Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

A board of adjustment to order. Rosalie, if you'd please do the roll call. Chairman Lopern, present. Vice Chair Person. Member Ba present. Member Clap here. Member Ward present. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and go with the announcements. This meeting has been noticed in accordance with the open meeting law of ARS 38-431. Agendas are available within 24 hours of each meeting in the Maricopa County Planning, excuse me, planning and development office and are also available on the planning and development website one week prior to the hearing at www.mmaricopa.gov/planning. With respect to the hearing process, cases will be considered in the order they appear on the agenda unless otherwise agreed to by the board. For each case, the applicant will be given a set amount of time to present their testimony. Any witnessing to give testimony on a particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker card for in-person attendance. And it looks just like this. And it's available at the podium. If you wish to speak and you're here, fill one out, hand it to one of the staff persons that are here. Or if you're online, register to desire to comment on the notice 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 persons who have registered and noted a desire to comment and those registered participants who have raised their hand. The chair will call on each named participant one at a time. Such testimony shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes. However, the actual amount of time allowed for testimony shall be at the discretion of the board chair. The chair will conduct the hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing according to the bylaws and according to the rules established by the chair regarding public comment. Votes will be done by roll call vote only and the chair will verbally identify the specific members responsible for all

motions and seconds. Move on for the approval of the minutes for September 18, 2025. Have all the board members that were in attendance had an opportunity to review them? And if so, are there any comments or changes? Seeing none, those are considered approved. We'll move on to approval of the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment bylaws. All the board members had an opportunity to review those proposed changes. And if so, we don't need to take an action on that. They're considered approved like the minutes. Or do we need to take action? Uh, we would like a vote.

All right. I will entertain a motion for approval of the changes to the board of adjustment bylaws as presented by staff. I move to approve the bylaw. We have a motion by member Bob. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second by member clap Rosalie. When you get an opportunity. Member B. I. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes, Chairman Loper. Yes, chairman. That's a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the continuence agenda. We have one item BA 250048. Darren or Nick.

Uh yes, Mr. Chairman. This is the Opansky Luca property district 3 uh variance request in regard to uh a front setback. However, they have uh requested uh or they are wishing to continue indefinitely. There's no action necessary by the board. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the regular agenda. Item two of the regular which is first item on the regular agenda BA250049 the Velusen property. Probably screwed that up in district 4. Turn that over to you Paula.

Thank you. Agenda item number two for the Vel Husen residence is a request for two variances in the R16 RUPD zoning district. The request is for a proposed rear yard setback of 6 ft where 15 ft is a minimum permitted and a lot coverage of 52% where 45% is the maximum permitted in the R1 6 RUPD Sony district. The subject's site is a rectangular shaped parcel currently developed with a 2245 foot single family residence. The property complies with the R16 RUPD zoning district development standards that were approved under zoning case C2183 as part of the Rancho Cababrio parcel B subdivision. The developer of the subdivision built built large homes on a relatively small lots without anticipation of additional detached or attached structures. The applicant is requesting the variance in order to facilitate the development of a 560q ft covered patio attached to the existing home. The proposed patio can cannot be developed within the required 15t setback or meet the maximum allowed lot coverage as it exceeds by 7%. If the proposed detached patio was to be detached, it would be able to meet the required 3-foot property line requirement, but it would occupy occupy more than 30% of the required yard by 25% and a variance would still be needed. If the variance is granted, it would allow the property owner to develop the attached patio with a 6ft setback and a total lot coverage of 52%. But if the variance is denied, the applicant would have to redesign the location and size of the attached patio to be located within the building envelope and to meet the maximum allowed coverage. At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? I do have one, but actually this is for Max, and I should have brought this up prior to it. I was the original developer or part of the development team of Rancho Cababrio. That's been 20 years that and I have no current or involvement in it since that time. I don't have a conflict of interest. Would I? No.

No, definitely not. I just want to disclose that I did. Okay. No, no other questions of staff at this time. All right. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance in the audience? Not seeing that. Do we have them online? Yeah, chairman. Uh I have uh Angel Cardial uh that was listed as um being able to speak on this. I've unmuted them. Need to unmute on their side. I also show uh Brett uh Vwezen. Um I I can enable his mic as well. Um hopefully one of them is able to

show. Are you able to are you able to hear me? Yep. Yes. Um so I'll I'll just speak a little bit I think while Angel's adjusting his his mic. But uh I am the if you could give your name please for the record. Yes, my name is Brett Lee Velusen and I am the homeowner. Go ahead.

