Board of Adjustment - Regular Meeting

Everybody ready online? Go ahead and call the meeting to order. Go ahead and call this meeting to order uh for the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment for January 15, 2026. Rosley, if you'd please do the roll call. Chairman Loper, present. Vice Chair Person, present. Member Ba present. Member Clap present. Member Ward present. Chairman, we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. Um, I'll go ahead and do the announcements. Please everybody bear with me. Allergies are kicking my back in this morning. This meeting has been noticed in has been noticed in accordance with the open meeting laws of ARS 38431. 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 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 witness wishing to give testimony in particular case shall notify the board of such interest. This shall be done by filling out a speaker's card if you're here in person. Speaker request cards are on the podium if you're here in person or registering a desire to comment on the published agenda. If you're here in um if you're online, there's a way to do that as well. At the appropriate time for each case, the chair will ask those attending in person or online who wish to speak to a case to raise their hand by clicking on the icon on the webinar screen. Staff will provide the chair with the names of the persons who have registered and noted a desire to comment and those registered participants who 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 such 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. The chair will verbally identify

the specific members responsible for all motions and seconds. We will move on to the election of officers. Um, as I mentioned a year ago, I have been the chair for I don't know nearly a decade and my time has come to an end and I have uh, as I mentioned a year ago have offered to move on to allow others to do that. and in talking to the vice chair person and to other members of the board, um would like to therefore nominate vice chair person to be the new chair and to um board member Clap to be the vice chair. And that that those are my nominations. And with that in mind, I would look for a second for that. Come on.

I would like to second that. Fern, there's a second by uh member Ward. Yes. Rosley, if you'd please do a roll call.

Member B. I. Member Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Vice Chair Person. Yes. Chairman Lope. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion electing uh member Persan to be chair and a motion for member Clap to be vice chair of by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you everyone and please no tears or applause, but I would really like to thank everybody. You guys are phenomenal. You made this so unbelievably easy. Darren, I've known you for the bulk of my life. We go back to our college days, which was just a few years ago for both of us, but you've you you and everybody else have made this remarkably easy. Nadia and David and everybody on the IT team going back to those years uh when the pandemic, unbelievably easy. Rosley, Rachel, especially both of you, unbelievably easy. Thank you very much. Do I turn this over now to to Heather or because she's online?

She'll be leaving early today. Well, I have to leave early today. So, I'll just continue. That's okay. Do I just continue then through the day or Okay. Unless you turn it over to or give it over to member clap. I'll just go with today. Okay. All right. We'll go to the approval of the amendment uh for December 11, 2025. Anybody have any comments? Seeing none, those are considered approved. We'll move on to the approval of the um amended bylaws. Everybody had an opportunity to review those. Any changes or comments? Seeing none, th those are considered approved.

Right. Good deal. Max, did you have any comments? Oh, okay. Um,

okay. Um, Rosley, would you please take roll call on the amendments to the bylaws? Mr. Chair, we need a motion. Oh, a motion. See, I've already forgotten. Looking for a motion to approve the bylaws, please. Motion to approve. Second. We have a motion. Who did the motion? Member Ba. We have a motion for approval by member BA and a second by member Ward Rosaly. Member Ba. Yes, I made the motion. I think Fern made the second. Thank you.

Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Member Loper. Yes. Chair Pan. Yes. Chair. We have a motion to approve the bylaws by a vote of five to zero. All right. Those are approved. We'll move on to agenda item number one. BA250067. This is the 223 Saddle Mountain LLC property in District 3. Daniel.

Good morning. Uh Chairman Loper, members of the board, case BA2500067 um located at 223 West Saddle Mountain Road in the Desert Hills area is a proposal for a front front yard setback of 42 feet total where 80 is the minimum permitted per Maricopa County zoning article 503.4.1.8 and um article 1105.2. The site is approximately 1 acre in size and zoned RU43. The applicant is proposing to reduce the 40 foot front yard setback to maintain a development of a primary residence outside the flood plane that encumbers a southern portion of the parcel. The primary residence is proposed to be set back 2 feet from the 40ft ingress egress and public utilities easement identified as saddle mountain road uh where an additional 40ft um setback would be required for a total of 80 ft from the northern property line. The parcel is significantly uncovered by flood plane and floodway delineations present along the southern 137 feet of the parcel together with a significant midsection line setback required at the north that requiring the 80 the total of 80 foot from the northern property line. These conditions together are an obstacle for reasonable development of the lot. The building permit has unsuccessely gone through five review cycles in attempts to accommodate the required setback and maintain the appropriate drainage conditions. However, the applicant has not exhausted all administrative remedies to reduce the midsection line reservation with MCDOT um currently in process at the moment. Um staff is also concerned that a two-foot setback from a future collector route would pres present a public safety concern. The only other property at the southwest corner of Saddle Mountain Road and Central Avenue has obtained a reduction in the additional setback for Saddle Mountains from 40 ft to 25 ft. If the area reserved for future rideway were to

