Pasco council approves Webster Court rezone from RS‑20 to R‑1 over a lone mayoral dissent
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The City Council approved Ordinance No. 47 83 to rezone roughly one acre near West Argent Road and Road 84 from RS‑20 (single‑family large lot) to R‑1 (low‑density residential) after a hearing and a hearing‑examiner recommendation; the mayor recorded the sole dissenting vote.
The Pasco City Council adopted Ordinance No. 47 83 on Aug. 18 to rezone a approximately one‑acre parcel known as Webster Court, near West Argent Road and Road 84, from RS‑20 to R‑1. The ordinance passed after the hearing examiner issued findings and a recommendation in favor of the rezone.
Planning Director Haley Miller reviewed the application and the record, noting the property is surrounded by single‑family residences and that the proposed R‑1 designation fits the comprehensive plan’s low‑density residential land‑use category. The hearing examiner’s process included public notice and written comments; staff reported a small number of letters in opposition and no attendees at the hearing.
City attorney Eric Ferguson explained the quasi‑judicial nature of the proceeding, the appearance‑of‑fairness doctrine and that council should base any decision on the record before the hearing examiner.
A motion to adopt the ordinance was made by Mayor Pro Tem Grimm and seconded by Councilmember Perales. The vote passed with one recorded no vote: the mayor registered the dissent. The hearing examiner’s recommendation and the council’s final action complete the local rezone process; the ordinance was ordered published by summary.
Why it matters: The rezoning changes allowed lot and unit‑type flexibility and brings the parcel’s zoning into alignment with the city comprehensive plan designation of low‑density residential. It will enable development at the R‑1 density range (roughly 3–6 units per acre as cited in staff materials).
Record details: The hearing record included several public comment letters opposing the rezone; staff confirmed the hearing examiner received and considered those comments. Council was advised that overturning a hearing‑examiner recommendation without a clear record‑based rationale is a difficult legal standard to meet.
Ending: The ordinance passed by council vote (majority yes; 1 no) and will be effective following summary publication as provided in the ordinance language.