Um yes, so um just trying to uh go through this process of of getting the patio built. Um you know, trying to make sure that I'm maintaining uh you know, all the right proper channels to make sure that we're we're we're doing it in accordance. I know I I paid for the um the the permits and then also uh paid for the prehering just to make sure that if this was something that could be looked at so that we could possibly move forward with the build. Um you know that's that's kind of what we're looking to do. And then also you know um just checking some of the local neighbors and stuff seeing that there have already been variances that have been approved based on higher percentages. And then also um just you know there's been several other houses that have exceeded some of them and I'm not sure if uh some of them have been approved or not. So, I was just hoping to get this approved not only for to be able to utilize some of the outdoor stuff, but it would add efficiency to the cooling um based off the heat that hits the house and radiates on that side and also provides shade for uh my pet dog that you know as he's in and outside during the summertime has a doggy door, but it also provides more shade as well. So just looking at as far as the efficiency is electric and you know being able to spend a little more time and also with my children. So that's kind of what we're looking to do. Um and I do not have uh just some things to also mention. Um my my sideyards do meet the the specs requirements for the distance. Um uh but as far as the rear setback, I do have a retention that is behind me. So I do not have any homes directly

behind me. The closest house on the opposite side of the retention is 130 ft. Um so and that retention is also designed for drainage that has uh two dry wells that are within uh 60 ft of the property line on each side. Uh so and the community also in that retention has planted uh trees that go along the entire back wall of each side. So visibility is um you know very minute to be able to see it and also trying to stick within those 8 ft requirements as far as height which I thought I seen in the specs as far as a three-foot setback on some of those minimum heights of the patio.

Um does that go ahead

no go ahead. Yes. And and during this process as well, um trying to get this build going when it very first started months ago, um as far as the patio and the construction stuff that has already been completed as far as um the slab and putting 24in centers on rebar and 24x 24 um thick um reinforced footings. Uh just to give you a little bit about about my background too, I am a a general project superintendent and I've worked on most of the commercial side of the infrastructure in Arizona and I've had the opportunity to work with most of Phoenix, Tempe, Surprise, Poria, um all over whether it's um water treatments or um education side or healthcare um I've been part of it or um heavy highway. So, um, meeting the specs and the requirements is a big thing for me. So, I appreciate any help that, uh, the board can help me to get this move forward so that we can continue our build.

All right. Thank you very much. Are there any questions by any of the board members of the uh, the applicant, the homeowner? Yes. Did Did I hear say that some footings have been Did I hear him say some footage had been completed or rebar installed or is that

Yes, sir. That's that's correct. So, when I was initially given the permits saying that I could go, my understanding was that I could I could start building it. Um, and it wasn't until after we've we got a later email from the development side saying that they were worried about some concerns of um, drainage, which um, you know, that's kind of where we stopped and I didn't want to go any further with the build. But I had also had concrete scheduled. I've already had rebar scheduled. Everything was scheduled. I had inbeds installed. Um, you know, and I do I do have photographs and pictures of everything just to, you know, verify that it was installed properly. Um, you know, I know it's been a long time too since since I've done the residential work from where you used to go down and draw a picture on a napkin and turn it in and they would approve it. So, uh, you know, I actually, um, hired Angel that is also online as my residential contractor to design this and help me get this approved. So, on his end,

Mr. Gerard, question. I heard something. I want to make sure it's is accurate. Was this permitted? Uh it see I thought I heard him say he he got the permit so he thought he could start the work was I do not know. I did not. Yes, I was I was issued an email when I paid for the permits and said that it that I received everything and the last one was the planning and zoning that did not sign off on those permits and that's where um I kind of came to a stop with it and I do have the emails and the invoices for these um transactions as well.

So, Mr. Chair uh member BA, there are initial fees that a person pays and then there are the final permit fees that someone pays when they're contacted to say your permit is ready for issuance and you call for the inspections. But in order to get to that point, you have to have your uh permit submitted, initial fees paid. During the planer review, there's going to be a zoning clearance, a drainage clearance, and a building safety clearance. Unless you have those three sign offs, you will not be contacted for a permit to be issued. Okay. So, it sounds like he applied. Yes. Paid a fee to apply. Reviews are pending, but no permits were issued.

