Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Good morning everyone and welcome to today's meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment. Rachel, if you could go forward with the roll call, please. Yes. Uh, Chairman Loper, present. Vice Chair Person, present. Member Carden, present. Member Clap, present. Member Ward, present. Chairman, we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Uh before I get with the announcements, I need to make this statement about last month. I have to apologize for last month. I I couldn't see hardly anything. And I know I misidentified Andrew. And Joel's not here today, but it but I got so rattled by misidentifying Andrew that I totally spaced Joel's name. And I apologize that apologize for everybody. Turns out I had the wrong glasses and I got a lot of vanity. vain person. And so I I refused to get progressive glasses. Instead, I wear Dollar Tree readers that I swap in and out. And I didn't realize I had the wrong glasses till I got back to my office. But I got the right readers today. What? Ever since we've been talking, I'm sure. I'm sure. But I got the right ones today so I can read and I can see the people in the audience. Yeah, that's exactly right. Anyway, I'll go forward with the announcements. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws of 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 hearing at ww.mmaricopa.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. And I understand the agenda item number three. We're going to move that to the end of the agenda. Is that

correct, Rachel? Darren. Okay, good. That's correct. Um, next next item. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witness wishing to give testimony in particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker's request card for in-person attendance or registering a desire to comment as noted on the publish agenda. Also, at the appropriate time for each case, the chair will be asking those attending in person 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 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 and 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 in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. All votes will be done by roll call only and the chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and second. And for those who can't tell, my malady today is my voice and allergies. Right. Next item on our agenda is discussion of the minutes from April 17, 2025. Are there any changes to the minutes as presented? Seeing none, those minutes are approved. We'll move to the items are being withdrawn. Darren M. Mr. Mr. Chairman, board members, uh, case BA250018 in district 5 known as the

Bellow Salgado property and agenda item number 8, TU250016 in district 5, the Jimenez residence. Those are both withdrawn, no actions necessary. Thank you very much. Those two items again, item number one and item number eight are withdrawn, no action necessary by the board. We'll move on to the regular agenda. Item number two, BA250001, the Prito property which was continued from the March hearing. Nick, thank you. Chairman Loper, members of the board. Uh so just to recap from uh March 13th, KPA25001 is a request to establish an area of 43,552 square feet and a width of 132 feet uh for the Prietto property where 43,560 ft and 145 ft respectively are the minimums required in the rural 43 zoning district. Uh staff is unable to identify peculiar condition facing the property. Uh nor is staff able to identify an undue hardship created by enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Uh the subject property was created via lot split alongside four other parcels to the north. Um each of which is similarly substandard in with an area. Uh these substandard lots were avoidable having been created in the line of title due to poor lot splitting practice. Uh the applicant originally owned all five parcels but by the time the error was realized uh the middle lot had been sold to another owner. However, the applicant still owns the other four. Uh after the case was continued, staff reached out to the applicant and recommended negotiating with the other owner regarding the possibility of acquiring more land within the lot split area. That way, the parcels could be re-recorded to meet area and width requirements and up to four such parcels could be created from the current five. Um however, the applicant informed staff that the own that the other owner refused to discuss or negotiate any such options. Uh so staff then advised the applicant to consider combining her two

remaining lots to the north as well as her two to the south. Uh doing so would leave her with two parcels that both meet requirements. Uh the other owner would be left with a non-conforming parcel, but the need for variance on the applicant's parcels would be negated. Uh nevertheless, the applicant confirmed with staff that she would prefer to keep the parcel separate for the time being and proceed to a hearing of her variance request. Uh staff reminds the board that this request is solely for the southernmost of these five parcels which is APN50412237. Uh so if the board finds that the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following. Uh, item A, variance approval, establishes a 43,552 square foot watt area for APN 50412237. And item B, variance approval establishes a 132 foot watt width for APN 50412237. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Nick. Great overview. Are there any questions by any of the board members of Nick or other staff at this time? Go ahead, Vice Chairman Pom. Um, thank you, Nick. Uh, can you just remind us why this was continued? Uh, Vice Chair Person, I believe the reason it was continued was because there was a possibility to re-record the five parcels into four lots that did meet the requirements of the RO 43 zoning district, uh, mainly lot area and lot width. They are very, all five of these parcels are very close to meeting the minimum lot area. They're just shy, each of them are just shy of 1 acre due to a lot survey error. Uh, the lot survey had described each of those parcels as 1.00 00 acres, but in terms of the square footage, they were just shy of that 43,560 ft. And and to follow up on that, if I recall, the I think the record of survey said 1.0 zero acres and there's some discussion about maybe some recourse