be reduced, it's likely the flood plane and floodway um at the southern end of the parcel would still require an adjusted variance reduction in the front yard setback to reasonably accommodate the single family residents. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Daniel. Great overview. Are there any questions of Daniel or other staff from any of the board members? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance in the audience? Do we have them online? I don't have anybody indicating that they'd like to speak, but I do have a caller um a Bertha McDaniel and a cutter Z online. Um I'm sorry, cutter. Okay, so let me go ahead and unmute him. Cutter, if you could go ahead and give your name for the record and go ahead with your uh presentation, please.

David, I requested to unmute. Can you see if it went through on your end, please? It looks like they don't have a microphone enabled, so I don't know how they're going to talk on through the webinar. David, this is Darren. They can call my uh phone at 6027232241 and I'll put them on speaker. That's 602 723 2241. Can you hear me? I'm gonna put you on speaker. One sec.

Okay, sir, you're on speaker. Go ahead.

Thank you. I apologize about that technical difficulty there. Yeah, my name is the civil engineer on the project. Um, thank you Daniel for explaining the situation. After going through this with the reviewers multiple times, uh, they are in agreeance that this is the best solution for the lot. um in order to alleviate this difficult hardship on the lot from this wash. It's approximately 1,200 CFS coming in on this south boundary line which makes over half of the property essentially um unus unusable due to financial hardships of the expense to get it to work and without increasing um or adversely impacting adjacent properties due to the increase of fill. So, the intent is to move this house as far away as possible so that we don't adversely impact adjacent properties and can still go along the property.

Okay. Uh, cutter, are there any other uh comments that you wish to make at this time? Um, the only other comment would be this option was recommended by the reviewers. Um we had multiple meetings and all three reviewers recommended that this would be the best solution. Okay. Um are there any questions of any of the board members of the uh applicant applicants representative?

I do have one. It was mentioned that you are seeking um I believe it's a waiver through MC DOT a reduction through MC DOT. Uh where are you in that process? Um the client was going through that process. He hasn't informed me on any solutions or any um whe whether or not it was approved or not at this time. So I don't think he's heard back yet. Um I can try to get that information after this meeting and then shoot uh Daniel an email and discuss it with him.

Okay. And it and if you got that that would just that would just secure that much more distance but that it wouldn't functionally move the building or anything else. It just be a dimensional relief. Correct. Yeah. Correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um any other questions by anybody that spur anything? All right. Thank you. Hold tight. We may have other questions. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions on this case? Anyone else online? No one else online. No one else online. Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh turn this back over to the board for discussion and or a motion. This is in district three.

Uh member Loper, I'll make a motion that we approve case BA250067 subject to the language outlined in the staff report. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by member by chair person uh for BA2500067. I would offer a second to that motion. Um I second the motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Chair, we we think there may be someone online that has a comment. Oh, no. Okay. All right. Never never mind on that. Rosalie, go ahead. We have a motion and a by member B.

I mo motion by uh person second by b second by vice chair clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Person. Yes. And acting chair Looper. Yes. Chair. We have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Thank you. Congratulations. Keeping all these titles straight. Move on to agenda item number two. BA250071, the Stevens residence in district 3. Isaac or Ron.

