Board of Adjustment - meeting_joint_regular

Rosalie, will you please take the roll call?

Chairperson?

Here.

Vice Chair Clapp?

Here.

Member Baugh? Member Loper? Member Ward? Here. Madam Chair, we have a quorum.

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 www.maricopa.gov planning with respect to the hearing process cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any 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's card for in-person attendance or registering desire to comment as noticed on the published agenda. Also, 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 that icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of the persons who have registered noted 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 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 hearings according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by rule call only vote. The Chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds.

Thank you. We need to approve the minutes from the June 18th hearing. Member Clapp, Member Ward, do you have any comments or questions? I do not. Thank you. Seeing none, those are approved. So we will move on to our first case on the agenda, which is BA260041. The Castellic, I'm saying that right, property variance in District 3. I'll turn it over to Joel.

Madam Chair, members of the board, Gen Item 1 is a variance request for 809 East Circle Mountain Road. to request to allow approximately 12,000 square feet of existing hillside disturbance to remain outside the principal building envelope where the ordinance otherwise prohibits any disturbance. Next slide. The disturbance exists today because the owner created a driveway and placed a recreational vehicle on the site in 2023 without permits. That work is the subject of an open code violation for unpermitted grading in an occupied RV without an established primary use. Next slide. The owner's pending building permit for a single-family residence cannot be issued until the disturbance is either remediated or covered by this variance. The owner has also applied for a temporary use permit to allow temporary residency in the RV once the building permit is issued. Approval of this variance would assist in remediating the existing violation. Next slide. Staff's analysis did not identify a peculiar physical condition on this property that isn't shared by other hillside lots in the rural 43 zoning district. And at this time, I'm happy to answer your questions.

Thank you, Joel. I don't have any questions. Does anyone else on the board have questions? Okay, well, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here? Excellent. Would you please come down to the podium, state your name for the record?

Hello, my name is Scott Kostelik. The reason I'm here, of course, was disturbance of the land without the permit, but it put me in a predicament. Mine will I sold my house after my wife passed. So I was six dogs and no one wanted to rent me a home. It was very difficult. I had 45 days to make decisions because I was able to live in my house until I could figure out. So RV park was two dogs maximum. This was my last resort.

So you're.

I had to do it to put a roof over my head.

Okay. And you're.

And then I want to build a home.

looking at doing the permanent home.

Yeah, it's just below.

Thank you. Member Ward, Member Clapp, do you have any questions for our speaker? Okay. Hang tight, we'll circle back. Are there any other folks online that would like to speak or anyone else in the audience that was here to speak on this case?

I'm not seeing anybody online, no. Okay.

I do have a question for Joel. So could you put this back on the screen or maybe Nadia? Okay, it's a little smaller there, but so the yellow is the existing trailer, right? And then the proposed house is kind of in the middle, but all the topography we're seeing is proposed based on the improvements that are going in.

Madam Chair, that's correct.

I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it back over to the board for discussion. This is in my district, but member Klatt, member Ward, I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Member Ward, were you going to say something?

I have no problem with this. I'm curious.

Okay, member clap. Did you have any comments.

So how soon will the home be built as well as as I understand this, this has got to go for a temporary use permit for the trailer. So how much of this if we were to say that this plan need to be remediated, how much of it could be remediated and you could still access the trailer? I just can't tell from this drawing just how much room is needed to access the trailer from the street.

Okay, that's a good question. Mr. Kostelik, if you could hear that, Member Clapp is wondering, well, first of all, what would be your timing if this is approved today? And then you're also pursuing your temporary use permit. Yeah. Your timing.

It could be a year and a half before I actually am completed because being on this property has put me in debt. It's expensive to run off generator. So I've got stuff to pay off financially before I can get approved on a loan. Now I was 800 until I dropped. So it's not that great.

And then Darren.

Madam Chair, board members, just for some reference, the temporary use permit is scheduled for the July 23 P&Z. Assuming that gets approved, it's going to be valid for a two-year period during which time the home needs to be finaled. There would be potential for an extension, a one-year extension, I believe. But to be clear, what's before you today is just the variance for disturbance, hillside disturbance outside the principal building envelope. So that's going to be a permanent condition. I don't believe anything's being remediated. The driveway itself, the ordinance allows that to be outside the principal building envelope. So it's really just the setting for the storage of the RV. Okay.

Yes. When I'm looking at this map, the topographical math, with the topography of the site, it kind of appears to me that regardless of where a home is ultimately placed on this lot, there's going to be some disturbance outside of the principal building envelope. I'm not an engineer, but to me, that seems unavoidable. And if that's the case, I wouldn't want someone to go through and redo their plans just to end up with them coming back before us again. So I'm inclined to approve this. Would someone else like to make a motion? I'll go ahead. I'll make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve VA 260041.

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

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persaud?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Best of luck to you. Thank you. We will move on to item two on the agenda, BA 260032, the lakes property variance, which was continued from our hearing in May. And I will turn that over to Joel as well.