with the surveyor the lot width clearly was not an issue but the lot acreage I mean eight square feet could be an error in surveying but um I I do recall that any other questions of of uh Nick or other staff at this time board member clap go ahead it seems to me that we talked about if we approve this case that all four of the others are essentially being approved as well. Is that correct? Or you mentioned that perhaps the property in the middle would still be out of compliance. Uh member clap. So again, for this particular variance request, even though all five parcels are very similar in nature, this particular request is just for the southernmost of those parcels. Um the applicant for this case who also owns the subject parcel does own um three of the four others. One of them is under separate ownership. I'm not an applicant for this case here today, but this particular request is just for one of those five parcels. So then that person that owns these properties, if this approval happens, would then be coming back to us again for approval on their other properties. Very likely. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Member Persona, did you have another question? Darren, did you want to say something? No. Uh, member Clap followed up and uh, clarified what I was going to state. Fantastic. Any any other board members have any comments, questions? All right. If seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant representative present in the audience today? If you could come up to the podium, uh, provide your name, please, and then go ahead with your presentation about your variance request. Hi, my name is Sonia Prito and I'm

requesting a variance for my lot that is shy of 4 43 560 which is an acre and that's it. If I can uh get it that would be really good because I would instead of having two I would have four and it's not a thing I would have wanted to do you know and there it's it's it came this way. I tried do I tried fixing it like you know getting the middle part the middle uh what's the the acre in the middle you know they can sell me a piece in each side and they're not willing to and they don't want to buy so I'm stuck here. Thank you. Uh any anything else at this time? No, that's it. Okay. We may have other questions for it. Any of the board members have question? Member Carden. Uh thank you, Chairman Loper. Miss Pto, just to confirm, uh you did own all five of those lots at one point and you were the one that did the the divisions, minor land divisions. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant by any other board members? All right. Thank you. U may we may call you back up. Okay. Um as I mentioned it is a public hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing none. Is there anyone online? No one else online. Go ahead and close the public hearing and open this up back or send it back to the board members for discussion and or a motion. This is in district 4. I have no problem making the motion, but I'd like to have

some discussion on it first. Um, I will mention that I really don't have an issue with this variance. This is not a significant deviation from the um the standards. Eight square feet could probably get three different surveyors to go out there and they may or may not come up with the exact same dimensions. the lot width. Um definitely that that's more of an issue than the square footage. Um however, with the middle parcel of the five not wanting to participate um you're either going to have three lots or five lots. I'm um I'm of the opinion that five lots gives more utility for the area, allows the area to better develop and reach some better critical mass um so that the Tonopa area of which I have a number of friends that live in the area can get some better services throughout that area, reach a better population density. Um I do have one question for Miss Pto. If you could come back up, please. Yes. Today you only own the lot directly to the north. I own uh the two to the south and the two to the north. Just the one in the middle. I don't. But the one directly to the north of you, you do own. Correct. Yes. And then you skip one and then you own those two to the north of that. Yes. I own the middle portion. The middle one, there's a manufactured home. The two to the south, the two to the north I own. Okay. What is that structure that kind of crosses the property line between your property and the one to the north? Is that just a trailer or is that a manufactured home? Those are all custom homes. There's like four custom homes to the to the north.

To the south to the south. To the south there's uh four custom homes. But there looks like there's something that's Yeah. What is that? Oh, that is like a coral. Oh, okay. Yeah, for the horses. It was It was for the property, the manufactured home that was the five acres. Would you have any interest in including in this request at least the parcel to the north? The the fee, you've already paid a fee, so including additional property doesn't cost anymore. Correct. I want to do all four of them that I own. The two to the south, the two to the north, but they said I have to do one at a time. But if I can do more, well, that would be better. Turn it back over to Nick Darren. Could she come back? Mr. Chairman, they could she could run all the variances at the same time, but it'd be parcel by parcel. Is there a preference on staff's part one way or the other? No, it it would not change our recommendation on the lot with um Right. I'm just thinking from a monetary standpoint, if you're if you're not in a rush to have this decided today and and I'm one board member, so I can't speak for everybody else. Um, but I would I' I'd like to at least have discussion among the board members. But if if it seems like it would be favorable, you may want to, you know, pump the brakes on this and modify your application to include the properties that you own and have it come back, have the application modified so it includes all of your parcels. So you don't have to go through four separate hearings. You'd have one hearing for all your properties. You wouldn't have to pay four separate fees. Staff wouldn't have to advertise it and post it. Go ahead, Derek. Mr. Chairman,

