Drainage Review Board - meeting_joint_regular

Chair Persson?

Present.

Vice Chair Clapp? Here. Member Ba? Member Loper?

Present.

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

Excellent. And Member Ba is walking in now. All right. We'll turn it over to the virtual announcements.

This meeting has been noticed in accordance with Open Meeting Law ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning and Development Office and are also available on the Planning and Development website one week prior to hearing at www.maricopa.gov slash planning. With respect to the hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witness wishing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker'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 roll call only vote. The chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds.

Excellent, thank you. Are there any comments to the minutes from the July 16th hearing? Hearing none, we'll consider those approved. I'd also just like to let everyone know that agenda item number four, case BA 260059 has been withdrawn. So if you're here for that item today, you're welcome to stay and listen to others, or you can go clean back part of your day. So we'll turn it over to Isaac for presentation on case BA 250076, the Gonzalez property, which was continued from December of last year.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. Case BA-25-0076 for the Gonzalez property. It is a 43,913 square foot vacant lot. It's located in District 4 at 5953 South 337th Drive in the Tonopah area. The applicant proposes a side setback on the north property line of 17 feet where 20 feet is minimum permitted, and a side setback on the south property line of 17 feet where 20 feet is also the minimum permitted. The applicant proposes to develop the property for a single story, single family residence of 2,866 square feet, covering 6.52% of the parcel. Water will be provided with a shared well and sewer will be provided with a septic system. Staff notes that the entirety of the subject site is within a FEMA-designated floodplain. While this does not outright restrict development, it does affect its location and placement. Additionally, the subject site's south property line abuts a section line where the Maricopa County Department of Transportation has reserved a 65-foot half-width for future right-of-way development. The future right-of-way development is classified as a principal arterial and would align with Southern Avenue. It is documented in a waiver that was obtained by the applicant on April 27, 2026, following a continuance from the previously scheduled hearing date. Based upon what the applicant has submitted in staff analysis, staff offers the following. Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition that would create an unnecessary hardship for relocating the property. The future half-width reservation of 65 foot would not be considered a peculiar condition because it is a regulation built within the zoning ordinance. Staff also notes that the current property owner is responsible in the line of title for the subject site's current lot size and dimensions, which was produced via an unregulated land division. And the subject site remained configured in its preceding form. Sufficient space would have allowed for development of a single family residence without the need of a variance. While the floodplain may limit the location and placement of the proposed residence, this has not been demonstrated by the applicant. It can neither be inferred through the submitted application materials nor through available information. However, floodplain does cover the entirety of the subject site. The Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test. Granting of this variance will memorialize the following. The variance would establish a minimum 17-foot site setback on the north property line and a 17-site setback on the south property line. And I am happy to answer any questions for the board.

Thank you, Isaac. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? All right. Thank you. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online? Not seeing anyone here.

Not to anybody online either, actually.

OK. Darren, are you going to chime in on something here?

Isaac indicated that the applicant said that he was on his way. I don't know if you want to pause this till later in the hearing.

Yes, let's do that. So we will close the public hearing and we'll Come back to this, we'll move on to agenda item number two, which is also Isaac, case BA260045, the Barakas residence.

Thank you again, Madam Chair, members of the board. BA 260045 for the Baracus residence is on a 87,120 square foot lot located in District 3 at 36505 North 15th Lane in the Phoenix area. The parcel is zone 43. The variance proposes a front setback of 30 feet, where 40 feet is the minimum permitted, and a rear setback for a detached accessory structure of one foot, where three foot is the minimum permitted. The applicant proposes to resolve an outstanding violation for an unpermitted 2,232 square foot horse stall. The detached accessory structure is located one foot from the east property line and 30 feet from the west property line. The subject site itself does not contain any peculiar conditions such as floodplains, floodways, hillside slopes, or other characteristics, topographic interests. However, it does bear the hallmark common of five lot splits via unregulated land divisions, which feature cul-de-sacs culminating in a diamond-shaped northern lot. These cul-de-sacs create confusion where zoning frontages often conflict regarding structure, location, and placement. To resolve the confusion by natural alignment, a portion of the cul-de-sac was abandoned with the intent of restoring the site's setbacks, however, resulting in more confusion and complexity. Based upon what the applicant has submitted in staff analysis and report, staff offers the following observations. Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition in the property that creates an unnecessary hardship. There's sufficient space to relocate the existing structure within the setback requirements for the RU 43 zoning district. Because the structure is existing, however, granting this variance would allow the applicant and property owner to pursue as-built permits and resolve an outstanding violation. Remedies such as relocation or removal of the structure, however, would eliminate the setback encroachments. As a zoning matter, the rear yard setback deviation three feet to one foot for the detached accessory structure may not seem significant. However, it would allow for an eave overhang at a zero lot line adjacent to a single family residential lot to the east, but also significantly expand the building envelope by reducing the required rear setback to one foot. The stables can be modified to meet the minimum required 40-foot front setback and 3-foot rear setback for a detached accessory structure, thus negating the need for variance. However, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, the granting of this variance would memorialize the following. The variance would establish a 30-foot west setback line and also establish a 1-foot east setback line. And I'm happy to answer any questions for the Board.

Thank you, Isaac. Does anyone have any questions for Isaac? All right. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I understand the applicant and his representative are online. So if you want to unmute one of them, they can continue with their presentation.

Chairperson, they both are online. However, neither have responded. So we're still waiting for a response.

