Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Rosley, will you please take the roll call? Chair Persant here. Vice Chair Clap here. Member B here. Member Loper here. Member Ward.

Member Ward here. Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

Excellent. Um, I will read the announcements. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with open meeting law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maropa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the Planning and Development website one week prior to hearing at www.mmaropa.gov/planning. With respect to the hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witnessing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card for inerson attendance or registering desire to comment as noticed on the public agenda. So, we have speaker cards like this that you can fill out and bring up to Rosal or Rachel. Also, at the appropriate time for each case, the chairman will ask those in attending in person and online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on that icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of persons who have registered and noted desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each name participant one at a time. Such testimony shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes. However, the actual amount of time allowed for testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid inerson and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for for all motions and seconds. Um so we need to approve the minutes. Are there any comments from the board to the minutes from the January 15th meeting?

Excellent. None. Thank you. We will consider those approved. And one comment, um, Member Loper, I can't see you on my screen, so I can't uh get my camera to work and I ran out of time to figure it out. Sorry. Thank you. If you do have any comments, just, you know, I'll I'll scream know to call on you. Okay. a blood curdling scream. Thank you. I can't wait. Um, so it looks like number one, case number or the agenda item number one was withdrawn. So, do we need to do anything on that? Uh, no, Madam Chair.

Okay, perfect. So, we will move on to number two, case BA250079, um, the Cahan Drive variance which was continued from last month's meeting. Uh madam chair, members of the board, agenda item two is case BA279. It's a variance request for a single family property located 479 uh Khan Drive in Morristown in the Circle City community. This request for a variance from the residential development standards to allow for a rear setback of 16 ft uh where the minimum required rear setback in the R16 zoning district is 25 ft uh per MCO article 50343. Next slide. Uh the request is tied to a proposed 13x28 attached patio cover uh which would encroach about 9 ft into the required rear yard. The applicant's main concern is that the rear yard is south facing uh and lacks shade and they would like an attached cover uh for usability and comfort. Staff would note the lack of shade is common in the area and it is not unique to this parcel. Staff also notes that a detached shade structure can be placed much closer to the rear and side property lines subject to yard coverage limits uh which uh which avoids the need for a variance. Next slide.

Would you repeat that last sentence again? My apologies. Uh staff also notes that a detached shade structure can be placed much closer to the rear and side property lines subject to yard coverage limits uh which avoids the need for variance. Next slide. Uh staff did not identify a peculiar physical condition unique to the property uh that is not common to the area or zoning district. The proposed patio cover is an accessory improvement and is not required for the reasonable use of the property. Uh the hardship described is not tied to the physical characteristics of the lot and approval will be based primarily on personal convenience rather than the statuto criteria. Staff also notes uh that there are alternative alternative designs available including detached shade structures that can address shade concerns without the request of encroachment. Uh at this time I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um I have one real quick. Can you remind the board why this was continued last month? Uh madam chair it was the uh failure of the applicant to uh appear at the hearing uh which is why this was continued. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Member ba? Um, it's always perplexes me that we can have a detached structure closer to the setback to the perimeter property lines, but once it's attached, it can't be. Would you mind walking through like the rationale behind that?

Um, madam chair, uh, me, this was part of ongoing regulatory reform over the last 15 years. Prior to the MCZO update this year, we probably did a hundred uh text amendments, every one of which was uh in the favor of the regulated community. Um the idea with the setbacks and lot coverages are all related to bulk of structure. Uh so part of the regulatory reforms were to allow uh was to remove the requirement for a separation minimum separation distance uh between structures on the same lot as part of the zoning ordinance that's relegated to building code. And then um we also uh opened up the required sideyards to allow for detach structures. Um the uh there's a maximum 30% of a required sideyard that can be encroached by detached accessory structures. Um it is just um the coincidence of multiple different regulatory reforms that resulted in us saying as long as you're structurally detached, you're a detached structure, you can encroach into the sideyard. uh but that is to the benefit of of the applicant and I would hesitant to ever consider uh it grounds or warrant for a variance um because well they could do this anyway if it was detached. They could structurally detach it, redesign their project and still meet our code. I I I guess one more question and then I'll save some comments at the end. How far does the detached structure need to be from the house to be considered detached?

Um, is it a matter of just simply not attachment? It can be a gap of an inch. It can as long as it's structurally detached and not under the same roof or eve. Uh, but there are building code requirements uh based upon how close the walls may be. They may uh have to be fire rated and have no doors, windows, that sort of thing. And on this one, do we know Um, are they is it just for is it just a post or is this actually an enclosed enclosure? Uh, Madam Chair, member B, I believe it's just a post structure.

Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff? Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative present or online? I'm looking at chair. I have Nick Baker online. Go ahead, Nick.