we would have four separate applications. Oh, we would do one per parcel. Uh, and we would have to do the public notice that way. Okay, never mind then. Okay. Thought I was going to thought I came up with some great idea, but as usual, people were way ahead of me. I thought I was great. What happens when you go to public schools? Um, all right. Never mind. I'll turn it back over to the board for discussion. Member Carden, Chairman Loper, I uh I agree. 8 feet on each lot. It's no big deal. I think the 132 feet to 145 it is a bigger deal. But I guess more than all that, I'm not convinced this was all done naively. Uh, and I feel like feel like it's kind of there feels like a weird precedent for me uh with saying, "Well, too bad. You know, the middle lot won't work out." The fact is, if the middle lot ever wants to do anything, they'll have to come back and do the same thing. And at that point, maybe they'll be willing to uh to play ball. But, uh, I'm just I'm not feeling comfortable with moving forward on approving this one. Okay. Any other board members have any comments on this? Anyone interested in making a motion? I will. Um, I move that we approve case BA25001 subject to the language outlined in the staff report. We have a motion for approval by Vice Chair Persona. Is there a second? I will second it.

Rachel. Member Carden. No. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. member um excuse me vice chair person. Yes. And chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have an approval by a vote of 4 to one to approve. Congratulations. Uh I would like to point out given that it was not a unanimous vote and people on this board come and go. Don't consider that to be a slam dunk for these other properties. I would encourage you to to continue working with those to try to make the others conforming because you never can tell what would happen on your other properties and continue to work with staff on options including reorientation of the lot line so it's more north south or something. I don't know what those options are but I would encourage you to work with continue to work with staff. Moving on, next item on the agenda, which is item four because number three went to the end of the agenda. BA 2024018, the Standage Property in District 2. Andrew, thank you, chairman and members of the board. BA2024018 is a request to amend the western lot fronted setback to 10 ft where 40 ft is required per ordinance for the development of an additional garage. The parcel is approximately at Brown and 104th Street in the Mesa area. The lot in question is a dual frontage through type lot. The main home was constructed in approximately 2023. Uh staff notes the reason for the variance is due to the request uh is due to the request to access the garage from the western lot border. Without driveway access, the building would be able to be to be cited with a vehicle non-acess easement. A small wash transverses the parcel which limits the ability to sight the garage farther to the east. The applicant is currently in the process of of officially reducing the required right ofway along 104th Street which would resolve any additional placement

issues. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Andrew. Great overview of the various requests. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Andrew or others? I got a question. Member Clap. Yeah, there the report says that um this requires MCDOT approval. Correct. Is this the right case for that? Uh, correct member Clap. Um, that been approved or where is that? No, as I mentioned in my report, um, the applicant is currently in the process of removing the required right of way with MCDOT. Other um, other residences to the south have already completed that process with MCDOT and have been approved. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. Any other board member have any questions of staff? Vice Chair Person, Andrew, to clarify, assuming that rightway removal gets approved, then is this compliant or is the variance, and I know you just said something, I just want to make sure I understood it. Is the variance still required if that rightway gets removed? Yes, ma'am. U Vice Chair Prelon. Um the the property is a through lot and so requires two frontage and fronts. Um we would we would in this instance we would require the western frontage to be removed down to 10 feet. So they would be still compliant to build within that after that 10 feet. Okay. So instead of 20 feet it would be 10 ft. Correct. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions at this time from Andrew or other staff? Okay. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here in the audience wish to speak? Come on up to the podium, provide your name, please, and go forward with your request. Absolutely. Um, my name is Brett Standage. I'm the owner of the property with my wife. Um,

