Loading...
HE 2009-001 7-27-09 Marquez v COMMUNITY'DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 509-545-3441 /FAX 509-545-3499 P.O.BOX 293, 525 NORTH THIRD AVENUE,PASCO,WASHINGTON 99301 July 27, 2009 Jamie 8v Susana Marquez 730 West Bonneville St. Pasco, WA 99301 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Marquez: Enclosed is a copy of the Hearing Examiner decision on your request for a fence height variance. The Hearing Examiner approved your variance request. You will need to obtain a building permit prior to constructing the fence. If you have question about this matter please contact the City Planning Office at 509-545-3441 or communitydevelopmenta,pasco-wa.gov. Sincerely, David McDonald City Planner XC: Rick White, Director, Community & Economic Development Mitch Nickolds, Inspection Services Manager enclosure: POWELL & GUNTER FIECEIVE® Attorneys at Law JUL 2 7 2009 1025 Jadwin Richland,WA 99352 (509)943-6781 COMMUNffY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Facsimile (509)946-5177 Alan B.Gunter 600 S.Columbia Don E.Powell Connell,WA 99326 ------------------------ (509)234-6581 Rachel M.Woodard *Please respond to Richland Office July 24, 2009 Dave McDonald, City Planner 525 N. 3rd Avenue Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Variance hearing-James &Susana Marquez Dear Dave: Enclosed please find my Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order granting James and Susana Marquez's variance request. Yours very truly, POWELL&GUNTER 2 ---- Alan B. Gunter ABG:msh Enclosures PASCO MUNICIPAL VARIANCE HEARING DECISION IN RE VARIANCE REQUEST ) CASE# 09-01 BY Jaime and Susana Marquez ) This matter was heard on July 15, 2009 at 3:50 p.m., at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Jaime and Susana Marquez for a variance to PMC 25.76, which requires the height of fences in front yards to be 3.5 feet,to allow the Marquezes to place a 6-foot fence in the front yard area of their lot. Alan B. Gunter acted as hearing examiner. Present were Shane O'Neal on behalf of the City of Pasco and applicants Jaime Marquez and Susana Marquez. Based on the testimony and records submitted at the hearing,the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT A) The property in question is located at 730 West Bonneville Street. B) The property is zoned as "R-1, Low Density Residential". C) The property is a corner lot at the intersection of 7' Avenue and West Bonneville Street. D) The property is bordered by an alley on the south property line. E) PMC 25.75.050(c) states: "The height of fences, walls, and hedges shall be limited to 3.5 feet within the front yard area of residentially zoned lots, retail business and office zoned lots; provided, when two contiguous corner lots, or two corner lots separated only by an alley right-of-way,form the entire frontage between parallel or nearby parallel streets, the height of fences, walls and hedges shall be limited to 6 feet within the front yard adjacent to the side street." F) PMC 25.12.490 defines a Front Yard as "an open and unoccupied space extending the full width of the lot between any building and any street right-of-way adjacent to the lot." G) A parcel created after the original platting of the Pettits Addition separates the applicants' property from the corner lot at the intersection of 7'Avenue and Clark Street. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND ORDER ON VARIANCE REQUEST -1- H) There is an existing 6-foot fence in the front yard setback area on the corner lot at Clark Street and 7`''Avenue. I) The applicants have made a request for a variance,and all required notices have been given. J) No opposition to the variance has been received by the City of Pasco, and no opposition by neighbors to the variance was presented at the hearing. K) A determination of non-significance under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is warranted. 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. Because of the special circumstances applicable to this property,the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 3. The granting of a variance to allow the fence requested by the applicant 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. 4. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the actions of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ordered: That the applicants' request for a variance is granted. Done this TY of July, 2009. Alan B. Gunter, Hearing Examiner fA...W pFiles\Docs\Pasco.Marquezdecision.wpd FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,AND ORDER ON VARIANCE REQUEST -2-