Loading...
HE 2007-001 Isadore Henderson Variance POWELL & GUNTER Attorneys at Law 1025 Jadwin Richland,WA 99352 (509)943-6781 Facsimile (509)946-5177 Alan B.Gunter 600 S.Columbia Bon E.Powell Cannell,WA 99326 (509-)234-6581 *Please respond to Richland office. July 17, 2007 City of Pasco RECEIVED Attn. David McDonald 525 N. Y'Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 JMLOPMENT DEPT. Re: City of Pasco vs. Henderson Dear David: Enclosed please find my decision to the above matter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you. Sincerely, POWELL& GUNTER CN Alan B. Gunter ABG:sln/PascoHenderson Enclosures PASCO MUNICIPAL VARIANCE HEARING IN RE VARIANCE REQUEST } } CASE # 07-001 BY ISADORE HENDERSON } This matter was heard on July 13, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., at Pasco City Hail in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Isadore Henderson for a variance for a reduced side yard setback for a storage shed. Alan B. Gunter acted as Hearing Examiner. Present were David McDonald, on behalf of the City of Pasco, and Isadore Henderson on behalf of the Applicant. Based on the testimony and records submitted at the hearing, the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is located at 1608 Road 30, Pasco, Washington in a R-2 zone. 2. R-2 zoning permits accessory structures to be built. 3. Accessory structures in the R-2 zone must maintain a minimum side yard setback of 5 feet. 4. An un-permitted storage shed at 1608 Road 30, Pasco, WA violates the side yard setback requirement. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1.The request for a variance was properly submitted to the office of the hearing examiner for the City of Pasco and all proper notices were given. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction and authority over the request for a variance. 2. In order for the approval of a variance the Pasco Municipal Code requires three determinations in the affirmative. A. Because of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privilege enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. The Applicant argues that because of the location of his septic system and drain field and the other improvements on the property, he can not locate this shed in any other location. If the shed were smaller it could conform to the set back requirement. Strict application of the set back requirement will not deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similar properties by the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. The granting of a variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. C. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the actions of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. Had the property owner applied for a building permit the size and location of the shed could have been adjusted to meet the set back requirements. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were created through the actions of the applicant. ORDER The application for a variance is denied. Dated Alan B. Gunter-hearing examiner F:\...\docs\pasco.hendersondecision