Good morning, acting chair and board. I'm filling in for Isaac as he's uh out. Uh this is a request. It is agenda item number two BA2500071 for the Stevens residence. The request is for the development um a variance to the development standards of the zoning ordinance for proposed street side setback of 15 feet where 20 feet is the minimum permitted and for a proposed rear setback of 30 feet where 40 feet is the minimum permitted. Uh the property is located at 49450 North 15th Avenue in the New River area and is zoned rural 43. Uh the lot is currently 70,000 78,147 square ft. Uh the applicant is requesting these two variance approvals to recognize and authorize the encroachments that resulted from construction of a covered patio uh back uh sometime around 2017 or 2018. And these were were constructed without burn or permit approvals. The residence was originally constructed in 1988 without the patio coverings. uh these more recent additions occurred prior to the u ownership uh the current ownership or the actions of the previous owner. Uh the applicant is proposing to construct an addition on the south side of the existing residence that will not encroach into any setbacks and will not require any variances. The approvals uh that you're considering would simply grant the existing

encroachments that have already occurred on the north and west sides. Uh the applicant desires to move forward with construction on the south side without these encroachments hindering that uh process. Based upon the applicant's submitt and staff analysis, staff was unable to identify a particular condition of the property that rendered the existing covered patio additions as unavoidable or necessary when constructed. uh the site is not constrained by any physical features that affect uh the con the construction of these coverings and the applicant has failed to demonstrate the general intent of the zoning ordinance will be preserved by the approval of these variances. However, if the board decides and finds that the applicant has sat satisfied the statutory test, staff is recommending the board consider notation A uh paragraph 16, which states that the variance approval establishes 15 ft a 15t north street side and a 30foot rear setback for the subject property described as APN 202-25. 5-021E. Uh, Mr. Moser, the applicant is in attendance. Uh, we did include six letters of no opposition from nearby property owners uh, as a part of this application. And other than that, that concludes my presentation. Be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Ron. Good, good job pinch hitting. Are there any questions of Ron or other staff members by any of the board? I have a question. Yes. Um, thank you, Ron. Am I correct that the only the existing residence is requiring the variances? The new addition is not going into the setbacks, but they're requesting the variance because they're anticipating a comment during plan review.

Acting chair and board, um, that's correct. the the coverings that were constructed without building permits back in the 2017 2018 are the only parts of the structure that encroach. Uh the proposed addition would not encroach into any setbacks. Thank you. Any other questions of uh Ron or other staff persons? All right, seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Um, Mr. Moer, I do see you filled out a speaker request card. If you would come up to the podium, just provide your name, please, for the record. Roger.

Go ahead. I don't have anything really additional to say. Isaac did a pretty good job putting all this together for us. Um, I just wanted to make sure that that you did have the letters that Mr. Stevens did get from his neighbors of Okay. that the what is existing is not going to be changing. We're just get the variance to move forward with the proposed addition. Definitely understood. Appreciate you make things correct. Also understood that a lot of it happened prior to your your ownership of it. Yes. Thank you. Are there any uh questions of the applicant by any of the board members?

All right. Uh this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Nadia, do or David, do we have anyone online? No one online indicating they'd like to speak.

All right, go ahead and close the public hearing. Uh, turn it back to the board. This is in district three. Um, entertain a motion discussion andor a motion. Uh, acting chair looper, I don't have any issues with this considering that it was a prior condition. The owner is trying to get everything memorialized through this process and the new addition doesn't exacerbate the issue. So, I move that we approve case BA250071 subject to the language outlined in the staff report.

Second. We have a motion for approval by by chair person and a second by vice chair clap Rosalie. Member BA. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Acting Chair Lobert. Yes. Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Thank you. Congratulations. Move on to agenda item number three. BA250073, the PTO property lot 4 in district 4. Nick.

Thank you, acting chair Loper, members of the board. Uh, just as a heads up, I will be presenting these next three variances simultaneously, but each one will require a separate motion. Absolutely. Go right ahead.

Thank you. Cases BA25007374 and 75 are requests to establish an area of less than 43,560 ft and a width of 132 feet on each of three properties owned by Sonia and Martin Prietto where 43,560 ft and 145 ft respectively are the minimums required in the RO 43 zoning district. The three properties were created by a lot split alongside two other parcels uh both of which are similarly substandard in width and area. Uh the applicant owns four of these five parcels. Uh staff reminds the board that the applicant was granted variance for the southernmost of these parcels last year for case BA2501. Uh previously dis as previously discussed at the hearing of that case. Uh the record of survey labeled each of the prospective lot split parcels as measuring 1.00 acres. However, this was misleading as each parcel actually measured slightly less than the minimum required 43,560 ft. Uh the applicant originally owned all five parcels, but by the time the error was realized, the middle lot had been sold to another owner. Uh before the board's determination of the request for that southernmost parcel, staff recommended the applicant negotiate with the other owner regarding the possibility of acquiring more land within the lot split area. That way, the parcels could be re-recorded to meet area and width requirements. However, the applicant informed staff that the other owner refused to discuss or negotiate any such options. Uh the board did approve the applicant's variance request for her southernmost parcel in May 2025. Uh the three requests before you today for the remaining three parcels owned by the applicant and are near identical to the request approved with BA25 triple01. As with that case, staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The substandard lots were avoidable having been created in a line of title due to poor lot splitting practice. Uh there is a wash that could potentially impact the location of future construction on these properties,