I the review I don't know if the reviews are pending or if they've been completed and they just haven't signed off yet, but the permit was would not have been issued at that point. And and it sounds like this is for the slab part of it. You could do a concrete slab. Yeah. Yeah. So, but uh I assume the plans that were submitted showed the structure and the slab.

Correct. And yes, that I I have after the slab I pretty much had had stopped. So, um no no further part of the build has has been been complete. Just been on hold waiting for this uh this hearing. Any further questions of the applicant? Did the Did um Mr. Cardiel, did you also want to speak? This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else online or in attendance that wishes to speak on this matter? I don't think we're able to get his

no one else. All right, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Um, turn it back to the board for discussion andor motion. It is in district 4, but I'm always appreciative if someone else would make the motion. Um, as pointed out, there is no property to the rear or homeowner that could uh provide an opinion whether in favor or opposed. We didn't receive anything, Paula, from any neighbors in the area. No, no opposition was received.

Um, I personally don't have an issue with the patio cover. I'm always in favor of patio covers or protection for pets, for children, not so much, but I like to protect the pets, give them a little shade. Um, with that, I'll turn it over to other board members for comment and or on a motion on my behalf. I'll be happy to make a motion. Absolutely. I move to approve BA250049. We have a motion for approval by member Clap. Is there a second?

Second. We have a second by member Ward Rosalie. Member B. No. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 3 to one. Congratulations and good luck u securing your permit and with your construction. Move on to the next item. Item number three, BA250057, the Batista property in district three. And this one is being done by Daniel.

Thank you chairman and members of the board. Case BA2500057, the Batista property in district 3 is a request for de deviations from two requests from deviations for hillside standards. Uh the 1.2 acre property is located at Circle Mountain Road and 10th Street in the New River area. The request is for an allowance of hillside disturbance outside the principal building envelope for construction of a primary residence and proposed septic system outside the building envelope in an area of the lot with hillside slopes present. The applicant has demonstrated that a peculiar condition prevents reasonable development of the parcel due to the presence of hillside slopes and a significant wash that bisects the property uh severely limiting the developable area of the lot. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Daniel. Uh, good overview. Are there any questions of Daniel at this point by any of the board members? I I do have one because I believe in the time I've been here, which is over a decade. Item two. So, most sewage disposal systems are irres that I've seen are irrespective of the building envelope. the the um drainage field, the backup system, they're located wherever they can be on the lot. I didn't know that they were subject to setbacks. Could you kind of explain that?

That That's right. Um Chairman uh Loper, the um setback wouldn't wouldn't apply uh if there weren't any hillside slopes present on the property. Okay. So, it's just because it's hillside. That's right. Okay. And Mr. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, there are separate environmental regulations that have setback requirements from like a well, a water feature, but those aren't in the zoning ordinance. In the zoning ordinance, the only time we address it at this point is in Hillside.

In Hillside. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions with staff? All right. Um, go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance? Do we have them online or chairman? Yeah, I have I have Melanie Batista online. Um, it looks like she may be connected with phone, but it's muted on her side. She is enabled on my There you go. Is that Looks like it's not me yet. There you go. Yep.

Okay. Um, sorry, I had un muted my phone, but it still wasn't picking up. Um, all right. Thank you, Daniel, and members of the board. Again, I'm Melanie Batista. I'm here with my husband, Michael Batista, and, um, just to get you up to date with us, uh, we submitted for this permit a while ago. Um, we received our round one review comments. After that, we've met with multip multiple groups from the county to understand the comments and work through those. We hired a professional civil engineer um to do a whole workup for the site. We've hired a professional um engineer for the septic testing and design. And we've prepared all of the changes to the drawings as requested. And so, at this point, we're just waiting on this variance. Um do you have the slides that I had prepared uh in the presentation there? Thank you so much. Um uh just basically the starting conditions. This is a rural 43 zoning area. So this represents the standard uh setbacks that we have. Um next slide please. Uh this property does include a 30-foot easement on the western edge of the property. So that already squeezes our building envelope um which is that area in the middle. Next please. Uh then as Daniel mentioned the significant wash that cuts through the entire property basically creating a west section of the property and an east section of the property. with the setbacks and the wash, the east section is basically nonbuildable. Uh you could not fit a primary residence in there. So we are just working with what we have on the west section. Next please. Um additionally with that wash um there's a