Madam Chair, members of the board, just a reminder, agenda item two is a request to allow a 21-foot netted fence to remain in place at 14607 North Cameo Drive in Sun City with a maximum fence height outside the principal building envelope is eight feet. Under the ordinance, the applicant erected the net in fall 2025 along the southeast corner of the property. uh which borders the fairway of palm brook golf clubs and hole 17. next slide this application was continued from the may 14 hearing to allow the applicant and sensitive homeowners association or shoah to seek an agreement as of today and as including the updated staff report these negotiations unfortunately did not appear to have been resolved successfully Therefore, staff's position remains the same as it did in May, that there's no peculiar condition unique to this property that would necessitate the variance and that granting of this variance would not solve the issues between the applicant and Shoah, which were being subject to civil action outside of this board's jurisdiction. And that's the time I have to answer your questions.

Thank you. I do have one question. You clarified that there hasn't been progress with the discussions with the Homeowners Association, but since our last hearing, have you received any additional communication from neighbors, support, or opposition.

Madam Chair, I don't believe I've received any more support or opposition regarding this case. I'd have to look through the records again, but I don't believe we received anything else.

Member Ward, do you have any questions for Joel? Thank you. Go ahead and open the public hearing. I understand Mr. Lakes is online wishing to speak. If you can hear us, please state your name and proceed with your presentation. Is he unmuted now? Yeah.

Okay.

I've tried to enable his audio. I think he may need to unmute on his end.

Marla Lazarus, Mr lakes, can you hear us. Marla Lazarus, You want to give your. Oh.

Rob Leibowitz, He chatted that he is able to hear us, but for some reason I can't get his audio to enable for us to hear him.

Marla Lazarus, Okay um this. Marla Lazarus, Ron can we have him call your phone. Oh, okay. I see his phone number is on this sheet, or do you have it? Okay, Mr. Lakes, Ron Quarles is going to call you and put you on speaker so that you can present that way.

Yes, I'll put you on the speaker. Thanks, Ron. You can go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Lance Lukes. My wife and I have a home in Sun City. Members of the board, thank you for your time. Our goal today is to establish a compliant framework for a passive safety utility that protects human life without infringing on county intent or neighbor property rights. Next. to provide context we met with this board on may 14th during that meeting we established that our lot meets the strict statutory test of being unique as you can see from the map our property sits directly on the exterior apex of palm brook golf course hole number 17. we are positioned precisely in the landing zone of the average tee shot This severe geographical hardship causes a baseline of 150 to a peak of 250 high velocity golf ball impacts inside our active living space every single year. Our trajectory analysis proves two critical facts. First, T shots cross our property line at an average elevation of 18 feet, meaning standard barriers are useless. Second, Engineering data proves that the high tenacity fiber netting we selected safely absorbs this kinetic energy, causing the balls to drop harmlessly into our setback rather than ricocheting. Next. We want to emphasize that approving this variance does not set a new precedent. This photographic evidence on this slide demonstrates that protective golf netting is a modern, widely accepted safety feature actively deployed across Maricopa County. Property owners facing identical golf course flight paths use these exact systems to protect their families. This is a standard passive safety utility application. We are simply asking for the same right to safely occupy and enjoy our backyard as our peers across the county. Next. At our last meeting, the board directed us to work with planning to evaluate height and setback requirements. County ordinances dictate that a structure's classification depends entirely on its physical attributes and intent. Under zoning ordinance section 1111.5, fences and walls are legally defined around concepts of boundary demarcation, enclosure, privacy, or screening. Our safety net does none of these things. It is 93% transparent, provides zero visual screening, and does not serve to enclose animals or people. Instead, policy directive DD 3012-1 states that any human constructed structure affixed to the ground must be treated as an accessory structure. Because our system uses engineered support poles anchored into concrete footing, it perfectly satisfies the legal definition of an accessory non-residential structure. A direct historical analogy is the protective netting around tennis courts, which the county routinely classifies as accessory recreational structures. Next. This slide establishes the baseline ordinance metrics for residential zoning district R1-6 under zoning ordinance sections 502 and 811.5.4. A primary structure requires a 25-foot rear setback and allows a 35-foot height limit. A standard fence allows a 0-foot setback but caps height at 8 feet. Crucially, an accessory non-residential structure within the required side yard dictates a 3-foot side setback, a 3-foot rear setback, and a maximum height of 18 feet. In the following slides, we will visually demonstrate why forcing this safety system into standard fence or primary building footprints creates severe counterproductive safety hazards. Next. let's look at the reality of applying existing fence ordinances to the safety issue on the left you can see what is permitted by right without any variance an eight foot solid wall topped with mature dense trees this by right option is a terrible solution for our community first it completely obstructs the open views of the golf course second and most importantly it is less safe to human life and third A solid block wall creates a hard impact surface. If a high velocity golf ball strikes that wall, it will ricochet dangerously and unpredictably into our neighbor's property. The image on the right shows the alternative requiring a variance, a transparent net that absorbs the ball's energy safely. The county variance process exists precisely to prevent owners from being forced into dangerous buy right setups. Next. To further illustrate the physics of ball deflection, look at our property immediately adjacent to us. Every golf ball landing in their property currently strike the hard surfaces of their roof tiles and the metallic cover over their seating patio. These hard surfaces act as dangerous deflection plates, bouncing golf balls unpredictably into our active yard space. A standard fence cannot stop this cross mitigation risk. Our transparent netting acts as a safety buffer for both properties. It completely absorbs the kinetic energy of incoming balls, stopping the dangerous cycles of ricochet and causing the balls to drop dead into the ground. Next.