particularly the northernmost parcel subject to BA250075. However, no site plans have been submitted illustrating proposed development and the owners have not requested setback variances for any of these properties. Uh without a site plan showing proposed development, staff cannot speculate an appropriate setback variance from any lot line should the board approve any of these requests. Aside from the wash, none of the three parcels appears to possess any other conditions that may be considered peculiar. Uh that said, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test for each request and has stated its findings on the record, uh the granting of these variances will memorialize items A and B as outlined in paragraph 22 of each staff report. Staff reminds the board that each variance case must be subject to a separate motion.

Thank you, Nick. Great overview. And I do recall uh some discussion about that particular variance at that time and the possibility of going back and speaking to the surveyor about correcting the numerical error and the the math. Anyway, um it's unfortunate they didn't have that recourse, but it is what it is. So, are there any other uh comments or questions of Nick or other staff members by any of the board members at this time? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance. If you could please come up to the uh podium and just provide your name for the record and if you'd like to offer any comments to the board.

Hi, good morning. My name is Sonia Pto. I don't have any questions. Okay. All right. Are there any questions of com or comments by any of the board members? Seeing none, if you could hold tight, we may have questions of you. I do remember your comments from a year ago roughly. So, um, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have anyone online? No one online.

No one online. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Turn this back over to the board for discussion andor a motion. This is in district four. So I will go ahead and um make the motion for item number three BA2500073. As with the one for last year, this is unfortunate that uh again due to statutory restrictions, if I can say it correctly, there's not the ability for the county to step in ahead of time to try to regulate these. Um, and there's not really a recourse for an unsuspecting property owner to try to correct these when there's an error made by the surveyor. Uh, it's not her fault for this. So, I recommend approval or I move that there that BA250073 be approved.

Second. Rosley. We have a rec motion by me for approval. Second by member Ward. Member B. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Person. Yes. Acting Chair Loer. Yes. Chairman, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of 5 to zero. Moving on to BA2500074, Creatal Property Lot 2. I would also move for approval of that as well. Second.

I move for approval. Member Clap seconded that. Rosley. Member Ba. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Persan. Yes. Acting Chair Looper. Yes. Chair. We have a motion for an approval by a vote of 5 to zero. And finally on agenda item number 5 BA2500075 ptoal property lot one. I move to also approve that one. I just wanted to add a little drama there. So

second motion in a second. Member ba? Yes. Vice chair club. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair person. Yes. Acting chair Looper. Yes. Chair. We have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero. Congratulations. Sorry you had to go through all this process over year plus period, but we appreciate your patience and thank you for doing it the correct way. Thank you guys for approving it. Have a good day. You too.

Move on to agenda item number six. BA2500077 the Amarell property in district 2. Nick back to you.

Thank you acting chair Loper. Case BA250077 is a request to establish a west streetside setback of 3 feet and an east streetside setback of 10 ft both as measured from the street line on the Emerald property where 20 ft is the minimum required in the rural 43 zoning district. A single family residence was developed on site in 2004. Now, the owner is proposing to build a detached accessory dwelling unit toward the west side of the property and a swimming pool with a ramada toward the east side of the property. Uh, though the property is generally typical for the Rio Verde Foothills, uh, perhaps its least typical characteristic is that it features a street frontage along three of its four lot lines. Uh, the north lot line along Casey Lane is the shortest, making it the front. Uh, the west and east lot lines with frontage along 138th Way and 139th Street, respectively, are the street sides. Uh if not for the street side easements, the proposed improvements would be allowed by right where proposed since detached accessory improvements can be located within interior side yards. However, it's worth noting that the ADU would include an RV garage that would connect to the main driveway which itself connects to the street along the west, meaning that the intended location for the ADU is tied directly to the west being street side. Assuming the property owners proceed with a proposed swimming pool, there does not appear to be a feasible alternative location for the detached ADU that does not encroach on the existing west setback on a wash that bisects the property and/or within 3 ft of the primary residence. Uh the only alternative besides variance would be to attach the AD to the residence. However, this would require extensive remodeling as well as relocating AC units and electrical panels located on the west side of the house. Uh on the other hand, if the pool were to be abandoned, the ADU could be reoriented with driveway access.

