St. Helens council sends McCarter variances back to planning commission for reconsideration

The St. Helens City Council on April 16 remanded for reconsideration an appeal by Kevin and Catherine McCarter of the Planning Commission’s denial of three variances needed to split a house and an attached shop at 35732 Hankey Road.

The council voted to send the case back to the Planning Commission with direction that the commission consider additional information, including the lack of developable land on the opposite side of Hankey Road. The remand is contingent on the applicants agreeing to extend the 120‑day statutory review period so the Planning Commission can revisit the record.

The variances at issue are for reduced lot size, reduced lot width and reduced side setbacks. Planning staff described the proposal as a prelude to a future partition: the R‑7 zoning district requires a minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet; the McCarters’ proposed parcel would be roughly 5,100 square feet, according to staff. Staff also said typical lot‑width standards in the R‑7 district are 50 feet at the street and 60 feet at the building line; the subject property measures about 54 feet at the street and then narrows. Normal side setbacks in R‑7 are 7 feet; the McCarters proposed setbacks of about 4 feet 2 inches on one side and 3 feet 10 inches on the other.

Jacob, a planning staff member, told the council the proposal would require all three variances for a partition to be feasible and said the Planning Commission’s default findings recommended denial. He described the property as “a house about a hundred years old, and the shop … about 10 years old,” and said the applicants had previously obtained an access variance a decade ago when the shop was first built.

Applicant Catherine McCarter argued the parcel has “special circumstances” that justify the variances, including steep topography and limited developable area on the other side of Hankey Road. She said the two dwellings are effectively separated by the roof connector that was removed during a recent reroofing project but that the connector remains in storage and could be replaced. She also told the council the shop and house already have separate water and electrical meters and that stormwater, sewer and stair/retaining‑wall issues could be resolved prior to any partition.

Councilors expressed concern about the close proximity of two two‑story structures if the lot line were drawn between them and the precedent that an approval might set for similarly small lots elsewhere. Several members said they were sympathetic to the applicant’s situation but wanted the Planning Commission to take another look with the additional context staff identified, especially the limited development potential on the opposite side of Hankey Road that could mitigate a “feels‑like” increase in density.

After discussion, the council voted to remand the appeal to the Planning Commission for reconsideration, contingent on the applicant agreeing to toll the local 120‑day review limit to allow the Planning Commission additional time to act.

The council recorded the vote as unanimous among members present. No final partition or building permits were granted at the meeting; staff told the council that if the Planning Commission approves variances, subsequent steps (surveying, partition approval and building permits) would be required to resolve utility, code and site‑work details.

What happens next: the Planning Commission will receive the remand and the supplemental information noted by council. If the applicants agree to extend the 120‑day limit, the commission will have additional time to reconsider the variance requests and conditions. Any decision by the Planning Commission could itself be appealed to council under the same local procedures.