Board approves variance to allow attached patio at Velhousen residence, 3-1
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a variance allowing a 6-foot rear setback and 52% lot coverage to permit a 560-square-foot attached patio at a Rancho Cabrillo home, despite staff noting permits were not yet issued.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment voted 3-1 to grant two variances for the Velhousen property (case BA250049) in District 4, allowing a proposed attached 560-square-foot covered patio to encroach to a 6-foot rear setback where 15 feet is normally required and to increase lot coverage to 52 percent where 45 percent is permitted.
Staff described the site as a rectangular parcel developed with a 2,245-square-foot single-family residence located in the R16 RUPD zoning district approved under zoning case C200183 as part of the Rancho Cabrillo Parcel B subdivision. The applicant said the subdivision’s original development of relatively large homes on small lots constrained options for detached structures and that the requested variance would permit an attached patio that cannot otherwise meet the county’s setback and lot-coverage standards.
Homeowner Brett Lee Veldhusen testified that he had paid initial plan-review fees and scheduled concrete work before county planning staff raised drainage concerns; he said a slab and embedded rebar had been prepared but that he paused further work after receiving notice that planning sign-off was outstanding. Staff explained that paying initial fees and submitting plans is not the same as having an issued building permit and that zoning, drainage and building safety clearances must be completed before a permit is issued.
Veldhusen told the board his rear yard backs to a retention basin; the nearest home beyond the retention is about 130 feet away and the retention includes two dry wells within about 60 feet of the property line on each side. He said shade for children and pets and improved cooling and energy efficiency motivated the project. The applicant also noted other nearby variances had been granted in the neighborhood, though staff did not document those approvals on the record.
Member Clapp moved to approve BA250049; Member Ward seconded. The board approved the variance by a 3–1 vote. The record does not show the name of the member who voted against the motion, only the 3–1 tally announced by the clerk.
If denied, staff told the board the applicant would have to redesign the patio to meet setbacks and maximum lot coverage or propose a detached patio and seek any necessary variances for detached structures.
The board congratulated the homeowner and wished him luck securing required permits and inspections before proceeding with construction.
