Board of Adjustment - meeting_joint_regular

chairperson here vice chair clap here member member loper member ward here madam chair we have a quorum excellent um i will read some 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 Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the Planning and Development website one week prior to the hearing at maricopa.gov slash 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 witness wishing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card, looks like this, for in-person attendance or registering a desire to comment as noted on the published agenda. At the appropriate time for each case, the chair will ask those attending in person and online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on the icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of people who have registered and noted a desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. Such testimony will 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 in-person 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 all motions and seconds. We have minutes to approve from April 16th. Are there any comments or questions on the minutes? No. We'll consider those approved. And Rosalie, I do see Member Loeber online now too.

OK.

Thank you. So with that, we do have one item that is withdrawn. So I don't think we need to take any action on that. Right, Darren? OK. We're making such good progress. So we will move on to item number two, case BA260013, the Navarette wall case. So I will turn it over to Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. BA260013 is a request to remove the requirement of a site visibility triangle for an already completed wall and gate at the corner of 170th Place and Stacey Road in the Gilbert area. The wall was erected with the initial building of the home in 2023 and was built 20 feet west of the current wall location due to an existing easement. The easement was legally removed and the home and wall were expanded upon to the current alignment in 2024. At the time of permitting, it was explained that the wall expansion was not part of the building permit. The applicant has subsequently tried in good faith to close the permit for the wall, but the current design does not meet the 25 by 25 foot site visibility requirement at roadway intersections as required per MCZO article 811.4.1. While 170th Place is a collection of private easements within the county, Stacy Road is within the jurisdiction of the town of Gilbert. Staff has reached out to the town for comment on the matter and to further understand the town's SVT requirements, but the town has not commented. Since publication of the staff report and posting of the public hearing notification on the site, staff has received six letters of public comment, three in support and three in opposition to the proposed variance. Staff is unable to identify any specific or peculiar conditions facing the property different from any other properties in the zoning district. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Andrew. Are there any questions for staff members of the board?

Okay.

Thank you. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Great. Would you please come up to the podium, state your name for the record, and then proceed with your comments?

Yes. Good morning. Leonard Navarrete. I'm the owner of that property. And as Andrew just mentioned, I have tried to close that permit and I've gone through all the legal ways to do it. When I purchased the home, we had plans to do the landscaping and we did other things to it. There was an easement back there. When the easement was removed, I submitted for a permit to extend my perimeter wall to the whole land, the whole area. I was told that I didn't need to do a permit because there was already a permanent place that I just needed to do a I don't know what the name of that form is, a modification. So as you can tell, I did the modification. I explained what I was going to do in detail. And then I also did a drawing, which I did a drawing of what I was going to do. So that was approved and the permit was extended. So I went ahead and completed the work. I did all of the work. When I ordered the final inspection, the inspector then said, okay, we'll submit it, but you do, are you aware that there's supposed to be a 45 degree angle site visibility triangle? And I said, no, I wasn't aware of that. When I submitted the plan, I wasn't told anything different. And I found out after I got this form from the final inspector, saying that I needed that. And that's my issue now. I already built it with what I thought was approved. And that right there is the wall and the gate. And my understanding is that there needs to be a visibility of 25 feet. Well, I took this picture because I wanted to show that the road actually merges to the left. So there is a lot of visibility there. And for me to remove what I already built, honestly, I don't have the money to do it. I already spent all the budget. And it's going to cost a lot of money to remove that and move it. I don't think I ever got a citation or a complaint or anything like that while I was building it and even after I built it. So at this point, my request is that I'm allowed to keep it the way it is. And also in showing that there's two other photos of two other neighborhoods that have the same situation that I have. They don't have, excuse me, that that 25 or that 45 degree angle visibility. That's neighborhood one. And this is the other one, neighborhood two. The walls are identical to mine, which that's what I thought. I had no issue. But now I'm in this situation and my request is that obviously I keep the building the way it is. If not, I'm going to be in a financial burden here. I don't have the money to fix it. And that's what I wanted to say.

Thank you. Could you go back to the slide where it showed like a red rectangle? I don't know if you're running the slides or Adia. I'm going to try to go back. It was the site plan. Yep. This one. Yeah. Okay. So I, you know, the, the red line going along the far right is obviously where the wall was built. Who drew this with the other red going to make the rectangle at the bottom part of that?

That was, um, I forgot the lady's name. She is the county person that reviewed the final inspection.

Okay. So she was suggesting that it be,

She was suggesting that in order to get this permit closed, you missed the triangle. And I said, well, I built it according to what I drew. And when I got the permit extended and approved, if I would have known that I had to build that triangle, I would have obviously done it the right way. This was not the first thing I was doing. I actually had three or four other permits and I did everything according to the permit. Everything was passed. Everything was finalized except this, which honestly, if I would have known, I would have done it. I was asked. Every one of my neighbors, I've been in constant communication with them. They never had an issue with it. I've always asked for permission on everything I was doing. And they've been extremely awesome neighbors. And as of right now, they're still kind of like wondering why did they let you build it if they wanted something different? I think, you know, I think, Leonard, you should go let them know. And right now, to be able to remove that, it's going to cost a lot of money. And honestly, I don't have it.

Thank you for answering that. Are there any other questions for Mr. Navarrete from the board? This is in district one.

Yes, this is Adam. Is it possible to go to the slide that shows the power line next to the ball and the gate? Yeah, there you go, that one right there. Is that power line Is that on private property with an easement for access, or is that actually some dedicated roadway where there's just a power line in it?

Okay, so that is a private road for the neighborhood or the people that live on 170th Place. That power line is the power line that provides power to one, two, three, eight or nine houses back there.

Is this the corner that is being requested to have the SVT?

Correct. That is the corner. And then again, that was my comment, right? There's a power line there. There's a street sign and you have to go, as you can see, probably 20 feet to the EAST OF MY WALL SO THEY HAVE PLENTY OF VISIBILITY AND ALSO I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THERE WITHOUT MAKING A STOP SO YOU HAVE TO MAKE A STOP TO GO INTO STACEY ROAD.

IS THERE AN AERIAL MAP THAT SOMEBODY CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN PLEASE?

Does that work, Member Ba?

Yeah. I was hopeful for maybe a little bit bigger, but I can make this work.

The one on the right, the one before that on the one on the right, it has the better view. Yeah, this works.

I have some comments I can make now or I can make later. I'll leave it up to the chairwoman.

Well, why don't we hear if there are any other people here wishing to speak and then go back to that. And then Mr. Navarro, just stay tuned in because we have other questions. Do we have anyone else here in person or online registered?

Nobody else online indicating they'd like to speak.

Okay. Then yeah, Adam, did you have other questions or do you want me to close the public hearing and we'll

Yeah, I think you can close. And then during the during our deliberation, I can add some thoughts.

OK, I did have one other question for you, Mr. Navarrete. There are three folks that have submitted letters of opposition. Two of them don't have their names on them. One did. But I'm curious if you've spoken to any of those folks to address their concerns.

OK, so when I received the first letter, I believe it was Mary and I think it was it didn't ring a bell because I know all the neighbors surrounding me. So I did a little research and I found out that that, that person actually is a relative of my next door neighbor who lives in 170th way. She actually lives in California. And she visits my next door neighbor once in a while, but she never will be on 170th place. She always uses 170th way, which that was my, my, concern. I think she's mistaken that the whole thing is about our street, 170th Way, and not 170th Place. So I think that was the confusion she might have had. So as far as her letter was, I don't know why she would be opposed to this because she's my next door neighbor and she lives on this side of the street, not not on the street in question. So the other two anonymous, I think I know who they are, but I'm, it's just assuming, but I don't know who, I can't say unless Andrew confirms it. So, but they wish to remain anonymous.