50-foot setback for the septic system. Um as was discussed that there are these additional setbacks for uh the septic. So that further pushes where we can put the septic system. Next please. Um another element as you can see with these green lines that represents the topography of the site uh as a uh hillside site. Another consideration um is the slope. Next slide please. So how we can address these peculiar um conditions we have designed the residence uh shown there in the white boxes um within that buildable area. It is also working with the natural contours of the land which will uh reduce the amount of um grading that's needed and and cutting into the hillside slopes. And as you can see, uh the structures, the the residents in the attached garage are entirely within the established setbacks and the buildable area. And this also does allow um the driveway to be the shortest distance possible to the road. Uh which is another requirement. Next slide, please. For the septic system, you can see it um just above and to the right of the house. Uh we are requesting placing it within the um established setback area. It would be outside of the wash. It's still 50 ft away from the wash. It would still be 5 ft off of the property line which is another standard um allowed setback. And it would be 10 feet away from the house which is also required. um is this would just be allowing some you know below ground disturbance within that um outside of the buildable

area um for the septic that placement there is the only place we could find that it would work uh with gravity um to work with the natural flows and and fit in the area. Next please. Uh the relief that we are looking for specifically for this variance is to again allow placement of the septic system beyond the building envelope and um also for construction considerations to modify um the setbacks to accommodate uh temporary disturbance and hillside grading and drainage activities. Um, drainage will be an important part of this project. And when you build a a house or structure, it takes space for equipment and workers to move around it and to install drainage around um the property if needed. So, we're looking to uh reduce the front setback from 40t to 30 ft and uh reduce the side setbacks from 30 ft to 20 ft. There would be no change requested for the rear setback and there would be no change requested for the easement next. And um upholding the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance, the proposed design as we have it, it keeps the building tucked in close to the established setbacks and it maintains the character, identity and image of the hillside area, which is a whole reason why we wanted this property. We appreciate the natural beauty and want to work with that. It keeps a buffer between the structure and the site's natural drainage conveyance and it consolidates site disturbance and um minimizes scarring from hillside construction. Last slide please. Uh preventing negative impacts is

another important area and uh we believe that this uh proposed solution will preserve the intent. The design will not impact the neighboring uh views. The views are really to the north and to the east and the so the homes to the north and east of this property, they already are in front of us. They have great unobstructed views. And the properties on the other side are all uh elevated above um our property. Um so we will not be affecting them. And uh what we have proposed is consistent with existing development on surrounding properties uh where there's development disturbance u very close to the property lines and um any area that is disturbed during construction can be re reestablished with the um natural grasses, shrubs, trees and we will definitely protect erosion and we would like it all to be naturally reveated so it looks like um nothing ever touched it. Uh final note there at the bottom of that map, you can see uh property number seven is currently under construction. Um we've had multiple conversations um with the neighbors that are building there. And um the board of adjustment recently approved a variance for them to build their um septic system outside of the building envelope and um additional 4,300 square ft of hillside disturbance for their lot because they ran into the same challenges that we found. So um with that, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Miss Batista. I have to say um that is one of the best presentations that this board has received. We get a lot of presentations over the years um architects, planners, zoning attorneys, engineers, and that was an outstanding presentation. So well well done. Are there any questions by any of the board members? You're very welcome. Are there any questions by any of the board members of the um applicant? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item either in attendance or online? Not seeing any bills online.

All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district three. We do not have a representative from district three, so it's wide open for anyone. Don't everybody chomp at the bit, but um is there anyone wants? Yes, go right ahead. Member Clap. Yeah, the applicant mentioned some setbacks, but that's not part of the uh variance request. Uh member clap chairman. Uh I did not find that request in the application itself. The house does meet the set required setbacks of 41 ft from or at least a minimum of 40t from the edge of the easement.

So we're only dealing with the hillside disturbance and safety system. Okay, that's right. Okay. I I will ask the applicant, Mrs. Batista just we want to clarify you are not seeking any kind of setback uh variances for the home or other building on the property correct because if you look at the uh slide that's up it does talk about modifications to the yard.

Yes. So um in the application that we submitted we did request those setbacks to be changed from 40 to 30 and from 30 to 20. Um we are anticipating that this will be for um not for vertical improvements. So not adding um shade structures or other elements like that but uh drainage um whether you know I don't know exactly how the finished product will be for for the drainage but um really just flat improvement as well as that just that temporary disturbance. Okay. Okay.