Can you just shoot him a message to say that we'd rather just focus? I want to just be able to ask questions instead of hearing the same presentation from last time. did you hear that i did not mr lukes would it be okay if we just um rather than hearing the whole presentation from last time i think what we really want to understand is what have you discussed with the homeowners association and where where does that sit and where is the departure still exist with them okay um well let's uh make some jumps to some slides then um

If we could go to slide number 11. I'm not sure why the slide numbers look like that. Keep going until it says, here, stop at this slide, please. I'm sorry, one back. At first, we first took the board's directive to collaborate very seriously. We sent a formal written proposal to our neighbor offering to research alternative high transparency mesh or plant softening landscaping at our expense. To date, no response or counter proposal has been received. Let's fact check the neighbors' written objection regarding visual impact. As the photographic evidence on the right explicitly proves, the neighbors' view to the north and south is already 100% obstructed by mature trees and dense landscape hedges. Our 93% transparent safety net has absolutely zero impact on their actual site lines. Furthermore, their objection to our low-profile support poles is factually inconsistent as they have personally erected a metallic flagpole inside their own setback area. Under Article 303.2, a subjective, factually disproven aesthetic objection cannot legally override a documented severe life safety hazard. Next. We also followed your directive to collaborate with the Sun City Homeowners Association. And we want to show that we have completely exhausted the administrative pathway and we need your assistance to break a procedural deadlock. The HOA compliance staff explicitly confirmed that they possess zero pre-approved design standards capable of mitigating an 18 foot vertical projectile hazard. Our physical safety requires an 18-foot net, but the HOA's rigid rules cap a netting structure at three feet, automatically forcing any viable safety system into a full Board of Directors variance review. Additionally, the HOA explicitly informed us that their Board of Directors cannot review or grant a safety variance for a structure until it first possesses a lawful county zoning framework. In short, the HOA requires county approval as a mandatory first step. We cannot move forward with the HOA until we move forward with you. Next. This slide shows how Arizona law cleanly separates your role from the HOA's role, giving you the ability to protect us without conflicting with private rules. Under Arizona revised statutes, section 11-816, this board's focus is strictly evaluating land hardships and protecting residents' safety under county code. Arizona courts have consistently affirmed that private CC&Rs are civil contracts handled outside of public zoning rules. We are respectfully requesting your help today to grant this variance. Doing so does not bypass or override the HOA. Instead, it provides the essential public safety framework that allows us to return to the HOA to resolve the private contract issue. Your approval gives us the legal foundation we need to protect our family. Next. In conclusion, a transparent safety net is undeniably the preferred option for our community over a solid wall and obstructing trees. We respectfully request that the Board approve our variance under the pathway for accessory non-residential structures. By granting this variance for the Eastern setback where we do not have any neighbors, you validate our good faith compromise to lower the net to a fully compliant 18 feet and approval today breaks the administrative deadlock. It allows the County process to move forward, giving us a compliant County sanctioned safety framework to bring back to the HOA Board of Directors to resolve the hardship their rigid framework imposes Thank you for your time, your consideration, and your commitment to public safety.

Thank you, Mr. Lukes. Do any members of the board have any questions for Mr. Lukes? Seeing none, are there any other speakers in the audience or online to speak to this case?

I'm not seeing anybody online.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in District 4. I think that is Member Loper's district, and he is not present today, but we can still discuss. So who wants to go first? Member Clapp.

I'm trying to remember where this placement of the fence was from the last time we saw this.

is this along the property owner's property line is it outside the property line where exactly is it located um madam chair member clap the fence is on the south side of the property um along the it's a few feet a week away from the property line it's along the south because the um remember the tee box is to the south and so that's kind of the issue that the shots from the tee box are being left into the property um so it's just basically all on the south

But it's outside the property line.

Madam Chair, Member Clapp, no, it's within the property. It's not far enough into the property to allow it to be a height.

Okay, how far into the property is it? I'm sorry, I didn't remember from the last time we talked about how far it was set back.

Sure. Madam Chair, Member Clapp, I believe it's about five feet.

Okay.

Any other feedback? I personally feel like this is not as obtrusive as some other things that could be installed, and they are shortening it from 21 to 18 feet. I'm a little torn, though, that there's some opposition from other neighbors, but I appreciate that Mr. Luke shared that he tried to reach out and didn't receive a response from anyone. Have you received any other feedback, Joel?

Madam Chair, I don't believe I've received any feedback since the original SAP report was published.

So I'm happy to entertain a motion. I have a question. Yes, ma'am.

I still have a little bit of problem with where it's, where the netting is. I don't have a problem with it visually, but I do have to consider that the last time we heard this, the neighbor said that these balls are landing in his yard, which is infringes on his property rights. And so, I'm torn on this one, quite frankly, and realizing that this property owner feels he has rights and he does, but so does his neighbor. And if this fencing was moved a little further into the property, would that make any difference in how many balls go into the neighbor's yard? That's my concern.

That's a good question. Joel, do you have any feedback or we could ask Mr. Luke's?

Madam Chair, Member Clapp, I think just because I've discussed with Mr. Lokes, just because of the way the net is constructed with the metal poles, there's always going to be an opportunity for a ball to strike one of those poles and end up in different directions, whether at the neighbor's yard, back into the golf course, etc. I'm sure that exists already to some extent with these fences there. But just because it's taller, obviously, it would give more opportunity for that to occur.