All right. Thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board.

um so member of all let you kick us off thank you um it seems like this could have been a preventable situation and i don't know if it was a question of just not knowing the rules and final plan or getting wrong direction from the county and then relying upon that part seems a little in the air for me but i don't know if if you wanted to comply you could also do a notch out and just bring that But all that being said, the thing about those power lines is if this was going to be a planned development on a land, you know, next to this, then let's assume it would be a subdivision. The developer that would have had the requirement to underground those power lines and those power lines took away. But because these homes have all been built sort of one at a time without any master plan whatsoever. I don't think those power lines will be undergrounded by anybody but themselves. And I think they'll stay there for a while. And so the way that traffic pattern is working, wrapping around those power poles and going down, essentially that same line of sight, that same SVT functionally exists, even if it might not technically exist with regard to the code requirements. And so for that reason, I think we're capturing the same BENEFIT OF IT PROVIDED THE POWER LINES STAY UP. I DON'T SEE A SCENARIO WHERE THOSE WILL BE UNDERGROUNDED BY ANYBODY BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT AND THE UNDERGROUND IS PROBABLY PASSED.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? I'M NOT HEARING ANY. ADAM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

YES. I motion to approve the variance.

Great, we have a motion by Member Baugh and a second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Baugh?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Profan? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Excellent. Thank you. Best of luck to you. Thank you. We will move on to agenda item number three, BA 260023, the Deuce property. I will turn it over to Nick.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. James Onley, case be 26 years or two, three is a request to permit a rear yard setback of six feet from the north lot line of the deuce property where the r1 a rd PD zoning district requires. James Onley, A minimum or your setback of 20 feet, the property owners are hoping to build an attached patio cover and the north side of the existing residents that would encroach into the required yard. James Onley, Overall, the property appears to be typical for a single family lot in Rio verde it is generally flat or slopes very slightly toward the verde river. and features no significant topographical features like a washer floodplain. The property is neighbor by similar single family residents to the east and west as well as across the street to the south. To the north of the property across from the rear yard where the patio covers being proposed is one of Rio Verde's signature golf courses. The residence itself is close enough to the rear setback line that there is minimal remaining space available for an attached accessory structure without encroaching into the required yard. However, staff notes that structurally detaching the cover from the residence, potentially even by just a matter of inches, would exempt it from the setback requirements regulating primary structures. The zoning ordinance allows detached accessory structures to be built up to three feet from the rear lot line, so long as the total yard coverage doesn't exceed 30% of the required setback area. The patio cover, if detached, would not present a coverage issue, assuming the site plan measurements are correct. For these reasons, staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property, nor an undue hardship created by the existing orientation of the residence. By structurally detaching the patio cover, the need for variance could be negated entirely. And furthermore, the development of a residence as the primary use demonstrates that the property fulfills the general intent and purpose of the ordinance. That having been said, 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 item A as outlined in paragraph 17 of the staff report. This time I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I just have one question that may be immaterial, but on this plan that's shown on the screen, it identifies a 25 foot rear building setback line. And I'm wondering if that's just a typo because every other reference was to 20 feet.

Chair Persone, I believe that was based on a mistaken interpretation of the current zoning ordinance. The current zoning ordinance in the base R18 zoning district requires a rear setback of 25 feet. And I believe the applicant had been reading that zoning ordinance and assuming that was a required setback. That having been said, the REPD overlay zoning district was established for this particular subdivision back in the 1970s, I believe, and because the REPD specifically established the rear setback at 20 feet, that is the required rear setback.

Great, thank you. Are there any other questions for Nick? Okay, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is our applicant or applicant's representative here or online?

We have a raised hand, Nicholas Baker. David, do you think you can get him unmuted, please?

Hi, can you hear me?

We can.

All right also, Nick, so I had done the site plan. Actually, that's on screen when I called in initially. I was told 25, and I'm sure. I was probably corrected to 20, but I had already made the site plan. Um, but either way at 20 feet, it goes right up to the house. Which would still make this impossible to build like this. Um. The customers and the homeowners, they prefer to be attached because they already have an existing travertine uncovered patio. There should be an aerial image where you can actually see it within the pack. I don't have a way to cycle there. But going detached, while it is possible, it also changes spans and material you have to use. we would have to rip up part of that uncovered patio, which would incur them costs and some time, as well as adding, whether it be more stringers or more beams, because what happens is when you're attached, the structural calculations change. And so, again, it would be possible, but it's just not what the homeowners are wishing. And they were feeling a bit upset just because they only have one neighbor on each side and then a golf course. So they're not really understanding why they wouldn't be allowed to build something like this. But I'm just here to answer any questions. And so if anybody has any questions about it, I am the one that did design it. I did work with the engineer. So if If there was any questions, I can provide answers.

Thank you, Mr. Baker. Are there any questions of our speaker? This is in District 2. Yeah, I have a question.

You put up these kind of covers all the time, I'm assuming. And in my mind, it seems that there is little difference between attaching and not attaching. Is there... Other than tearing up some of the existing travertine, how much cost are we talking about in detaching or disattaching?

We would have to deal with the patio travertine itself. I'm not exactly sure what that costs because that's done with a construction manager here at our company. But as far as like adding two decent sized like footings and stuff, I mean, that's probably like maybe a thousand or a little bit more added to just the footing and then whatever it costs to replace the travertine and make it look right. As well as when we go to the engineering, if anything needs to change, like more beams, this material is extruded. So it's like a heavier gauge. This isn't your typical roll form aluminum. It's more structurally sturdy, so everything's more expensive. It's powder coated really nice. So it would be hard to say without having to rerun the engineering exactly, but it'd probably be a few thousand dollars, I would imagine.

I can understand the homeowner not wanting to do that, but Since you do this quite regularly, do you typically explain to homeowners that the code is that you need to attach it if there's not enough room in the back of their house to do this? Or is this unusual for your company to run into this?

It's a little bit of both. So we've had this happen a few times before, obviously. we, you know, some customers are okay with doing detached and I believe Maricopa County, it's typically just daylight. So to detach it, that is something that we did propose to the homeowners, but they just really didn't like the idea of tearing up their already existing patio. And yeah, so that was their decision. We offered to a solution for detached, but they just really don't want to proceed that route.

Okay, I will wait and see if anybody else has questions about this because I suppose I'm somewhat biased about this. I ran into the same problem with my HOA that I put a remodel on the back of my house, but I had to detach it in order to not have to have the HOA approve it, but if I did attach it, then I would have to go through a whole lot more rules and regulations for attaching it. And it didn't really make much of a difference. You just move it out an inch or two and then you detach it. So I understand the frustration of the homeowner, but yet again, that doesn't mean that the rule is not reasonable. So I would like to ask what the rest of my fellow colleagues think about that.

thank you member clap are there any other comments for our applicant i just have a question does does the lock coverage created by this canopy change whether it's attached or detached i'd from my understanding it would be no i could be wrong about that but

It's usually total area under roof, whether it's attached or detached. Again, like I said, I could be wrong about it, but that's how I've understood it for the last couple of years working in this space.

No, it's actually not a theoretical question. I mean, truthfully, I guess you just look at your canopy square foot area. If you're attaching this as opposed to detaching it.

Let's let Darren weigh in and clarify. Darren, can you clarify?

Yes, Madam Chair, Member Baugh. The lot coverage and yard coverage does not, the lot coverage is just simply aggregate area under roof. Yard coverage is the same as the aggregate area under roof within a required yard. The only thing that changes a calculation of coverage would be if it is if the Ramada is not 100%. I'm sorry, I've forgotten the word like an opaque, if it is opaque, if it's a lattice work or something like that, then by ordinance, we count it 50%. Yeah.

So this lattice cover.

Oh, that only counts 50% towards coverage that has no variance.

Yeah, that's not what the variance is subject.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is whether you attach it or detach it. The area that's being covered by the shade structure. Is the same is that a simple understanding?

Yeah, it would be the same. Um. I guess the only difference would be like if they wanted some kind of design change if they decided to proceed with detached. But as far as like what we are looking at or expecting, it would be the same. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah, I wasn't sure if for some reason you are getting closer to the proper line with the attached or detached. But if it's... If the aerial perspective is in the proximity to the property line is the same. Whether you attach or detach. Then, from the customer's perspective, I could see that they would go, well, we'll just go with the cheaper option that gets the cover to the exact same point as if it were detached. Is that is my thought process right on that?

And Madam chair member this is Darren. The location for detached district structure means it's structurally detached and is not under the same roof or eave overhang. So it's probably essentially the same, but if there is a roof, it may require a bit more separation, a roof overhang. Thank you.