Did you catch that? Did you catch that? Excellent. Excellent.

Regardless, status development of a primary residence means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCO. Uh variances to accommodate accessory uses arguably do not fulfill this requirement. As for the poolside romada, based on review of the site, planned site aerials, it seems the Raada could be relocated 10 ft further west to prevent need for a variance to the east side setback. Uh, nevertheless, if the board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize item A, variance approval establishes a three-foot west streetside setback line as measured from the street line for APN 21939241B. And item B, variance approval establishes a 10-ft east street side setback line as measured from the street line for APN 21939241B. At this time, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Nick. Great overview. U I did have a question before I turn it over any of the board members. You'd mentioned earlier that they would negate the variance request if they were able to to attach it. I I understand about the the uh the electoral service and stuff, but was that what you'd mentioned earlier? That would be that was correct. Acting Chair Loper, based on my analysis of the site plan, it did seem if they were to keep the dimensions of the ADU and the RV garage about the same and shift it to such such that it were to be attached to the residence, it would be outside the existing 20ft street side setback. But again, that would require extensive remodeling on the owner's part.

Right. Definitely understood that. All right. Thank you very much. Any other questions of uh Nick or other staff at this time? Member B. Um, if they didn't have the streets on the is it 139 side and 138 side, what would be the setback on the sideyards? Uh, member ba? The setbacks um originally per the previous zoning ordinance, the setbacks for interior sideyards were 30 feet. I believe with the updated ordinance, they've been reduced down to 20 feet. Um, but again with detached accessory structures, if they were interior sideyards, they would be allowed in those sideyard setbacks as long as they're at least five feet or actually three feet away from the property line fire rated.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions by any of the board members of of Nick or other staff? All right. Seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicant's representative in attendance? Mr. Lazarus, you could just give your name for the record, please. And

Certainly. Good morning. My name is Larry Lazarus. Um I think we have Yeah, we do have some slides. Uh we do have a presentation that we'd like to make. Um my address is at 206 East Virginia, uh Phoenix, Arizona. We are representing Brian and Nicole Amiral. This is a request as you've indicated. And uh and Nick did a great job and I apologize if I'm repetitious, but I do want to point out a couple things here. U to reduce the sideyards of the single family corner lot. In this case, we're reducing uh the sideyard setbacks from 10 feet to 10 feet along the 139th on the eastern uh property. And we're asking where 20 feet would be required and three feet along the 108 38th sway on the western side of the property which 20 ft would be required. Uh slide please. The property is in the residential subdivision with an average lot of 1 acre. The city of Scottsdale and the McDow Sonor and Preserve are on the west. The McDow Mountain Regional Park is to the south with the Tatau National Forest to the north and east. Area zoned RU43. Slide please. Our client intends to improve the property by adding, as you've indicated, an accessory building, a pool, ramada to the rear yard, as you can see on this proposed site plan. On the west side of the property, there's a 20 foot private driveway easement with 10 feet of that on the Amiral property and 10 feet on the neighboring property. This is 138th way. On the east side of the property, there's a 20 foot private driveway easement that is entirely on the neighborhood neighbor's property. Under the county ordinance, these easements are considered streets and the setbacks must be measured from the easement line. These required setback lines are shown on the plan before you.

By way of background, our client reached out to the county staff late 2024 to get advice on how to proceed with the construction plans. The accessory unit unit pool and Ramada because of the wash on the property restricted the potential locations of these and he needed to reduce these setbacks to three feet uh and 10 feet. As I've indicated, the direction given our client at the time by staff was that if he recorded a nonvehicular access easement on the property that this would resolve the issues with the sideyard setbacks on the property uh and he would meet no longer need means it would no longer be street frontage. Our client then drafted and recorded a vehicular non access easement easements uh and subsequently submitted the plan for approval. Staff comments on the site plan stated that even though the vehicular non-access easement were recorded, the property would still need to comply with the sideyard setback requirements or obtain a variance different uh which was different when the staff indicated initially. Our client then contacted the planning manager and confirmed that the information originally supplied to the client was an error and now he needed to apply for variance. That's why we're here today. The Maricopa County ordinance states that the board of adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if allowing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if granting the variance in general in the general intent and the purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. We believe that we meet those requirements. First, let's talk about the wash. If you see on the slide before you, we have a wash that cuts through the southwest corner of the property, significantly reducing the developable area of the property.