I can unmute both of them. Hopefully the, yeah, Morgan, I've already unmuted you. You need to unmute yourself.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. I hope you guys can all hear me okay. Thank you, Isaac, for the overview of the- Can you please state your name for the record? Absolutely. My name is Morgan Busby. I'm here as an applicant and representative for the property owner, Mr. John Varekis. Um, so with this property, um, the peculiarity of the. Lot shape that I would like to discuss is that really on that, um. Right where the stalls are, we had to choose this location because of a existing wash. There's a lot of water that ponds through there. So the, um, peculiar location is due to an existing depression. Um. To go kind of further into what this situation has. Yes. Thank you. Those are the, I do want to touch on those. The variances that we are requesting, like, Isaac did state is the reduced setback on the West property line from 40 foot to 30 foot and on the East from 3 to 1 with this variance request. We are not requesting any other development to meet these setbacks or have these standards. We are simply requesting it for the existing structures. Um, I felt like that was a good thing to point out as well. Um, the lots were combined and the permission was granted by both the county and the. We also did abandon that circular, um. The circular easement, so we're not encumbering access to any of the neighbors. This sort of development where the property is close to the lot lines is something that is a very normal commonality within this region. And so I don't feel like it's not meeting any sort of development patterns as well. Let's see. I do understand that there is opposition here today. You know, I would just like to reiterate that this this development is not encumbering her access she still has 233 foot of access along that west property line to grant her full access to her property um there is multiple items that i can imagine will be brought up by the opposition today i would like to say there is like a civil case that's going on between the opposition and the client and my request is today that the Opposition sticks solely to the request at hand and not bring the matters that don't that aren't pertinent to this variance hearing. Is there any questions that I can answer?

Thank you. I did have 1 question. What was the circular easement for?

The circular easement was there because we just combined these lots. They were broken into three lots previously. So the circular easement, which would have been at the west corner point of the north parcel and the east parcel gave access to the north parcel. However, the both of them were owned by the same client and he combined the lots, therefore abandoning the easement because he did not need that additional access.

Thanks for clarifying. Are there any other questions for Ms. Busby? All right, please hang tight in case we have more. We do, did Mr. Baracus want to speak as well?

Chair, I'm not sure. He just raised his hand. I have him unmuted. He has to unmute himself if he would like to speak. Looks like he did that now. All right, thank you. John.

State your name and then let us know what you have to share. Mr. Yeah, we can't.

Chair, yeah, I have him unmuted. I'm not sure. It shows his microphone enabled, but we're not able to hear him.

Aaron, do you want to give out your cell number again?

Yes, if the gentleman wishes to call me at 602-723-2241, we can put him on speaker.

Darin Stavishvili- There I also messaged john that number.

Excellent yeah that might be easier if the audio is not working on here, he can call Darren and Darren can put them on speaker on his microphone.

It's 602-723-2241.

We got materials very late.

We got materials very late on this.

Some of them which seem to have some pretty heavy allegations and I think critical information regarding the abandonment or alleged abandonment of the easement. One of which may have included abandoning property that they may not have had authority to do so. And for me, that weighs heavily in what influences the factors in valuing this request. I know that we're trying to get some folks on the call, but I don't know if I feel comfortable that I have all the correct and final information to make a decision on the merits of the case. So we could hear it, but I guess my thought is if we start waiting for some information to be adjudicated and understood, it might be premature to hear this hearing.

I feel the same way. I'm just wondering if for the process, we need to let everyone speak. So Max, that might be a question for you. If we're kind of leaning towards wanting to continue the case so that A, we can let some of this play out and B, it sounds like a lot of this may be a neighbor dispute and maybe they need to chat about it, but do we need to let these other folks speak or can we make that motion? Yes.

I think it's at the chair's discretion to let people speak for the body. But you know, it's up to you. If you want to hear it, you can ask questions if you'd like and we'll make your determination at that point if you want to continue the hearing for a certain reason.

Okay, well, why don't we let Mr. speak and then I think we can ask questions about his interactions with the neighbor and then decide. So please proceed state your name for the record and then you can share your thoughts.

Mr. Rickus, you can speak.

My name is John and I am the owner of the property in Carson regarding the variance.

Excellent. What would you like to add to Ms. Busby's comments?

So what I'd like to add is this property, there is an extensive loss that crosses the main street or the main easement that's considered the street uh well to the uh south end of my house the houses are facing south so they're utilizing the street as the as the front step back but it's actually the sides of the houses where the garages are and that wash crosses that street and runs along the west side or along that street um through to the back of the property there is uh it was impossible for anyone to drive through that wash and the horse barn is located behind or east of that wash. So the horse barn does not intersect with the street or intersect with anybody's ability to drive in there for the course of the 20 years that this thing has been built on this wash. I own the back property and the side property, which now creates an aisle. We've combined those properties. Those easements were not for any type of ingress or egress to anybody's property except for mine. Those have been eliminated. And we also have an elimination from APS on the utility easement to build on that. We are not looking to build anywhere that's going to encroach into the street. This is solely on my property as well as on my back property. And again, the wash is to the left or to the west of this. So any type of easement that would have been there would never have been usable in the first place. And again, as we combine these properties, it's no longer valid for me to use that easement onto both of my properties. You're also going to hear some stuff from the neighbor regarding civil stuff. It has no bearing on it. We have an injunction of harassment against her. There are several CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST HER PENDING IN MARICOPA COUNTY. I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE CONFUSED WITH ANY PART OF THIS VARIANCE. AND THE NEIGHBORS TO THE EAST ARE ALREADY IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A FRIENDSHIP AND THE FOURTH FRONT DOESN'T ENCROACH INTO THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE HORSES ADJACENT TO OUR HORSES WHICH THEY USE OUR PROPERTY FOR THAT AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS HELPFUL. Before we consider if we want to move on to any other speakers, I'd like to see if anyone else on the board has thoughts about entertaining a continuance so that the neighbors can have time to discuss this so we can see how these other factors play out.