Are there any other folks here or online that wish to speak on the case?

Nobody else online.

Thank you, Mr. Baker. I'm going to close up here and hang tight and we will turn it over to the board. Again, this is in District two.

Yeah, I'd like to know how the rest of the board feels about this.

For me personally, I struggle with this. Well, two things. One, yes, you could just get around not having to do the variance by having the structure detached. I feel like that would be the easy thing to do, but I also feel like having a rule in place that kind of allows you to basically build almost the exact same thing without needing the variance, we might as well just let them build it that's attached and gonna have the same look and feel. So, you know, it's kind of six one half dozen, the other in my opinion. Member Loper has his hand raised.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been fairly consistent over the years with this that attached or detached, if the impact is overall the same, I have no issue with this proposed variance. I do support the intent of the rule otherwise and what the zoning ordinance is trying to accomplish. But as you were leading towards attach or detach, the impact is the same and therefore I support the variance.

Anyone else have thoughts to add?

That's that's kind of what I was getting at with the question, because the coverage ends up being the same and the proximity to the property line ends up being the same. The irony of the, of the. The regulation is actually by by detaching it and you're putting 2 posts up to support the detached that otherwise would have attached the house. is now creating sort of an obstruction to walk around under the patio close to the home. And so in a funny way, the detachment of it actually makes it kind of less optimal and less efficient. And I think what happens here is the county has done a good job of revising their ordinance and their plans to be more pro-business and more customer friendly. I think that's how it got to the point where you have a detachment that allows you to get to the property line. The unintended consequence of it is it actually works against you in this scenario. And so for that reason, I could be supportive of the recommendation to approve the variance.

This conversation has been very helpful in that I don't understand the difference in the rule. I know there is a rule, and that's why I'm questioning this, that the rule says what it says, that you have to not attach it if you're going to get too close to the property line. But I also agree, so I'm in the same place as several others, also agree that it makes sense to attach it to the house. So, you know, I guess I'm questioning the rule, but in this instance, I do understand the property owner's feeling about this. So I'll lean that direction and go ahead and make a motion to approve this request for BA 260023. Second. Yes.

Yes, Chair Clapp. Yes. Member Loper.

Yes.

Chair Persson. 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, Mr. Baker.

Madam Chair.

Yes.

Member of the Board, Member Loper here. I apologize. I think I told some folks, but not everyone. I need to leave. Today's my oldest son's birthday and I've committed to do something with him. I apologize. My ability to attend in person's been not so much these last couple of months or even to participate. I hope to be in person at the next one and for a number of them following. So with that said, I need to leave this meeting and I wish you the best of luck. It looks like you've got a quorum, but thank you.

Thank you. Happy birthday to your son.

All right, have a good day.

Bye. Thanks, you too. We will move on to agenda item number four, case BA260027, the Rindle property variance. And this one is back to Andrew.

Madam Chair, board members, I'm pinch hitting for Joel who is sick today. Don't screw it up. I'll try not to be a 260027 known as the Rendell property. District three, the variance to allow hillside disturbance outside the principal building envelope or otherwise prohibited. This lot was created in 2021 via unregulated lot splitting. Do with review of historic aerial photography, we believe hillside disturbance occurred at the northern portion of this parcel in connection with easement improvements made to support development further to the east and also testing for drilled wells and other pre-development work. In paragraph 17, staff lists findings. Those include that the entire lot is subject to hillside slopes. The lot and all surrounding were created via unregulated land division. Hillside disturbance on the lot predates current ownership but was done in staging construction on surrounding lots in the line of title. The lot and proposed home will meet all rule 43 zoning district requirements other than this hillside request. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property that is unique and different from other lots in the other hillside lots in the rural 43 universe. The presence of hillside slopes by itself does not warrant relief from hillside regulations. And the ordinance does allow remediation of disturbed hillside slopes with engineering grading plans. However, should the board motion to approve in paragraph 18, we note item A, that variance approval establishes an allowed disturbance outside the principal building envelope on hillside lot of 9,800 square feet. happy to try and answer any questions.

Thank you. I do not have any questions. Do the rest of you have questions for Darren? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online wishing to speak?

Hello. Yes, I am. Can you hear me?

Yes. Please state your name for the record and then go ahead with your presentation.

my name is justin rindel i am the owner of the property and we purchased it with the disturbance already done um it was as you saw in the photos before there there was a house that was being developed on the north side so we essentially purchased the property we're looking to build on it um the disturbance is in the setbacks that we're having issues with they use the lot as a staging lot to essentially move dirt up and down I personally didn't know that there was this big of an issue as far as lots. I would have purchased the lot next to it knowing this now. We are going to return everything to its natural state. We're not asking to change, well, the stuff that has been done, we're going to revert it back as much as possible to its natural state. So we're not asking for any changes as far as that. That is all I currently have.

Thank you, Mr. Randall. Are there any questions of our speaker? I see none. I don't have any other speaker cards. Is there anyone else online or in the audience that wishes to speak on this item?

Nobody else online.

OK, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back over to the board. This one, I believe, is in my district. City Council Chambers L' curious for thoughts from the rest of you, this is another one that I struggle with because i'm not an engineer, but when I look at at a site like this, where there's so much topography I don't really understand how. City Council Chambers L' Someone could build something on the property without having to disturb some of the lot. City Council Chambers L' But you know i'm again not an engineer, so I don't have a lot of things I don't understand but i'm curious for thoughts from the rest of the board about this item.

i would agree with you i'm so grateful for the photos because they really help illustrate the change in the topography and i think support the necessity of the variants thank you also i think i think that you know did all this disturbance occurred before the current owner and as you said you can't go back and change the disturbance it's there So in my opinion, if he's going to go back and replant and improve the property when he gets the house built, then to me, that's the best solution. So I would not have any problem with this case.

Would you care to make a motion to that effect?

Sure. I'll move to approve BA 260027. I have a motion.

Do I have a second?

Second.

And by Member Ward, Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persaud? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. Uh, we will move on to agenda item five case BA 260028 McLeod residents variance, and I will turn it over to Andrew.

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Board. BA 260028 is a request to amend the proposed lot width to 110 feet or 145 feet is required and to allow a front setback along the northern parcel frontage of 5 feet or 40 feet is permitted by the MCZO. The parcel is located on 10th Street and Red Ledge Way in the North Phoenix area. parcel frontage request is due to poor lot splitting practices by a former owner easements were created on the northern and southern parcel boundaries for access to parcels on the eastern property side due to the two added easements the lot is viewed as a dual frontage through lot subsequently due to the lot frontage requirements of the mczo the existing parcel is l-shaped and the length of the small easement being measured as being measured as the parcel front at 110 feet instead of the roadway along 10th Street, which has a frontage of 336 feet. As it currently exists today, the parcel is undevelopable by county standards as it does not meet lot frontage requirements. The second request is to amend the northern front setback down to five feet, where 40 feet is required by MCZO Section 502. Currently, a well pump house is located approximately 10 feet from the easement line and the owner's desire to construct a barn approximately five feet from the easement line. The distance of the barn to the northern lot line would be approximately 25 feet, including the easement. If the easement was not present, the barn and pump house would meet all rear yard building requirements to construct per the zoning ordinance. The existence of the through lot dual frontage restricts the property from developing within the northern front yard area. Thank you very much. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Andrew. Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, go ahead and open the public hearing. Is our applicant present today or online? Great. Please come up to the podium, state your name, and go forward with your presentation.

Hi, good morning. My name is Scott McLeod. I'm the property owner along with my wife. And this is my first time doing one of these.

You're doing great.

Please bear with me. So basically, my neighbor to the east who built his house recently needed water sooner. So we went ahead and put the well in, and we built this tank enclosure structure, which is the primary purpose of this request. Because there is a significant wash that runs right down through the middle of the property as Andrew indicated there's limited space. So we placed it there and then, once we approved our and it's just a block structure with a sun canopy on the top of it about 12 by 24 it basically just holds to 2500 gallon water tanks. So just having them exposed we concealed them. And so I've talked to all my neighbors and we have consent that nobody has a problem with it. And we placed the well up in the northwest corner so it would not be encumber on any future building plans. And it just wound up being that once we submitted our building plans for this, this came up as an unknown.

