Loading...
HE 2013-001 determination Schultz POWELL & GUNTER Attorneys at Law 1025 Jadwin Avenue Don E.Powell Richland,WA 99352 (509)943-6781 Alan B. Gunter Fax(509)946-5177 ----------------------- Rachel M Woodard May 2, 2013 RECEIVED Dave McDonald MAY 0 3 2013 City of Pasco COPOMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN[ 525 N. 3rd Ave. Pasco, WA 99301 Re: Kevin Schultz—Variance Hearing Dear Dave: Enclosed please find the Variance Hearing Findings and Conclusions in the case of Kevin Schultz. If you have any questions, please contact the office. Yours very truly, POWELL& GUNT X57 Alan B. Gunter ABG:al Enclosures F:/W ord/Alicia/CityolPascoLetter PASCO MUNICIPAL VARIANCE HEARING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) CASE#HE 2013-001 Kevin Schultz ) This matter was heard on April 24, 2013, at 3:30 p.m., at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Kevin Schultz for a variance to the height and setback requirements of RS-12 (Suburban)zone. Present were Shane O'Neil and David McDonald, on behalf of the City of Pasco, and applicant Kevin Schultz. Based on the testimony and records submitted, the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT A. A request for a variance was properly filed and all notices of the hearing were sent out. B. The property is located at 305 N. Road 35, Pasco, Washington. C. The property is zoned RS-12 (Suburban). D. PMC 25.24.050(5) (b) limits accessory structures in the RS-12 zone to 15 feet in height. E. The structure at issue exceeds the height restrictions of the RS-12 zone. F. The RS-12 zone requires a 10 foot side setback and a 5 foot rear setback for any structure. G. The structure at issue does not meet the setback requirement of the RS-12 zone. 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. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property such that strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity as to the height of this structure. The setback violations are minor. 3. That granting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare. No evidence was presented which would allow a determination that the structure is or would be injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated. 4. Any special circumstances requiring a variance as to the height of the structure were created by the applicant. ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ordered that the applicant's request for a variance be and is hereby denied as to the height requirement but granted as to the set back requirements. Done this 30th day of April, 2013. Alan B. Gunter, Hearing Examiner f.\Word\docs\Pasco.Schultz.decision.doc