Hi, Nick Baker here. I'm here on behalf of Mrs. Green. Um, so you were correct in your last assessment. It is just a post structure. It's only a patio cover. We have no enclosures, nothing like that. Um, from the plan sheet that you can see that's up there right now, um, we're not anywhere near the pee with the proposed structure. It's eight feet from the nearest point to the pee. And just before this meeting, um, I measured the closest distance in the rear from the proposed cover to the next neighbor, and it's around like 50 ft. So, we're not encroaching on anybody. Um, the elevation isn't super high. It's not to exceed 10 feet. So, this isn't something that's going to be like an eyes sore that's up above all the other neighbors or anything like that. Um, so again, I'm just here on behalf of Mrs. Green. We we had notified her that it was possible to go detached, but she really pressed us because again, this is southward facing and she's got no natural forms of shade. So she uh really asked us to try and see see if this is possible. Are there any questions that I can answer for for the committee or

Thank you for asking that, Nick. Um are there any board members that have any questions? Member BA um what are you proposing just two posts and then the balance of the shade structure to attach to the rear of the house.

Uh yes. So it it is attached again it's not to exceed 10 ft and under our current plans we have three posts. So it's three post and footings and then the attachment to the rear of the house. Um, all of our plans are professionally engineered and stamped by them with their uh corresponding numbers and stuff. So, it's it's uh pretty straightforward generally, but I question for you for Nick.

Um, so hopefully you were able to hear what Darren was saying earlier about the specific rules. So if you were to detach the structure, so if you were to add, in my understanding, if you were to convert the portion that's connected to the house to a fourth post, even if you set that away from the house by 2 in, as long as it's a separate structure, you're it then it is called a detached structure and you wouldn't need the variance and it it would provide the same pretty much the exact same um Sun yeah coverage as it is currently. Have you considered that? And Darren wants to chime in. Hopefully I didn't misspe.

Madam chair, I believe that would be the addition of three additional posts. Uh and they would probably have to I'm assuming there's like a twoft eve overhang on this pitched roof. So they'd probably have to move those those posts unless there's overhang from the post. They would have to move those back. Okay. I thought they said they had three and it was only attaching to the house in one spot. That's why the holes the long sides attached to the house. So if they move it back two to three feet so that the eaves don't overlap uh they would have to have three new posts. Okay. Madam chair. Thank you. Yes.

A question for the applicant. How far are you into your construction documents? Have you prepared anything? Are you

Go ahead. Uh so yes we have for this one this structure we build out of um pre-engineered packets from a company called Duraloom that they maintain um engineering stamps and registry here in Arizona as well as other states. And so we had actually applied for a permit already and we got as far as then getting rejected because of the setback. Um so we actually already have the engineering filled out that meets the Maricopa County requirements. So the only reason um for the denial was just a 25 foot setback. And if I heard you correctly, um, your client's aware of the requirement and you talked to her about the options, but she still wish to pursue obviously the the variance. Correct.

Correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. No further questions for me. Okay. There any other? Yeah. We're going to see if there's anyone else that um has any comments and hang tight in case we have any other questions for you. Um is there anyone else online that wants to speak on this item?

Okay. Um hearing none, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and I'm going to turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in district 4. Um chair or no longer chair member Loper, would you like to start us off with any comments? I um I have no comments, but I am prepared to make a motion. That's fine with me or member Ball would like to add a comment. I think

when I look at a photo in the packet, there appears to be a structure directly souththeast of you to that has a rear shade structure behind it. And based on the angle of this photo that I'm seeing here, it looks like there's six posts, three in the front, three in the back. It would would a structure like that be compliant since it's detached.

Madam Chair member Based on just the aerial and I'm not familiar with this site um and I don't know if this is a permitted structure. Sure. And just to make an assumption, based on the aerial, it appears to be structurally detached and not under the E because you can see the ground in between the two. Uh, so I assume so. U if that was under 200 square foot and detached, it would require a permit. So we will get

I think part of what I'm getting at is it seems to make the property next door found a way to give themselves shade and be compliant with the code. And I don't know where chair commissioner loper will go, but I can see a way where the the shade can be accomplished by the owner and the code can still be respected and observed and it's happening literally on the property next door. So that's where I I think I'm I'm struggling a little bit on that one. Thanks for sharing that. And I I agree with you. Um, member Loper.

Yes. Um, prior to make a motion, I I'm just going to state my um opinion on this. I've been fairly consistent throughout my time on the board that if a if a problem could be fixed by another solution, then it's really not an issue. And therefore, I'm in favor of the variance. And although I do understand um fellow board member Ba's position on this and agree with it, the person has made a request um and it just seems like it's a it's a it's a whole other step. It's a re it's having to redo plans that have already been prepared. Um, and at the end of the day, we've just had them go through another hurdle that yes, they're aware of it and yes, they should have done it and they should have done a lot of different things, but they chose this path to go through the variance. Um, and it's kind of like um going back to your parents and you should have done it this way, but you didn't. And um, I'm okay with that. So again, I support the variance and if you're ready for a motion, I will make one to that effect.

Please do. I move for approval of BA 250079 subject to the condition. I don't think there is a condition in the staff report. Hang on, I'm scrolling down to it. to condition um 14A of the staff report. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Great. Second by member Clap Rosley. Will you please take the roll call vote? Member Ball.

No. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Chair Person. No. Member Ward. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of three to three to two. Thank you. Thank you.

