Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

to order for the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment. Rosalie, would you please do roll call. Chairman Loper, present. Vice Chair Person, present. Member Ba, present. Member Clap, present. Member Ward, you're muted. Present. Sorry. Sherman, we have a corn.

We have a full corn. That's awesome. Thank you very much, Rosalie. Go on to the announcements. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws of ARS 38-431. Excuse me. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are and are also available on the Planning and Development website one week prior to the hearing at www.mmaricopa.gov/planning. GV/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. The only item I understand will be bumped will be item number seven, which will be moved to the continuous agenda. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witnessing to give testimony in particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card for in-person attendance or registering desire to comment as noted on the publish 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. If you are here in person and wish to speak, fill out a speaker request card. It looks like this. It's on the um the dis the whatever that's called thing that you talk into right there. Hand one of these fill this out and hand it to a staff person please. Uh 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. Next page please because I don't have these memorized. 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 the actual amount of time allowed for

testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only, and the chair will verbally identify the specific board members responsible for all motions and seconds. You'd think after a decade I'd have these memorized. The minutes for November 13, 2025. Every board member had an opportunity to look at them. Are there any comments or changes? Seeing none, they are considered approved. Staff announcements. Anything? That's kind of out of order. All right, we'll move on to the withdrawn agenda.

Darren. Yes, Mr. Chairman. and board members CU250043 leans so Charles loios district 4 um has been withdrawn by the output no actions necessary by the board fantastic continue its agenda also Darren

yes Mr. Mr. Chairman, we have two items. BA250076 known as the Gonzalez property in district 4. It's a variance to a side setback in Tonopa. This is uh continued indefully uh at request of the applicant. And then item number seven, BA250069, the coffee property in district 4, a variance to retaining wall height and hillside disturbance, uh has also been continued indefinitely by the applicant uh per the handout this morning. No action is necessary on either of those cases.

Thank you very much. We'll move on to the code compliance review. Um agenda item number three, V2500174. Code compliance review in district number four. Darren. Yes, Mr. Chairman, board members. This is in regard to unpermanented construction. It's a appeal of the hearing officer's order of judgment for property in Buckeye. However, um staff would ask you to continue this for one month. I don't believe the opponent is present and they have a pending construction permit that's expected to be completed in a few weeks and so uh code force of staff is going to entertain a compliance agreement to settle in the approved fines.

Understood and this is in district 4 so I'll make a motion but I do have a question Darren given that it's the holidays and we have you know a couple of long or short weeks rather short business weeks is a month sufficient or should we look at two months? That's your call, Mr. Chairman. All right. With that said, I'm going to move that we um move provide a twomonth continuence for V25000174 given the holidays. Is there a second? Second.

We have a second by um member Kap Rosalie when you get an opportunity. Member Ba. Yes. Member KLP. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. But can you please correct the date in paragraph 4 to reflect uh the final review was on November 3rd, 2025, I believe.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Good catch, Mr. Ward. Vice Chair Person, yes. Chairman Looper, yes. Chairman, we have a motion for a continuence by a vote of five to zero. Thank you. We'll move on to the regular agenda. Item number four, BA250062, the Johnson resident in district 4. I don't see Paula. So, Rachel.

Yes. Good morning, uh, Chairman Loper and members of the board. Agenda item four is BA2500062 for the Johnson residence. The request is for a variance to the development standards for a proposed front yard setback of 14 ft where 40T is required and also a sideyard setback of 23 feet where 30 ft is a minimum required. The property is located at 7437 West Pacoma Drive in the Peoria area and is zoned rural 43. The lot is 72,167 square ft. There is a code violation fee 2400517 for construction without um a building permit or obtaining uh clearances. The the applicant is requesting two variants in order to rectify an existing code violation on the property for the unpermitted construction which includes a patio and garage addition constructed by the previous property owner. The variance requests are for westside dirt setback of 23 feet where 30 is required and then also the front yard of 14 ft. Staff notes there is an existing 40ft ingress egress easement along the front portion of the property and the uh construction was done in 2017 by a previous property owner. Staff notes the county did issue a building permit but the property owner did not obtain the necessary um inspections to complete that permit. Um so the uh the property owner um the current property owner has taken possession of the property but did receive violations for that unpermitted construction. So the applicant is desiring should bring the property into compliance. Um staff also notes on the uh zoning district development standards table we have an error in the um sideyard setback. It lists as 14 ft when it's 23 feet. So I just wanted to bring

that to your attention. And then also um based on what the applicant has submitted, uh staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property um the site is not encumbered by any topo or physical constraints and the applicant has failed to demonstrate the general intent and purpose of the uh zoning ordinance will be preserved. Um based upon that um if the board def decides and and finds that this applicant has satisfied the statutory test, staff is recommending um the board consider um notification A, which states variance approval establishes a minimum 14 foot front north setback as measured from the street line for APN 2066008H. And then also B variance approval uh establishes a minimum of 23 foot west setback for APN 266008HH. At this time we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Rachel. Great overview. Are there any questions by any of the board members of staff at this time? Yes. Member Ball. Um so I understand the sequencing correctly. There there was permit issued at one point and then now there's unpermitted work today.

That is correct. So um Um, Chairman Loper and member VA to respond to that. Um, they received a building permit back, the previous owner received a building permit back in March of 2017. Um, was issued for the patio and garage edition, but they did not complete the required inspection. So, it was actually done by the previous owner. Um, they did request an extension um, in 2020, but got denied because they did not complete any of the inspections. So planning development advised the previous property owner to file for new building permits which the previous owner did not unpermitted work today the same scope as the permitted work in 2017. Yes it is.