this came about, we eventually wanted to put another building um in that back third of our lot. There's a wash, you can kind of tell, right in between where our pool and other detached garage is. Um there's a wash there that we need to maintain um just for grading and drainage um standards. Um but as we were building the pool, we found out and and learned that our lot was a through lot which negated a lot of the backyard for us to build which required us to go through this variance process. So I've been going through this for the past year. Um having Arizona Water Company also had a 20ft easement back there as well. I've gone through the process with them to have that removed and the quick claim dee deed already filed with the county to have that removed. Plus, Andrew let me know that I need to go through Maricopa County Department of Transportation to have that extra 10 ft of their rideway removed so that we can utilize that back third of the lot. But that's what the purpose is for is for another garage steel structure in that backyard. And it would be in the um northwest area of that portion of the lot right there. That's it. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? We may have some, so no, absolutely. Sit close. Absolutely. Um, is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have anyone online? Chairman, we don't have anyone with raised hands. Okay. All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. turn it over to the board for discussion andor a motion. As I mentioned, this is in district two. Member Clap, I'm inclined to approve this case. Um, I can make a motion or if someone else

wants to make a comment. Sounds like you are. All right, then. I move that we approve BA 202418. We have a motion for approval by member Clap. Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Chair Person. Rachel, when you get a chance. Yes. Member uh Carden. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. And Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have an approval by a vote of five to zero. Congratulations. Good luck on your project. Next on the agenda, item number five, BA25002, the Thompson property in district 2. Joe, thank you, chairman, members of the board. Uh, the Thompson property is located in the Apache Junction area on Meridian Road, uh, just north of Apache Trail. Uh the subject property is 35,251 square ft and is within the R5 zoning district. The applicant is proposing to increase the rear yard uh coverage to 64% or 30% is the maximum allowed. Uh that will allow for increased accessory structure coverage in the rear yard. Uh the purpose of that increase is for a 7200 square foot uh detached accessory structure uh which has not yet been submitted for uh building permits. Uh the staff notes that uh aerial um imagery of the site indicates um there may be some kind of uh more commercial type uses on the property. staff knows that this uh

variance would only be for uh residential uses or C1 commercial uses also allowed within the uh R5 zoning district. Uh the site is of regular um rectangular shape and does not have any unusual geographic features that would uh prohibit normal use or development of the property. Um as such staff was unable to find any uh peculiar condition or hardship facing the parcel. Um if the board finds uh the statutorial test has been satisfied, um staff offers condition or um8 and paragraph 14 memorializing uh that the variance will allow a maximum rear yard coverage of 64% for APN 22065003U. Happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Joe. Great report. Uh, are there any questions of Joe or other staff at this time by any of the board members? Vice Chair Person. Oh. Um, I'm assuming that there was not any opposition received. Uh, Vice Chair Person, that is correct. There was no comment one way or another. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of Joe or other staff at this time by any of the board members? All right. Seeing none, may have some. Go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant representative in attendance in the audience? Not seeing anybody raising their hand. I have no speaker request cards. Is there anybody online? Chairman, I don't believe the applicants online. We don't have any raised hands on this case. All right. If they're not

in attendance by virtue of our bylaws, they get continued a month. Is that automatic or do we have to make a motion? You'd think I'd remember but I never never do. Let's go. We'll go ahead and I'll take a motions in district two to continue to the next meeting. I move I move we continue to the next meeting which is the date of June June member um clap. It would be June 19th. June 19th. We have a motion for continues to June 19th. Is there by member clap? Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Chair Person. She just beat you for Rachel. Member Carden. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. And uh Chairman Woper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion to continue to the June hearing by a vote of five to zero. Thank you. Move on to the next item on the agenda. Number six, BA BA2500022, the carefree man caves retaining wall height in district 3. Andrew, thank you. Thank you, chairman and members of the board. BA2500022 is a request to amend the standards governing retaining wall height and combined retaining wall height and screen height for an RV condo development on a 5acre parcel along Carefree Highway at approximately Carefree Highway and Seventh Street in the Desert Hills area. The request is to allow a retaining wall height of 10 ft where 6 feet is is allowed by ordinance and to allow a combined retaining wall height and screen wall height of 16 feet where 14 ft is allowed by ordinance. The request is due to the depo due to the topography and drainage of the site. The expanded wall height sections are only required in the southeast portion of the

