- DAY OF ...,WW/0
ED UNDER COUNTY CODE SECTION 4.25.030.
, 1980, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANT -
ZONING ADJUSTOR FOR SPOKANE
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Spokane County Plan ry(ng Dept.
WVE-10-80
Page 5
PURSUANT TO SECTION 4.25.090 OF THE SPOKANE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES THE FINAL DECISION OF THE ZONING ADJUSTOR, APPEALABLE
TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF SPOKANE COUNTY WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF THE
DATE OF THE WRITTEN DECISION BY THE ZONING ADJUSTOR AND SHALL BECOME EFFECT-
IVE AT THE END OF THE APPEAL PERIOD.
7&3
At said time and place any interested person may appear for, or against, the granting of
this application.
APPEAL HEARING
SPOKANE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING
TIME:
PLACE:
TELEPHONE NO: 456-2274
Tuesday, January 13, 1981 9:00 a.m.
N. 721 Jefferson, Broadway Centre Bldg
Conference Room, 2nd floor
WAIVER OF VIOLATION
WVE-10-80, Location of 3 Duplexes in Violation of Setback Requirments
a. Location:
b. Applicant:
Section 9, Township 25, Range 44 EWM
That part of Tract 33 lyg and being
in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 9
Twn 25, Range 44 EWM in Spokane County
Washington, and Tracts 39, 40, 41 and
42 in Pinecrofts, according to plat
record in Volume I of Plats, page 35
in Spokane County, Washington.
Parcel#: 09544-0901 and 0902
Edward L. Smith
E. 12123 Mansfield
Spokane, WA 99206
c. Existing Zone: Multiple Family Suburban
d. Waiver Requested:
Applicant asks for a waiver of vio-
lation in that he constructed 3 duplex
in the above area in violation of the
setback requirements of the Spokane
County Zoning Ordinance. Applicants
action was taken in reliance of an
erroneous survey and was not done in-
tentionally.
e. Application of Zoning Ordinance: 4.25.030 (f)
NOTE:
The Zoning Adjustor on December 10, 1980 granted applicants waiver of violation with
conditions that the applicant construct a one -hour fire wall on the duplexes as are
currently on the site or locate them a minimum of 3 feet from the north property line
and further provided that no part of the structures be permitted to extend beyond the
property line. The applicant appealed this decision stating that the conditions are
arbitrary and compunctious and not comporting with the findings set forth in the
Zoning Adjustor decision.
// .;::` `:i' 7:.:''`ri •+v L_ID AVE
N _
r• i
WVE 1® 8®
itlirc
Pc
C)
U
�r IrM drili I,A, i,�F
DR' I � Iln W
CID
\�'• �' J41SLC .
10
o�T::�x..an... ' '- M n N� F I L�'iiCChlcr .. :�.��„ • s^...
l•�
_ �� •�-a'.._m.� `JrS jtS'i :'�y^'.._., :•+_ '._-;.'rvi iia fm .._•'.„'s. it _. C _
LAR Imo..--•7T=� T
-� L- • ;_T/- M. NI('U M EN,
nopoll
_1
cc IONA N
iDt O n 6: 'tea pl. ' � •
ELf�J�4 MISSION
'yLl 1 __....- `.II(V II = j IlT0 •�;
A, ELL
�. O
` al C SH.+ft I
I.
3 BOONS '
�I y 111 nl..�. MEi AE .vj� --......_
J { y - GE$ L G CnT al D(
i 4
r;C
-� �� `. `�• 'L DO—
Y 1YTI p
�1i++k W 1 L'I'[ ll
v
dw �+I l.i Ort h'!1 J` q I �'- u '.
Plnes J1 nlor -1000 ? A
• t In rr : 1 � ; `
j 4i