Any other question by any board members? Well I guess one other question. So when it was permitted in 2017, was it permitted under the setbacks that the asbuilt condition or as the current work is today or was it permitted with different setbacks?

Loper, member ba? That is an excellent question. We tried to obtain the actual site plan. I was unable to find it and Paula was unable to find it to determine what the setbacks were. I have to make the assumption that it may have been issued in error because we have a reduction in the front and the side, but I can't confirm that. Thank you. Excellent question. Um, Mr. Chairman, if I could just add the the AOMA is an existing street. It's all constructed in the north half of the ultimate roadway. And I believe that's the root of what may be the issue here. Is that the countyy's a little different? I think they measure the building setbacks from the easement line. Correct. Not not the right of not the property line.

We technically we measure it from what's called the street line. So it could be the edge of easement or the ride of way, but it's supposed to be from the ultimate street line. We depend on the veracity and accuracy of site plans. I'm going to run with the assumption that previous permit was issued in error based upon the fact that there's an existing roadway all on the ultimate north half right ofway. There is no south half rightway on the easement on this exhibit here. You know the the blue line 40 foot ingress ement. I almost wish I had that line overlaid on an arrow map because how much of that roadway is within that 40 foot ingress season?

Oh, Mr. Chairman, member B zero. All of the road is in the north half, meaning it's on the other side of the property line. I think that helps me tremendously. I I agree. An excellent question and points. Thank you, Member Ba and Darren and Rachel on that. Um, and again just to to go off of member BA's comment and yours as well, Rachel, all the work was done by the previous owner. There's not not been any compounding of the setback issue by the current owner. They bought it under this current condition. That is correct.

Thank you very much. All right. Uh, go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance today? I don't have a speaker request card. Could you come up and provide your name? Uh, no. up to um the speaker podium. Thank you. That's the word I was looking for. Whoever provided that. That's it there.

Just provide your name for the record, please. And then provide the explanation for the uh variance request. Okay. Rolena Johnson. Um, good. Well, the home is already built. I live there with my six kids. Um, I don't have an option of tearing it down. So, um, it is currently in review to finish the permit, but I have to get this figured out first, the variance figured out first. Then that's like my second to last check on my building permit final.

Understood. She can't get the permit until this is decided. Correct. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. That is correct. Go ahead, sir. Also, real quickly would point out that variance request number two as of uh a month from today will be unnecessary because the zoning ordinance update has made the street size setback uh the size setback 20. All right. Thank you. Any anything else you'd like to add? Um, no, don't don't be nervous. We're we're we're hardly professionals up here. Any of us except the these folks here, they are they do this every day, but none of us

I did I did want to mention that there is a site plan and Paula did have she knew exactly like she she did get everything. She told me I was ready to go. So, if there's something you're missing right there, I don't know how that got lost and but I just did the site plan. Yeah. No, I think they were explaining they couldn't find any historical records of the of the initial site plan when it was submitted with the building permit. So, okay. And I should correct it. There aren't any professionals up in up here, including the zoning attorney. I'm the least professional. You know, I'm ready when you are. Thank you very much.

All right. Um, thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this in attendance? Seeing none, is there anyone online, Nadia or David? Nobody online. Nobody online. Go ahead and close a public hearing. Ready to entertain a motion. Chair, I move to approve the variance request four. Um, there's clear special circumstance related to the location of the driveway, the historical permitting section, maybe potentially an error in our efforts, and more importantly, a in the zoning code going forward. Absolutely. We have a motion for approval by member BA. Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Chair Person Rosalie. Member Ba. I.

Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Congratulations. God bless six kids. I God bless you and God bless America. Thank you. There you go. Have a good day. Move on to agenda item number five. BA250063, the Freeman property in district 3 Isaac.

Morning, Chairman Loper, members of the board. Uh case BA250063 is an application for a residential variance to allow for hillside disturbance of up to 155 square feet outside of the principal building envelope uh where it is prohibited. Uh located in district 3. Subject property is located at 47512 North 27th Avenue in the New River area. Parcel is zoned RU43. is approximately 190,889 square ft or 4.38 acres. Gavan Gavalan Peak is the dominant landmark to the subjects subject parcel southwest and Daisy Mountain to the southeast. This parcel does not have any permitted structures but does have an open violation for storing materials, construction and grading without a permit and other items for which the property owner has entered a compliance agreement. property is designated as hillside with 86.3% of the overall property with this designation. This residential variance would allow the applicant and property owner to obtain a grading permit that is currently in review and which would allow them to resolve the grading without a permit portion of the violation that is currently in a compliance agreement. The restorative grading of the 155 square feet would take place outside of the building envelope uh within a designated hillside and where such grading is prohibited. Uh the 155 ft of grading constitutes 008% of the overall property and is located along the center west end of the property. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and staff analysis, staff offers the following observations that the board may consider in its findings. Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that was not self-created and that would render Hillside disturbance outside of the principal building envelope as necessary and unavoidable. However, granting the

applicant and property owner this variance would allow for the restoration of previously disturbed land outside of the principal building envelope. The board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record. The grant of this variance will memorialize the following. Variance approval establishes a 1,55 foot allowance of hillside disturbance outside of the lots principal building envelope for APN2021 086B. And I am happy to answer any questions for the board. Great overview, Isaac. Are there any questions of Isaac or other staff members by any of the board members? Yes. Member BA,

you mentioned prior disturbance. How what are they proposing to restore that prior disturbance? Uh Chairman Loper, members of the board. Um so the disturbance took place um outside of the building envelope. Uh they did have some disturbance that is part of the violation that is inside of the building envelope. Uh however, they're free to pursue that as part of their grading permit that they currently have in progress. Um so the overall amount of grading that they'd be doing for the grading permit uh would be pull up.