Thank you. And so I'm clear. I don't think the well is what we're talking about, right? It's the lot width and then the distance for the barn from the front setback, right? That probably is a question for Andrew. My apologies. But we're not talking about the well. We're talking the two things for the variance are the lot width of 110 versus 145 and the front yard setback, which is the barn is what is.

So the barn is, does, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, the barn is a proposed structure. The well structure does exist today.

Okay, and is that part of the variance as well?

Yes, it's part of the north side.

Thank you.

All right.

The barn doesn't have to be. The point, the main purpose of our request is just that we don't have to tear down that well structure, the well tank enclosure.

Thank you. Madam Madam chair.

Yes.

Just for clarification. If, if the board believes there's, there's warrant for a variance, then you will be establishing a five foot North side setback. And so that would apply across the board to whatever's to be built.

Great. Great. Yeah. Thanks for the clarification. Did you have any other comments, Mr. Or do we have any questions for our speaker? Seeing none, I do have two speaker cards on this case, so I'll go with Susie Wagner. If you want to state your name, even though I just said it, and then give your presentation.

I'm actually Samantha Wyckoff.

I have cards from both of you. Are you both intending to speak? Yes. It's okay if I go first? You are welcome to go first. This is Samantha.

So good morning. I am actually the lot owner that's right by, if you look at the lot where it's noted at 110.82, I'm right behind that. I'm not seeing. So on the dimensions when it says, when it's noted on the lot 110.82, I'm adjacent to that.

Okay. I'm seeing one. I'm looking at this aerial.

I'm not sure.

If you can see this, it says 111.04. So maybe that's.

Madam Chair, the closest I see is approximately 111, the south frontage. If you look.

Okay. Yep. So she, yeah, she's pointing to kind of the rectangle that would be in the armpit of the L for lack of a better way to describe it. Okay. Thank you.

All right, I respectfully request denial of the variance application. The county zoning ordinance establishes minimum standards for the reason. In this case, the required minimum lot width and frontage is 145 feet, while the applicant is proposing a lot width of approximately 110.82 feet. Although the parcel may exceed the minimum square footage requirement of 43,560 square feet, compliance with minimum lot area loan does not eliminate the requirement to comply with the county's established frontage and standards. Most importantly, this request does not appear to meet the fundamental purpose or legal basis for granting a variance. Variances are intended for situations involving genuine hardships arising from unique physical characteristics of a property that prevent reasonable use under existing zoning regulations. In this case, the property contains nearly 1.75 acres, along with additional area measuring approximately 340 feet by 162 feet. Given this substantial size and dimensions of the property, there appear to be reasonable alternatives available that would allow developmental consistencies with existing zoning standards without requiring relief from the county's frontage requirement. In other words, this does not appear to be a situation where the property cannot reasonably comply with zoning code. Rather, it appears the applicant is seeking to create a nonconforming lot configuration despite having sufficient land area to design the property in a compliant manner. As the adjacent property owner, I relied upon existing zoning standards and development pattern when purchasing and investing in my property. Property owners within this area have reasonable expectations that the county established one acre zoning standards, including frontage and dimensional requirements, will consistently be applied. Approving this variance despite the availability of compliant alternatives would effectively grant a special privilege not enjoyed by any other property owners who are required to comply with the same standards. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the variance request and uphold the county's established zoning requirements. I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you. I have a question for you. So to clarify, Your opposition is specific to the variance for the lot width, but you have no concern with the variance for the setback along the north side. Correct. Yes, that is correct. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Are there any other questions for our speaker? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. Wagner, would you still like to speak? Great.

Hi there, I'm Susie Waggoner. I am a licensed real estate professional and I actively work in this community. The biggest thing I want to say is she doesn't necessarily oppose, but that 110 width that should be 145, there is a proposed structure in there. So it's not really about the five foot, that doesn't affect her. A structure that would be allowed to be built within that 110 instead of the 145 would, in my opinion, establish the dimensions for all other surrounding parcel owners and within the county. That's a slippery slope. Like in my opinion, if it was 110 all the way down and they didn't have anything buildable, but they have a large section down below as well, that's a very large buildable area. So your standards exist to preserve the intended character, spacing, access, compatibility, and development pattern of the area. So granting the request is my opinion that you'll be establishing a concerning precedent. So if that parcel with as much land and flexibility that it's been given is granted this, it becomes increasingly difficult for you to deny other land owners similar exceptions. And in my opinion, by giving such exceptions, it will erode the integrity of the zoning ordinance that's already been City Council Chambers, established and as the Community of the character has been the character of the Community has been established. City Council Chambers, When you go there it's about open space it's about whatnot so putting structures closer to each other when there's not a need to do so, seems. City Council Chambers, Not a really great idea so as Samantha had indicated she'd be impacted, but I think that overall approving it is a detriment to land owners in the adjacent community, so I would respectfully request that you didn't deny it as well. Thank you guys for your time. Thank you.

Yes, Darren. Madam Chair, just for clarification, and so the speaker's aware, the proposed single family residence down in that arm, the southwestern arm, it will meet all minimum setbacks. We, by definition, consider the narrowest frontage the front of the lot. So this whole L-shaped lot is substandard frontage because that south lot lines the front. But in that southwestward arm, the proposed residence will meet all minimum setbacks. So it's arguably not necessarily any closer to any property line.

But it could not be located anywhere else on the property line. If it shouldn't fit in 110, if 110 is, if 145 is the depth or the measurement and you're going to shrink it down to 110, whether it conforms or not, it's still being granted a variance that it could be placed in another area on the property. Right. So yes, you are correct.

Okay. the typical dimension, I do believe this is a peculiar condition because there are two different sides that are being counted as the front. If this along the south wasn't being counted as the front also, you wouldn't have the 145. But I think what Darren is also saying is if you have the 145, the house could still be placed, whatever it is from the property, I am too old to read that, but it could still be placed just as close to Ms. Wyckoff's property.

Madam Chair, to be clear, This lot becomes an unbuildable lot the way it is laid out with that south frontage and the lot width of 111 without a variance. If that easement did not exist on the lot, this shape would be fine. But the fact that there's an easement down there creates that as the front.

When you say easement down there, which easement are you talking about?

Along the south.

Thank you.

So it's not... that they can just move the residents anywhere on this proposed lot. That's not the issue. The issue is the fact that the front of the lot is substandard. This, of course, is a result of unregulated land division, poor lot spreading practices, and it's self-created in the line of title. But you cannot just relocate. Lots would have to be, if this variance isn't considered, lots would have to be re-delineated in order to remove this frontage. So I don't know if they can coordinate with the property of 211.74.116 to try and create two lots that meet all requirements. I can't state that the zoning inspector has the ability due to unusual circumstances to designate something else as the front of the lot, but in doing so, that will alter setbacks on all the lot lines.

So question, and I don't even know if this is a possibility, but I think you're saying regardless of where the building is placed on the L-shaped lot, the variance would be required because of this 110 not being 145, right?

In order to develop this lot, based on the existing morphology that exists, a variance is required unless they re-delineate to remove that southern frontage.

Okay. And what I'm hearing Ms. Wagoner and Ms. Wyckoff say is, Their issue is not as much with, their issue is mostly with the building being that close to their property. So I think we have two issues and I'm curious for the other board members feedback, but.

And Madam Chair, sorry to keep interrupting, but assume that's re-delineated and there's no frontage to the south, that house could still be placed in that location because it meets minimum setback requirements.

Yeah, so it's really the easement I mean, the only other option that I see, because there's this wash going through that area, you couldn't put the building. The only other option I see is if the McLeods are able to put the home up by where the barn is shown, which the variance would still be required because of the easement on the south side. I don't know if that's an option. I also don't know if that makes you feel differently about your position. So I'm confused when you're saying south. Okay, so south, I believe, is the short.

This is the 110. The short part is the south, right? Right. So there's an easement here, and then there's the easement out front. Yep. So this is the front easement. Is that correct? The long, the 346 measurement is the south easement, or is that the front easement, the five-foot difference you're asking for?