Can I just add a thought? Yeah. Continuing the case doesn't prejudice him. He's got a structure that's already in violation. They're not going to advance the violation while this variance is pending. There's a a question of, in my mind, some legal consideration related to these potential appeasement abandonments. And containing this case for a short period of time allows that maybe to see itself out, which helps me determine if I think there's facts to support the variance or not. But it doesn't allow him to continue to use the structure that's legally there right now today.

of that violation. Any other thoughts from the rest of the Board?

Madam Chair?

Yes, sir.

Some great points, Member Baugh. And I'm guessing that Darren's confirming that the violation is put on hold while this goes through the process. The easement to question, if I'm understanding it correctly, they affect the side property lines of the subject site, correct? I'm looking at the document that was submitted by the opposition. Yeah, it's a long, it's impacting that property line.

So they're having 30 feet to the easement line. And I think their argument is, if that easement is technically abandoned, they're meeting the 40 foot requirement and don't have an issue.

But the variance is to the east. Sorry, but the variance is to the north and south property lines. I'm unclear how the outcome of this fully affects the variance, but

The East and West property lines. And if the easement.

Oh, it's the East and West.

Then, you know, there's not a measurement on here, but potentially they do meet the 40 feet. They would still need a variance for the West.

Then I'm in favor of this being continued until this is resolved. And we all understand this, this is a probably not a next month or two months from now. This is probably. You know, I mean, there may be members of the board who may not be around when this is resolved.

Well, hopefully they can do it sooner. I think that we should close the public hearing and all entertain a motion.

District 3. Darren, real quick. Can you confirm whether the violation is put on abeyance pending this?

It is not automatically held in abeyance. Because the violation is unpermitted construction. As long as it exists, it's a violation. We will delay any prosecution of the code enforcement, depending on how long this is continued. But let's say, for instance, they work out things among neighbors. They still need to get the permit. And unless they get a variance, they're not going to get a permit for the detached structure at one foot seven.

My suggestion might be to not have this go indefinitely, but to put like a 90-day continuance. I think that's enough time for some of these questions to be sorted out, and then we can come back to see where we're at at that point. So I'd make that motion if the board would be inclined.

Great. We have a motion by Member Baugh to continue for 90 days. Do we have a second?

Second.

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

Member Baugh?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward?

Yes.

I think that was a very quiet yes.

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

All right, thank you. Isaac, I'm assuming that your applicant from case number one is not here. I didn't see anyone else come in, I don't think. Okay, are you are you here for the Gonzales case. Yes, okay so we're going to circle back to that case which was BA 250076 before you arrived Isaac presented do we need to do that again Darren. Max okay i'm getting a no so we'll go ahead and open the public hearing on that case, and if you want to come down state your name, for the record and share your presentation, please. Yes.

Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Jesus Gonzalez. And the reason for my visiting here today is for the variance. Try to get it.

Thank you. Did you have any other comments about it?

No, actually, the only reason that I'm dealing with now, I mean, the situation that I'm dealing with is that when I purchased this land, I was not aware of, you know, the right of way from Maricopa County, the Department of Transportation. And I submitted my plans. I had to get the engineering because at the end of a plot zone and right at the end, when I was ready to start building, there were some restrictions about the right of way, which was gonna be 95 feet taken out of the small one acre lot. And I submitted my... reduction right of way with the Department of Transportation, which took several months, but I finally got it. You know, they helped me out, you know, reducing it to 65 feet instead of 95. But the floor plan that we picked up, me and my wife and the kids, it's a house that has a, you know, split floor plan, which is about 65 feet wide. And with 20 feet set back to the north and south, Right now it puts us 17 feet instead of the 20 feet setback. So my question is, if we can get approved to reduce this north and south setback to 17 instead of 20 feet in order to get our house built. That's the case, basically.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions for Mr. Gonzalez? Thank you. Hearing none, are there any other folks here that wish to speak about this case or anyone online?

Nobody online.

I will go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. This is in District 4.

Madam Chair?

Yes.

I would move for approval of the variance as requested by the applicant.

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

Member Ba?

No.

Vice Chair Klatt? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward?

Yes.

Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 4 to 1.

Excellent. Best of luck to you.

Thank you so much, everyone. Have a good day.

You too. We'll move forward with number three, which is case BA260055, the Eshelam residence. And I'm not seeing Paula.

Chair Persone, I will present for Paula. Let's go. BA260055, the Eshelam residence is in District 3. It's a variance to front setback for parcel 202-14012C as yet unaddressed in the New River area. The septic parcel is about half hillside slopes ranging from 17 to 42 slope. There's a proposed single family residence. The septic system is gonna be placed in the portion of the site where it's relatively flat, meaning less than a 15% slope. Access to the sites along the western property line. The proposed development will not disturb hillside outside of the principal building envelope other than where it's permitted for driveway and road access. However, staff cannot readily identify a peculiar condition facing the property that necessitates a variance to the west or front setback line. The proposed design could simply be made smaller so that it fits within the principal building envelope. In paragraph 17, you'll find the findings Staff indicates the applicant has failed to demonstrate the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance will be preserved with the variance the single-family residence may be developed in multiple ways without the area of existing disturbance within the area of existing disturbance inside the principal or inside the principal envelope without need for variance. The site is uncovered by hillside slopes. The staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that would prohibit reasonable development of the site and as the proposed square footage or location of the residence may be reduced or designed to fit within the building envelope in the Rule 43 zoning district. However, paragraph 18, if the board finds that the applicant satisfied the statutory test, then variance approval establishes a minimum 31-foot front setback line on the west for APN 202.14.012 . Happy to try and answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. My only question is, what is the proposed square footage of the home?