And while he's looking that up, uh remediation is usually going to be with slope stabilization through ground cover. Uh and it's shown on the engineered gradient drainage plan. Excuse me. It's what I was looking for Darren as a followup to that. Do we require reveation or things like that with part of the remed remediation? Mr. Chairman, they propose the remediation. Usually it's going to be slope stabilization and ground cover.

Okay, cool. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of Isaac or other staff members by any of the board members? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Uh, is the applicant or applicant's representative here in attendance? Seeing none, seeing no, was there someone here? Oh, if you could go up to the podium, please provide your name for the record and talk about uh your request.

Uh Guthrie Freeman. This kind of started this without um really knowing uh what the process of grading was. So kind of here to just fix my mistake and move forward with transparency and you know get everything resolved and so I can you know start building and get living and on my property. That's about it. All right. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? We could I just Yes. Yeah. questions. Just

can you describe to me the nature of the hillside that's on the property? Uh what do you mean nature? Like this the the percentage of grade on it or what what does your visual perception tell you? Um aggressive slope, minor slope. It it varies like there's big slope, little slope, medium slope, no slope. I guess it's a it's a a lot of randomness on that and the area of disturbance um out of necessity. Can you explain to me why you need that additional disturbance area?

Uh because I already started and it's going to be a really big pain to put it back. So I'd like to minimize the amount of work and effort to go into it. and cost, but you know, it's I'll do whatever needs to be done to, you know, be compliant. So, it's Darren, can I ask Darren a question? We should keep the applicant up, but the 1500 square feet or Isaac, sorry. the 1500 square feet of disturbance that you're they're looking forward with the variance, is that the amount after they do some remediation or is that the amount before they do remediation?

Um, Mr. Chairman and board member B, I believe that is before remediation and it is the because part of the part of the development As you can see on the site plan is the uh the reserve septic field and that appears to be outside hillside slope. So, a lot of the disturbance is not hillside disturbance and it all appear and from what I see it appears like there's been a lot split that went through the middle of previous hillside disturbance and so I think a lot of the hillside disturbance on this lot was existing and based upon the lot split is now outside the building

and and that's what I'm trying to understand. And so I say the question to figure out like it sounds like there is a degree of remediation that will occur and so this the true nature of this variance might not be 1,500 to5 square feet but probably something less than that that's quite likely it'll appear less than that in the future and that disturbance isn't as much structural and I'm sorry uh Mr. Chairman uh me member B I believe uh the engineer Katherine Mills is online. Okay.

The the the disturbance area is how much of that is vertical structure within the that area we have any not that any precise numbers but just general I understand. So this this is Katherine if you could hold off please if you could hold off for a moment. I I don't believe there will be any building as a part of that because there's not a setback variance just the uh hillside disturbance outside the building.

Any other questions of the applicant at this point or any any other comments? If you could hold tight, we may have other questions for you. I understand we have the engineer online. If you could go ahead and identify yourself and then um go ahead with any comments that you have. Yeah, this is Katherine Mills. I just wanted to answer some of those questions. So the the variance we're requesting is for restoring the area of hillside within the building or outside the building setback. So the v the area disturbed within the building setback is not part of the variance. Hope that clarifies that.

Thank you very much. It it does does address that question. Um, any other questions of the board members for the applicant or applicants engineer? All right. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have anyone else online? Nadia or David? Nobody else online.

Nobody else online. Okay. I'm going to go ahead and close a public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district three. Uh thanks me chairman loper. I feel like a site with this much topography does present a peculiar condition. I think it would be hard to find a way to grade appropriately without disturbing anything. So for that reason I move that we approve case BA250063 subject to the language outlined in staff's report. We have a motion for approval by vice chair person. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by member clap Rosley. You get an opportunity. Member B. Yes.

Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Congratulations, especially given that it's the restorative area. That's the request. So, move on to next item on the agenda. number. You're very welcome. Good luck with your finishing up your uh home. Item number six, BA250068, Ben Dusk edition in district 2. Rachel,

good morning. Agenda item number six is BA250068 for the Ben Dusk edition. The request is for a proposed rear yard setback of 10 feet where 25 ft is the minimum permitted in the R16 zoning district. The um property is within the vineyards of Mesa subdivision and there currently is not a violation on the property. So the request is to construct an attached sun room to the rear portion of the existing residential home. The um reduction in setback would be 10 feet where um 25 ft is the minimum required. The site is developed with a single family residence. There's no um modifications um to the actual property itself. They desire to construct a 20x 15 ft sunroom addition for 300 square ft and um it's located where there's an existing patio. So the patio will be demolished as part of this request. Um the sun room will be considered part of the primary building and must meet the 25 foot setback as established with the uh zoning district. Um if the sun room were to be detached, they could be as close to 3 ft off the rear and side property lines as long as they do not occupy more than 30% in that required yard. But the applicant states that they cannot proceed with the sun room detached because they are planning to connect electricity to the sun room in order to have um air conditioning to that sun room. And um based upon the applicant submitt um staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. there's no topo or physical constraints and they also have failed to uh demonstrate the general intent and purpose of the MCO will be preserved with the variance. The covered patio could be built as a detached um unit on or detached uh accessory on the property. Um if the board finds that the

applicant has satisfied the statutory test, uh staff does recommend the board consider um notification A as listed in the staff report in paragraph 15, which states variance approval establishes a minimum 10- foot east rear yard setback for APN41-63725. At this time, we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Rachel. I do have a question. Just you sparked my curiosity. Typically when I think attachment I'm thinking structural attachment. Is attaching electrical considered attaching the um the addition is that considered making it part of the unit.

