St. Helens planning commission denies request for three variances at Hanke Road parcel

The St. Helens Planning Commission voted to deny an application by property owner Catherine McCarter for three variances tied to a proposed partition of 35732 Hanke Road, the commission said during a quasi‑judicial hearing that opened at 6:33 p.m.

McCarter sought (1) reduced side‑yard setbacks (proposed 4.1 feet and 3.8 feet where 7 feet is required in R‑7), (2) reduced lot size (one proposed lot about 5,100 square feet, under the 7,000 sq. ft. minimum), and (3) reduced lot width at the building line (about 47.8 feet where 60 feet is required). Staff told the commission the parcel is 0.31 acres and that the shop built in 2015 contains over 600 square feet of gross floor area, which means it currently exceeds the code limit for an accessory structure and would need permitting to be recognized as a separate dwelling unit.

The hearing record included a staff report that summarized the five variance criteria in St. Helens Municipal Code 17.108.050 and ORS 197.7975 and explained likely technical requirements that would be required at the partition stage: separate utilities, new sewer service for one building, paved parking and shared access agreements, potential stormwater improvements, and fire separation work where eaves approach the proposed new property line.

McCarter, the applicant, told the commission she and her co‑owner had already identified fixes they would make if the partition were approved: “We’re just gonna move the stairs ... so that it would not encroach upon the new property line,” and said the two buildings already have separate water meters and electric billing, with only sewer currently shared. Resident Al Peterson of 101 Saint Helens Street testified in support and asked for clarification about the “lot width at the building line” standard; staff explained that lot width can be measured both at the street and at the building line and that this property is narrowest at the building line.

During deliberations commissioners raised concerns on multiple required variance findings. Several commissioners said criteria C and D (applicable standards and impacts to physical systems) could be addressed with conditions, but that criteria A/B/E — especially whether the hardship was “self‑imposed” — were not met. The commission noted the shop was constructed by the same owner in 2015 and that the applicant could, under current code, have two detached dwellings on one lot without variances if properly permitted, which weighed against finding an exceptional circumstance outside the applicant’s control.

A motion was made and seconded to deny the three variance requests as a package; the motion carried with the commission recording unanimous support (aye votes). The chair then moved that the decision be prepared for signature to expedite mailing of the written decision and appellant notice. Staff advised the written decision and notice of appeal rights would be mailed to parties who testified and would include the appeal deadline and instructions to appeal to the City Council and, beyond that, to LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeals) if appropriate.

The commission’s denial means no partition may proceed under the requested variance approvals; any future land division would need to satisfy the R‑7 lot dimension standards or return with a revised request and supporting findings.