Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />11. Plaintiff then commenced this declaratory judgment action <br />to require the City to issue a building permit for the above-grade <br />deck addition and the city counterclaimed, requesting that the <br />court compel removal of the partially completed deck. <br />12. The criminal matter is not res judicata in this action <br />due to the difference in the burden of proof and the difference in <br />standards of review between a criminal punitive action and a civil <br />remedial action. <br />13. The policy of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is to <br />prevent uncontrolled use of shore land so as to avoid a deleterious <br />effect on the natural ecology and aesthetic environment. Section <br />18.020 and .030. The 75 foot setback provision is a part of such <br />policy. <br />l4. The on-grade patio deck consists of 2x6 boards nailed to <br />2x4 sleepers and laid on a bed of sand and is not attached or <br />affixed to the house in anyway. The patio deck simply sits on the <br />ground with no footing support. <br />15. Section 18.080 (10) defines a structure as any building or <br />appurtenance thereto. Plaintiff's grade level patio deck is not a <br />building or an appurtenance thereto as it is not attached or <br />connected to the building in any manner. It therefore is not used <br />to determine the existing setback at the time the shoreline <br />management ordinance was adopted. <br />16. Alternatively, if the on-grade patio deck is a building <br />or an appurtenance thereto, the building of the above-grade deck <br />permanently attached to the home would be an extension, expansion <br />or intensification of the area contained within the non-conforming <br /> <br />4 <br />