Uh Mr. Chairman, there has to be some type of structural connection or an eve overlap. What about duct work? like like if they had an air gap, but if it was duct work, would that be u I I don't know about that. I don't know about mechanical, electrical, or plumbing connections. It has to be structural. I've never thought Yeah, it's kind of what I

Harris, but I just was curious. Now, having said that, this body interprets the meanings of words or phrases in the ordinance. That is true. And that's not before us, but I was just curious if there's been an interpretation of that. Okay. Um, all right. Are there any questions by board members? Vice Chair Person. Uh, thank you, Rachel and Darren. Um, does the setback requirement change with the new roll out next month like we had on the prior case? Uh, Chairman Loper and Vice Chair Person, it does not impact the rear setback. So, that 25 ft remains in place. Thank you. Um, a question chairman. Yes. Is the existing patio does it have a cover on it today?

It does and it does not extend into that rear setback. Um, so it sounds like this enclosure is in the same location as that, just bigger. Correct. Any other questions by any board members of staff at this time? All right. See now I go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative in attendance in person today? Do you not have a speaker request card? I don't. Is that you coming up? Nope. Okay. Is do we have someone online? I'm not not seeing anybody online.

All right. We're not aware of anybody here. Um, it is written in our bylaws that we continue these automatically. Do we need to continue to a date certain though because it's been advertised? Yes. Okay. I would entertain a motion to continue this to the next meeting. This is in district two. Motion to continue. What? Oh, sorry. I I was just going to make a motion to continue to to the next meeting. We have a motion for BA250068. Sorry. We have a motion to continues to the next agenda by member clap. Is there a second? I will second it. Second by member BA Rosley.

Member Ba. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. This is his case. This is your case 10:30. Can we reopen something we just took action on to continue? Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Then um we need a motion to reopen it then. Correct.

Uh we did not do roll call. I think I saw us in NBA one time. We just withdraw the motion. Withdraw the motion. I'll withdraw the motion. Withdraw the motion. Withdraw the second. Withdraw the action. All right. We will uh go to BA250 0068. The Ben, how do you say the last name? Bend edition in district two. We've already gone through a staff presentation on this. Um the applicant uh she was explaining about the request for the rear edition. We'll open this up to you. Open up the public hearing if you would like to talk about your request for the rear edition.

Yeah. So I'm the contractor. Uh Ben elected not to be here today. And when we started this process, before I signed the contract with him and before I took a deposit from him, I came down to Maricopa County and I talked to them about the requirements and I was led to believe that there were no issues or no problems and that will be fine even if we were going to encroach on that 15 or 25 foot setback. I've come down two or three times and specifically asked and specifically was told that there should be no problems and then uh when we applied for the permit then we were informed that we needed to do a variance and and at that point then I submitted the information to the variance um so that we could get a permit. Okay. And there are other buildings, other homes in the neighborhood. I mean, a lot of other homes that have done this. Either they did it without a permit. I don't know if they were permitted, but there are just a number of other homes that um have encroached on the 25 foot setback by putting in Arizona rooms, sun rooms in the back of their homes.

All right. Thank you. Any other any other comments at this time? We may have questions for you. Are there other questions by board may vice chair person? Hi there. Good morning. Um my question is whether you and your client have considered having a detached structure and just doing a mini split. I actually think that might be less expensive because you don't have to reconfigure the roof as much. But

yeah, so we have recommended that to the homeowner and he has elected he does not want to do that. Um I explained to him that we could um but because of the electrical being in uh put into the um addition or the Arizona room and then also the air conditioning system um he did not want to have a separate system for the air conditioning and he was concerned about um the you know underground electrical to that. So he's elected not to do that. I might bring up you you missed this part of the conversation. So to be connected it needs to be a structural connection. Um that does not mean that that a so a connection electrical connection does not constitute a structural connection. Duct work does not constitute a connection. So if there's an air gap structurally, but you have electrical, you have duct work, you have plumbing, you have other connections, those can occur under the current um understanding or interpretation if you will.

As long as you don't have a structure, as long as it can stand on its own, you could have those. You could have the underground electrical, you could have duct work, you could have other things. I don't know if you think that that could change the uh property owner, your client's mind or not, or if you'd still want to pursue. There's no guarantee this gets approved. If it doesn't, that's an opportunity or an alternative for you or if you'd want to go back and speak with them and how or if you want to have us go ahead and take action today and see how that falls.

Yeah. So, I'm dealing with a very I very nice, kind homeowner, but they don't have a clue. So, even though I I've I've explained it to him that way because I came down and talked to Maricopa, you know, down here and I was told that we could do that. I explained that to him. He says, "Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no. I need he wants livable square footage added to the house is is his concern." But so, I'm dealing with a homeowner just does not understand any of that stuff. Okay. He's even having a hard time understanding why we're doing this variance. And understood. Okay. Mr. Chairman, uh, just for the record, is uh, is the speaker Mr. Ernie Merrill? Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm the licensed contractor.