Best of luck to you with your new addition. Um we're going to move on to the next item on the agenda. Item three, case BA250081, the romantic variance. and I'm gonna turn it over to Evelyn. Hi, good morning. Okay. Yeah. So, um this is a presentation of case BA250081 and it's a request for residential variance to allow for a buildable height of 34 ft instead of the permitted 30 ft by the zoning ordinance. So the site is located um at 51434th North to 50 295th uh Avenue in the Wikinberg area and it's currently zoned for rural 43 single residential use and uh before we discuss the variance I'd like to share some background about the site. So it's currently the proposed uh single family residence is in an area having a natural slope of at least 50 15% and is subject to the hillside development standards and by that this the development shall not exceed uh 30 ft measured vertically from the natural grade and the applicant explained that the western portion of the site falls within the flood wave. which restricts the development to happen on that side. So uh varying the proposed finished floor the building roof will exceed the 30 ft maximum height above the natural grid by approximately 4.8 ft. So based upon the

submissions and the analysis uh staff uh of has the following uh observations that may be useful in your decision making. The applicant has been able to demonstrate that there's no the the pecular condition is not created by them and by applying the zoning ordinance uh it can create an undue condition for them to de further develop their sites and they have generally demonstrated that the intent of the the zoning ordinance will be preserved despite the the variance. So if the board finds the applicant if the board finds that the applicant has satisfied the statute free test and then we can approve this uh re vance to memorialize the the following the vance approval will establish a 35 ft maximum building height for the subject property. Thank you. Thank you, Evelyn. And um that was great.

And madam chair, if I could add uh the 35 foot height would be consistent with the rural and single family zoning districts in our ordinance today. Today there is a stricter maximum building height in hillside slope areas. Um prior to the zoning ordinance update, they were consistent maximum building heights. That's helpful cont.

Yeah. Thank you. Are there any questions for Evelyn Darren? All right, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here online? I do have speaker card um for from either Morgan Busby or Paul Manet. Okay, it sounds like we're getting someone teed up here. I am the resident. I'm present. Excellent. Um, please state your name for the record and um share your presentation.

Oh, uh, my name my name is Paul Edward Romantic Jr. and I believe Morgan is sharing our presentation and I will let her speak. Apologies. So, uh, this is David online. I I I can't enable Morgan. She doesn't have a microphone. Um, but uh I do have David Flores with a raised hand, so I assume uh I can also I I don't mind speaking on behalf as the property owner as well. Yeah, David is from a different case.

And Madam Chair, if you like, I can give I can announce a cell phone call. Okay, Darren's going to announce his cell phone number for Morgan to call and then we can put us on speaker phone. Yes, if the u if the speaker wishes to call 6027232241, we'll put the cell phone and speaker up by the microphone so they can communicate. Thank you and apologies for the delay. Thanks. We'll wait for the call for a second here.

Again, that's 602 723 2241. Mr. Romantic, is Morgan going to be calling or did you want to do the presentation?

I will do the presentation. and I believe she can hear. Um I to be respectful of everybody's time. Great. Take it away.

So we purchased this property about two years ago and to be honest, we have struggled uh on multiple areas of how restricted we are to actually build. And so recently we found a builder. We went through all the exercises. come to find out we're 4 feet 5 in too tall. Um it would be basically starting for ground zero. So asking the board to understand that me and my family have put everything in this to try to make it work and that we are not seeing any other way around this. I would also like to note that all my neighbors around me are much higher. Most of my neighbors houses are built on top of the mountains. I'm actually at the very bottom on the wash and that wash really limits um what I'm able to do with the property which we are trying to overcome the hurdles as we can but this is one that we would like to ask permissions to just go slightly above. And as you can see it's only 4 feet 5 in above. And I think as the board mentioned, most other areas do have a 35- ft um building height. We also think that this property will be a good value to the community um as it's uh just sitting as bare dirt. And I'm sure I'm missing a lot, Morgan, so I apologize if you're listening. Um, but I can promise you that we have looked at almost all avenues. Um, I think that's about it. Open to any questions that anybody has.

Question. This is David. Um, David Flores, who's here for another case. He indicates he's also um, uh, involved in this case. And unfortunately, I don't have the ability to allow his microphone access. Um, the interface is not allowing it. I've been trying to add him so he could chime in. Um, so I'm not exactly sure how how to get him involved. Let me let me try let me try this. Uh, David, are you able to unmute now?

David, are you able to call into that number? Uh, it looks like David's got the same issue as Morgan. Uh, for some reason, their audio devices aren't connected into the webinar. So maybe can we give that webinar phone number and then from now on let's just give people both because it seems like this well happens frequently. You know what I could do is I could try calling Morgan and put her on speaker phone so that she could speak through my device.

Okay. But I think we're talking about I'm still confused why the person from a different case wants to speak on this case and we don't have a speaker card for him on this case. I I believe they're the same company. Chair David asked me to share just please note that the building is 30 feet higher from slab. The wash vicinity causes issue. That was the message. Okay. They wanted to share. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um are there any questions from the board of the applicant? And are there any other registered people online that wish to speak? Okay.

Um, yeah. Let me close the public hearing and I'll turn it over to the board. This is in district one, which is I believe your district. It's not my district, but I'm fine with it nonetheless. Um, it is okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um, couple things. One, I appreciate the findings staff made at the end of the memo, which I think justify the variance. Two, you when you have this much parcel that you can't actually develop on, you can't spread out horizontally. You sort of are forced to go a little vertical. So, I think the variance um factors are justified here in this circumstance.