But yes that is there. So, I have to apologize. This wasn't advertised to to uh include those requests. So, we it looks like Hold on a moment, but it looks like we may need to readvertise this to include those. I'm staff's discussing it right now.

Uh it's not on the application page. Uh if it is discussed in the supplemental questionnaire, we probably need to have a revised application. Uh if she wants other than the hillside disturbance outside the principal building envelope, uh then we need to continue this so we can incorporate that into the staff report for your consideration. Did you catch that, Mrs. Batista?

Yes, I hear that. Um it it was in the two-page application, but the most important thing to us um because we're just kind of spending money every day that we're sitting and waiting is to keep um going forward. So um if we need to remove that from this and just have that temporary disturbance, um we would rather we would not want to do a continuance.

So So there's two options here. We can take action on the request before us and then you could apply for the additional variances, but it would be another application fee and it'd be a separate hearing in front of this board, which would be a month or two or three down the line be another presentation by you. No, you know, no guarantee by the board on their action at that time. Or we could continue this for a month. you could modify the existing application to include those setbacks. You'd be back before us in uh November, roughly a month from now. That Darren and Daniel are nodding their heads. Yes. That likely that would happen.

We would like to proceed with uh what is before the board at this point today. Okay. Yes, please.

Okay. All right. Then again then back to the board for consideration of the two requests before us today which both relate to the hillside disturbance. Um again board members discussion andor a motion I think given the uh top topographic constraints of the property as well as the front set back in the wash and the setback to septic doesn't leave them a lot of buildable area member clap. Hey, um the staff report says that the hillside slopes do create a peculiar condition and installation of the septic system is um has demonstrated an undue hardship as well as the general purpose of the zoning ordinance is preserved by this request. So I move to approve BA250057.

We have a motion to approve by member clap. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by member BA Rosalie. Member Ba. I. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Congratulations and we may uh see you in a month or two or three. Um you

and Mr. Chairman, for the record, there is mention on the supplemental questionnaire in arguing for the variance. It does speak to requested variance for uh 20 and 30 ft, but that is not listed on the application uh description on the on the cover. Uh we'll we'll be glad to meet with her and get a revised application specific to those two items.

Okay. Hopefully you caught that, Mrs. Batista. We may again be seeing you in a month or two or three. Um, you know, she brought up something that in the U proposed amendment bylaws I didn't catch, but I think there was a reason it wasn't. There was a time when the board of adjustment used to make recommendations on variances. I know you can't do that anymore, but there was kind of even a consent agenda where if things were considered to um meet criteria, they were almost a de facto approval. I wish we could go back to those days. This would have been one of those. I know we can't, but I liked I liked that. This would have been a one. Moving on. Item number five, BA250059, the Reese property in district. Oh, wait. I passed one. I apologize. Item number four, BA250058, the JJ Investment Properties LLC property in District 5. Daniel,

thank you, Chairman, and members of the board. Case BA250058, JJ Investments Property LLC in district 5 is a request for a reduction of the western interior site setback from 30 ft to 20 ft. The 2.5 acre property is located at 103rd Avenue in Sheridan Street in the Aendale area. Uh the request seeks to accommodate an existing primary residence's location uh set back 20 ft from the western property line. The residence appears um in historic aerial photography as early as 1975 in its current location. The request seeks to memorialize the res residence's existing location for a future permitting for a proposed assisted living facility. The variance allows the applicant to receive zoning clearance for future permitting which would not be approved without this variance. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Are there any questions of Daniel or other staff at this time by any of the board members? All right, seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant representative uh which is Brenda Lozano in attendance? Do we have anyone online? There is a Karina Lozano online. David, were you able to reach out to her? Chairman, I I I have unmuted her. I chatted with her earlier, but she didn't respond. So, hopefully she's able to get her. Yep, there you go.

If you could provide your name for the record and go forward with your presentation. Yes. Hi, good morning, chair and members of the board. Uh, my name is Karina Losano. I'm representing Brenda Losano. Excuse me. And I believe Brenda has submitted her written statement for the record. Uh, the request is to allow the establishment of Royal Family Care LLC, a small family style assisted living home that will maintain the residential character, comply with that regulations, and enhance the property's upkeep. We appreciate the uh staff's presentation and respectfully ask for your approval. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members?