I apologize. I I meant to have you ask your or give your name for the record if you wouldn't mind. Ernie Merrill. I thought I was on time. I was told 10:30. So, I'm apologize. I'm You're You're quite all right. Thank you. I'm glad. Thank you for attending. Yeah. And I'm a licensed, bonded, fully insured general contractor. So, thank you very much. Uh any other questions of the uh speaker? Member Clap. It was mentioned that u by separating the the sun room from the house, it could be less costly. Is that the case or I don't I don't think so. If it is, it would be minor that it would change the cost of the project. The pro the cost of the project is not anywhere near his concern.

I just was curious, at least right now. So I

Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the applicant at this time? All right. Do we have anyone else in in attendance in person who would like to speak on this item? Do we have anyone else online or anyone online? Nadia, David? Nope. All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district two. I I will throw in my two cents. I realize there are options. Um, I've always been of the opinion that if you could move it two inches away and solve the issue, then in my opinion, there's no difference. There's no health, safety, welfare impact by attaching it. So therefore, I do not have an issue with the variance as requested. That's my two cents. We'd like to make a motion to approve the variance as requested for BA250068.

We have a motion for approval by member Ward. Is there a second? Second. A second by member clap. Rosley. Member Ba. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes, Looper. Yes,

Chairman. I think one thing that's interesting about this case is if you detach it, you can actually be closer to the neighbors than where if you attach it today. And when I think about just the equity of the situation and the oddity of that zoning configur zoning standard, it doesn't to me have the same impact as it would on something else that might be a bit of a closer call. Yeah. Three feet versus 10. So, and Mr. Chairman, we've seen this numerous times in the past where this same problem occurs. Absolutely. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um will be happy. Thank you.

You're welcome. Item number eight, BA250070 digital billboard conversion in district 5. Andrew,

thank you chairman and members of the board. BA2025070 is a request to reduce the reduced the required setback allowed for converting a static billboard to a digital billboard located fewer than 3 mi from the boundary of an incorporated city where the maximum permitted separation is 300 ft per MCO 1403.3 J III. The parcel is located in the north northeast corner of Loop 202 in the southern avenue in the Lavine area and is currently zoned industrial 3. The request is to amend the allowed maximum separation distance from 300 ft to 421 ft to to meet current partial conditions. Currently, an illuminated static billboard exists at approximately 421 ft from the freeway travel lanes. The billboard was approxim was approved in July 2019 with the development of the new at the time loop 202 freeway. In December 2019, a variance was requested and granted to improve the billboard to allow for an increased height and sign size to meet other freeway billboard standards at the time. County staff has traditionally viewed the 300 foot freeway setback limit as a stand free let me start that over. County staff has traditionally viewed the current 300 freeway setback limit standard as a conditional use marker. Staff believes the applicant has not demonstrated an unnecessary hardship which would apply to the specific parcel that is not applicable to all other parcels within Maricopa County for billboard standards. While the parcel abuts the freeway, it does not meet the requirement to be less than 300 foot from the travel lanes. The travel lane requirement has been previously upheld by the zoning administrator to prevent digital billboards from creeping outside of approved travel corridor areas. Thank you. At this time, I would happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you, Andrew. A great overview. I do have one question. Um, did we get any response I city of Phoenix, correct? Did we get any response from Phoenix on this that you're aware of? Uh, Chairman Loper, no, we did not receive anything from the city. Thank you. Are there any other questions to Andrew or other staff from any of the board members? Yes, member BA. What are the functions of the operations on the property where the billboard's located? I believe it is a dairy bottling operation is currently owned by a dairy operation. Dan Zeiss. Yeah. And great milk. I love the strawberry milk. Go to his uh

I don't think it plays into factor variance test, but I get it. He has a great uh ice cream shake place in Pac. Yeah. All right. I'm ready to make a motion. I just um I think it's important to understand the operations that are on the property as well as the surrounding circumstances north and south. So, thank you for any other uh questions of um of staff at this time.

Yes. I'm curious to hear from you in the Lavine area. Go ahead. Thank you. Will it um this I think is for staff. Will it change the luminosity at all um of the existing sign versus the new sign?

Mr. Chairman, uh member Ward, there is an argument to be made that a digital billboard always has a more preferable illuminesence than a traditionally illuminated billboard. Well, I'd like to add that that is on um a very very dark section of road. And personally, as much as I dislike um electronic bill, digital billboards, this actually would help the community by lightening up that stretch. So, um I guess I would just like to throw that in.

But, Mr. Chairman, to be clear, uh the existing billboard is illuminated. The digital billboard will probably have uh although it may be more visible of a sign, it'll have less luminescence than a traditionally illuminated billboard. So, it's because they're lit from the bottom up, whereas a digital billboard lit from internal out. And there's dimmer switches and other they respond to the environment. I mean, argue, Mr. Chairman, arguably they're much better for nighttime skies. And I was going to ask if the existing one is it uplit, down lit. Do we know down? I think you said question.