Were you wanting to make a motion to that effect? There's no other comments than I'm happy to. I'm not seeing any, so go for it. Move to approve. Second. Right. We have a motion by member BA and a second by member Loper. Rosley, will you please take your roll call vote? Member B. Yes. Vice Chair Klep. Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Best of luck to you. That certainly does look like a challenging site to build on. All right, we will move on to um agenda item four, case VA 26001, the first one submitted this year. Um this is the Halalgo Avenue variance. And I'll turn it over to Oh, back to you. Okay. I'm sorry. Oh, it does say Joel. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong one. Thank you. Uh madam chair, members of the board, uh this agenda item is BA261, which is a request for variance to allow an existing accessory structure to maintain a zero foot uh street side setback along the 114th Avenue uh where 20 ft is required in the rural 43 zoning district. Property is approximately 50,835 ft developed with a single family residence and multiple accessory structures including the subject structure. Next slide. Uh historical area aerials show the subject structure in roughly this location as early as the 1970s. In 2006, the building appears to have been expanded west to the property line without permits. Additional expansion and enclosure occurred around 2020 2021 and 2022. Uh it currently appears to be being used as an accessory dwelling unit. Next slide. A zoning violation was opened in November 2024 for unpermitted construction. uh building permit was submitted in September 2025 to address that work and during review it was identified that the structure does not meet the required 20 foot streetside setback. Uh this variance was subsequently requested. Next slide. Lot is fully is flat and fully developed. Uh staff has not identified any irregularities, topography, uh easements or other physical constraints that would necessitate a zero foot setback. Uh the placement of the structure at the property line appears to be the result of past construction decisions and there does not appear to be a peculiar condition or unnecessary hardship present. Uh at this time staff's available for any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for Joel? Right hearing none. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative president online? I do have a speaker card from Jessica Lopez. I'm guessing might be Excellent. Please come on down to the podium, state your name even though I already said it, and then we can proceed.

Good morning. My name is Jessica Lopez. Um, I'm here with my husband, Ricardo Lopez, and we are here to request a variance uh for a zero foot setback on our property. Um, this building or this structure has been existent decades before we purchased in 2011. Um, we're currently living in this home. It's our home and um, we would like to request that respectfully to see if we can get an approval. Um, we did add an extension. Uh, it's a living room and we're currently running permits for it. Um, and one of the requirements is to get a variance approved.

Thank you. Um, does anyone have any questions for Miss Lopez? Right. Hang tight in case we have some more. Is there anyone else online that wishes to speak for this case? All right. Thank you. Um, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. Um, this one is in district five. Um, does anyone want to make a comment or a motion?

I would be interested in hearing the other board members comments, but I also would like to go forward with a motion to approve. Like the applicant said, this building has been there for decades. So comments from other board members. I I agree with you. Is member Ward. Is there a second to her motion? I second it. Okay. Second by member Loper. Rosley. Would you please take the roll call vote? Member B. Yes. Vice chair Klep.

Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Yes. Chair person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Thank you. Best of luck to you and your family. Um, all right. We will turn it over to agenda item five, BA26007, the Cordova property, and Nick will be presenting on that. Thank you, Chair Person, members of the board. So, case BA2607 is a request to permit a front setback of 5T and a rear setback of 3 ft for the Cordoba property where the R5 zoning district requires a minimum front setback of 10 ft and a and a minimum rear setback of 25 ft. Uh the property owners have recently removed the original mobile home which itself was not conforming to the required setbacks and are proposing to place a new manufactured home on site. Uh there appears to be a peculiar condition facing the property and that was created by a subdivision plat in 1961 to a size just large enough to accommodate a typical mobile home from the time. Uh to that effect, the mobile homes of the 1960s were relatively small compared to today's manufactured homes. As such, the small area of the lot together with the unusual rhombus shape and the required 25- ft rear setback make it difficult to place a modern manufactured home within the required building envelope. Although a small home without any attachments could be feasibly placed within the existing envelope, the nature of most modern manufactured homes and the amenities that come with them make this outcome unlikely. Uh peculiar conditions of the property therefore arguably create an unnecessary hardship as evidenced by the fact that most of the surrounding properties have mobile homes encroaching within their own rear yards. Uh furthermore, the subdivision plat includes a note requiring that all single family homes placed therein be mobile homes. So granting the requested variance at least to the rear setback would allow a modern manufactured home to be comfortably placed on site. Uh reducing the rear setback would not put the property at odds with neighboring parcels, but would in fact per legally permit what is already the de facto norm.

Can I pause real quick? I want to make sure I heard you clearly. That there's a restriction that requires that they must be mobile homes on this property in that subdivision. Yes. And uh that was platted in 1961. So our interpretation is that also includes manufactured homes here. Yes.