All right. Uh this is a public hearing. Is anyone else wish to speak on this item? No one in attendance. Anyone online? Not seeing anybody else online. No one else online. All right. Go ahead and close a public hearing. turn it over to the board. Fern, this is in district five. This is your district. Um, defer to you for a motion. Um, as mentioned, this was constructed when again? 1975. 1975. Wow. Yep. That was I've got my motion ready to go. I move. Go right. Go right ahead. Motion. We have

motion for approval by member Ward. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by member BA Rosalie. Member Ba. Yes. Member KLP. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Congratulations to the applicant and best of luck going forward. Move on to our final item on the agenda. BA250059 the Reese property in district 3. Nick,

thank you. Chairman Lope, members of the board. So, case BA250059 is a request for uh five variances for the Reese property located in Clearwater Hills where the owner proposes to build a single family residence. Uh natural hillside slopes encumber the entire property uh due in part to a previous residence that has since been demolished. Uh most of the south half of the property features existing hillside disturbance. Meanwhile, the north half is severely encumbered by steep slopes that make development there virtually impossible without effectively blasting away the hillside. Uh so to minimize further disturbance as well as to reduce the driveway slope, a residence would need to be built toward the southeast corner of the principal building envelope. I will note that the single family residence as planned would be um although adjacent to the setback lines would be entirely within the building envelope. So no setback variances are being requested. Uh now though the applicant seeks to minimize additional disturbance, he is proposing uh less than 1,000 square ft of new disturbance uh some of which would take place outside the building envelope. Uh the MCCO prohibits hillside disturbance outside the building envelope except for driveway and utility connections. Uh so a variance would be necessary to permit this. Uh the site plan shows over 15,000 square feet of disturbance outside the building envelope. Most of this is existing legally non-conforming disturbance, but since some additional disturbance is being proposed, staff believes it would be appropriate for any approved variance to memorialize the total hillside disturbance existing and proposed outside the building envelope. Uh, a second variance would permit portions of a sewage disposal system outside the building envelope. According to the applicant, locating the leech field and drip lines for the septic system partially in the front setback would place them in the best percolation area based on a soil's analysis of the site. Uh a third variance uh would allow some structures outside the building envelope where prohibited in hillside areas. Uh these include a series of new retaining walls that would extend partially into the southside yard. Uh

these would be necessary to maximize drainage performance, minimize erosion, and divert water away from neighboring properties. Uh the applicant also wishes to build a swimming pool together with pool barrier screening and related mechanical equipment in the southside and rear setback areas. And finally, a fourth and a fifth variance would allow the applicant to build an uncovered outdoor stairway that would project 12 feet into the required rear yard where six feet is the maximum allowed by per MCO as well as roof eaves that would project up to five feet into required setbacks where two feet is the maximum allowed by the MCCO. Uh if the board finds that the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, uh the grant of this variance will memorialize items A through E as outlined in the staff report. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nick. Great overview of the of the request. Are there any questions of staff at this time by any of the board members? All right, seeing none, go ahead and open the public hearing. I have a speaker request card by Mr. Eric Peterson is the applicant representative. Do you want to come on up and uh give your name for the record and go forward with your presentation?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board for hearing this today. Uh my name is Eric Peterson. I'm with PHX Architecture, the architect on this project, and I'm here representing Caleb Reese, who is the owner of this property. Um we have put together just a little slideshow just to kind of make it super clear of the requests that we're asking for. Um the first one oh so the five the five that um that he went through uh really clear one being an egress stair one two being the septic system three and is uh hillside disturbance outside of uh the setbacks four are structures and five is a roof overhang. So if you go to the next slide. So uh number one is the site uh site stair in setback. It's allowed six foot into a setback. The blue area shows the variance request which is an additional 5'9 in. It's all underground and it is within the existing footprint of the previous home. So, uh, we tried to locate the new home within that same, uh, square footages so that there's a really light outline, uh, dashed in that shows where the original home used to be. And so we don't feel like this is, um, uh, encumbrance to any other lot, um, and just, uh, uh, uh, is completely invisible. And that's why we're asking for that variance. Number two, next slide. Um, this talks about the septic field. Currently, the septic field, if you could see the dotted red line on the lower part, it's actually off the property onto the neighbor's property. So, we're abandoning that. And the only place that we could put it is on the north side of the driveway. And you could see the purple shows that if we continued that septic field, it would go way up the hillside and disturb more hillside that we don't want to disturb.