Madam Chair, if I could add. Yes, go ahead. This is Darren for those that are online. The site plan shows the netting at 3.25 foot setback. If it was five foot setback, that would be inside the principal building envelope on the side and permitted up to a height of 30 feet. However, it extends all the way into the required rear yard as well. So it would have to terminate 20 feet from the east lot line. And it goes right up to the east lot line. So I believe the applicant had looked into setting it back five feet and terminating at 20 feet from the east lot line, but that did not cover the area that he needed to be covered, including the pool and the pool equipment.

So, but he could potentially terminate I think what you're saying is, if he moved it five feet, it would be in compliance on the south property line.

But it wouldn't- Only to a point within 20 feet of the east property line, and he goes all the way- So a variance would still be required.

Correct. But to Member Clapp's question about potential for balls hitting it and bouncing into the neighbor's yard, perhaps that would be less because it was further away.

Madam Chair, that's correct.

Okay.

Okay, one other question. Yes. the applicant is proposing a maximum height of 18 feet. So that assumes he's going to reduce the fencing by three feet. Our case that we're acting upon, I believe says that the height is 21 feet. So how high are we actually going to be considering to this vote?

Madam Chair, Member Clapp, I suppose up to the board, if the board wishes to consider 18 feet as compared to 21 feet, that is your obligation.

What will 18 feet accomplish versus 21?

Madam Chair, I'm not sure there's really all that much of a difference. Perhaps the applicant can kind of explain why the three feet difference would be there as compared to 21 to 18 feet.

Mr. Lukes, if you can still hear us, you could answer that question about what the height reduction from 21 to 18 feet was intended to accomplish. Is that something to help mitigate some of the concerns from the HOA?

It currently has used the interpretation from their compliance department as a fence And I'm going to share with you that their requirements for fences in their setbacks, since it is a netting material, would have a height of three feet. So the HOA is in this circuitous loop where It cannot give me a buy right solution of balls entering at a height of 18 feet. And therefore, in order to proceed with the HOA, I need to proceed with you first, which is to take their request to get the HOA, I'm sorry, the county approval first before I can come and go through their variance process. I'm not faulting the compliance department because they're just required to take the interpretation that they see fit. It's the variance process that solely this so that we're not forced into a buy right solution, which is dangerous and a three foot HOA three foot solution as we can all probably agree is dangerous. And I just need to get into their variance process. But I first need to go through the county.

answer my question. What I'm wondering is, are you proposing to reduce it from 21 to 18 feet? I am.

effort to work in the best uh you know good faith as with you guys to find a solution that conforms to a county variance and the accessory non-residential structure having a maximum height of 18 feet we are willing to expend the resources necessary to lower the fence from 21 to 18 feet okay thank you

Does that answer your question, Member Clapp?

Yes.

Okay. Any other feedback or from Member Ward? Is anyone interested in making a motion? Member Clapp?

I move that we approve case number BA260032 with the provision that the fencing be lowered to 18 feet.

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

Vice Chair Clapp.

Yes.

Chair Persson. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for approval by a vote of three to zero.

Thank you. Best of luck continuing your discussions with the HOA. We will move on to case number three, which is Agenda item number three, which is case BA26003 for the Stockton property. And Ron.

Yes. Thank you, chair board. This is a request for variance for setback along the one 99th Avenue alignment. The case is BA 26 0 0 3 4 Stockton property. The property is located south of lower Buckeye road at the one 99th Avenue alignment in the rural 43 zoning district. It includes a parcel of 3.43 acres resulting from multiple splits from an original 10 acre parcel that extended up to lower Buckeye Road. The site would be landlocked if it were not for the 199th Avenue alignment that extends southward from lower Buckeye Road to this property. It serves as the primary driveway access to existing developed single-family home to the north, potentially one other access point besides the subject parcel. No access will come from the opposite side of the roadway due to an existing concrete ditch maintained by the Roosevelt Irrigation District. The road alignment is a midsection line, which requires 40 feet of half street reservation for future right-of-way. However, in 2023, MCDOT granted a waiver to reduce the 40 feet to 25 feet. So as the slide demonstrates, the front setback includes the 25 feet of reservation and the 40 feet of setback in the rural 43 zone district. for a total of 65 feet. The applicant is requesting a setback be reduced from 65 feet to 28 feet or three feet from the reservation area, which ultimately would be the property line. The variance is sought to eliminate the nonconformance of four existing accessory structures that were located on the site. beginning in 2024 when permits were issued for a metal storage building and a single family residence on the property. The accessory structures were placed on the property for the purpose of construction storage, materials associated with the construction, and for some agricultural uses. The applicant desires to keep the structures at this location rather than move them out of the setback. However, as we indicated in the staff report, all future development would be allowed to construct to this setback line if the variance is granted. Staff reviewed the application, did not find a particular condition or hardship that would inhibit the reasonable use of the land, which would be to remove the structures or move them out of the setback to another part of the site, subject to the issuance of permits. As we indicated in the report, the structures could be moved as close as three feet to any of the other property lines as accessory structures, however, not the front setback along the street right of way or future street right of way. However, if the board finds the applicant has met the statutory test and stated in its findings, approval of this variance would memorialize the 28 feet West front setback for parcel number 502-47-014H. And that concludes the presentation unless you have any questions.

Thank you. So if I'm understanding correctly, Because 199th is considered the front and is the only access, that's why they have that larger setback. So if they were choosing to put these structures on the different side of the property, then they would have the three feet.