Mr. Chairman, it should be down lit since it was permitted in recent years. Okay. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have Yeah, just were you finished? Okay. Go ahead, member. Clap. This is regarding lighting also. Is the current billboard lit 24 hours a day? Does it go on and off? because I know the new billboard is only going to be on from 11 will be off from 11 o'clock at night to sunrise. So, what's the current billboard lighting? M Mr. Chairman, uh member Clap, I do not know. I'll refer to the applicant. Okay. I do know I do know that uh older billboards that have the bottomup lighting are supposed to be shut off at 11 p.m. nightly, which would be the same as the digital.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And member Ward, I apologize. I miss I cut you off. Did you have any other questions? I did not, but I would like to add um I don't know if you can see it. There are no other houses around there. So, it's across the street from what used to be a golf course. There is there is nothing there to just where it would disturb anybody. I'm done. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff at from any other board members at this time? Seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative in attendance? Just provide your name and go forward with your presentation. Uh, thank you. Good morning, Chair Loper, members of the board. My name is Andrew Yansy. I'm an attorney at Bergen Frank, Smallley, and Overholzer. We're at 4343 East Camelback Road in Phoenix. Uh happy to be here before you today for this uh digital billboard case. The variance um as was noted is on the Danzy dairy property. It is a bottling plant. They do also have a crearyy you can walk into there. So you can buy some of that ice cream or milk right in the store if you want to. It's possible that our planner stopped in when he was taking uh pictures and bought some himself. Um, so this is an existing two-sided static billboard. It is top lit. And to answer one of the questions just a moment ago, uh, because it's top lit, it shuts off at midnight. Now, it is correct that if it was digital, it would have to shut off at 11 p.m. per state statute and county ordinance. Um, the property is immediately adjacent to the A DOT right ofway, but because of the peculiar conditions, the billboard cannot be within that 300 ft of the main travel lanes on the 202 that's required for digital conversion under the county ordinance. So, what we're asking for today, it is not a new billboard. It is not to change the height or the area. It's just to take that existing billboard that's been operating for five years and switch out the sign faces from static to digital. Sorry, I went too far. Um, so back in 2019, as was mentioned, we did come before this board for a

variance that was to increase the billboard's height and sign face area. Those variances were pretty common in that time because it was the older version of the county's code. Um, you know, of note, the digital permission was not available at that time. So, that wasn't part of our request back in 2019. U, that request was approved in large part based on the peculiar condition. That's the same reason we're coming before you today. Uh, that's the approvals for 57 feet in height and 672 square ft of sign face area. Of course, today the code does permit uh digital billboards within 300 ft of the freeway's main travel lanes, but because of the configuration of this property and surrounding AOT functions, um that is not possible even though the property is freeway adjacent. So that's just the the brief history that that we have come before you for a variance before and we don't need to ask for anything on height and sign face area today. So I want to focus on the property a little bit here. Um the the bottling plant is more on the eastern portion of this property. The western portion near the freeway is primarily vacant except that we have our billboard over there. Um there is no private property between our property and and the freeway. That's all a dot right ofway. And of course I'd like to draw your attention to the separation that occurs between those main travel lanes and the sign. There's two reasons why we have over 400 feet of separation there. The first reason is because there's an on-ramp. We're right at Southern Avenue. That's a a freeway exit. So, there is an on-ramp to get on. It goes up in elevation. So, it it comes out a little ways. So, that's about 237 ft of separation caused by that on-ramp. The second reason is this retention basin. And this is a particularly large retention basin that's in ADOT rightway. It adds another 179 ft of separation. So

you add those two things together and there's 420 plus feet of AOT rideway between us and the main travel lanes. There's no way to locate the billboard on the property in a way that it would meet that 300 foot requirement for digital. Here's just a look um you know from the ground level. This is closer to Southern Avenue looking north. You can see that retention area there. And then there's the on-ramp going up to the elevated freeway. I do want to give you a little bit of regional context, too. So, we got a little little zoom out here. First, I want to direct you to um what's north of our property, and that's the Salt River. So, that's the green hatched area there is the Salt River. The blue hatched area is the large retention basin. You can see it is adjacent to the Salt River. So, that is drainage flows going into the Salt River from there. So, we wanted to take a little closer look at that retention basin. Uh, we had to turn it sideways to fit it on the slide. So, you want to look on the left side of the slide is Baseline Road. That's about a mile to our south. At that location, the retention basin is about 85 ft in width. But then as you move to the right, which is north toward our property, that retention basin gets wider and wider until it's 179 ft adjacent to our property. This of course makes sense from a drainage flow perspective. If everything is flowing north into the Salt River, that basin is going to get wider and wider and we're at the very tail end of it there. The result for the billboard, of course, is that it pushes it farther away from the freeway. And I did just want to walk you through the surrounding zoning uh briefly. Uh this property is of course an unincorporated county. It's IND3. The property immediately adjacent to the east is also IND3. Uh as member Ward pointed out, the homes are are pretty

far away. It's over 1,400 ft before you get to some R18 zoning. And that's to our east, whereas the billboard is oriented to the west toward the freeway. Uh it's still IND3 across the freeway. On the other side, of course, to the north is the Salt River and Retention Basin. To the south is City of Phoenix property. That's uh primarily S1 and the corner is C2. That's also commercial in their general plan. Okay. Now, I just want to walk through the elements of the variance test here. Um, of course, the peculiar condition, that's what I've spent a lot of time here talking about so far. Uh the peculiar condition is how far the property is pushed back from those main freeway travel lanes. That's because of both the on-ramp and the large retention basin in the same place. Again, those are the same conditions that caused a peculiar condition uh that resulted in the variance approval back in 2019. uh when it comes to unnecessary hardship, this location, this distance away from the freeway prevents under a strict reading of the county's code, the digital billboard because even though it is freeway adjacent property, it it the board cannot be placed within that 300 foot radius from the main travel lanes, which is where the county does its measurement. And then the uh no negative impacts is the other part of the test. uh the digital technology does focus uh the the lighting more on the intended viewers on the on the freeway. There are, you know, also uh constraints, a lot of regulations both from the state and county. At sunset, it has to go down to a brightness level of 300 nits and then 11:00 it has to be shut off. Um and again, the area around here, it really isn't disturbed by the billboard. The billboard's here today. it's existing and and is top lit till midnight. I think the intent of this provision in