The wash limits the structures uh as they can be located on the lot. The proposed accessory building is located as close to the wash and it possibly can without and it cannot be moved further south. The structure can also can also not be moved further east because of the location of the main house. Uh if the ADU were moved closer to the residence, as noted by staff already, it would require extensive remodeling, relocation of the air conditioning units, electrical panels located on the west side. The Ramada on the east side of the property is encroaching 10 feet to the sideyard setback because the wash and the location of the pool. The second pec peculiar condition in this case is that the lot is bounded by streets on three sides. As I previously noted, there's 138th way on the west side, 139th street on the east with Casey Lane to the north. Having streets on three sides of the property is not typical as noted by the staff in the item 10 of their report. Um and uh and this is not the ca if this was not the case the improvements uh we would we would be able to do the improvements as a matter of right without having to ask for any variances. So let's talk about hardship for a second. We believe that we uh that not granting these variances will cause undue hardship to our client. we have peculiar conditions not created by the property owner. The work is uh that the work is unnecessary creates this unnecessary hardship. Our client um uh needs to exercise reasonable development rights enjoyed by other property owners. Other properties in the area in the same zoning category have ADUs, pools, and romadas. Lastly, I want

to talk about how the variance meets the intent of the zoning ordinance. Branding the variance would not cause a negative impact on the intent and purpose of the ordinance because ultimately the required step separation between buildings intended by the ordinance is achieved and even exceeded. Let me explain. In this case, there are two private drives along the sideyards that will help create the buildingto building separation distance intended by the ordinance. With respect to the west side property line, if the variance were approved, we'd have a building setback of three feet from the private drive easement of 138th way. Add that to the 20 feet for the private drive easement, which cannot be built upon, and then add the required setback on the adjacent property. you'd have a total of 43 feet building to building setback when under normal circumstances without a private drive you would only have 40 foot building setback from the two 20 foot required setbacks. Respect to the east side because the lots on the east side of the property front on 139th Street a private drive and their required front lot set back is 40T. This is double the 20 ft that would be required if the private drive were not there. If this variance were approved, we would have the 10-ft setback on a pro on our client's property, 20 foot set uh 20 foot of private drive that can't be built upon and a 40 foot front yard setback on the neighbor's property, which would provide 70 ft of buildingto separation. when under ordinary circumstances a total of 40 feet buildingto building would would have occurred. Simply put, the intent of the

ordinance to provide a building to building separation of 40 feet on a side a sideyard. If you approve the variance, we would have a building to building separation of 43 feet on the west side, uh 3 feet more than the intended ordinance, and 70 feet on the east side, which is 30 feet more than the intended ordinance. Um, with that said, we we believe we have peculiar conditions. Uh, it does work at unnecessary hardship and the development rights that we're asking for um does not I'm sorry, the variance would u meet the intent of the ordinance based upon the parameters that I've given you here today. Thank you very much. I hope that wasn't too confusing.

Not at all. Thank you very much, Mr. Lazarus. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members question?

Thank you for the additional information. It's very helpful. I was just looking at the site plan and uh wondering why uh the staff has recommended that the ramada could be moved 10 feet to the west and take it out of out and there would be no requirement there for a variance. I know that that the verbiage says that it can't be moved because of the wash, but it's above a wall. I don't see where the wash really has any impact on whether the ramada could be moved a little bit to the west. You know, I'm not an architect. I'm just looking at a site plan and I just was curious as to why it's sitting there rather than aligned with the edge of the pool. All I can tell you is that the roadway itself provides a substantial amount of which can't be built upon uh provides a substantial amount of um uh of setback and we're talking about 70 ft.

Yeah, I understand that. I'm just asking in in the site plan why the why the ramada has to be so far to the east, why it couldn't be moved a little bit to the west. That's my question. I'm not making this into a uh yes or no. I'm just curious about that. I'm not sure I'm uh architecturally capable of answering that question. Okay.

Thank you. Are there any other questions of the applicant by any of the board members? All right, we may have additional ones. Thank you very much. Thank you for your question. As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item? Do we have anyone online? Nadia, no one online indicating like one online. Okay, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. This is in district two. I'll turn it over to the board for discussion and or a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve BA250077, the emerald property.