site. The parcel is within the carefree highway scenic corridor. The scenic corridor plan is silent on issues of retaining walls and the applicant's plan conforms to all other scenic corridor screening, setback, and wall requirements. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Andrew. Great uh overview. I do have a question, but I'll defer other board members first. Member Carden. Uh just real quick, thank you, Chairman. Uh any is there any oh what's the word? Going from six feet to 10 feet on the retaining wall. Does that is there any safety issue with that? Seeing how the retaining wall is supposed to retain stuff? Uh any any issue with going from six feet to 10 feet safety wise? Uh thank you, Member Carden. Um the issue of the retaining wall distances or height is strictly a issue of um design written into the uh zoning ordinance. It is not based on or based upon safety issues. It is more of a site visibility issue. Um in the ordinance the retaining wall heights generally would be six feet and then require a space and then an additional retaining wall if they wanted to meet additional height. Mr. Chair, it's an engineered footing though, correct? M Mr. Chairman, that's and and uh member Carden, it will be an engineered structure. It will have to be an engineered structure. We often in the uh principal building envelope will have very large retaining walls within hillside areas in particular. So it uh uh this is not um this is not going to be rare. It's not standard. It's not common. Uh but it's not going to be rare. We have many instances of very large retaining walls throughout the county. I imagine on hillside areas. Does that does that answer your question? Thank you. Any other board members have any questions? I do for Andrew or Darren or

whoever. So, um, a lot of places do retaining walls different ways. So, I don't want to get in the weeds in this too much, but is the retaining wall is that measured from the footer to grade or footer to the top of what's considered the retaining wall and then what's on top of it is another and that's the aggregate of the two. Um, Chairman Lope, that is correct. The retaining wall would be from wherever they would needed to retain the side um land coming in and then on top of that would be at grade and then on top of that would be um the regular screening wall. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? None at this time. Okay, go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant representative here in attendance? Not seeing any raised hands. Do we have someone online? Yes, chairman. We have Brad Garcia that's online. David, can you unmute him? Yeah, he needs to unmute on There you go. Go ahead. Good morning, chair and members of the board. Can Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Okay. Good morning, chair and members of the board. Uh, thank you again for the opportunity to speak. My name is Brad Garcia representing the applicant uh with Carefree Man caves. And as stated uh this is a request for the variance for the retaining wall height of 10 feet and a combined retaining wall and screening wall height of 16 ft along that southern and eastern portions of the property as shown on the screen. Again, this is due to the the topography and draining conditions. Uh ideally we would like to keep a generally level building area uh that would allow uh vehicle access and circulation. Um so that that's kind of

the intent of keeping that roadway open and without uh stepping the walls and disrupting the landscape area that's required on the south side which is adjacent to the uh residential uh properties to the south. So the the wall height itself or the the exposed wall would be only visible to the subject property looking inward. Uh the south properties uh or the residential properties to the south, they would still only see a 6ft screen wall. So any or the approval of this variance wouldn't have any impact on any other properties uh visually except for the subject property. So that's that's the primary uh reason for that request. Unders Understood. Is that the uh end of your presentation? Correct. Yep. Pending any questions? That that would be uh that's all I have. All right. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time by any of the board members? Vice Chair Person. Um thank you, Mr. Garcia. My question is um whether you explored having two retaining walls. So, a smaller one on the I'm guessing this would be north side of the property. And then on the south side instead of the one large one, a retaining wall on the north side of the property. Is is that correct? Yeah. So, you could step it down. I understand you don't have room on the south side to step down and do two, but I'm wondering if you did a portion of that grade change at the north side if the topography even allows that or not. that that's the challenge is the topography is really it's the high point is on that southeast part of the property and then everything slopes outward uh to the north northwest and west down. So to add and actually this the grading plan that you see on the screen does show we're already raising

up the property along that on the north side along Carefree Highway to provide that uh flat area for most of the building and vehicle circulation. Um, we did explore a two-tiered wall system on the south corner, but again, as mentioned, the there's a 10-ft landscape requirement that um would be severely impacted with plants that would be able to grow when there's so much concrete infrastructure in there. So, we figured that this was having one wall system and then moving it uh back uh inward to the property would allow that uh landscape uh requirement to flourish and actually be a visual appeal uh to the neighbors to the south. Thank you. And I just have one other question. So, you mentioned visually you didn't think there was an impact to the south properties, but that's where I see the impact. you know that then they're looking at 16 ft of wall in one place, right? Where you've got the 10 ft of retaining plus the six foot screen wall. So, have you spoken to any of the neighbors? I don't see any opposition letters, so I just want to understand their feelings about it. No, go for it. Mhm. Uh, so the face of the wall would be inward looking to the property. So, so the neighbors to the south, if they were looking at the wall, they would only see the 6 foot of screen wall above grade. So, the the extra 4T or the exposed wall would only be visible to the inward to the subject property. I apologize we didn't include a detail or a section of that. So, it's it's 16. Yeah, there's there's not a cross-section. Well, there are some sections in here, but like I'm looking at section D and so I think I might be looking at it backwards then. Okay. Thank you for explaining that. No, thanks for the explanation. I thought