Madam Chair, members of the public, there are three frontages for this property. There's a frontage along the north, a frontage along the west, a frontage along the south. The south is the front of the lot by ordinance definition because it is the narrowest frontage. The south. Yep.

The 110. The 110 is the south and is considered the front.

And they want a five foot easement? I mean, a five foot off of that? No. Or they want five foot from the 346? It's from the top. Yeah. From the 346? Exactly. Okay. This is actually the most southern part. No, this is the most northern part. So I was getting confused as to which area it was. I apologize. So with this easement, these two were landlocked. Previously, these two lots here were landlocked and that easement was granted. Again, as there was some wildcatting, everybody knows if you work rural areas, it's just what happened. But so they're they're asking for five feet off of this easement instead of 40 feet. Is that the understanding along? There's two separate issues.

The five feet relates to the north property. OK, so that is here. They want to go from the well and the barn. And that was the one Miss Wyckoff said she didn't have a concern with. OK, the second issue is that regardless of anything ever developed on this property, because it has multiple fronts because of the easements, then that narrow dimension is too narrow. If this was a normal house along the center and not having these easements and frontages, then it would only have one front side. And so the 110 wouldn't matter because it would be considered a side yard and this variance wouldn't be required.

So I guess it would be this 235. Is that right? This 235 measurement? The barn's going to go in this area and the house is going to go in the 110 area. Is that what I'm understanding?

Yeah. So there's a separate thing that I know you probably can't see it.

We didn't get a copy of, unfortunately. Okay.

Maybe you can put it on the screen. Yeah. Thanks. I didn't realize you didn't have it. So I don't know if you can zoom in or not, but probably not. So if you look at this, you know, north is up. The barn is that rectangle that's towards the north property line. Oh yeah. Go back to that other one. To the west of it is like a Diagonal smaller rectangle. That's the well enclosure. That's what's existing. Correct. And the barn is what is being proposed. Those are both closer to the setback. Normally the setback would be defined off of the property line, but because of the easement, the setback is being defined off of the easement line. Okay. Right. And then, oh, thank you. The home that's being proposed is in, is on the south part that's, to the west of Ms. Wyckoff's property.

Okay.

And that's the one that Darren is saying, whatever the dimension is from the home to the property line, that's not violating anything. That would be the same if this property line was 110 feet or 3,004 feet. It could still be that close to the property line. The issue is because this has multiple frontages that 110 is narrower than would be required.

It's being counted against them instead of the 345 down at the northern end.

Basically, yeah. Sorry, it is a little complex.

So the 110 is always, the smallest measurement is always what's held against you, is essentially what I'm hearing you say.

If there are multiple frontages. There's different setbacks from the front yard setback or the side yard, but because this one has multiple fronts, exactly what you said. Okay, yeah.

I still think it's a slippery slope. I can understand their predicament. I do recognize that the wash does exist. It does run across 10th Street. I am very familiar with the area. Like I said, I recognize that that wash, but where the barn is located or whether the house is located, I feel like they decided to put the well there. They could have had the well location in a different location. They drilled and didn't consider their planning prior to drilling. so if you drill a well and you make a well and you say okay i'll do it like this then you shouldn't need variances because you should have already allotted for where your prop how you were going to set your property still so i still will say i think it's a slippery slope because if i didn't mean that doesn't you don't get do-overs in lot planning you need the well to be perfectly clear the well in my opinion has nothing to do with where the home is the home the issue with the home is based on the hundred and

and 10 feet, the well and the barn up here, I'm not hearing Ms. Wycott, maybe you have an issue with it, but that's only related to that variance along the north side. So they're kind of two separate issues.

Correct. So I'm mostly speaking about that to give the five feet, it's a barn. I don't suppose the people next to them are going to be impacted by the barn driving by it. I'll be fair. But also typically what I understood is The zoning didn't allow for a property. It had to be behind your home. So in this case, it won't be behind the home. It'll be in front of the home. Is that not? I'm not sure that's what we're talking about today. Right. But I'm just saying, so to continue on, if that five feet is granted, well, also, how come a barn is in front of the home instead of the home being behind the home? Because that is typically a county requirement as well. If we're going to grant the variants, we're going to say that that's going to be allowed and your animals are to be kept behind your own property, behind your own home. Okay.

Yeah, I'll defer to the county staff on that one. I think we're kind of getting away from the main point, but Andrew or Darren, do you want to weigh in on that?

Madam Chair, I think there may be an actual, not a solution to the problem of the barn location, but an access to the solution of the substandard lot. Can we take a minute so we can speak to the property owner? Of course, yeah.

Okay, we're going to pause and we will resume shortly. I feel like we need the Jeopardy music playing.

Right.

Street.

Correct.

you

uh madam chair if i could here's what the thinking is um the ordinance actually allows for vehicular non-access easement on one of the frontages of a through lot which would then remove that from being considered the front this house meets all setback requirements if they put a vehicular non-access easement inside the edge of that easement on the south Then we would look at the north as being the front. They still need a setback to the front lot line for these detached structures in the front, unless they move it back 40 feet from the edge of that easement. And the well is still there. The well enclosure is above ground, I believe. So that has to meet setbacks as well. So they're going to need, as long as that is a frontage, they're going to have to have a 40-foot setback from the edge of the easement, and they only have a 5-foot setback from the edge of the easement. So unless you're going to grant a variance to that. But the lot width, if you deny that today, they have the ability to create a vehicular non-access easement and rectify that. I don't know. It's probably too complicated to try and modify the request on the fly right here. And if the applicant's willing to, if he wants to modify his request, maybe this could come back next month.

Okay, but it sounds, I think if we look at the two variances separately, you're saying maybe we discuss first.

Are we in, have we closed the public hearing yet?

We have not. I do, it does look like Ms. Wagoner has another comment. If you could keep it quick, because we need to turn it over to the board.

I just want to ask the question, if an abandoning the easement or no vehicular easement, are they talking about the piece closest to Red Range, closest to Wyckoff being abandoned for vehicular access?

We are only talking about what's called a vehicular non-access easement. on the south side of this lot so that they so that they mean the property owner is not able to access that south easement and we're not going to consider that the front of the lot okay so they'll abandon that request is what you're saying it will not it will not impact anybody else's right to use the easement.

That's what my question was. So the, because I was like, you can't, they can't abandon that easement because it gives access to those other two. That was my question. So thank you.

So Madam, Madam Chair, if you were to.

Let's close the public hearing then, and we can have you weigh in as well on the board, but.

Madam Chair, if you do not find grounds for the, for the lot width variance and it's denied, the applicant does have an avenue to proceed with this existing shape through the vehicular non-access easement. They will need a variance to the north.

Understood. Okay, thank you. I'd love to hear thoughts from other board members since you guys have been sitting and listening in. Anyone want to chime in?

yeah um madam chair there's some apparent special circumstances on this property the irregular shape the transecting wash uh if you were to deny the variance for the 110 foot so back it actually doesn't change anything about the parcel uh it was a substandard lock creation and and it has to be addressed can't be ignored I appreciate what Darren's suggesting, and the point of what he's saying is we arrive at the same location. If we approve the variance for the 110 feet, or if we deny it and we move forward with, and he moves forward with a VA NAE, it gets us back to the same spot. I know this is your district, so I want to jump ahead of you, but if you are looking for a motion, I'm happy to make a motion.

Well, yeah, I do just want to clarify, I feel the same way that it looks like Darren and Andrew and team have come up with another creative way to solve the same thing. But if we're getting to the same solution and one thing allows us to just approve the variance today and get to the solution, the other one requires the property owner to go through another step and potentially have more time involving the county, I would lean towards just approving both of the variances so they can move forward if we're getting to the same solution. Correct and yeah, I think I'll, I'll turn it over to 1 of you guys to make a motion and if there are other thoughts happy to entertain those as well.

I want to get in the way of a board member clap award. Did you guys have any additional thoughts?

No, I thank you. I was going to bring up to Madam chairman that I thought you had made a motion.

I'm ready to make a motion. I move to approve the variances for both the five yard setback and the 110 foot lot width.