I am going to have to search the report real quick.

Okay, well, we can come back to that while you're looking, and I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here?

Chair, I have Mr. Eshelman. I have his mic unmuted. He should be able to speak to us.

Yep, I just unmuted it. Can you hear me?

Yep.

Yeah, thanks for having us and looking over our house. My name is... Will you just please state your name for the record? Thank you. And I'm one of the homeowners in the house, me and my wife. We love this property and we bought it and then tried to figure out how to build a house on it. And I work at Chaz Roberts and I have access to literally thousands and thousands of houses that we designed. And we could not find a house that would fit on this property that already existed in a design from a major builder. So we had to do this custom home. And we tried to make it fit a lot as good as we could. We even have a detached garage so that we could build the garage on a flat portion. And if we move that house anywhere further east, it just gets higher and higher of dirt buildup and more lot that we're going to have to kind of demolish and get rid of all sorts of plants. And we love the landscaping there and don't want to destroy anything. So we try to pick the flattest spot for the house. We try to pick a house design the house so that it would fit on the lot, on the flat spots, and that's why it's kind of got a weird shape. But it did have that garage that's stuck over the western easement, which is why we're asking for the variance.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, it looks like the proposed residence is approximately 3,500 square feet.

Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Eshelman? Hearing none, are there any other folks online that wish to speak on this case?

Nobody else online.

Okay, thank you. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I think this one's in my district. The reason I asked about the size of the house is, you know, I heard Darren's comment about you could make it smaller and then it would be able to fit. I don't feel like this house is the abnormal size and I do see all the slope and I can see how there was care taken to try to work within the constraints of the site. So I'm in favor. I'm happy to entertain a motion. Here are those thoughts.

Madam Chair.

Yes, sir.

On behalf of District 3, I would move for approval of the variance for BA260055.

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

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persson? Yes. Member Ward?

Yes.

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

Thank you. Good luck with your new home. As I mentioned before, number four was withdrawn. So we're going to skip right over that one. And we are now going to go to number five. Case BA-26-0060, the King residence and Isaac once again.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. BA 260060 for the King residence is a 48,722 square foot parcel located in District 3 at 930 East Shawna Court in the New River area. It is zoned 43 and it proposes a front setback of 12 feet where 40 feet is the minimum permitted and a street side setback of 5 feet where 20 feet is the minimum permitted. The applicant proposes a 980-square-foot detached accessory structure. It currently features a single-family residence, swimming pool, and other detached accessory structures. It currently has a lock coverage of 9%. The subject site itself does not contain any features of topographical interest or defect. Size lots in the RU45. However, there is a FEMA-designated floodway located to the west of the subject site. This floodway does appear to have forced development west of the subject site northwards out of alignment with the subject site. As originally planned, the subject site comprised the northeast edge of a larger parent parcel adjacent to a 40-foot county-maintained right-of-way, which is 10th Street. The right-of-way is classified by the Department of Transportation as a local road and is designed for short trip lanes to residential properties. It's the least intense road classification for county-maintained right-of-ways. access to the two eastward homes and the two westward homes are affected by the floodway alignment. Shawna Road is utilized for access to the two eastward homes and Shawna Court for the two westward homes. Based upon what the applicant has submitted, the staff analysis offers the following. Regarding the variance request for the 12-foot north front setback line, Staff identifies the floodway outside of the subject site as necessitating the presence of Tonya Road. This presence renders the subject site as a through lot. However, an alternative remedy does exist outside of a variance request in the form of recording a one-foot vehicular non-access easement. This would negate the effects created by the presence of Tanya Road by restoring the north end of the property as a rear yard, which allows encroachment within the required setback of a three-foot setback for detached accessory structures. Regarding the variance request for a five foot east street side setback line, staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition that creates an unnecessary hardship. The subject site was not originally plotted as a corner lot, but became one by virtue of numerous unregulated minor lot splits. The current property owner therefore is responsible in the line of title. The proposed location for the detached accessory structure would align with driveway access along Shawna Cora. It's also feasible due to the presence of natural vegetation that prevents relocation of the structure. Natural vegetation, however, is generally not considered a peculiar condition which causes an unnecessary hardship. 10th Street is a county maintain local road, but does generate minimal traffic and provides access to only a small cluster of homes located northeast of the subject site. There's also a six foot high CME wall in open space that provides a barrier between the subject site and traffic along this right of way. It is unlikely that locating the detached accessory structure would create a safety hazard given the right of way's inherent low traffic volume and velocity. And if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, the granting of this variance will memorialize the following. The variance would establish a minimum 12 foot north setback line, and also establish a minimum five foot setback line. And I am happy to answer any questions for the board.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions for Isaac? Okay. Yeah. Oh, yes. Member Ba?

Did you discuss the possibility of a VA and AE for the Tanya side alignment? Did you discuss that with the applicant?