That's correct.

Okay.

Thank you. And one other question. There was mention of a code violation that was resolved but there's been nothing else related to that or no opposition that you've received no we have not the the code violation was resolved there are no violations that are currently in place thank you any other questions for ron all right seeing none i'll go ahead and open the public hearing and i believe we have our applicant online if you could unmute and state your name for the record

Yeah, Chair, I have Lauren Green unmuted. Lauren needs to unmute in the application. He should be good there. Looks like you're good, Lauren. Yep, there you go.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. I don't know if Doris wanted to speak as well.

Can you state your name for the record, please?

Lauren Green. I'm the representative for the homeowner.

Thank you.

I was kind of unaware that we're changing the proposed variance width for the setback to 28. I mean, we're planning just to, we wanted to keep those structures in the front yard, but still allow If any future homes get built to the south, they can still have the 40 foot setback. These are temporary storage structures. Construction materials feed for animals that are there and they've been there since the beginning of the project. The house is complete and this ranch is holding up finishing the final inspections on the house. So I don't know changing the setback to 28 as opposed to 65 is what we have to do but anyway leaving the structures there so that they don't have to clean everything up and get the expense of getting trucks in there to move them um is their hardship so thank you um i have one more question for you ron i think you mentioned this or i know you mentioned this but

Is there a way to have the variance or the setback reduction specific to these structures?

No.

No, that's not, and there's not another workaround for that?

No, there is not. The state statute doesn't allow for conditional variances.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Member Klatt, Member Ward, do you have any questions for our speaker? All right, no questions for the speaker. Are there any other folks online or in the audience that wish to speak on this?

Not seeing anybody else online.

Okay, thank you. I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. Mr. Green, just hang tight in case we come back with other questions. I'll turn it over to the board. This is in district three, which is my district. I do kind of vacillate on these cause I feel like Laura Monje- seems like you just move them I don't know how much work is involved in that, but rather than go through this lengthy process, it seems like you could just move them to a different part of the property. Laura Monje- If no one's complaining about them I don't really have a problem with them being there, but I. Laura Monje- I don't love the idea that if we were to approve this, it means that you know someone could remove those tomorrow and then build something else that close to the setback line but curious for thoughts from the rest of the board. Member Clapp, you're on mute.

I feel essentially the way you do. I understand the expense of moving these buildings. However, this is a large piece of property. So there's many places where they could be located and not have to require the setback, which is going to cause some other issues possibly down the road. So I'm not much in favor of this at this point. I'll defer to what the others feel.

Member Ward, anything you want to add?

No, just that I tend to agree with you right now. It's okay with nobody complaining, but to actually put it as impermanent, permanency hits me wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts. Happy to entertain a motion, if someone's willing to make one.

I move that we decline item case BA260034.

We have a motion for denial by member Ward. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persson?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for a denial by a vote of three to zero.

Thank you. That takes us to agenda item number four, case BA260040, the Ward Accessory Structure Setback. And this one is Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. BA 260040 is a request for a zero foot setback on the northern parcel line of an existing agricultural animal pen or three foot is required by ordinance. The subject parcel is approximately 1.8 acres in size and zoned rural 43 located approximately south of 185th Avenue in Orangewood in the Waddell area of District 4. The parcel has an open violation for unpermitted structures, though it is clear from the county historical imagery that this structure has been present on the parcel since at least 2020 prior to the current ownership. While staff cannot identify any peculiar condition facing the property, it should be noted that non-habitable structures are generally allowed at three feet as opposed to a zero foot setback for alleviation of fire and drainage concerns. The structure in question is of solid metal construction and with an angled roof to direct drainage back into the subject property. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Can you remind me what the violation is for?

Violation is for unpermitted structures. There are other unpermitted structures.

I thought there was something adjacent to that. Thank you. Does anyone have questions for Andrew? All right, hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Do we have the applicant or applicant's representative here? Excellent. Please come down to the podium, state your name for the record.

Good morning and thank you for your time. My name is Zachary Ward.

Nice to meet you. Please share your presentation.

So this is an accessory structure or shade or shelter that houses about a 25-year-old horse and baby cattle, small Jersey cows. Before we built the structure, we did speak with our neighbor to the north. He actually helped me build the structure. That's why we specifically sloped it so that there wouldn't be any drainage issues. The reason we built it with the lack of offset is the wall to the north provides a very good windbreak, particularly for our monsoon season for the baby cows and the older horse that is living there. A unique feature of this property is the neighbor to the north actually used to own our home and lot as well. So prior to him splitting that off and selling it, there was never a fence there. So the block fence was erected afterwards. However, prior to any assembly of this, which it is a pre-manufactured kit that I bought from LP steel, I did ask for his permission and then he actually voluntarily helped me build it.

Thank you. It doesn't, it's, Does that have footings and stuff? Like how is it?

So it's constructed with four inch poles that hold the purlings and sea channels. So it has 18 inch pylons that hold the poles in.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for our speaker? Okay. Hang tight in case we do. Are there any other folks online that wish to speak?

I don't see anybody else online.

I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing then and turn it back over to the board for discussion. This is in District 4. Does anyone have any thoughts they want to share? No one's saying anything. I don't personally have a problem with this if the person that's most impacted is comfortable with it and it's already built and seems like it would be a challenge to move. open to other feedback from the ladies on the screen here. Member Clapp? You're on mute again.