We have a motion by Member Abba. Do we have a second? Second. Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Abba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. I appreciate all the feedback. I know that was a complicated one, and I'm glad we had a chance to kind of talk through what the outcomes would be based on the different options on the table. So we'll move on to agenda item six, case BA260031, the Cook property, and I will turn it back over to Nick.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Case BA260031 is a request to permit up to 33% lot coverage where the R118 RUPD zoning district allows a max lot coverage of 30%. The owners are hoping to build a detached casita on the east side of the existing residence, which would push the lot coverage over the limit established by the RUPD overlay zoning district. Staff notes that when the RUPD was established in 2003, it specifically permitted a max lot coverage of 30%. At the time, this was higher than the base standard of 25%. However, a 2014 text amendment to the zoning ordinance since relaxed the base standard to 35% max coverage for the R-118 zoning district. That said, since the REPD specifically amended the lot coverage standard from the base standard, the REPD established standard of 30% is still effective over the property. The property itself is generally flat, mostly rectangular in shape. Much of the property's rear yard has been developed with accessory features, including a swimming pool and a detached shade structure. Only the northeastern portion of the property to the rear of the house remains undeveloped. As illustrated on the applicant's site plan, the owners are proposing to build a casita in this area. And while the casita would contribute to a total lot coverage that exceeds the REPD standard, it would still meet the base R118 standard if the base standard were effective. The applicant has justified the requested variance in part because it would allow a lot coverage that's closer, albeit still under the current base standard. But even so, staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. The development of a residence as the primary use means that the property fulfills the general intent and purpose of the ordinance. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship is created by the enforcement of the RUPD standards. That said, 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 item A as outlined in paragraph 21 of the staff report. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions as always.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Nick? Hearing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. We don't have anyone else here. Is there an applicant online, Nadia?

Good morning. My name is Braden Santarchangelo. I'm with ABL Design Studio.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for your time this morning. Just quickly to paraphrase what Nick was saying, my clients wish to construct a small ADU due to familial accommodations that conforms to both planning regulations and detached structures, as well as fire separation codes. So we were only asking to flex the lot coverage from 30 to 33% in order to accommodate both the EDU and their pre-existing shade structure that is currently on the property.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for our speaker? Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak online?

Nobody else online.

No one else online. All right. I'm going to go ahead and and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. Nick, I did want to ask one other clarifying thing so I can make sure I understand the history. So originally, the lot coverage was 25%. It was then increased to 35%. Then when the R-118 RUPD was done, it was 30%.

Madam Chair, that is correct. And yes, just to reiterate, the R.E.P.D. established it at 30 percent when the base standard was less than that or more restrictive. But since then, the base standard became relaxed. But the R.E.P.D. standard remained the same.

And that's the one that's holding basically because it's the lower of the two.

Madam Chair, that is correct.

OK, I mean, I don't given that. I don't personally have a problem with this, but I'm curious what the rest of the board members have to say as well. Sorry, member clap. Can you repeat that? I'm fine with this request as well. Okay, and remember, but I think you were about to say something.

Yeah, what's the square footage change if you're a vote from 33% lot coverage for 30% like a bridge. How much extra are you picking up by that 3% swing?

Remember, Bob, I don't remember the exact calculations, but I believe the casita would have to be reduced in size by more than half. I believe it would have to be around 300 square feet, if not less.

Look at this parcel, and you can look at the top left corner that has been trimmed off to accommodate a retention track behind there. I wondered if this parcel had a full rectangular size. would have added more square footage to the parcel, would it have triggered the need for a variance request from 30% up to 33%? It's more of a theoretical question, but in some ways you look at, well, could you have done this without needing the variance if we had a full regular size parcel? I don't need a response. It's more just a question that I look at when analyzing this.

I don't think so based on the square footage that would add, but yeah. understand where you're going with that.

Do we have any correspondence from the adjacent neighbor?

Member Baugh, we've received no correspondence on this request.

Chair Persone, David said the applicant has asked to clarify if we could allow him to speak. Thank you. That's okay.

Do I have to open the public hearing again? Let's do it. I'm just going to make stuff up.

Yes, please go ahead.

Braden, you need to unmute.

Yeah, Braden, if you would like to speak again, you're welcome to.

Sorry about that. I just wanted to clarify that the lot itself, due to that chamfer at the northwest corner, does not meet the minimum area standards for the R118 ordinance. But to clarify your question, yes, the ADU would be around 310 square feet in order to comply with the 30% lot coverage.

so that would be uh about 40 percent of the size that we are proposing thank you remember did you have any other questions about that okay thank you braden um i'm closing the public hearing again um any other comments from the board or i'd be happy to entertain a motion this is my district but um remember clap Move that we approve BA 260031. We have a motion from Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second.

Second.

OK, we can do Member Ward. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Baum.

Can't hear you, Member Baum.

I vote no.

Okay.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of three to one.

Thank you, Rosalie. We will move on to item number seven, BA 260032.

lakes property variance i'm not sure uh joel or nope joel's not here we have ron we have a second pinch hitter um this is a variance to request a 20 foot 21 foot netted fence that's already been constructed to remain in place at 14607 north cameo drive in sun city The requirement of the zoning ordinance is a height of no more than eight feet within the principal building envelope or outside the principal building envelope. A violation was initiated in November of 2025 following a complaint after the construction of the 21-foot netted fence. The property sits 238 yards from hole 17 of the fairway. The arguments of the applicant is that the ordinance that limits the height to eight feet would not be capable of protecting the property, and that the 21-foot net is the minimum height necessary to intercept the balls. paragraph 15 of the staff report we identified staff analysis based on what the applicant has submitted staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition unique to this subject property that's different than the other lots along this fairway exposure to the balls is a common condition or homes adjoining this course. Other avenues, according to the staff report, remain that include erecting a fence that could go up as high as 35 feet if it's pulled back within the building envelope, or to work with a neighborhood community homeowners association jointly with other property owners to find a solution. the proposed remedy by the applicant unduly burdens the southern neighborhood property however if the board finds the applicant or has satisfied the statutory test and has stated his finding on the record The grant of the variance is identified as paragraph A, or paragraph 16A. The variance establishes a 21-foot maximum height outside the principal building envelope along the proximate to the south line for property APN 293-663. And with that, I know the applicant has a presentation that they would like to present and I can entertain any questions you might have.

Thank you, Ron. So one question that I have is I understand the variance for the height, but I think you said something about if the fence was pulled back a certain distance from the property line. Can you remind me what that is?

It could go up as high as 35 feet.

But how far would it have to be from the fence?

Seven feet for the interior side, 25 feet back. So it would reduce the size of the fence or the screening. Seven feet and 25 feet inside.

So right now it's... Madam Chair, for clarification, the principal building envelope where you put your house, you can fit a house anywhere within the setbacks. And then we allow accessory structures outside to encroach into the yards and we allow fencing to go all the way to the property line. But the fencing is limited to a maximum of eight feet outside the principal building envelope. Once you get inside the principal building envelope, a structure can be as tall as the maximum building permitted in that zoning district. So in this instance, it'd be 35 feet. Okay.

Because i'm trying to understand what the options are because I see some of this other correspondence from the adjacent neighbor about. balls there's a lot of physics going on here but balls deflecting in their yard and i'm wondering what the feasibility is of moving that netting back, but are there any other questions for staff before we open to the public hearing. Right. Hearing none, we will open the public hearing and would love to hear from the applicant, who I'm assuming is online.

Yes, Lance is online. He just needs to unmute himself.

Great. Please state your name for the record and go forward with your presentation.

Hello. My name is Lance Lukes. My wife and I have a home in Maricopa County, specifically in the community of Sunset.

You somehow went on mute.

Mr. Lukes.

Is there anything on our end or is it?

Sure, it appears to be an issue on their end. They were connected. It still shows a connection, but I could hear that the microphone sound like they were adjusting something and then it went it went muted on their end.

OK, Mr. Looks, I don't know if you want to try and disconnect and reconnect or we can give you our favorite second thing is to give you Darren's cell phone and you can call in and he can put you on speakerphone. Aaron, do you want to just say your cell phone number?