That was brought up during the plan review. They were offered it and that they can record one on the North property line.

If they record one there, then we're really just narrowing it down to one variance along the east side.

Correct. Any other questions?

We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I do have a speaker card for Bruce King. Yes. Well, we have two, Bruce and David. So I want to hear from the applicant first or your representative. Yeah.

I'll go second.

Okay.

Hello. Thank you for hearing our case here. My name is David Montoya. I'm the applicant representative. So to your point, so how this initially started was that was on the east side setback. So that's what we applied for the variance. The reviewer for the case told us we can file the NVAE and be granted the setback for the north. When I was in the process of this, it was advised to me that we just include it since we were going through this process anyway. So just to go ahead and included it. I believe this is a peculiar situation for several reasons. So one, the property line, there's a six foot CMU wall there. Our approximate distance from the CMU wall, which is a property line to where the street begins is approximately 30 feet as it is. And then we'd be five feet off of that. So as it is, we're gonna be 35 feet from where the road even begins, not even the middle of the road. Traditionally, when this rule is kind of in place, and I understand for a corner lot of why it would be 20 feet would be it's a lot of times the property lines in the middle of the road. And so you need that 20 feet to be able to get that setback. So if we were going to hold this true to form, then we would essentially be 50 feet from where that street begins, which I feel is a bit excessive and not necessary. The subdivision, as Isaac had mentioned, it's an older subdivision. It predates modern standards with later partials and accesses that were created through unregulated minor lot splits and kind of a piecemeal approach. So I don't feel that this is a traditional corner lot to where this rule should apply. So in comparison, if we were gonna build an ADU, And he was allowed to sit five feet from that setback so essentially the same exact building if we were going to put a livable structure in there, we would be allowed to be able to put it five feet exactly what we want, but because it's not a livable and it's an accessory structure. we're not allowed to and that's just for comparison sake sake i'm not trying to you know say hey this should be that because of that role, but it just gives context to it. Furthermore, the Tanya Road, which is the north lot, I mean, it really serves two homes. It has two backyards on the north and the two front yards on the south. So that's primarily what it serves. And I believe that requesting this setback is reasonable, has minimal impact on the roadway, neighbors, and preserves the intent of the initial zoning law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hang tight. Does anyone have questions for Mr. Montoya? I have another question for Isaac. Mr. Montoya was indicating the setback would be different if this was an ADU versus what he's proposing. Is that true and it would only need to be five feet off of that east property line?

Article 602.3.

question please um sure mr montoya indicated and correct me if i say it wrong that if this was an adu so a livable structure versus what he's proposing to add that the setback off the east property line would be five feet instead of 20 feet um just in just speaking of the uh not specific site but the ordinance in general detached accessory structures

may encroach into required rear and side yards up to three feet, as long as they meet a three feet setback. But they can only occupy a maximum of 30% aggregate of the coverage of that required yard. ADUs have a slightly different setback requirement where they have to meet a minimum five foot instead of a minimum three foot. If it's attached, then it's part of the primary building and it has to meet the 20 foot side setback. So attached 20 foot, detached three foot, if it meets those limitations.

Okay, so I think his is detached, but it's saying it needs to be 20 feet. Is that because we're along that road on 10th Street?

I'm sorry, it's the street side.

Okay, so that was going to be my other question. So if this was not a street, if 10th Street was just another lot, then he would be the other dimensions that you said? That is correct. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Sorry for the confusion. So I don't think we have any other questions for you, but Mr. King, would you still like to speak? Okay. Please come up to the podium and state your name for the record.

Good morning. My name is Bruce King, and my wife, Kelly, and I own the home at 930 Eshauna Court. I'm before you today to explain a hardship my wife and I would endure if the variance is not approved today. Most notably, the unique lot designation, both a corner and a through lot, reduced the area available of our parcel to develop and is the most significant hardship.

Your mic went off. I don't know if you want to bang it for a second. There we go. Okay, thank you.

Did you catch what I said?

Maybe repeat the last sentence.

Okay, most notably, the unique lot designation, both corner and through lot, reduce the area available of our parcel to develop is a single significant hardship. However, hardship has a variety of meanings in different contexts. I'd like to explain. Hardship can be financial. Our lot's 48,782 square feet, and with the two easements, front and back, of 28 feet, we're giving up 17.5% of our parcel. With this 20-foot setback to the east, we're giving up 10.8%, not overlapping the front and back easements, perpendicular, which account for 28% of our lot would be unusable for development. And personally, I don't think my property taxes are discounted because of that. So hardship can be an excessive effort. Moving the building interior of our parcel will make the building's access more difficult. The building's overhead door will not be in alignment with the front gate. And back in the travel trailer, literally the length of the lot is substantially more difficult and take a larger swath of our backyard and vegetation. Hardship can be suffering. In the staff analysis, they state natural vegetation is generally not considered an unnecessary hardship. My wife and I bought this forever home because of the beautiful park-like backyard. Our backyard is our oasis. Moving the building interior of our parcel will mean the tin building will be visible from our living room, and it will require us to move four fruit trees and remove a mesquite, two palo verdes, and numerous shrubs. This would significantly change the aesthetic of our backyard. Basically, the variance staff analysis of 10th Street That's the least intense road classification of our building will not be a safety hazard given the right of ways inherent of low traffic volume and velocity. It's not in the FEMA floodway. It's located behind the six foot CMU fence. And this variance, as stated, will not affect the public welfare and not adversely affect public safety, neighboring properties, access, wear visibility, or drainage. In recap, again, the north setback, we would like to remedy this outside of the variance process. I know how it was included just to speed it up. But with the five-foot east setback, the building will be no further from the edge of 10th Street than the edge of Tanya. That's my case. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, Mr. King. Any questions for Mr. King? All right. Any other folks wanting to speak on this one? We'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the board. This one's in my district and I have thoughts, but happy to hear what others have to say first. It'll be nice this time. Let others go first. Remember clap.