Sorry. I agree and I move to approve BA 260040.

We have a motion by Member Clapp. Do we have a second? Second. second by member ward rosalie will you please take the roll call vote vice chair clap yes chair person yes member ward yes madam chair we have a motion for an approval by a vote of three to zero great thank you best of luck mr ward um all right we are on to agenda item number five ba260042 and i'll turn it over to paula

Thank you. Agenda item 5, case BA260042 for the rod and variance is a variance request in the R135 zoning district for a proposed setback in the front yard of 15 feet for two private horse stalls from the east lot line where 40 feet is the minimum permitted. The subject site is a rectangular shaped parcel and features a 25 foot access easement on the eastern portion. The front yard setback is measured from the street line edge of the easement. The site is currently developed with a 2,250 square foot single-family residence, which is located 30 feet from the rear yard and five feet from the southern side yard. Those setbacks are non-conforming under the Zoning Ordinance Article 1004.1 as it was built in 1999. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to facilitate the development of two horse stalls and an exercise area. The proposed stalls cannot be developed within the required 40-foot setback due to the placement of the single-family residence, the access easement, and the existing tennis court on the northern west portion of the site. If the variance is granted, it would allow the property owner to develop the horse stalls 15 feet from the front yard setback, the east property line. But if the variance is denied, the applicant would have to redesign the size of the stalls in order to meet the 40 foot setback. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. So if I'm looking at the site plan that you have in there, you've got the 25 feet along 101st Place. And the 40 feet would be measured from there, but it's 15 feet is what they're proposing. I just wanna make sure I'm reading it right.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for staff? All right, hearing none, thank you. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative here? Great, please come on down to the podium. State your name for the record.

Hi, I'm Chad Broughton.

Hi, thank you. Please proceed. um i guess just really that's the only way i can use the property without uh moving the house to have the horse stalls built um so i guess really that's all i have thank you i i'm not used to seeing horses and tennis it sounds very fun um is there any do you have any questions for the speaker remember clap member ward i do okay um they

You say they couldn't be built unless you move the house. You could also make the horse stall smaller. These are relatively large structures you're proposing. Could they be made, at least the largest one, smaller and moved a little further away from the front so that you can stay within the setback? Normally, the ordinance does not typically recognize horse stalls in a front yard. So if you want to build them closer to the front yard, it seems that there would be a way for you to build these stalls smaller, move them back so that they stay within the 40 foot step back. Is that something you can do?

On the other side to the north, that would be possible, but I have possible future plans to build a shop there where the bigger exercise area is. So I'm kind of trying to keep it in front and I can't get it behind. And I don't know if you see the big shade trees that would be beneficial to the livestock.

Madam Chair. Yes. If I could just add, I would refer you to the staff report pages four and five, which show an aerial of the neighborhood and in kind of the greater context, larger, it gives you a better context than that, what you just held up on page four. The corrals are in the front yard, but this is a single row of rural 43 lots wedged between, or R135 lots wedged between more moderate density residential zoning in the city of Mesa. They're served by an access easement, which only accesses one more lot to the north. So essentially this is the private roadway, private driveway that forms the street frontage. But if you look at just the lot lines, all these corrals, as proposed, will be 40 feet from all lot lines. And this is the only location, unless they make the corral smaller, where they can meet 40 foot setback from all lot lines.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I've got another question. I'm obviously not a horse owner, so I don't understand all the details of this. Apparently, the report says you only need about 1,200 square feet for each horse. And these corrals are much bigger than that. I realize your plans are to build there so you can build some other things. But could these structures not be a little smaller and be able to stay within the 40-foot setback?

I believe it's within the 40-foot setback. Like he had mentioned, because the property line is actually Includes a 25 foot easement that my neighbor Mark drives down, which he has no problem with what we're doing.

OK, you have no neighbors that are complaining about this. No.

OK. Any other questions? Are there any other folks online or in the audience that wish to speak?

Not seeing anybody online, no.

Um, things I'm gonna go ahead and and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in district 2.

This is my district. I'd like to hear what the others on the board have to say about this.

Go ahead and remember I don't have a problem with this 1 either.

I, yeah, I don't have a problem either. I see what you were. proposing member clap to potentially move that larger stall area i guess it would be south and west a little bit um but you know i don't know that it we would still need the variance for the other one i don't know how much it really really accomplishes and if um if there isn't any opposition from other folks i'm comfortable with it

Okay, with that said, I'll make a motion to approve BA 260042.

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

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persaud?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

That takes us to agenda item number six, case BA260046, the Landers lot size variance, and we'll hear from Andrew.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. BA 260046 is a request for a proposed lot area of 28,735 square feet or 43,560 square feet is required by the ordinance and the northern front setback of 20 feet or 40 feet is required by ordinance. The subject parcel is approximately 28,735 square feet in size and is located east of Cactus Rose Road and Arlington School Road in the Arlington area of District 5. The current residence on the parcel was added in approximately 1979, while it was part of a much larger parcel in conjunction with the agricultural activity in the area. In 1997, the parcel was delineated to its current confines and sold for the first time. The current owner took possession in 2016 and is now seeking to replace and modernize the home structure on the parcel. While the current parcel does not meet minimum rural 43 lot size standards, the 20-foot current frontage is considered legal nonconforming in its current configuration. If and once the home is replaced, the legal nonconformance standards would no longer apply, thus the variance request today. While staff cannot identify any peculiar conditions facing this property, staff would like to note that there are practically no neighbors as the parcel is remote and surrounded by agricultural fields with no impact to any residential lots. Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. I do have one question, and if you don't know, I'll ask the applicant, but is the leach bed existing? It is. Okay. Hold on a second. We haven't opened the public hearing yet, but I'll get to you. Okay. But all right. Noted the leach, but it's existing. Okay. That was my only question for Andrew. Ladies, do you have any questions for Andrew? All right. Okay. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing and now you can come on down, state your name for the record and continue with your presentation. Travis and JC Landers. Thank you. Do you have anything to add over and above what Andrew shared?

