Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Helens planning commission denies remanded variances for Hankey Road property
Summary
The planning commission on remand denied a request for variances that would have allowed a land partition on a Hankey Road property, concluding the application failed to meet the five variance criteria.
The St. Helens Planning Commission on Tuesday denied a remand of variances requested to allow a land partition on a property identified as Lot 35732 on Hankey Road.
The commission returned the matter after the City Council remanded it for further consideration. Staff and the applicants, Kevin and Catherine McCarter, presented the site details and argued topography and existing development patterns justified smaller lots and reduced setbacks. The remand sought relief from minimum lot size, lot width and a reduced side-yard setback between two existing buildings to permit a partition that would place the shop on its own parcel.
Commissioners said the record still did not support the required five variance findings. Several members said the proposed reduced setback, with building separations well under the usual 14-foot clearance, was the key shortcoming. One commissioner said the application appeared to create “a precedent that we do not want.” After deliberation, the planning commission moved and seconded a motion to deny the variances. The motion carried and the commission signed a denial decision to send back to the City Council.
Jacob (city planning staff) summarized the background given the remand: the shop was originally built larger than the prior accessory-structure limit and was not approved then as detached housing; under current code it could now be permitted as a home, but the variances requested to enable the partition remained contested. Applicant Catherine McCarter argued the steep topography and long-standing physical context justified the split and reiterated willingness to re-permit connectors and comply with conditions if approval were granted.
Opponents who testified at the public hearing urged the commission to uphold its earlier denial and criticized the council’s decision to remand the case. The record included draft findings of denial prepared for the council and additional staff materials supplied after the original hearing.
The commission’s denial restarts the formal record and sends a written decision to the City Council, which may consider the matter again.
