The Wahkiakum County Eagle - Established as The Skamokawa Eagle in 1891

(Editor's note: The initial publication and posting for the article incorrecty stated the council had voted to reject the appeal. The council voted to continue consideration and action to its January meeting.)

The Cathlamet Town Council on Monday decided to wait till January to act on an appeal of a board of adjustment variance that would allow a couple to build a garage on a Columbia Street Lot.

Council members heard comment and commented on the appeal for 34 minutes but asked the town attorney to provide more information about variances before acting.

Brenda Ferguson and Craig Nielson have property on the west side of Erickson Park, and they applied for the variance to build a 17x48-foot garage. The variance was needed because the garage wouldn' t be connected to the existing house.

Members of the town planning commission, acting as the board of adjustment, approved the variance at their November 7 meeting.

Mayor George Wehrfritz filed a letter appealing on November 27. The appeal went to the town council for action, and when the council took up the issue Monday, Wehrfritz recused himself and took a seat in the audience.

"I believe this decision is adverse to the interests of the town and the community," Wehrfritz wrote in his notice of appeal. "The property in question sits adjacent to Erickson Park, and the approved shop would be nearly six times larger than our local codes permit in residential areas. If upheld, the decision would undermine the park's appeal to visitors, open the door to construction of similar facilities in town-designated residential areas and create potential future conflicts related to unauthorized business activities being undertaken in residential areas."

In the report of the board of adjustment's hearing of the matter in November, members said the finding would be guided by Section 18.60.070 of the Cathlamet Municipal Code. That required five findings, and four were obvious, members said.

Finding number three, that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances such as lot size or shape, topography or size of buildings, which are not the general condition of the surrounding area.

Board members spent much time discussing this issue to identify the specific hardship the petitioners faced. Board members concluded that the absence of a garage and the size of the property (lot size of about half an acre) suggested that the petitioner is not able to enjoy full benefits of the property that they otherwise would and as neighbors do. Board members agreed unanimously that this represented a hardship.

The board voted to grant the variance, subject to these conditions:

1. The variance is limited to a building of 1,728 square feet and no other relief from municipal code requirements;

2. The property cannot be subsequently subdivided unless approved by the town council or removal of said accessory building, and

3. No commercial activity, permitted or otherwise, is allowed in the subject accessory building.

Council members were inclined to grant the variance.

Council Member Wally Wright commented that the town has granted other similar requests, and that the large lot wasn't typical.

"I, quite truthfully, can't see why this building couldn't go up," he said.

Wehrfritz voiced his concerns that the variance would set a precedent that could lead to other land owners wanting to install large garages on their property, which could destroy the community's appearance and cause a decline in property values.

"My purpose is to bring this to the council so that later . . . it won't be possible for the council to say, 'Oh, well, the planning commission did it,'" he said. "You made the decision. My concern, is the next time, someone will buy the lot next door and they'll ask to build a 1,700 square foot pole barn, and you'll say 'no,' and then they will sue you because the property next door got the yes, and you won't have grounds to say we can't do it. You are setting a precedent."

After more discussion, however, council members voted 4-0 to continue consideration of the variance.