No, not really. This is a very important piece of land to us. This was our grandparents' farm. Due to financial reasons, they lost the farm to foreclosure in 1997. That's how the land got deeded back to them in a small fashion. We didn't have any control of it at that point in time. We've actually occupied the structure since 2013 when grandma decided she wanted to live in a nursing facility. She passed away in 2015 and we officially purchased it in 2016. We've anticipated building a home on this land since we purchased it, since before we purchased it. There was a floodway restriction in place up until February of 2024 when FEMA finally updated the new flood maps. So we are still in a floodplain, but we are available to get site built permits, which was never available to us when it was still listed in a floodway. Unfortunately, at that time, we weren't able to start the process, but we are in a somewhat of a time crunch at this point in time.

Thank you. I have another more technical question just because of my ignorance, but there's something on this map that says 100 foot well radius. What does that mean? Like what can you not do in the 100 feet?

We are currently on a shared well that has really no agreements to it. It's located about a mile and a half away from our property. It was put in in the 70s, and that's just kind of been the way it's been out there since then. We are looking to put our own well in on the property. You have to have a 100-foot radius between the well and septic structures.

Okay. Thank you. Learning something new every day. Are there any other questions for... Yes, go ahead, Member Clapp.

Looking at the map, you're surrounded entirely by agricultural land, but the land, you're on the corner of a piece of land that there's nothing growing there. So the question is, have you ever discussed with the owner of that piece of land trying to buy 15,000 square feet in order to have an acre? Has that ever come up with the owner of whomever owns the property to the east of you?

no ma'am all of the property every connecting point of property that surrounds our house on all four sides is owned by either hansen aggregates or martin mariota which owns hansen aggregates it is currently being leased by a farmer and at some point in time in the future we have no idea when uh they will begin mining it for sand and gravel all right

As of right now, the land, the field to the east of us, they just harvested the corn off of it. When that picture was taken, they were just rotating crops. So it will be here within the next two to three weeks. It will be replanted in alfalfa.

I understand. It just seems to me that there would be some sort of understanding of this property owner that you are sitting in the middle of all this agricultural land and If you needed to have a few thousand square feet, what would be the harm in asking them if they would sell you 15,000 square feet? It's just a question. It sounds like it isn't going to happen, but I was just curious about it.

That basically have to go to the, because we have to go to Martin Mariota Corporate, which is on the East Coast and start there.

OK, I understand your issue. Thank you.

Any other questions? Are there any other folks here or online that wish to speak on this case?

Nobody else online.

Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Thank you. Turn it over to the board. This is in District I, which is your district member board.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I don't have any issue with this. It sounds like we're, it's more of a housekeeping item to approve, make something better, my words are gone, to improve the situation that's there. And so unless anybody else has an issue, I'm willing to make a motion.

Go for it.

Okay, I move that we approve case BA260046, establishing the findings in item number 14.

We have a motion by Member Ward. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Person?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

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

Thank you, all the best. That takes us to item number agenda, item number seven, case BA260053, the Steadman property, and Nick.

Thank you, Chair Persone, members of the board. Case BA260053 is a request for a variance to permit an attached carport at a setback of five feet from the front lot line of the Steadman property. Accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to the minimum front yard setback required in the underlying zoning district. The properties within the R16 senior citizen overlay zoning district where the zoning ordinance establishes a required minimum front setback of 10 feet. The subject carport has already been built without benefit of zoning clearance and construction permits. Due to the non-conforming setback, variance would be required for the owner to obtain an as-built permit. Without variance, the carport would need to be removed or modified. David. Staff cannot identify peculiar condition facing the property, aside from the carport the property appears typical for a lot in the dreamland villa subdivision. David. It is flat rectangular in shape and has been developed with a primary use and does not appear to possess any peculiar conditions that present an undue hardship or justify reducing the required front setback. David. Furthermore, the development of a single family home as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the residence already includes an attached garage. For these reasons, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship has been created by the enforcement of the ordinance requirements. That said, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, the grant of this variance will memorialize item A. Variance approval establishes a five foot north minimum setback line for parcel 141-63-530. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I have two. So my first question is just to clarify, this is one of those where if that carport had been an inch away or a foot away from the primary structure, we wouldn't be talking about the variance.

Chairman, Chair Persone, in this case, because it is within the front yard setback, accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to front yard and street side setbacks.

Okay. And then my other question is, this came about because Yes, someone purchased the property with the carport already built, and then you got a code violation when you sent out the notice of this variance where it seems like there was no opposition that came in.