Based on the fact that the applicant has said they would apply for the one-foot ENAE, why would we want to approve the north setback? Could we not just approve the east setback and disregard the north? This is going to be a moot point if you're going to apply for the NAE.

Yes, Madam Chair. Member McClap, if I understand correctly, you're talking about can you approve variance one and deny variance two? Yes.

And Mr. King, to clarify, you said you're comfortable proceeding with the behavioral non-access appeasement. Okay, thank you. Any other feedback, motion?

Do you like me to make a motion?

Yes, that'd be great.

Yeah, there's some evident special circumstances here. I think the fact that there's three streets that wrap around this creates some oddities, but I'm happy to make a motion to approve.

To clarify, are you just moving to approve the east setback?

Yeah, motion to approve the east setback, motion to deny the north setback.

Okay. Okay, we have, I don't know if we have to do that in two different Okay, so we have a motion by Member Baugh, second by Member Clapp to approve number two on here, the five-foot east setback, and to deny the 12-foot front setback. Oh, Max.

Just to clarify, I think what you're intending is one motion to approve the east and deny is not two separate motions.

Okay, so one motion to approve the east and deny the north. Okay. Relatively, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Person?

Yes.

Member Ward?

Yes.

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

Thank you.

Good luck.

Thank you. Thank you. We will move on to number six, case VA-26062, the Rio Verde Water Reclamation Facility. And I will turn it again to Isaac.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. BA 260062 for the Rio Verde Water Reclamation Facility. The subject site is 63,650 square feet, located in District 2 at 25202 North Forest Road in the Rio Verde area. And the parcels are zoned IMD 2. The applicant proposes a front setback of 5 feet, where 20 feet is the minimum permitted area. and a site setback of 5 feet where 10 is the minimum permitted. The UPCAM proposes to develop a new membrane bioreactor within Tract S of the Rio Verde Unit 9 subdivision. It is currently occupied by a water reclamation facility owned by EPCOR Water Arizona Incorporated. The new structure will be 10,472 square feet, will have a height of 23 feet 9 inches. It will be located 5 feet from the west property line and 5 feet from the south property line. The subject site consists of two contiguous parcels that were formerly a single designated tract. It's located directly east of the Tonto National Forest and sits at a higher elevation point than the surrounding area. To the subject site southwest is a FEMA-designated floodway and floodplain, and to the north is open space, mostly vacant track, and further north, a golf course. the subject site was designed with an irregular shape confers it with an unusual lot orientation its two side property lines do not run parallel to each other nor do its front and rear yards the depth from the front yard which is the east to the side is unusually short for an ind two zone parcel in addition to its irregular shape its zoning designation is anomalous to this subdivision which features a mix of different zoning districts that were approved back in 1970. Based upon what the applicant has submitted in staff analysis, staff offers the following observations. Staff identifies the presence of Tonto National Forest as contributing to the lots irregular shape and dimensions. The subject site will also be returned to its intended form as originally plotted as one unified parcel. The development as proposed is unlikely to negatively impact the integrity of the zoning ordinance because future development is severely limited by the vicinity's natural topography and the subdivision's intentional design. The staff also notes that the IND2 zoning for these parcels predates the existence of the Rio Verde Unit 9 subdivision, and the planning of this subdivision configuration likely did not take the zoning anomaly into consideration. If staff finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, the granting of this variance will memorialize the following. The variance approval would establish a five foot west setback line for track S, and it would also establish a five foot south setback line. And I am happy to answer any questions for the board.

Thank you, Isaac. Any questions for Isaac?

right we will go ahead and open the public hearing i have a speaker card for mr hayes good morning madam chair gary hayes on behalf of epcor water arizona i have with me today mr john cassano vp of engineering as well as a couple members of our development and engineering team i appreciate staff's work on this one i'll be brief that this is an interesting peculiar site just but i would like to give you just a little background about what epcor is and what they do They are the largest private utility provider for water and sewer in the state of Arizona. There's about 520,000 customers in Arizona. They serve 34 communities in 12 counties. As part of that service, their mission and goal is to provide safe, reliable service. In order to do that, we have to update our system as we go along. With this site, it's very peculiar because we are irregularly shaped lot back up to the not national forest. And we can't, and usually here in other cases, move things around. The water reclamations facilities that are on site have to continue to operate while we add, because if they don't, people don't get service. So it's very important that they stay where they are. We have tried to make the variances as minimal as possible. We are asking for five feet on one and five feet on the other. And that's really all I have, if I'm available, if you have any questions.

Thank you. I would just like the idiot's guide to what a membrane bioreactor is.

It's a water reclamation facility, which means I can say this without getting gross. What goes down your toilets goes to this facility. And with this facility, it gets treated to what's called class grade A effluent. So it can be recharged back into the ground so that we can get credit and have more water to then use later. So It takes dirty stuff and makes it real clean.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, we could just say it's critical infrastructure.

Okay, that's good too. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hayes? Are there any other folks that would like to speak on this item here or online?