Yes, if Mr. Lutz can hear you. If he wishes to call 602-723-2241, I can put him on speaker.

All right, Mr. Lutz, if it's not working on the audio on your end, you can call 602-723-2241, and we'll put you on speaker so you can give us your thoughts.

I also sent a chat message with the phone number.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay, sir, you're you're on speaker.

Okay, thank you. Can you hear me?

We can thank you.

I apologize for the issue. My name is Lance Lukes. My wife and I have a home in Maricopa County, specifically in the community of Sun City. On this slide, you can see that my presentation is about safety. The county has aligned the safety of their residents with their core mission. Next slide.

We're on the next slide. Are you still there?

Thank you. We are requesting a variance for the installation of a safety utility known as a protective golf net. Relative to Sun City's opening in 1960, protective golf netting is a fairly new technology. Protective golf netting for residential use began in the 1990s in the early 2000s. Many communities with golf courses are updating requirements for netting as safety utilities. In Maricopa County, Fountain Hills is such an example. Protective golf netting is not uncommon in Maricopa County. The company Nets Unlimited, which installed MyNet, stated they have installed over 80 plus in Maricopa County in the past couple of years. most recently at homes located at Wigwam Golf Club and Coyote Lakes Golf Club. This presentation will show the owner's lot meets the statutory test for not being a standard lot, existing fence ordinance creates an unsafe condition, documentation of errant golf balls, protective netting is not a fence in the intent of the ordinance, and netting is virtually transparent and maintains community sightlines and aesthetics. Next slide. Every buyer to a golf course property expects the rare event of an errant golf ball. Some of my local neighbors have what I call a standard property and receive a couple of balls a year. There seems to be a misconception that every house on the golf course has the same risk of errant golf balls. Basic geometry of an angle shows this is not true. If a good golf shot is within 15 degrees of the center line, an angle shows that as you move further away from the vertex, the two sides get further apart. Since the golf course fairways do not get wider, The homes further from the tee box have a higher risk of errant golf balls. Our property is not standard. It is unique and peculiar. It sits at a high risk zone where we estimate over 150 balls a year land in our property where the actual number may be as high as 200 to 250. Next. In addition to the basic geometry of an angle or properties far further away from the tee shot are at higher risk, the layout of the 17th hole being on a curve further compounds the problem. Our property, which is the red pin, is located on the exterior apex of the curve of the fairway. You can see that a tee shot with a small error in direction would land in my property and not in any others. A standard property requires a much larger error to be impacted. You can also see that my property is not standard because it falls in the landing zone. Standard properties are either short of the landing zone, meaning the ball traverses over their homes, or the standard properties are beyond the distance of a tee shot. It has been stated or implied that the owners created this hardship because they made the decision to purchase a property on the golf course. I would like to remind everyone that the Arizona Supreme Court in 1998 clarified that buying a property with known external conditions does not make a subsequent hardship self-imposed or self-created. Since the hardship is caused by an existing external physical feature of the property in relation to the golf course, it qualifies as a special circumstance inherent to the property itself. As such, the owner retains the right to seek variances to utilize this property in a manner permitted to other similarly situated properties within the community of Maricopa County. I have shown that the property passes the statutory test of being unique and peculiar and that the hardship is not self-created. Next. By classifying a safety utility as a net, the ordinance creates an undue hardship. This shows a trajectory analysis of a 250-yard tee shot. It crosses my property line at a height of 17.9 feet, more than twice the eight foot height limit for a fence ordinance. This creates a safety gap that renders the property unsafe for its intended residential use. Until the 1990s, it was not possible to mitigate this risk. Protective golf nets enable the property to be used for the resident's intended purpose. Next. The report implies the protective golf net acts like a trampoline, which would rebound balls into my neighbor's backyard. The measurement of rebound energy is called the coefficient of restitution. A trampoline has a high coefficient in that it gives back most of the energy it receives. A golf net has a very low coefficient, meaning most of the ball's energy is lost on impact. The protective golf net is manufactured with high tenacity polyester, which is designed to mitigate rebounding through several physical properties. Unlike the elastic cords of a trampoline, high tenacity polyester has low elongation. It is stiff. but absorbs the kinetic energy of the golf ball by distributing the stress across the knotless weave. As the ball impacts the mesh, the mesh converts the ball's kinetic energy into trace amounts of heat and vibration. This dampening effect is much higher in a mesh net than on a solid trampoline surface. A much better analogy is this structure functions as a catcher's net. not a trampoline. It is the most effective way to terminate the ball's flight safely and immediately. We intentionally set the protective golf net back from the property line so the golf balls would drop and be contained in the owner's property. We are not creating any undue burden. Next. show these photos for a couple of purposes first it shows the property is unique peculiar and non-standard whereby it receives a lot of errant golf balls which land in all areas of the property second it shows how the golf balls act like projectiles causing significant damage golf balls leave the tee shot at approximately 150 miles an hour and have a landing velocity in my property of approximately 75 miles per hour. This is enough force to obliterate stucco, shatter glass, fracture plastic, crack tiles, and dent metal. The owner, my wife, has been hit by fire and she would have personally potentially block views and mark boundaries. And therefore, the ordinances for fences have an intent to prevent spike walls, spike walls or . Just to conform to a requirement whose intent has nothing to do with high quality construction and how it maintains neighborhood sight lines and aesthetics. Not a self-created hardship. The physical layout of the golf course, which opened in 1972, and the prevailing Tied to safety netting, which didn't even The first time the county has expanded.

Madam Chair, am I the only one experiencing a loss of volume by the speaker?

Yeah, Mr. Lukes, also, I know you have several more slides, but if you could kind of go through them a little more quickly, that'd be great, and try to speak up if you can.

Okay, I'll quick and fast.

I think that is sound advice from you, Madam Chairman, about moving forward.

You can hear me, right?

I can hear you.

Okay, thank you. Lastly on this slide, this is not the first time the county has expanded height limits. Other examples are when the county expanded the height allowances or accessory recreational structures to accommodate specific safety and functional needs. This variance is in alignment with this intent to accommodate the safety needs. Next slide. This photo was taken to intentionally show the view to the golf course with and without the protective golf netting. You can see the netting does not impact the view. While we are on this slide, I will briefly discuss property values. Properties with the view of the golf course can command a premium of 20 to 30% compared to properties without this view. This is true with the exception of properties with high risk of errant golf balls entering the property, affecting the safety and welfare of the owners. These high risk properties will lose 20% of this golf course premium if the owners take no action to mitigate the risk of errant golf balls. For homes in a high risk zone, The impact of protective golf netting on property values is considered a preservation of value and not a negative influence. Next. If my neighbor wanted to look into my backyard, this photo shows the protective golf netting maintains open sight lines. some people have commented that the protective golf netting will not protect our property from all errant golf balls like to thank them for this observation although protecting the house from damage is nice we are cognizant of aesthetic concerns as such we installed the least amount of protective golf netting necessary to solve the issue of owner safety while enjoying the small area of the property where the patio and pool are located. Next. I respectfully ask the Board to grant this variance to resolve a clear safety hardship allowing for the peaceful and safe enjoyment of my property as intended by the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lukes. Do any members of the board have questions for our speaker? Thank you. Are there any other folks online? I know we have some letters of opposition, letters of support. Are there any other folks that would like to speak?

Nobody else with their hands raised.

Thanks, I guess I do have one question, Mr. Luke, a quick answer on this, but have you spoken to any of these folks that have expressed concerns in opposition, spoken to the HOA Board?

I have spoken to the Sun City HOA. I think it's best to say that Let me find my notes on this. Maybe it's easiest to go to have a supplemental slide on why the net was installed and so on.

No, I think I just want to understand if you've been able to resolve any of their concerns in your conversations with them.

The request was made to the HOA, to their Board of Directors to obtain a variance. It was at their request to put this process on hold and come first to the County to get your view because they stated they wanted to be in alignment with the County. I will be going back to the Sun City Board of Directors if we're approved of the variance and I'm being granted a permit in the next step.

Thank you, appreciate that. Any other questions before we close the public hearing? Seeing none, did you want to say something, Darren?