the code is really about making sure that billboard the digital billboards are freeway focused rather than being in neighborhoods on arterials and and that type of thing. This is clearly a freeway oriented billboard. It's located as close to the freeway as it possibly can be. You don't have the neighborhood concerns here. And of course, there's a few other benefits to the digital as well. Um there's emergency messaging available and and actually required by law where if you have an amber alert or a silver alert or something like that that can go up on the digital billboard where you get static board obviously you don't have time to change that out um before that that message would become irrelevant. So last just as I conclude I want to you know summarize our existing board versus our proposed board. The location is the same, the height is the same, the sign face area is the same. The only difference is going to be changing from a top lit static board to a a digital face on this two-sided board. So, that concludes my presentation. Um, I hope that I addressed some of the questions that were answer asked previously of staff, but I'm also happy to take any further questions you have.

Thank you very much. Great overview of your request. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? All right. Thank you. We may have f some follow-up questions. Uh, as I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak? Do we have anyone online? Nobody online. Chairman, no one online. All right. I'm go ahead and close the the public hearing. Turn it over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district five. Vern, this is in your district. Um, any board members have any Go ahead, Member Ward. No, go. You go ahead.

No, I was just gonna say open it up for discussion andor a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a motion to approve approve BA250070 subject to item 15, section B. Second. We have a motion for approval by member Ward and a second by Vice Chair Person Rosalie. Member Ba. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Congratulations. Move on to agenda item number nine. BA250072. the Dor Dohy residents in district one. Isaac, back to you. Thank you, Chairman Loper, members of the board. Uh case BA2500072 is an application for a residential variance to allow for a rear setback of 16 ft where 25 is the maximum allowed located within district 1. Subject parcel is located at 9303 East Parkside Drive in the Sunlakes area in the Sunlakes 6 subdivision. Property is zone R16 is 6,939 square feet and occupied by a single family residential structure. There's currently an open building permit for an interior alteration and a patio addition that extends to the south of the property and which would encroach within the existing 25t rear yard setback. The existing patio area along with other portions of the house would be converted to 889 square ft of livable space. To compensate for this uh to compensate for this conversion of the existing patio, a new patio portion, which would be 455 square feet, uh would be added to the rear of the property. This would bring the property's overall lot coverage of 48% just under the 50% allowance under R16 zoning. Based upon what the applicant has submitted in the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following observations that the board may consider in its findings. Staff is unable to find a peculiar condition of the property that renders the proposed addition necessary, unavoidable, or causing undue hardship to the applicant or property owner. Lots dimensions, contours, and location of utility easements were purposely

designed within the context and guidelines of the R16 zoning. Maricopa County Planning and Development does not consider precedence as justification for grounds of a residential variance as each case must pre must be presented on its own merits in unique circumstances. And further, if the board finds the applicant has sat satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, the granting of this variance will memorialize the following. Variance approval establishes a 16 foot rear setback line on the south for APN 30365155. I'd be happy to answer any questions from the board. Thank you, Isaac. Great overview. Are there any questions of Isaac or other staff members by any of the board members? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I do have a speaker request card by the applicant, uh, Monty. I'm gonna butcher this. I apologize. Custo, you come up to the podium. Just provide your name and uh give us an overview of your request.

Yeah, my name is Monty Kustas. I'm the general contractor uh for Mr. and Mrs. Dory. We're applying for a second permit. The first one we did was the front end of the house and added a second garage to it and closed the carport. Now we're doing the second phase of completing their retirement home by enlarging the kitchen and adding on the back. Currently, there is no patio in the back. There's just a slab. And what we want to do is we want to extend the back out as and enlarge the bedrooms and add a kitchen and dining room. I had originally designed the patio to catal because we knew we were going to sit at the 25 foot setback at the base of the exterior wall. So, we engineered and designed the patio to cataly over the 25 ft, but Maricopa County Building Department said, "No, you're going to need a variance." Even though the code says it goes through the exterior wall, which we're not making any contact with the patio, it's just floating out there. But, uh, we're requesting the variance because they want to be able to enjoy their backyard and enjoy their new retirement home. And the rear of the yard facing a common area, so it's not going to obstruct to anybody back there. There are several other I think three or four other houses that literally next door to each other on the same side of the street that were granted setbacks extensions on there too. So now we just requesting one for ourselves.

Right. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? Seeing none. We may have some, so hold tight. Um, did you have some? Okay. Um, all right. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on this item? Anyone online? Nadia, nobody going online. Nobody online.

What's that? Oh, okay. Um, go ahead and close the public hearing. Turn it over to staff. I do have a question. I think I know the answer. As was asked earlier, Isaac or other staff, the new ordinance change wouldn't affect this. Correct. Chairman Lope, members of the board now. Okay. Um I'll turn this over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district one. Mr. Ball, that's your district. Um, personally, again, doesn't sound like detaching this is an option given the design of it, but given that it backs up to a lake, I don't personally have an issue with it, but not in my district.

Couple things that point that I noticed point out. There's some aerial photos in the stat. And as I was looking at those aerial photos, two three things worth mentioning. One, the property width happens to be larger than the back. So as you are looking shape kind of

Yes. And so as you look where your expansion can be, you're kind of constrained in your to go east to west so to speak and so you kind of have to go a little longer. First thing second thing is the residences on both sides appear on this image that have structures that are closer to the property line to them. And third the fact that there's a lake behind us I think we have these setbacks to um because there's somebody behind you so you want some separation distance. I don't think we have that same type of concern to exist here. For that reason, I recommend approval. We have a motion for approval by member BA. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by member Clap. Rosalie, when you get an opportunity. Member Ba. Yes. Member Clap. Yes.

Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Congratulations. Good luck with your addition and your uh remodel. Move on to the last item on the agenda. Item 10, TU250047, red hot fireworks seasonal cell in district 3. Mr. Landis, I won't forget you again.

Thank you, Chairman Loper. Uh Chairman Loper and members of the board, agenda item 10 is T2547. uh temporary use per for seasonal fireworks sales on a commercially zoned site uh on the Carefree Highway in District 3. Next slide. Um this request uh is identical to what's been done on the site for several years. Um the site would operate from December 19 through Christmas and New Year's with the applicant vacating the site after New Year's Day. Um this is the ninth request of this type on this property. Uh most prior requests were approved administratively. Uh two went to this board due opposition were approved here as well. Uh the use and setup have been consistent across all these requests. Uh we did receive opposition during the mandatory posting period which required this case to be heard by this board today. Uh the concerns focus on how fireworks are used by the general public offsite. Uh and in one case an assertion that people may abuse fireworks on the property itself during site operations. Uh the TV only covers the site operations and fireworks sales and usage of fireworks are legal within the state of Arizona. Uh stat position is that the applicant has met the requirements of the zoning ordinance for temporary seasonal sales. Uh no opposition had been filed. This would have been approved administrative administratively uh like most of the earlier cases. Uh the staff is recommending approval on this item. So I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you Joel. Good overview. I understand why this is brought before us. Are there any questions of staff at by any of the board members? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance in person? I don't believe so. Do we have them online? Yes, we have Joanna Noriega and I believe she's unmuted now. Go ahead. Yes, I'm here. Go right ahead with your uh give your name for the record and go ahead with your request, please.

Awesome. Yeah, my name is Joanna Noriega. I'm the chief operating officer for Red Hot Fireworks. Um, of course, you know, this is our ninth request. Um we basically are a small business operating firework sales seasonally. Um let's go ahead and go with the next slide. Uh this is just our narrative. Uh basically stating what we conduct um for that small short period of time. Basically say stating that we uh put up a tent uh we have a container um and we do have an operator that runs the location. Uh next slide. The next few slides go into um all the rules and regulations of the state of Arizona for sales for for fireworks which we take very very serious um and make sure that we abide by all the rules and regulations. Next slide just kind of continues. Next slide. Uh this is a uh outline of consumer fireworks that can be sold uh sold in Arizona, which of course again we do make sure we abide by any uh rules and regulations when it does come to what types of fireworks we can sell. Next slide. This next slide is uh basically uh a radius of any other stores that sell fireworks in uh in the same location that we operate business. Um, and as you could see, uh, there is a fried fries food store that does sell fireworks, same as we do. Next slide. Uh, this next slide is just, um, just a layout. Pretty much everything is the same as last season. Next slide. This is going to be our copy of our uh, issued permit from the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. uh they do come out and inspect and ensure that we are following all the rules for the fire department. Next slide.

This is just a brief uh description of who we are and what we do and where we came from. Um next slide. And basically we are a small family-owned business that tried to make a living in Arizona. That's that's all I have. All right. Thank you very much. Are there any uh questions of the applicant? Vice Chair Person. Thank you. Um Miss Nora, my only question is the five letters of opposition. Are those from folks that have just been opposing it every time or are there new concerns?

I believe it is the same person every single time. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant by any of the board members? All right, we have none at this time. If you wouldn't mind staying online, we may have additional questions as this as we work through this. Thank you again. Do we have anyone else online? Nadia, Chairman Lbert, um, nobody else indicating they'd like to speak. Okay. I I will close a public hearing, but again, stay online, Miss Noriega. We may have questions. Um, turn this over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district 3. Vice Chair Person,

I will make a motion that we approve case TU250047 subject to the language outlined in the staff report. We have a motion for approval of TU250047 by by Vice Chair Person. Is there a second? Second. Second. We have a second by uh board member Clap Rosalie. Member BA. Yes. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

All right. Other matters. Again, want to thank uh Protective Services, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office for always being here for us. Wish you guys would sit. You make me uncomfortable and nervous standing the whole time. I don't think I could, but I appreciate what you guys do every time. And everyone have a merry Christmas, happy holidays, happy new year. We'll see you in January. Darren, anything?

Mr. Chairman, uh just a real quick uh summary to let you know with the MCCO update comes effective on the 9th of next month. U I think it will mitigate certain numbers of variances. Residential front setbacks have been reduced to 10 feet with an 18 foot minimum driveway length. Maximum building height residential increased to 35. Industrial maximum building heights increased to 60. Uh rule 43 sight setbacks reduced to 20. There's also the ability to uh have administrative waiverss to parking numbers based upon a parking study prepared professionally prepared parking study in multif family commercial and industrial. Uh, so a lot of those will reduce your numbers, but this was your last temporary use permit. They're now going to the planning zoning commission so you can focus on quas judicial matters and um we do think that'll speed up temporary use permits because they hear maybe twice a month. But uh we'll see you next year.

I liked those. I like the wedding venue ones. Those are always fun. I love talking about where they're I do too. I do. The alcohol and everything else. Hey, thank you very much. We appreciate all that you do. Um, great job on the zoning ordinance. Listened to you guys online the other day and I know that was that was quite a heavy lift and you did it in really record time. It surprised me, but but good work on that, Max. I hope the uh drafting you were doing on your fantasy team during this went well.