And madam chair member wall I can state that prior to 2004 the ordinance included uh a special use category called mobile home subdivision. that is antiquated, no longer enforced, no longer part of the ordinance because since 2004, we've permitted mobile homes, manufactured homes, and sight build homes on any residential or rural zoning. No worries at all. And uh another note is that a 60 foot wide drainage easement located opposite the rear lot line means that a manufactured home would be set well back from any property across the way. Accordingly, staff finds that granting the requested variance to the rear setback would preserve the intent of the MCZO. Uh, as for the front setback, though, some of the neighboring mobile homes encroach on front setbacks as well. Site aerial suggested this is a less common problem. The site plan shows that the livable area of the home would meet the required 10-ft front setback, but the attached carport would bring it down to just 5 ft. Uh there is arguably less justification for a front setback reduction. Removing the patio and shifting the home at least 5 ft north would negate the need for a front setback reduction and still allow the home to meet the minimum 3ft rear yard required per building. By doing so, it also allow the carport to remain part of the home and proximate to the street. But that said, as previously noted, many manufactured homes come with attached patios as built-in amenities. So removing it from the home may not be feasible. So, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize items A and B as outlined in paragraph 17 of the staff report. This time, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Um, are there any questions for Nick? Right. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Um, and now we

get to hear from Mr. Flores, right? Okay. Mr. Flores is online. He should be able to unmute.

Well, can you hear me? He can. Please for the record and and uh tell us about your case.

Hi. Yes. My name is David Flores. I'm here uh representing the owner. Um, I am the applicant and um, I just want to thank Mick for the presentation. I think he outlined everything very well. Um, and I just wanted to um, point out the fact that the owner um, is in possession of this mobile home already. Um, so that's part of the reason why pushing for the variance to fit this uh, specific model on the lot. And Nick was correct that it is um, pre-engineered with the carport and the patio attached already. Um, so removing the carport obviously creates some issues. Um, I think a hardship for the owner um that we would prefer to avoid. Um, and you know, I'm not sure if there's maybe a condition or stipulation that states that the main home um can be set back at 10 ft and that a carporter or patio can encroach within um up to five feet. I know some jurisdictions allow um certain portions of this of the of the uh dwelling to encroach um further than others like uh garages and so forth. So we were hoping that maybe we could allow just that carport um to remain there and and and as you can see due to the uh shape of the lot. Uh it's a really really small portion of the structure that would be within that uh required setback. um whereas a majority of the structure is going to be you know 20 feet or more back. Um I also wanted to point out if we were um to um use a mobile a smaller mobile home as outlined in the blue here um that that does not allow for the covered carport which the covered carport is actually a code requirement um for these mobile homes because it's not in a mobile home park. It is in a residential area. Um the covered two two um covered parking spots are required. So, we would have to find a way to add that regardless. Um, and again, I just wanted to mention or, you know, uh, state again that, you know,

they are in possession of this mobile home unit already. And, um, again, we understand that, um, with the new, um, front setback reduced to 10 feet this year, um, that it is doable, um, with some, um, adjustments to the patio. But again, I think they would have to hire an engineer um and either completely remove it or hire an engineer to uh reduce this footprint of it. Um so we we're really hoping to move forward with the proposed unit that they're in possession of already. That's all I have. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Flores? Um, hearing none. Just want to confirm, are there any other speakers online or here that you would like to see? No other speakers online.

Okay. Um, great. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll turn this over to the board. This one is in district two. What it appears that the manufactured home does fit into this spot and and that must have been difficult to figure out in my opinion. But nevertheless, uh the it's been noted that the there is a peculiar condition that um the staff would be okay with the rear setback, but there's only the front setback that you had a little question about. My feeling is is that as the applicant has stated, there's just a small section of this um home that's going to extend into that front setback. So, my feeling is is that this is the homeowner and whomever put all this together has done a yman's job of coming up with a solution to place this prop this building on this property. And I would agree that we can grant a variance on this. So I move to approve BA260007.

Thank you. I have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. All right. I think member B got in there first. Um Rosley, will you please take the roll call vote? Member B. Yes. And I love rhombuses. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Person, yes. Member Ward, yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you, Rosley. Best of luck, Mr. Flores. All right, we are on to our last item of the agenda, case BA26008, Bethesdali property, and Nick is going to present on that one as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Case BA2608 is a request to permit a horse corral in the front yard of the Vesawski property at and and at a setback of 15 ft from the south lot line. Uh the R135 zoning district allows a horse corral as an accessory use to a single family residence, but only in the rear yard and at a minimum set back of 40 ft from all lot lines. Uh notwithstanding a legally non-conforming lot width which resulted from a county initiated zone change in 1989. Uh the parcel is otherwise unremarkable for a single family property. It is rectangular in shape, relatively flat and not encumbered by flood plane or washes. Uh that said, the residence is noticeably located much near to the rear lot lined in to the front. Uh on paper, the rear yard could still accommodate a small corral for a single horse. Uh although to meet the minimum 1,200 square f feet of fence space required per horse, this would place a corral at a very small setback from the existing residence. Uh furthermore, the owner hopes to keep two rescue horses on the property, which would require at least 2400 square ft of space. Uh meeting this area requirement would necessitate putting the corral in the front yard. And though variance would be required to address the corral's location, it could be done without need for additional variance to the required use specific setbacks. Uh to meet those setbacks, a corral would need to measure no more than 40 feet in width. So to meet the area requirement, it would need to measure at least 60 feet in depth. A corral of these dimensions could maintain a setback of as much as 68 ft from the residence without encroaching on the required setbacks from the lot lines. However, to maximize space for the horses to roam and exercise, the owner is proposing a larger corral generally measuring about 65 by 100 ft or 6,500 square ft. Though it would meet the required setbacks from the north and to the east, it would encroach up to 15 feet from the south lot line. Staff notes that the purpose of the 40 foot setbacks required specifically for horse corrals from all lot lines is to prevent unwanted impacts such as noise, odor, or dust generation

