HomeMy WebLinkAboutHE 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