We have a motion for approval by Vice Chair Clap. Is there a second? I will offer a second. Sorry, Fern Rosalie, when you get an opportunity. Member Ba. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Chair Persant. Yes. Acting Chair Loper. Yes. Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of five to zero.

Congratulations. Move on to agenda item number seven, BA250079, the 479 CN drive variance in district 4. Joel,

uh, acting chair Lope, members of the board. Agenda item 7 is KBA 2579. It's varian request for single family property uh, located 479 Kahan Drive in Morristown in the Circle City community. Uh it's a request for a variance from the residential devel development standards to allow for a rear setback of 16 ft uh where the minimum required in the R16 zoning district is 25 ft. Uh next slide. Uh the request is tied to a proposed 13x 28 attached patio cover uh which encroach about 9 ft into the required rear yard. Applicants may concern is that the rear yard is south facing lack shade and they would like an attached cover for usability and comfort. Uh staff would note that the electric shade is common in the area and is not unique to this parcel. Staff also notes that a detached shade structure can be placed much closer to the rear and side property lines subject to yard coverage limits uh which avoids the need for a variance. Next slide. Uh staff did not identify a peculiar condition uh unique to this property that is not common to the area or zoning district. The proposed patio cover is an accessory improvement and is not required for the reasonable use of this property. Uh the hardship is described is not tied to the physical characteristics of the lot and approval will be based primarily on personal convenience rather than uh the statutory criteria. Uh staff also notes there are alternative designs available including detached trade structures uh can address these concerns without the request of encroachment. This time have answering questions.

Thank you Joel. Great overview. Just to summarize they need that extra depth to really make a usable rear cover. Without it, it's just a couple of feet deep. Uh, madam chair, acting chair loper, that's correct. Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of Joel but or other staff members by any of the board members? All right, seeing none, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. Is the applicant or applicants representative in attendance? Do we have anyone online?

There is a Bertha McDaniel online, but I've tried reaching out and haven't gotten a response. Um, so that's the only other person that we have accounted for who might want to speak on something, but they haven't reached back out.

Okay. Um, just doing the next one. The next one's Andrew. Um, I guess we could I know generally if we don't have an applicant, are we obligated to continue or the bylaw say if they're not here we'll continue the first hearing? obligate to I guess we could skip over this one and go on to the next one and then give the maybe n between you and David keep trying to reach out and see if they respond and we'll move on to then BA250080 which is the Collins Cassita variance in district 3. Andrew, you're up.

Thank you acting chair and members of the board. BA250080 is a request to allow an accessory dwelling unit to occupy 41% of a rear or sideyard where 30% is allowed by MCO by the MCO previously article 1106.2 now MCO article 806.2.1 under the updated ordinance. The parcel is located in the parcel is zoned rural 43 and is located in the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Tumbleeed Drive in the Carefree Highway area. The parcel is just under 1 acre at 43,522 ft and was granted a building permit after an oversight on a submitted building plan showing an incorrect lot size of 43,560 ft or 1 acre in January of 2021. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,631qt structure that would occupy approximately 41% and be located entirely within the rear yard area. The structure is slated to be approximately 9 ft from the rear parcel boundary. Staff finds no remarkable issues or unnecessary hardships with the parcel and any reason why the structure cannot be placed forward to meet the 30% rear yard occupancy requirement. Thank you very much. At this time, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Andrew. Great overview. I do have one question and I I think I already know my answer but it's just slightly undized but not sufficiently so that that would account for the 9% overage for the lot coverage probably right acting chair correct um the the oversight in the size was more of a building permitting issue that all of the correct dimensions were provided the ultimate um final lot size was just incorrectly given and we permitted the structure as it was. So in our minds it is a legal buildable lot due to legal non-conforming. We are just acting we are asking you today to just memorialize that legal non-conforming.

Right. But I mean um so it's 11% bigger the the um cassita than what it should be but the but there's only really I'm not good at math. um 38 square foot difference in the lot size. That proportionate difference really doesn't make it. What I'm trying to say is the proportionate size really doesn't allow for the difference. There's not a proportionality there that would allow makes a difference. So, never mind. I think I answered my own question there. Um are any questions of the uh of of Andrew or other staff members by any of the board members? All right. Uh, see none, go ahead and open the public hearing for this. Is that applicant in attendance?

Yes. Ch. Um, we have Shandor Collins and his mic should be enabled now. All right. If that person go ahead and identify themselves for the record and go ahead with your presentation on this variance, please.