to non-consenting neighbors. Uh that having been said, however, the owner has provided a letter of support from the neighbor who would be directly impacted by the reduced setback. In their letter, the neighbors affirm their support for both variances to accommodate the corral. They attest that the subject property owners are good neighbors themselves and keep the property clean and care for the animals well. Having experience as horsekeepers themselves, the neighbors further attest that the horses would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and improve their quality of life. In addition to her neighbor support, the owner also notes that the rear yards are where property owners most tend to congregate when enjoying the outdoors. Therefore, locating the corral in the front yard, but significantly reduce any adverse impacts to neighboring properties. So, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize items A through C as outlined in paragraph 21 of the staff report. This time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nick. Are there any questions for Nick? No questions. So, we will go ahead and open the public hearing. is the applicant or applicant's representative. Please come to the podium and state your name for the record. So, I'm Melissa Vesselovski, the owner and the applicant. Thank you for the opportunity to present my request. As you know, zoning ordinances were designed to promote the public health, peace, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of Maricopa County, to guide growth and development in order to promote orderly and appropriate use of land, and to protect the character and stability of Maricopa County. I believe that the variances requested may actually better conserve and promote the public health, convenience, and general welfare than strict adherence to the letter of MCO. For example, if the purpose of the zoning requirement to have horses in the backyard is to minimize the impact on neighbors by reducing noise and flies and ensuring adequate space for horse welfare and maintaining a reasonable separation between animal care and living spaces, then placement of the horse corral in the front yard of our property in our particular neighborhood is actually closer to the intent of the ordinance as the front yard actually provides the most separation between animal care and living spaces while ensuring adequate space for the horses. More specifically, our neighbors socialize in their backyards and have gettogethers, so a farther distance from flies would be much more considerate of their space. In regards to the 15t setback on the south side, the rules were written with the expectation that our lot width would be a minimum of 145 ft, not 120 ft. So, we are proposing a setback on one side to make up the difference so that we have parody with others in the neighborhood and can allow more room for the well-being of the animals. But, of course, it's not just about me. It's about my neighbors, too.

So, I asked them what they thought, and I'm happy to report that they were over the moon and fully supportive. I've included their letter of support in the packet. Furthermore, I believe that keeping horses in the front yard would preserve the character of the neighborhood in Maricopa County, which has long been known for its western cowboy hospitality and culture. In fact, while researching our parcel, we discovered that long ago it had been part of 325 acres of land given to Benjamin Greenstone in 1862 as part of the Homestead Act. I also included a letter of support from the director of ecoin science program at Scottsdale Community College, which is one of the best ecoin science programs in the state in Maricopa County. Dr. Clemens has been helping us every step of the way and is fully supportive. What I'm really trying to say is that we want nothing more than to protect the health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the horses and our neighbors. We simply have to be the change that we want to see in the world. And I think that our variance requests will have a positive impact and aligns well with the purpose and the spirit of zoning rules. Thank you.

Thank you. That was a very nice presentation. Um, any questions? Yes, member clap. How does your neighbor to the north feel about this? Talked about the neighbor to the south is okay with it, but you have a neighbor to the north and this corral is going to sit right next to their house. Yeah. So, in fact, um they have an old horse corral in their back of their property.

And so, we actually contacted them to ask, well, maybe they would sell us the back part of their property and they said, "Well, maybe we could rent it to you." So, um you know, and then they have since moved to Tucson and their kids are living there now. So, we haven't had a lot of contact other than they're supportive of horses in general. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? All right. Thank you. Um, are there any other speakers that wish to speak on this item? Nobody else. Nobody else online.

Okay. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. And this one is also in district two. In in reviewing this case, I'm okay with the concept of moving the uh corral to the front yard, but I am not persuaded by the 15t setback on one side and would argue that there could be a corral built there uh with still a 40 foot setback that would be big enough to accommodate two horses. So, that's my feeling about it, but I'd be happy to hear what the rest of the uh group has to say about this.

One of the things that is interesting that it's a narrower lot than what the zoning code allows likely because I think um as I heard from staff, there was something not created by the applicant. There was a lot split issued in 80s or something along those lines.

Member ba? Yes, the property was uh created I believe in 1987, 1986 or 1987 uh to 125 or sorry 120 foot lot width and at the time the property was owned uh I believe R118 which allows a minimum lot width of 120 ft. So when the property was created, it was conforming to the MCCO. But in 1989, the planning and zoning commission initiated a zone change to R135 with the anticipation that that neighborhood would be annexed into the city of Mesa. And procedure at the time was that properties going into Mesa would be reszoned R135 first. That annexation obviously never took place or at least hasn't taken place up to this point. But that action on behalf of the planning and zoning commission then board of supervisors made the lot legally non-conforming. So it is undersized but legally so.

