Loading...
HE 2014-001 HE Determination Huynh PASCO MUNICIPAL VARIANCE HEARING REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ) CASE# CEB2013-3426 Son Huynh & Kim Khau ) This matter was heard on April 16, 2014, at 3:30 p.m., at Pasco City Hall in Pasco, Washington, at the request of Son Huynh and Kim Khau for a variance to the setback requirement of land zoned RS-12. Present were Shane O'Niel and David McDonald on behalf of the City of Pasco, the applicants Son Huynh and Kim Khau and their attorney George Wollcott. Based on the testimony, and the records and photographs submitted at the hearing, the hearing examiner now enters his: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The site is located at 10002 West Argent Road. B. The site is zoned RS-12 (Suburban). C. The site fronts both West Argent Road and Road 100. D. The Comprehensive Plan designates the site for low density residential uses. E. The subject parcel is approximately 18,180 square feet in area. F. The RS-12 zoning district requires lots to be no less than 12,000 square feet in area. G. The RS-12 zoning district requires ten (10) foot minimum side yard setbacks as measured from property lines. H. The applicants have placed a pre-fabricated metal carport which measures 40 feet long by 18 feet wide with a height of approximately nine (9) feet in their front yard five (5) feet from the Applicants side lot line in violation of the requirement of a ten (10) foot setback. I. The subject carport is detached from the home. J. The applicants did not obtain a building permit prior to locating the carport in their front yard. K. A "stop work order" was placed on the construction on October 21, 2013 by the City for failure to obtain a City of Pasco Building Permit to erect the carport. L. The applicant(s) applied for a five (5) foot side setback as part of building permit #1313- 2083. M. The City of Pasco did not issue the permit due to the failure to have a ten (10) foot setback of the structure from the side lot line. N. The Applicants applied for a variance to the ten (10) foot setback requirement of structures from the side lot line. Findings of Fact, Pg. l Conclusions of Law, and Order on Variance Request O. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, where strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other similar properties in the vicinity. P. The special circumstances applicable to the subject property which resulted in a request for a variance were created through the action(s) of the applicant. Q. Insufficient evidence was presented to determine if the granting of the variance will 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. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 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. This petition for a variance does not meet the criteria required for a variance. ORDER Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ordered: That the applicant's request for a variance is denied. The hearing examiner's decision will become final in twenty-one (21) calendar days from the date of issuance of the decision in the manner required by law unless appealed to the Franklin County Superior Court. Done this �� � of April, 2014. Q Alan B. Gunter, Hearing Examiner Word/docs/Pasco.Huynh.Findings Findings of Fact, Pg. 2 Conclusions of Law, and Order on Variance Request