the same thing that vice chair person did that the 16 ft was to the property of the south. So, thank you. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? All right. Thank you very much. We may have more. So, please stay with us for this item. Are is there anyone else online that wishes to speak on this? Chairman, we don't have any other raised hands. All right. Seeing that, we'll go ahead and close public hearing. Turn it over to the board for discussion and or a motion. This is in district three. Um well, don't tell my husband that this property exists because he's going to want one of these hand caves. But um I will move that we approve case BA2500022 subject to the language outlined in the staffer board. We have a motion for approval by Vice Chair Person. Is there a second? Second. Second by member Clap. Rachel, when you get an opportunity? Yes. Member Carden? Yes. Member Clap? Yes. Member Ward? Yes. Vice Chair Person? Yes. And Chairman Loper? Yes, chairman. We have an approval by a vote of 5 to zero. Congratulations, Mr. Garcia. Good luck with your project. You know, in all seriousness, these were a big thing pre-recession and then I hadn't seen any and now all of a sudden they're going up again all over, but uh yeah, it's a different take on storage. Definitely definitely a man cave. Yes, not cheap either. U moving on the agenda, item number seven, BA250023. I won't even try and do the name in district three on a property in the Anthem area. Daniel, thank you chairman, members of the board. BA2500023, the Plogger property uh in district 3. Um we're lo we are located

at 2636 West Shinikokway in the Anthem area. The site size is 12,717 square ft um and is zoned R118 RUPD per the subdivision standard. Uh a rear yard setback uh is requested of 12 feet where 21 ft is the requirement for this subdivision. Um the current owners um acquired the property in May 30th of 2017 and in February 25th of 2019 they received approval from the um Anthem Country Club Homeowners Association. However, within that um notice of approval um they did they were requested to provide um um acquire permitting from the require from the required jurisdictions and by uh May 2019 the property owners hired a contractor to do the work on the patio addition. Um there was no violation reported for this unpermitted addition. By the time by January 6, 2025, the property owners apply for a under roof alteration that would involve the unpermitted construction. And at that point, that's where um zoning clearance was denied because of the unpermitted um construction. Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Daniel. Are there any questions of Daniel or other staff at this time? Great job on the presentation. go ahead and um open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative, if you could come up to the podium, please provide your name for the record and go forward with your presentation. My name is Matthew Duchar. Thank you. I'm going to celebrate your dollar store readers with a pair of my own. There you go. Um so, uh there we go.

Um Daniel just gave us an overview of the uh the details of the property. I think it is uh it's worth noting um and here's a copy of that HOA approval. It's worth noting that it was not the the homeowner's desire to circumvent uh pulling a county permit. He skimmed over this document and read the bold uh approval with stipulations and went forward. Uh from there he had hired a contractor to complete the work uh for him who had also represented to him at the time that a permit was pulled and everything was done according to uh regulation. Um we also did a I I came into relationship with um Gan and and Becky Plagger in summer of 2020. We did a large large door system on the back side of their house. And during the course of those conversations, I asked him about the prior work and made sure that it was permitted properly. He was very much under the impression that it was. We went through county uh and pulled a permit for that project and successfully completed it without any roadblocks. So, it was very it was surprising to us uh to find out that that that this had taken place. and uh he's had some difficult interactions with that prior contractor uh having to do with this exact situation. So, we applied for a permit uh to install another large door system on that same west facing wall. They're trying to take advantage of some views looking down into the valley from uh the the the side of where they're at. It's it's it's gorgeous. So, they're they're trying to maximize the uh the view from their property. Um I just wanted to showcase the um this is the structure in question. Um the initial structure if you if you the initial patio area if you look uh at the back side of the home there uh underneath the roof that extends out you can see the the header