So it's about not undersiz I'm sorry to interrupt. Not undersized but narrower than uh required per zoning ordinance but legally so. So it appears to be about 25 ft narrower in width than what the zoning code requires of 145 ft. Remember by that is correct. And so if it had been a normal width of 145 ft, then where they're placing it actually would have just been compliant with the code. Member Blet is also correct. Yes. Any other feedback or anyone prepared to make a motion on this one?

Also want to make a comment. The reason I say that I think that both sides should be 40 feet away from the from um the lot line is that even though the neighbors to the south are welcoming of this, I have to consider that someone who might live in that house in the future might be more happy that the corral is 40t away rather than the um require or the requested 15 ft because with horse properties there's dust, there's smell, there's noise, there's things that um uh require in this case a larger setback. And so I'd like to

consider that um I believe that it could be 40 foot on each side again with enough room for two horses without granting the 15t setback. I'm okay with the corral going in the front yard. It's just that I'm concerned about the neighbors on both sides. The neighbor on the other side appears to be okay, but they've got a 40 foot set back on their side. But the neighbor that's saying they're fine with it is going to have the the crowd set back a lot less from them. And I believe that it would be better for all concern if we kept the 40 foot set back on both sides of of the lot rather than on just one.

Would you like to address that? Yes. Well, go ahead. I'm going to make sure I might be confused. I I thought the neighbor to the south is the one who wrote a letter of support. Is that correct, member? B, that is correct. Yes. And that's the neighbor with the closer setback. Okay. Yes. They're okay with it because um Okay. Just want to make sure I got it.

Okay. I'm I'm I'm appreciative of the fact that there's a neighbor that is saying they're okay with it, but uh if you want to follow the intent of horse properties is to keep some of this um noise and smell and and other dust etc that comes from horse cars away from neighbors. So my feeling is that there's still enough room to build a horse corral in the front yard by not granting the um 15t setback. So my motion would be to move to approve the horse corral in the front yard but not permit the 15t setback. That is for case number BA26008.

Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion on the table that would approve one of the variances but not the other. Is there someone that wants to second that or make a different motion? Can I question first? Does the decision have to be yes or no on the variance or can the deny file approve with a different setback that's greater than 15 but not the full 40? Madam chair, members, uh yes, you have options before you. Uh you could separate the requests and vote on them separately. Um if that's easier. Yeah. Why don't we separate them and let's let's first move forward with just the having the location in the front yard. If you want to amend your prior motion.

Yes, I will. And I do appreciate the the comments made by the applicant about the need for the corral in the front yard. And I am fully in support of that. So, I make a move I make a motion that we approve the horse corral in the front yard for case number BA26008. Okay. And I'm looking for a second for that one. Second, beat me. By member ba take the roll call. Member B. Yes. Vice chair clap. Yes. Member Loper.

Yes. Chair person. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Okay, great. So, turning back to the setback, I want to make sure I understand what you're suggesting. So, if we're looking at this um the blue rectangle member clap that's on the screen, are you suggesting that they shift it over and have slightly No. You're suggesting that we take the 15 and move it to 40 and make it a a narrower. Instead of 65 ft, it would be 40T.

40T. Okay. 40T by 100 ft, which is 4,000 square ft, which is more than enough to accommodate two horses. Okay. Are we able to get some feedback from the applicant about that? Madam Chair, yes. It sounds to me like if you're wanting them to meet the minimum 40 foot per set per ordinance, you can make a motion to deny and they would have the front yard approved, but would but by ordinance would still have to meet the 40. It's certainly I I believe you want to hear from the

Yeah, I would love to hear from you or if there's a a different um option or size that might work. I know nothing about horses and so I don't know how much room they need, but if you wouldn't mind responding to that um size question, that would be helpful. And madam chair, while she's on her way up here, uh since variance approval isn't subject to a specific site plan, so if this request gets denied, they simply for their building permit for corral fencing just show a different morphology, different shape, meeting that.

Okay, thank you. Okay. The reason that um we went wider with them is because they're horses and we don't have a big property to run them anywhere for them to go anywhere. They're um currently in an open space that is um where they're not cared for as well. We're trying to, you know, get them um to a better space. Um I understand and appreciate um your concern for future owners. I do. And um And I and I know that I'm also emotional um where they're concerned. Um the horses have been through an awful lot and um they remember an awful lot and you know we've come into a time where we've done a lot to save them and to to give them and so I would be remiss if I didn't fight for everything that I could try to get for them to give them the best life that they could have. It's not I'm not housing a great dane. I'm housing two horses and you know the more space for them to move the better and um I was trying to find a solution that would be reasonable that that would be reasonable in relation to you know the the more narrowness they could have if we were wider they would if our neighbor our neighbors can have that but we can't because of that 40 foot setback and absolutely appreciate you know the dust and the dirt and all of that stuff. Um, we're very committed to not having those types of issues, although they're just inherent. You know, we don't want, you know, flies and manure and all this stuff. And we have plans. My daughter is in the ecoin science program, wants to go into ecoin dentistry. We're working closely with, um, Scottsdale's ecoin science program. Like, I don't I don't want a dirty lot. I want it clean. I want it put together. You know, I I spend three hours every day as it is driving out to where they are. And I

