The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHE Determination HE 2022-004 Alderbrook Investments.pdf BEFORE THE CITY OF PASCO HEARINGS EXAMINER IN THE MATTER OF ) FINDINGS OF FACT, HE 2022-004 ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ALDERBROOK INVESTMENTS ) AND DECISION THIS MATTER,having come on before the City of Pasco Hearing Examiner on December 14, 2022,the Hearing Examiner having taken evidence hereby submits the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Decision as follows: I. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant is requesting a variance to allow 46% lot coverage of a single-family dwelling in R-1 (Low Density Residential)zoning. 2. The Applicant is Alderbrook Investments, 1360 N Louisiana St#A 742,Pasco WA 99301. 3. The legal description is SEVEN SISTERS PHASE 1,Lot 69. 4. General Location: 9601 Dusty-Maiden Dr(Parcel#115171079). 5. The property size is approximately 0.17 Acres(73 73 Square Feet). 6. The property has access from Dusty-Maiden Dr. 7. Municipal water and sewer service are available from Dusty-Maiden Dr. 8. The site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)and is prepared for development of one single family dwelling. Surrounding properties are also zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential)and are planned to be developed with single family dwelling units. 9. The Applicant,Alderbrook Investments, is requesting a variance from the development standards within the R-1 zoning district. Applicant is requesting to allow the development of a house at 46% lot coverage 9.1 As per PMC 25.45.050(3),maximum lot coverage is 40%in the R-1 zoning district: 25.45.050 Development Standards, (3) Maximum lot coverage: 40 percent. 10. As per Pasco Municipal Code(PMC)25.195.020(1)Land Use Decision Authority. 10.1 Variances.Applications for variances from the terms of this title;provided,that any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zoning in which the subject property is situated, and that the following circumstances are found to apply: 10.1.1 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape,topography, location of surroundings,the strict application of the Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/ HE 2022-004 Page 1 of 4 zoning ordinance is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 10.1.2 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. 10.1.3 The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the action(s)of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. 10.2 According to PMC 25.195.020,all three of the above criteria need to be met in order for the Hearing Examiner to grant a variance. 11. History. 11.1 On September 12,2022,Jason West applied for a building permit to build a single-family dwelling at 8601 Dusty-Maiden Dr.The city placed the permit on hold because the lot coverage for the house was over the allowed 40%in an R-1 zone. 12. VARIANCE REQUEST: Allow 46%lot coverage of a single-family dwelling in R-1 (Low Density Residential)zoning. 13. Applicant has put forth the following arguments relative to the variance: 13.1 "The following addresses are for homes over maximum coverage of R-1 zoning code in the relative vicinity: 13.1.1 Seven Sisters 13.1.2 8609 Silver Mound Drive 13.1.3 8605 Ashen Drive 13.1.4 Desert Sage 13.1.5 8117 Silver Mound Drive 13.1.6 8121 Silver Mound Drive 13.1.7 8313 Silver Mound Drive also has a permitted shed 13.1.8 8112 Ashen Drive 13.1.9 Majestia Place 13.1.10 6002 Cotswold Lane" 14. Notice of the public hearing was sent to property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and the newspaper on November 18, 2022. 15. There are other houses within the vicinity that also go above the allowed 40% lot coverage. 16. As per PMC 25.45.050(3), maximum lot coverage is 40%in the R-1 zoning district. 17. Variances are to be evaluated per the requirements of PMC 25.195.020(1). 18. The city received a building permit application from applicant for a single-family dwelling. 19. The building permit application was placed"On Hold". 20. An open record public hearing was held on December 8,2022 via Zoom videoconference. 21. The staff report,application materials,agency comments and the entire file of record were admitted into the record. 22. The Applicant did not appear at the hearing.The Applicant was given written notice of the date, place, and time of this hearing. 23. No member of the public testified at this hearing. Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/ HE 2022-004 Page 2 of 4 24. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with PMC 25.195.020(1).There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property that deny the Applicant property rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. 