No one online has shown an interest.

Okay, thank you. Close the public hearing. Turn it back over to the board for discussion. This is in District 2.

I did look up biometric membrane to see what it was.

So she didn't have to be awkward like me.

Yeah, and I am familiar with the work that EPCOR does. So my proposal would be, and I can make a motion, would be that This case basically meets the demands of growth in the area and also provides for a critical service in the area. So I see no need to deny this case and I would move to approve PA 260062.

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

Member Baugh.

Yes.

Vice Chair Klopp. Yes. Member Loper.

Yes.

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

Awesome.

Thanks, guys.

We will move on to number seven, case BA260063, the pool property, and Daniel.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Board of Adjustment. Case BA 260063, the pool property is located at 32424 South Pine Street in the Whitman area. The applicant is proposing a solid fence outside the building envelope to serve as privacy screening for the rear yard of the lot. Since the property abuts public rights of way on all sides and is designated in a single family zone, fences that are height above 3 feet 6 inches located along street frontages are required to be view fences or 80% transparent. Additionally, a 25 foot by 25 foot site visibility triangle is required at the intersections of street frontages the subject site is encumbered by a total of three. The parcel is triangle shape bounded by two streets and an alley intersecting at acute angles limiting private yard space on the lot reasonably expected of a detached single family residential lot. The lot was created by an antiquated subdivision plot that predates the county's subdivision regulations by decades. When presented with ordinance requirements for fence transparency in residential front yards and site visibility triangles at off street and alley corners, creates an undue hardship preventing reasonable development of the property. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Daniel. Any questions for Daniel? All right, thanks. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is our applicant or representative here?

Excellent.

Hello, good morning. Good morning. I'm Hubbard Poole. I'm applicant and owner. I'm here to hopefully get some relief on the setback in the visibility ordinance I think it's 811.5 with the 80%. But I'd also like to establish if we're on the same page with, because of the unique shape of the lot, it being triangle, what exactly the front and the back is. When I read the ordinance, it kind of focuses on the front yard and I'm not asking to have privacy fence in the front. just along the back property. If I do build it in the proposed build area, it would be placed over the septic, the current septic system. This unique lot is in the township as we established. And from what I understand it, we do have some flexibility because of its age and having variances for lot sizes and setbacks and fences. The hardships that I've come across with this, it borders the alleyway, a busy street and a residential street. And that's pretty much it. I don't really have a cul-de-sac or anything like that. I'm just kind of surrounded in a way. The foot traffic is what I'm really enduring. They recently built a Dollar General in the immediate area, and there's a post office that's, I don't know, maybe a few hundred feet away from the residence. And my foot traffic is insane in a way. They walk through the lot quite a bit. They drive through the lot. I've already had somebody drive over the septic and break the clean outs. So having it fenced, it would be a priority. And if I could have some backyard privacy, that would be amazing because I do have small kids. And that's kind of what I'm focusing on is just the backyard. not the entire property. Let's see. I think allowing the change would be consistent with the area and not change the use. Yeah, placing fencing would, in the build envelope would cause me to put it over the septic. That was another big issue that I was having. But other than that, that's all I really have.

Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Poole? I have a question for Daniel. So the two issues, one is having transparency in 80% of the fence. And I think that's because that's what would be required on a front yard, right?

At all front yards and street front.

Okay. And because he's got this alley and the other street they're being considered. Okay. And then the other one, the site visibility triangle, think that's at the intersection of Crozier and the alley?

There's three at each corner.

So, but with respect to the, but you're talking about installing the fence, not going to the two corners, it's only going, right? So it would only really impact the fence at that corner of the alley and Crozier?

Correct, yeah.

And what you're wanting him to do is is what pull it back and make it either make it opaque there not opaque that's not transparent there or do like a cut across so that it's not right by right by there. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Are there any other questions for the applicant? All right, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it over to the Board for discussion. This is in District 4. Go ahead.

This is similar to the one prior. So some precedent set on the opacity issue. However, I'm going to throw out there I would move for approval of the variance as presented.

All right, we have a motion by Member Loper to approve. Do we have a second?

Second.

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

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

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

Appreciate it. God bless you, by the way. Yes.

There are no subdivision plants being approved today with triangle lots, triangle lots with three frontages. In fact, we rarely use alleys, but this is an antiquated subdivision plant from the 1920s and it's a street grid

butting up against a different street grid and they have those acutely yellow like a remnant piece thank you take care thank you um we'll move on to number eight case ba260064 the wachter property and also daniel thank you madam chair members of the board ba260064 the wachter property located at 2623 north 463rd avenue in the wickenburg area

The applicant is requesting an as built shade structure remain at its current location set back 43 feet from the edge of the right of way for Abbott road or 73 feet total from the southern property line. The variance is required to obtain zoning clearance for the building permit and to resolve the violation. The applicant has failed to demonstrate warrant for 43 front setback where the ordinance requires a minimum of 60. The lot is five acres exceeding the rural 190 zoning districts minimum lot area. There is considerable room for detached accessory structures to be relocated and meet minimum setback requirements. The ordinance permits detached accessory buildings limited encroachment into required rear and side yards. The property is already developed with the residents and a large 5,460 square foot detached motel meeting ordinance setback requirements. Thus, the intent and purpose of the ordinance is fulfilled. Happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Any questions for Daniel? Great. Seeing none, glad to open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative here or online?

Yeah. Chair, I have Alex Buecher unmuted online.

Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and the board members. I am the applicant representative. My name's Alex Bueche, and I'm just adding that we've been working with the county since February. And our second review came back yesterday, which added some items, which included the 30 by 77 pen shade and the entry features. They're asking that for engineer drawings, which we are in the process of doing as built for that. And just that the homeowner has been working with the county to provide everything they've asked for and continue to work with them to rectify all violation items. And as far as I know, these new items are the last that need to get approved before they will issue the permit for everything that was stated in the violation. Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'll answer.

Thank you. Do any of the board members have questions for Ms. Buke?

When was the shade structure erected?

I believe 2023. Thank you, Ms. Buke.

Any other questions?

Are there others online that wish to speak on this case?

Nobody else online.

Okay.

We'll go ahead and close the public hearing. I'll turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in District 4.

Madam Chair, I would move for approval of variance BA 260064.

We have a motion for approval by Member Loper. Do we have a second?

Second.

Rosalie, will you please take the roll call vote?

Member Ball?

No.

Vice Chair Clapp? Yes. Member Loper?

Yes.

Chair Persaud? No. Member Ward? Yes. Madam Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of three to two.

Thank you. We have made it to our last agenda item. Nick has been so patient. Case BA260065, the Bolton property. Take it away, Nick.

Thank you, Chair Persone, members of the board. Case BA260065 is a request for a variance to permit a detached RV garage at a setback of 12 feet from the front lot line of the Bolton property. Accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to the minimum front yard setback of 40 feet required in the underlying Rule 43 zoning district. The property features some unorthodox conditions that may be considered peculiar, though it is four-sided like most properties in the unincorporated county. None of the lot lines are parallel, and most notable is the floodway bisecting the property. This floodway is about equidistant between the east and west lot lines, effectively rendering the middle of the property unbuildable and forcing development toward either end of the lot. Since the west lot line is wider than the east, the buildable area is significantly larger toward the west. Furthermore, for reasons discussed in the staff report, legal access to and from the property only exists along the west lot line. Though there had been an access easement opposite the east lot line, the state land department did not renew the right of way. All of this works to push development toward the west or front of the property. And as the plans and aerials show, this is where the existing house was built and hence where the owner is proposing to build the RV garage. The peculiar conditions notwithstanding, the development of a single family home as the primary use of the property illustrates that it already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, the residence itself already includes two attached garages. For these reasons, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship has been created by the enforcement of the ordinance requirements. That having been 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 12-foot minimum front or west setback line for APN 503-52415D. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nick. I have one question. So since the street is really on, I think this is the east, 143rd Avenue is the east?

Chair Persone, that is correct.

Okay. So, and since the, oh, it's the south where we're talking about?

Chair Persone, so I know it's a bit confusing. So the legal access to the property is only along the west. That's 143rd Drive. That's also where the street off of which the property is addressed. The site plan and even I think our parcel viewer do show 143rd Avenue, the 143rd Avenue alignment opposite the east lot line. When you look at the site aerials, you can see the an easement like a pathway a roadway has been approved to the east uh and the site plan and i think our parcel viewer do still show it as 143rd avenue i did receive correspondence from the arizona state land department confirming that's no longer a legal easement i believe asld had acquired it from the bureau of land management at some point but the right-of-way expired in 2012 and it was never renewed so technically there is no legal access to the east as far as i know but then on this excerpt from the site plan it shows a vnae on the west so that's where i'm confused so sure person that is correct and that's why um i in our staff report we had reckoned in our analysis we recommended the property owner abandoned that vnae I believe there may have been in the applicant, the property owner can attest more to this. But my understanding is that it was assumed there was illegal access to the east and the VNAE had been recorded to make the east the only front lot line. But the VNAE doesn't totally encumber that easement to the west. So there is technically slackness. still legal access to the west. And because that easement to the east is no longer active, the west is still the only point of legal access. So in our staff report, we recommend that the VNAE to the west be abandoned.

Okay. And then Madam Chair, if I could add real quickly, I don't believe the VNAE covers the entire west. So you still see that there's a physical roadway at the northwest. You'll also note that to go to the east, you cross floodway.

Okay. Thanks. Yeah, I think I was confused because I saw a 12-foot dimension on the south part, but now I can see. I'm just so old. Now I can see the 12 feet on the west. So thank you. Any other questions for Nick? We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. I'm assuming you're the applicant or representative. Please come on down.

Good morning. My name is Dean Bolton. I'm the applicant and the owner. and Nick did a good job of explaining it. We're basically just, we've submitted our plans for the additional separate structure, and really, as he was stating it, the only place that we can put it is in that southwest corner. And it was recommended that we ask for a variance, mostly, I think partially, because of the VNAE, like you were describing, for access from 143rd, so. that was the primary reason for it and it was there was some precedents established my neighbors to the north also had actually been able to get uh variances as well um and based on that recommendation and being able to build that was the reason for the request thank you any questions for mr bolton um any other folks online that want to speak on this one nobody else

Thank you. Go ahead and close public hearing, turn it over to the board for discussion. This is in District 4.

Next book variance, I think we can- Yeah, odd shaped lot for sure. I would move for approval of, sorry, what's this case number again? I just had it up.

BA 260065.

Thank you. As quoted, I would move for approval of- of this variance, a lot of peculiarities.

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

Member Ba?

Yes.

Vice Chair Klap? Yes. Member Lopur?

Yes.

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

Best of luck.

Take care. Awesome. I think unless there are any other issues, we'll go ahead and adjourn the hearing. Back to the heat.

Thanks all.