Chair Persone, there was one person who called in, I believe it was a member of the HOA of the Dreamland Villa subdivision who was inquiring but did not express opposition. I received no formal opposition or support to the case.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Nick?

asking none we'll go ahead and open the public hearing is the applicant here excellent please state your name for the record and then share your presentation victoria stedman um so yes i bought the house a year ago and didn't know that the carport didn't have a permit that was one of the things that attracted me about the house and everybody i've spoken to since As always, commented on what a nice car part it is. I have skin cancer, so I liked the car part because I felt safer. Let's say when I were to go out and say goodbye to my girls, I could stand outside without worrying standing in the sun. I'd like to keep it the way it is. It is unattached. I was told by my neighbor that lives across the street from me that he was the one that turned me in Because he knew the gentleman that owned the house before I did. And he knew that it didn't have a permit. And he thought that I had turned him in because he had people living in his backyard in a motor home. So I think that's how this all came about. So this is all new to me. And financially, I don't know what it would take to make it better. But I'm struggling. And I just want to keep it the way it is.

i thank you for listening to me and everybody doing their homework for me because this is a first house for me and i'm new to all of this so thank you um since you figured out that that neighbor across the street that noticed or sent in the violation yes how has that ended up is he comfortable with it now yes um yeah

We don't talk much. He doesn't come out of his house much. I think maybe he's scared I'm going to retaliate, but I wasn't the one that had turned him in for his code violations. I mean, it's Dreamland Villa. Everybody keeps to themselves. You get to our age, you don't want to cause any stress.

Thank you. Are there any other questions of Ms. Steadman? Thank you. Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this case or anyone online?

Nobody online.

Thank you.

I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board. This is in District 2.

That's my district. And the questions I had been answered about how this violation came about and how the HOA feels about it. So apparently there is really no problem here with going ahead and approving this. So I'll make a motion to approved BA260053.

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

Vice Chair Clapp?

Yes.

Chair Persilin?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 3 to 0. Thank you. Awesome. So I can keep it the way it is?

Yes.

Congratulations on your new home ownership.

thank you good job have a nice day um all right we have one last item case ba260057 the walker property variance and joel uh madam chair members of the board uh dinner item eight is variance request for uh parts on the aquila area at five acres uh the applicant on behalf of property owner

I was requesting a west side yard setback of 15 feet where the ordinance requires minimum of 20 feet for an accessory corral structure on a parcel with no established primary use. Next slide. And as built, a pole barn slash horse shade was constructed on the parcel around 2025 or 2026 without a building permit. It's about 15 feet from the west property line. On March 10 of this year, the owner applied for a permit for the pole barn and corral fencing. Plan review found that because no primary structure exists on the parcel, the roofed corrals then treated as a primary structure and that must meet the 20-foot primary setback rather than the 5-foot accessory setback. Next slide. The applicant states the owner intends to build a primary single-family residence within the next two years, at which point the structure would meet the reduced five-foot accessory setback on its own. Next slide. Staff did not find a peculiar condition or unnecessary hardship on this property. The five-acre parcel has considerable room within its principal building envelope. And staff notes that the issuance of a building permit for a primary residence would move the setback issue entirely, as accessory structures may encroach on the required yards once a primary residence exists. granting of this variance would then grant a permanent setback entitlement on a five-acre lot. It's time to have to answer your questions.

Thank you. I don't have any questions. Are there any other questions for Joel? All right. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant's representative here or perhaps online to speak?

Yes, I'm here. Good day to the board. My name is Natalie Westbrock, and I am the owner's agent for Claretta Walker, which is from Washington. My plan number is BA260057, and the parcel is located in the Aguila area. The parcel number is 50606057 Juliet. It's five acres in RU43. And these people built this without a permit, but there is no violation. And so when I put my request in on March 10th of 2026 for this building, That's when it came back and I knew it was going to come back and then I was going to have to go through this process because my request for primary use was animals. So because there is no single family residents, it would be a different setback. So I knew this was going to come. So my request for the variants is that because they will be establishing their primary use as residents, eventually they're seasonal. This is the roping area. People come from all over the north to the Wickenburg area and do roping all winter. So this was their first year here. And so within the next two years, they will be building a second home in this area.

Thank you. Are there any questions for our speaker? Right. No questions. Are there any other folks online that wish to speak, Nadia?

No, nobody online.

Okay. We're going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in District 4, which is Member Loper's district. He's not here, obviously, but are there any other comments? I don't personally have a problem with this. I understand that the timing is just playing into it because that permanent or primary residence hasn't been built yet. But I'm curious if anyone feels differently. Or if anyone would like to make a motion, go for it.

Again, Madam Chairman, Chairwoman, I am again in line with you. Five feet doesn't feel like a lot of difference, but if there's no plan yet, why can't it be adjusted to accommodate the existing?

Well, I think it was already built. It's built. Yes, this component is built and so they're pursuing the variance so they can get the final sign off.

Okay, I'm sorry. I totally misunderstood the entire thing. No worries. In that case, I would be willing to make a motion to approve it.

We have a motion for approval from member Ward. Do we have a second?

Second and saving BA260057.

Oh, thank you, Member Clapp. Second by Member Clapp. Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

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 zero.

Thank you. I think that concludes our hearing today, unless there are any other items. All right, we will adjourn. Thank you. And then, but we do still have to sing to Darren so that I can tell Greg that we did it. So happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear Darren Ray. Happy birthday to you. Do you have any?