So, it just puts a little bit of it in the front yard setback. There's no other property um in that area. That's all hillside that goes up to the north on this page. So, we don't feel that's um hindering any other lot and we don't want to add more disturbed area. Uh the next one, uh this one, so if you see in the red, that's currently, so this one's talking about hillside disturbance and setbacks for grading. Um it's there is none allowed outside of the setback. So everything that's currently in red on this is already there already been disturbed and that's about 10,000 uh square feet. The additional purple that we're asking for is only to add a couple of retaining walls that I'll talk about in the next uh variance request and on the north side of the property to get some uh grading done to divert the prop the wall uh water coming down the mountain around the existing retaining walls that are there just to help the drainage situation. Um, so there's only about 2,000 square foot of additional u uh uh uh regrading that we're asking for here just to fix some of the problems that already exist. Next slide. So as I was referring to in the previous one, um there is a very long existing retaining wall on this property. The when we had our initial meeting with the HOA, he had requested that we actually go ahead and leave those retaining walls in place. he felt like it'd be more damaging to the whole neighborhood if we were to go in and remove the retaining walls. Um, but he did say that they were very long and plain and he would like us to break through those in certain areas. One, to help with the visual uh look of that. And two, there are exposed uh footings that have happened through

erosion that uh the additional retaining walls that we'd add sort of to add some interest to that wall. would help that situation. Um, so to their request, we we ended up leaving the existing walls and adding in those green areas some new walls that just pop out, give some interest to that very plain linear wall. Um, and then the last one uh the last slide. So the red shows where the existing house is. Uh we tried to uh keep the new house uh pretty much in the same location so that everybody who was used to seeing a house there uh nothing new was happening. Um when we presented our plan to uh the HOA design review board uh we met the compliance with the two-foot overhang. They had asked us in the front to uh if we could extend that out uh three more feet to get a five-ft overhang. They thought that was a better look for them. And in the section, you can see we're way under our height limits. And we believe that because of the height of this hill, this home on the hill that anyone from any of the lots, all of the lots are down below in this neighborhood that looking up at this, you would not see that difference between the two foot that's allowed and the additional three-foot that we're asking for. So again, we think it's helpful. HOA asked for us to do it just to help with some screening of the tall glass that we have there and we don't think it's a hindrance to any other of the neighboring properties. Um so those are the five and happy to answer any questions. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Um very descriptive another good really good presentation and overview. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members? Member Clap, uh, you said it was a design review board that asked you to extend the eaves to five feet. Yes, it is. We we have approval from the HOA and we have uh grading and drainage approval already. We've submitted this for permits and we have first review already completed. I just want to make sure I heard that right. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other questions by any of the board members? All right, hang tight. We may have more questions as this goes on. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak? Mr. Reese, did you want to say anything? I'm okay for now, but I can answer questions if need be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you again. We have anyone online wish to speak? Nobody else online.

Thank you, Nadia. Go ahead and close the public hearing. Turn this over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district three. Again, we do not have a representative for district 3 in attendance today, but I'd be happy to have someone else make a motion um in whole or in part. Chair, Mr. Ba, um one of the things I learned pretty early in law school and in my career was how to identify a unique circumstance. And I think we have that box checked pretty easily on the

Yeah, I I agree. between the slope of the property, the shape of the of the lot, the topography, the narrow driveway. Um, but perhaps the greatest site circumstances, I can only imagine how difficult it would be to obtain a designer review approval from the folks in this particular area as opposed to others. And so, um, I think we can see how this meets the standards of the variance test. And I'm happy to make a motion. Right ahead. I move to approve as st recommended by the staff report. We have a motion for approval by member BA. Is there a second? Second. We have a second by member Clap Rosley. Member Ba. Yes. Member Clap.

Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chairman Loper. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Congratulations. Good luck with your home. It looks like it's going to be beautiful. We'd ask for an invitation, but we'd be violating open open meeting laws. Thank you very much. That's the last item on the agenda. Is there anything that is uh after this meeting, we'll send you the uh final version of the revised bylaws? I don't believe we have anything else. All right. Thank you very much. We are journ. Thank you to MCO MCSO protective services. Always we are very appreciative of your work. I love a fast meeting.