25. The Applicant seeks to develop a single family residence.There is sufficient space on the lot to develop a single family residence without the need for the variance.The Applicant is not denied the right to use the property for a single family residence because of the small lot size. 26. The fact that other properties have lot coverage greater than 40% is not determinative of this issue. The Hearing Examiner is not going to evaluate the correctness of the allowance of lot coverage greater than 40%on other properties.The Hearing Examiner acknowledges that this has occurred. This variance is determined on its own merits. 27. Further, the Hearing Examiner finds that it is the Applicant's desire to put a bigger house on the property that results in their claimed need for a variance. The size of the house is something that is completely within the Applicant's control. The fact that the Applicant wishes to have greater lot coverage to place a single family residence is simply not a special circumstance that will justify the granting of a variance. 28. Prior to approval of a variance, the Municipal code requires three determinations in the affirmative: 28.1 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location of surroundings,the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive subject property of rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification. 28.1.1 Applicant has testified that"since there are quite a few homes nearby that are over the 40% lot coverage- this can be ok for our buyer and her future lot as well. Our buyer would really like to enjoy similar features in her home as the others that have the same classification as this property and yet are over the 40% lot coverage. In this tough economic environment holding a sale together can be a major blessing for a lot of families doing the contract work as well." 28.1.2 Hearing Examiner Finding: The Planning Department staff has conceded that four of the posed lots with coverage over 40%are in fact.over the allowed lot coverage,however,based on the PMC requirements for the R-1 zoning district, the permits were issued in error. As such, exceeding lot coverage cannot be considered a"right . . .enjoyed by other properties,"as rights are based on law. 28.2 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. 28.2.1 As per Applicant,"there are plenty of homes nearby that are over the 40% lot coverage, so we feel it will certainly not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is situated, in fact we feel it would add value to the neighborhood as the this and the rest of the neighborhood is completed. We feel we have a buyer who will keep her house and yard looking better than her neighbors." 28.2.2 Hearing Examiner Finding: City code is designed to protect the public welfare, by following city code. Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/ HE 2022-004 Page 3 of 4 28.3 The special circumstances applicable to the subject property were not created through the action(s)of the applicant or any predecessor in interest. 28.3.1 Also,per Applicant,"since there are several homes nearby that are over the 40% lot coverage, and it only recently has be being closely looked at and enforced, we feel it would be somewhat unfair to limit our homebuyer in this case. It also sounds like the 40%lot coverage is being looked for expansion up to 45% which compares to a neighboring jurisdiction who apparently feels it is an acceptable percentage as well. Our hope is that it would get to 45%eventually, but for now we would ask that you grant us this variance in order for our buyer to get into her dream home. 28.3.2 Hearing Examiner Finding: The developer has created the circumstances for which a variance would be needed,the project has several home designs that would fit onto the lot in question without needing a variance. 29. The City of Pasco Hearing Examiner considered all evidence within the record in rendering this decision. 30. Any Conclusion of Law that is more correctly a Finding of Fact is incorporated herein as such by this reference. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Hearing Examiner has been granted authority to render this Decision. 2. The Applicant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof to show that the variance complies with PMC 25.195.020(1). 2. 3. The requested variance is not consistent with the Pasco Municipal Code. 4. Any Finding of Fact that is more correctly a Conclusion of Law is hereby incorporated as such by this reference. III. DECISION Based upon the above noted Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law,request for variance,HE 2022- 004, is hereby DENIED. Dated this 16th day of December, 2022. CITO PASCO BEARING r-' INER rew L.Kottkamp Absent a timely appeal,this Decision is final' ' See Ch. 36.70C RCW(establishing a 21 day appeal period to superior court,and setting forth necessary review contents,along with filing and service requirements). Findings of Fact/Conclusions of Law/Decision/ HE 2022-004 Page 4 of 4