that it attaches to. And that's the end of where the uh the original uh patio was that was built on uh initially during the the construction of the home. Um, and just here's a uh kind of an uplose view. The desire there was to create an outdoor living space for them to kind of enjoy and and make use of their uh the outdoors for extended period of time. Um, couple views of the property from without. Um, they're up against the wash on the south side and on the on the west sides of that property. Uh, and then here's just a a couple views from the back. Um, again, it was surprising to them to find out um that this was not done the way that it was represented to them because also it wouldn't be unusual looking around the neighborhood. There's a lot of similar structures in the area as well. Um, which which kind of fed into uh why he believed that uh if this was not an unusual thing to do and that uh it had been taken care of properly. So, um I just wanted to this was also my first time doing it. So, I did not include this information in my initial filing, but wanted to um uh I apologize if this is redundant, but I'm going to read it so that I don't miss it. Um but the uh basically what we're what we're desiring to convey to the to the board is that that the subject property does present a unique hardship because of decisions that were made in the original development of the property. um that the the home is disproportionately large to the lot size and doesn't allow for outdoor improvements that genuinely add to uh benefits of the folks living in in the home to be able to enjoy outdoor space. Um uh it's it's good for people to be outside and it's difficult to be outside

in in the desert. So, uh, part of what they've included in the in their patio structure, they have there's an electric shade, there's a misting system. Um, Gene and Becky moved from Wisconsin back in 2017. Uh, so they went from brutal cold to now the heat. Uh, and they're trying to enjoy that sunshine out on their back patio area, which is why they had, uh, contacted the, uh, the original contractor to, uh, take them through this process. Um, so just highlighting the fact that often times uh like the the temperatures above 90 degrees, it's helpful to have shade structures incorporated as part of this. They're trying to uh extend their ability to enjoy the the outdoors during uh summer temperatures. Um, basically the uh the contention that that we're making is that the disproportionate structure to lot rat ratio was not created by them um but by the original developer uh and constitutes in a condition beyond their control and that uh strict adherence to the the rear setback diminishes their ability to enjoy the properly the the property. Uh and we're just asking for an amendment to Maricopa zoning ordinance uh section 6024.4.2 to allow that to that adjustment to take place from the required 21 ft. Uh possibly reducing it to 12 ft and allow the existing structure to be added to the building permit that we've applied for for the door system on the back of their house and be uh adopted in. um we don't feel like it's an unreasonable ask and just uh request your consideration

and thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. We may have some, so hold tight. I do have a question of maybe of you or Daniel or other staff. Is this affect lot coverage at all? That was not called out in the site plan. So then Okay. So they're good with that to make sure we cover it all. All right. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience wishes to speak? I don't see one else unless one of the deputies wants to talk on this item. I don't think they want to. You can sit down. We don't care. I know you can't, but I I wouldn't tell on you. Uh, anyone online that wishes to speak? Chairman Loper, I believe the owner, Jean, is requesting to speak. He raised his hand. So, um, David, if you can unmute him. Go ahead and just provide your name for the record. Go forward. Hi, this is Jean Fleger, the owner of the property. I wish I could be there, but my daughter bought her first condo in Boston. I'm helping her move, so I apologize for not being there in person. The only thing I'd like to say is we follow the rules. Had we known that there wasn't a permit pulled, uh, we would have taken care of it at the time. When we when Matt did the the the installation of the door system years ago and that all went off, no problem. Um, I would have thought this would have been identified then. So, of course, when we go to this year to do the door system, um I we were shocked to find out that there was no permit because it there was no permit the last time he did the work as well. So, obviously we want to get it corrected and take care of whatever needs to be taken care of, but it was not intentional in any way, shape, or form. So, I apologize for that. And

that's really all I had to say. Thank you, Mr. Pleger. We um we understand the the circumstances under which this happened which some which happens all far too often. Are there any questions of uh the property owner by any board member? All right. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else online who wishes to speak on this item? Chairman, we don't have any other raised hands. Okay. I'll go ahead and close a public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion and or a motion. This is in district three. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I I will point out because you asked the question, the maximum lot coverage in this uh R118 RUPD zoning district is 50%. U and so this would be area under roof. It would be part of the lot coverage. So they're allowed to have 50% aggregate area under roof. Just wanted to make sure as I was looking at it seemed like it occupied a lot of that lot that it was that we're good so we could cover everything under one action. Okay. Good deal. Again, uh open to the board for discussion andor a motion. District three, Vice Chair Person. Thank you. Um I don't have any problem with this given what they're trying to accomplish right now and and where we find ourselves. Um I move that we approve case BA250023 subject to the language in the staff report. We have a motion for approval by Vice Chair Person. Is there a second? Second by member Carden. Rachel, when you get an opportunity. Member Carden, yes. Member Clap, yes. Member Ward, yes. Vice Chair Person, yes. And Chairman Loper, yes. Chairman, we have an approval by a vote to five to zero. Congratulations and good luck with h