clean pasture every single day. I shovel, you know, pounds and pounds. And, you know, I've I've shoveled tons of manure out of their current living situation. You know, it won't be any different in my own place. It's going to be even better because now I can do it twice a day. And that's just the type of people that we are. Um, absolutely appreciate it. you know, of course, you know, whatever you find is the right thing. But, you know, our thinking is if we're able to provide them a little more space, which really when you're talking about courses, I feel bad that that's all I can give them because it is, you know, there's I don't have a turnout for them. I don't, you know, there's not great places to go walking down the street to take them. They're afraid of going out because of the situations that they've been into. So, I'm just trying to find the the most square footage that I can for them to try to adjust. So, they're safe, the neighbors are happy, everybody's happy, and um this is kind of why I've selected that if it's within um what you find to be reasonable. Like I said, the neighbors fully supportive and their house is also set back. So, that's all just driveway. It's all driveway for them. So, they they said, "Well, what are we doing with the space anyway?" Can I ask a question, staff? Um, if this was in the rear yard, like the property to the north, they mentioned there's a horse crawl over there. Um, if it was in the rear yard, would there be setback requirements to the sides?

No. Even though like it looks like they just on Prop North, they just put a fence behind their pool separate out the back. in theory that that rear yard should would be constrained with with respective 40 foot setbacks on each side. Yeah.

Yeah. I remember boss. So um horse corrals are required per MCO to be set back from 40 ft from all lot lines regardless of their placement relative to the house. Um and I think part of the issue here is um with those setback requirements uh the corral would need to be a lot smaller. But also the issue is by placing the corral in the rear yard, it's a lot more it would be a lot closer to where people tend to congregate in their on their properties. I should clarify, Madam Chair Ball, uh the 40 foot minimum setback for horse grows applies to residential zoning, doesn't apply to rural zoning. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback.

Yeah. Um, okay. So, I'll turn it back over to the board and u member Clap if you want to respond to her feedback or provide a motion on the setback issue. Well, I'd like to hear from the rest of the board on this issue before I make a motion. Yeah, my my thought is we have a support letter from the neighbor to the south. fully understand your feedback that perhaps someone in the future might have an issue, but given the fact that we have the narrower lot, we have their support and it's a driveway there, I'm comfortable with the setback as proposed. Anyone else? Any other thoughts?

Um, I would be the other probably horse owner on here, former horse owner, and You're gonna get if you have one horse or 10 horses, I think you're going to get dust and the manure, the flies, no matter what. So, I don't think the 40 ft or the 10 ft's going to make a difference. I would be in favor of it

or 15 ft. I'm sorry. Yeah, I do have a com and I don't think I'm going to be able to support the bearings in the front, but for a different reason. Um, as I look at the context of this area and how it's being built out with the homes directly the four lot subdivision directly across the street, look at the neighbor directly south. They have a wash that kind of cuts across their property which forces their home closer to the home to the north which is the applicant's property and their drive aisles and things like that close to there. Um I think the accommodation to grant the variance to the front I think is an unusual thing but one that we want to do for the applicant to help them be able to continue with their ecoin use. But I sort of respect that um one of the benefits of a setback is to reduce the externalities that occur outside of the invisible property lines, odor, flies, etc. And I think it's unusual to grant one in the front yard. I don't know if I'm totally comfortable moving it that close to the south, but I the absence of any feedback from people across the street also is interesting. But nonetheless, I don't think I'll be able to support the motion if there is a motion. Is there a motion on the table? Okay.

Member Loper, did you have any comments to share?

I I do. I guess I'm kind of torn on this. I um I'm in support generally of the variance request for what's been stated. Um I'm not a horse owner, but I've been around them for a large part of my life and uh what member Ward said is exactly correct. One or larger number, there's going to be dust, there's going to be flies. It's clear that the applicant um has their heart and soul in this in this use, but um should they sell the property, the we can't guarantee the next person would. But I but I generally am in support of the variance, but we'll defer to the the person that makes a motion, I guess, or I I guess I could be swayed, but at this point I'm in favor of the variance.

Thank you. Well, I'll make the motion and then we can see if I have any other votes with it. I would move to deny the 15oot setback for case number BA26008. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second by member B. We take the roll call vote, please. Member B. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Loper.

No. Chair Person. No. Member Ward. No.

Madam Chair, we have a motion that fails um by a vote of um 3 to two. Member Klopp would like to make another motion. Okay. So with that vote, I will uh move to approve the 15 foot setback for case number BAT 26008. Second for a second for that one. Second by member Ward. Another roll call, please. Member B. No. Vice Chair Clap. No. Member Loper. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Member Ward.

Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for approval by a vote of 3 to two. All right. Well, thank you. Um, best of luck to you. And Nick has a comment. Uh, yes. Uh, Chair Person, there is one more item as well. Uh, item C.

I don't I'm not seeing that on my agenda. Maybe I'm missing something. First one of the front yard. Okay. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Confusion was the recommendation for approval memorial also memorializes an LNC lot with that's not but that just happens, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Um, so unless there's anything else, I think we can go ahead and adjourn the meeting. All right. Thank Thank you. Thank you everyone. Bye. Amazing.