Madam Chair, just to clarify the staff stance, the staff findings. This net could be permitted through our County Planning and Development Department if it met a seven-foot setback. It's at a 3.25 foot setback. So if it moved an additional 3.75 feet into the property, met that 7 foot setback, it can be at above 8 feet. It can be up to 21. In fact, it can be up to 35. Okay.

Thank you. I will go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. This is in District 4, which is Member Loper's district, and he is not present right now. Yeah, I'm kind of torn on this one. I don't really feel comfortable approving it when we have this much opposition, and I respect that there are comments about safety, but I think our role here is to find out whether or not there's a peculiar condition, and I'm not necessarily seeing one, but I'm curious for the thoughts from my fellow board members.

Hey, Madam Chair. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I was just corrected by Ron. The netting would also have to meet the rear setback, which is 25 feet. So depending on how the netting is located, if it met the 25 foot rear and seven foot side, it could be as high as 35 feet. Okay.

Thanks for that clarification. Any thoughts from other board members?

Madam Chair. Sure. It seems to me like a net could be installed just at seven feet instead of three and a half feet. Am I hearing that correctly, Darren? Except for the south.

Yes, Madam Chair, Member Baugh. It looks like the net, in addition to being within the required side yard, is also within the required rear. So if it was protecting the house more than the pool, it could meet that rear setback and side setback and be up to 35 feet. But it wasn't, I had said it could simply be moved back an additional 3.75 feet, and I believe I was wrong in saying that it would have to be relocated.

Is the public hearing closed, Madam Chair? It is. Okay. I'll add some thoughts. I'm sympathetic. I've lived on a golf course. I've prepared a lot of stucco on the house before. And it's also 1 of the reasons why I moved away. Because of the frustration of doing that, and also recognizing that I couldn't put up the fence because. The code didn't allow it and my neighbor was against it. And I think at a community of this age. And the number of years, of course, been here with homes next to it, it's sort of a known issue that you presume when you purchase into a subdivision. At a home like this, I think I could probably get to support about it. If I knew I had support for the next door, because sometimes the external impacts. Either are not proceed or there can be mitigated. A structure like this is as much as it is to protect his house. can also be seen as a burden by the person next door. And without kind of finding that support there, it's hard for me to get on board because I'm not really seeing the special circumstances that exist on the property. And when they start to sort of spill over to somebody else, it's hard for me to get to that spot where I can support it.

I mean, I'm almost wondering if it would be prudent to continue the case to allow the homeowner to explore options to relocate the fence, like Darren suggested, if there is one, and to chat further with the neighbor and the HOA. But that's just one viewpoint. Member Clapp, Member Ward, any thoughts? Does anyone want to make a motion of some sort? i i'd like to hear if the advocate would like to continue the case try to resolve the support or opposition with the neighbor next door if he doesn't think that's the case then i probably would move forward with a motion to deny that's a good point mr lukes what we're talking about is um basically giving you some time we can determine the amount of time for you to go back and chat with your neighbor chat with the company that that does the protective netting and chat with the HOA about options where maybe you could mitigate some of the other concerns. And then you would come back before the board. So I think the other option, what I'm sensing from the board is that we would deny your application. So this would give you some time to look into other options. What are your thoughts on that?

Yes, sir.

landing in the patio area or even the pool there is um really no means to relocate the net within the setback for a regulation on fencing that would provide any you know safety benefit to the to the owners again the fencing is this type of netting is not unique to Maricopa County it's new to the ordinances and until the ordinances can get updated to reflect transparent structure the regulations or an ordinance on fencing being applied is

is is not meeting the needs for the safety of the individuals okay thank you for that can you clarify if you would like to have us vote to continue the case for you to have further discussions or if you would like us to vote on the case today if i could get clarification on what it takes to be unique

peculiar to pass the statutory test, I think that would help me answer this question because I've shown that this is a very site-specific request. My property lies in a very unique location in relation to the golf course and to the tee box. And if this is not unique to to pass the statutory test, I need to understand what it does take so that I would have the time to go back and actually discuss this.

Yeah, I can see that the location that you are located along the stairway, whatever, is you know, different than someone closer to the T or the green. But I think one of the challenges we're having here is that there are other parties that have opposition to it, and we haven't really been able to hear from them. So that's why I think we're looking to see if you could have some further discussions with them about what it might take to get them comfortable. Because when we have some opposition on cases and we don't know if there's a solution to that, it makes this harder for us to move forward. i'm happy to contact the neighbors around me if that would be helpful um okay well if that's the case why don't we give you some more time would you would 30 days be good or would you prefer 60 days and then we'll have staff put you back on the agenda for either the june or the july hearings And for clarification, the June hearing is June 18. I want to say in July, July 16.

I can do the I can do either. I will be in Arizona on June 18. And I I could do virtually in July. I am going to lean towards the July because of possible travel to support family, high school graduations, et cetera.

Okay. Well, let's target the July date. And I'm hopeful, you know, Ron, I know you're just pinch hitting today, but hopeful that Joel can have some further discussion with with Mr. Luke, I'm sorry about that, to try to move this forward. So since member Loper is not here, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we continue case BA260032 to the July 16th, 2026 Board of Adjustment hearing. Can I get a second to that? Second. Second by member Bob. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Bob?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp?

She said yes.

Chair Paton?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for a continuance by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. All right, we have one more item on our agenda, case BA260033, the Red Ledge Residence. And we get to hear from Martin.

Thank you very much. This is case BA260033, red ledge property variance. This is a request to reduce the required front yard on a site located at 7339 North Red Ledge Drive in the Clearwater Hills subdivision. The applicant proposed to replace the existing single family residence with a new single family residence with a much larger footprint. The developer indicates that the only areas in the lot to accommodate the location of the new home is in the site's southwest extreme due to the existing wash that's along the eastern portion of the lot that encroaches on both the required rear yard and the side yards of the property. And that's also encumbering the principal building envelope on this site. The applicant is proposing to reduce the front yard setback from the required minimum 40 feet to just 30 feet. The applicant argues that without a variance, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to develop the residents that function efficiently on this site. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive or negative response on there. So anyway, this is a large lot and the lots disturbance area takes up a large portion of the lot. The existing disturbance on the lot was created prior to the county hillsides requirements actually believe early 1960s. Arguably, the proposed new home footprint would be reduced to fit perfectly in this lot without the need for a variance. The lot is subject to a wash, however, and a mountainous terrain that limits pragmatic area for the development of this lot. Granting the variance request would hardly be noticeable to the neighbors since this is a neighborhood of large lots with large homes substantially spaced far from each other and very hillside in this area as well. And further, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated the findings on the record, the granting of this variance will memorialize the establishing a 30-foot front yard setback along the southwest property line. And this is going to be for APN 16916038A. This concludes staff's presentation. And thank you, members of the board.

Thank you, Martin. You're welcome. Um, I do have a question. So on this site plan excerpt, um, red ledge, the kind of curved section, that's the Southwest where the, that is correct. Yes. Okay. Cause there's also a note on the other sort of curve side that I would then say is maybe Northwest that does say proposed.

Now is that now I will let you know, it was actually a mistake done by the, uh, the drawer of this plan, the one who produced this plan.

in on january 9th of this year the setback for the side yards was reduced from 30 to 20. okay and it may say 20 and i just can't read it but so we're only talking about the 30 feet on on red ledge where it looks like just the very corner of the house because the red outline is the existing right that is correct okay um did anyone else on the board have a question for martin Megan Spurgeon Co- Negative. All right. Thank you. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative online?

We don't have anybody else online. I'm not sure. Megan Spurgeon Co- Okay. Who's here to speak?

Megan Spurgeon Co- I feel like we probably need to continue this one. What do you guys recommend in terms of timeframe to continue since you'll have to notify them? June 18th. All right. I mean, I'll go ahead and just move that we continue case BA 26-0033 to the June 18, 2026 hearing and Martin, I suspect you'll coordinate with the applicant.

Oh, yes.

Do you have a second for that? Second. Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, please take the roll call vote.

Member Ball?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Chair Persaud?

Yes.

Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for a continuance by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. Darren and team, is there anything else we need to address today? All right, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.