getting everything straight down with the county. They're a real tough bunch. No, they're they'll work with you. I know they always have with everybody. All right, we have one item left on our agenda. Fern, are you good on time? Hey, and our thoughts and prayers with you and your husband. I know he's got some medical stuff to go through in a little bit. If you leave when you need to. All right. Going back to agenda item number three, correct? The Casey pool project, which was continued from last month. It's BA250016 in district one. Andrew, well, should we make sure the applicants? Um, were they going to be in person or online? Chairman, they are online and they have their hand raised, so I believe. Okay, good deal. All right, go ahead, Andrew, with your presentation. Thank you, chairman and members of the board. BA2500016 is a continuation from the April 27th, 2025 board of adjustment hearing. The case now requests to amend the streetside setback to zero feet where 20 ft is required by the Maroba County zoning ordinance to to facilitate the construction of a pool to be viewable from the rear of the home. The parcel is located in the northwest corner of Santan Boulevard and 196th Place in the Queen Creek area. The right of way along 196th Street in the rear of the property was reduced by McDot earlier this year from 40 ft down to 25 ft from Centerline. The applicant is requesting to place the pool at the 25- ft right-of-way line, which is now the de facto property line. At this point, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Thank you, Andrew. I I do have a question. This looks like it's zero or 20 ft. Is the ultimate street line or is it 25? Uh the ultimate right the ultimate right of way is now at 25 ft. Okay. But it's a zero setback regardless. Yes. The applicant is wishing to put the pool right up to the property line. Okay. Um, any question any other questions of Andrew or other staff? Vice Chair

Person. Um, thank you, Andrew. So, when I'm looking at this drawing, I know I don't know what I'm supposed to do, but you I guess put it on the screen, but the site plan, it looks to me like it's three feet off the property line. Uh, correct. That's not a material difference. I just wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly. Correct, Vice Chair Person. That might be from the previous um the case. Um, there should have been an updated image provided in there. Okay, I'll look for that one. Thank you. Any other questions of staff at this time? All right, seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance online? I'm going to guess because there's no one else in the in the auditorium. Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Give us your name and go forward with your presentation. Thank you, board. This is Chad Casey, and I appreciate the continuence from last month. If you'll remember, I had requested the three-foot setback, not knowing that uh for a an accessory item, we could actually request for zero. And so, we asked for the continuance so we could uh try for this again. Um, and the hardship that we've undergone here is that when the 5 acre parcel was parcled out into individual oneacre parcels, it was not disclosed to us at all that there is the future right of way in place on 196th Street, which is the west uh end of our property. Uh, so we un, you know, purchased a property unknowingly that a large portion of the property was not going to be usable to us. uh as well as uh we discussed on the Santan Boulevard. Somehow somehow we own the property under Santan Boulevard um which you know we're all a kind of a gas to how the the builder was able to to get away with that in the first place. But just all we're trying to accomplish is you know being able to build the pool behind our home so that we'll be able to you know see our children who are young uh be able to utilize that pool safely um through the back windows. as from if

we were to try to move the pool to another area in the yard, there wouldn't be any visible from any visibility from inside of the home uh to the the pool area. I appreciate the consideration here. Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? None at this time. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Chairman, we don't have any other raised hands on this case. All right. Thank you very much. to go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district one. Member Carden, Chairman Loper, thank you. Uh I I uh am good with this one and I move that we approve BA250016 for approval. We have a motion for approval by member Carden for BA2500016. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by member clap. She just beat you, Fern. Um, member. Yes. Member Cardon. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. And Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have an approval by a vote to five to zero. And that concludes our hearing. and staff. Do you have anything else for us, Darren? Nothing from us. Thank you again the sheriff's department for your for your help securing us. Sorry you have to stand that whole time, but we always appreciate it. Fern, best wishes for you and your husband. Hopefully everything goes well. Thank you everyone. See you next month.