Acting chair, I have them unmuted. Uh, it looks like their mic is enabled, but for some reason we're not we're not hearing them. Should be working. They might have their if they're connected with a phone or something, they might have that muted also. Can you hear me now? Yep. Yes. Provide your name, please, and then go ahead with your presentation.

My name is uh Shandra Collins. I'm the homeowner in in this um the variance. Um, I I'm new to this, so forgive me. I'm not like a professional or anything like that. I'm I'm just a simple homeowner. Um, the the reason I'm requesting this variance is because my my parents are I'm relocating my parents from Washington State uh down to Phoenix. Uh, this will be the first time that I've lived close to my parents and since I left home when I was 17. Um my my mom currently has advanced dementia right now and so um I really would like to to the reason that the size of the cassita is a little bit bigger is to accommodate the fact that she's she has a walker uh to get around and and so we have things like oversized uh bathrooms uh oversized um you know general uh living space and then um also it it has a secondary bedroom for um family to come and stay with us, additional family to come and stay with us as well to be able to see them. Um, I do realize that the the the variance is a little bit over what uh would normally be allowed. Um, but it does not impact, you know, any of my existing neighbors who are all for for it. um and and hopefully will allow us to enjoy, you know, holidays and stuff that we haven't been able to spend with each other in years uh together while my parents kind of like are in their their twilight years. So, um I'm just asking for, you know, some leans from the board in in regards to that and um hopefully um that gets approved.

Understood. Uh thank you very much. A question real quick. Does it make any difference? Probably not. And I should know this that if it's an ADU versus just an accessory structure, it's the same, right?

They It's just adding area under roof whether it's uh total lot coverage for the property or required yard coverage. It's just aggregate area. Aggregate. Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Collins. I was asking that question of staff. I should have I should have let you know, Matt. Um, acting chair, I should say that the calculation is different. We allow uh we allow for two foot of EV overhang on a primary structure, not to count towards coverage and one foot Eve overhang on an accessory structure. But in general, it's aggregate area under roof, whether it's required yard coverage or totally lot coverage.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, anything else to add, Mr. Collins? Um, no. I I know that I think the suggestion was that we move the property or move that unit further closer to the house. Um, at some point we would like to hopefully possibly add a pool and and as you can see from the drawings that there's a septic field and some other stuff that's that it would impact if we had to to ship um to ship the structure. So, I don't know if that makes any any difference or not, but I just wanted to bring that up. Right. All right. Uh, thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant by any of the board members?

I have a question for staff just to make sure I understand this. Is the only variance being requested the square footage size of the rear structure? Yes, that's the only variance request. as part of the variance, we're memorializing a LNC condition, but that's not a variance request. Yeah. So, the the 41% becomes the new lot coverage for the property if this variance was approved.

It Mr. Acting Chair uh member BA the 41% becomes the uh maximum yard coverage for the rear yard. Uh the lot coverage still remains 25%. Max. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Any other questions of Andrew, Darren, or other staff or of the applicant? All right. Uh this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak on this item? No one else in attendance. Anyone else online? No one else online.

No one else online. I go ahead and close the public hearing. This is in district three. I noticed that uh chair person had to leave. Um I I will mention that I don't have an issue with this. I I think that um for all of us personal comment, the ability to have our parents um close and be able to care for them is something we should all try to achieve. It's it's a personal comment. It's not a land use comment. It's just something in society we should all try to do. Um, God bless the applicant. Um, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve this variance. Seeking a second.

Second. We have a motion for approval by me and a second by uh, member Ward Rosalie. Member B. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Acting Chair Loper. Yes. Chair, we have a motion for an approval by a vote of four to zero. Congratulations. Best of luck to you and God bless. Um, we'll move back real quick to BA250079. Were we able to find if we have an applicant for that? Acting chair. No, unfortunately, we haven't. Okay. Do we need to make a motion then to formally move this to the next agenda?

Uh, Mr. Chair, yes. All right. Um, it's a district 4. I would move that we uh move BA250079 to the next agenda, whatever that date is. Who second that? Member Clap. Member BA. Yes. Vice Chair Clap. Yes. Member Ward. Yes. Acting Chair Lupert. Yes, chair. We have a motion uh for continuence by a vote of four to zero.

Thank you. That's the last on our agenda. As always, thank you to protective services for all that you do. Wish you guys would sit. Always sit or at least sit more. And appreciate everything you do. Thanks to everyone. Have a great day. See Chris out.