Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Florence board of adjustments denies variance allowing storage containers before main building at 360 North Park
Summary
The Florence Board of Adjustment denied a request to exempt accessory-storage containers at 360 North Park Street from the town’s requirement that a primary building be constructed first. The applicant said he is pursuing building permits; the board found the variance did not meet required criteria and voted 4-3 to deny the appeal.
The Florence Board of Adjustment on July 21 denied an appeal seeking a variance to keep accessory storage containers on the lot at 360 North Park Street before a main building is completed, voting 4-3 to deny the request.
The applicant, identified in the hearing as Mr. Aldolph, told the board he bought the property to relocate his educational game-and-STEM-oriented retail operation and that some of the containers hold merchandise and construction materials. "We are more than just a game store," Aldolph said, describing prior experience building children's museums and educational exhibits and saying the store would support STEM and STEAM programs. He told the board he had applied for a building permit in May and submitted a design-review application in June and expected construction to take roughly four to six months once permits were in hand.
Town Attorney Cliff explained the legal standard the board must apply. "The applicant is required to show evidence that there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land," Cliff said, adding that variances are generally justified by topography or other land constraints and not by conditions the applicant caused. He told the board that if the applicant had caused the condition by placing containers on the lot, Arizona law and the town code make a variance harder to justify.
A member of the public, Bonnie Berriola, questioned whether the retail use was allowed in the zoning and whether the existing containers met the code definition of an accessory building. Planning staff clarified that the site lies in an area governed by more than one zone designation in the town's map and that the "neighborhood office" category permits retail uses under 10,000 square feet, so a retail game store is a permitted use per the land-use chart. Staff also said the applicant had not yet been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and was scheduled for the technical advisory committee review that week.
Several board members and council members expressed support for the type of business the applicant describes but said the variance criteria in Florence’s development code were not met. Council members voiced concern about precedent: allowing a variance here could permit storage containers to remain on properties without primary buildings in other neighborhoods. Vice Mayor Cathy Adam noted the code is explicit and cautioned the board against granting a variance when the statutory tests are not satisfied.
During final action, a motion to deny the appeal (recorded in the minutes as BOA-25-02) received affirmative votes in roll call from Vice Mayor Cathy Adam, Council member Sherry Bedford, Council member Nicole Buachilato (recorded in the roll call), and Council member Neil (who later phoned in to register a vote). Council member Jose Maldonado and one other board member recorded their votes in opposition. The motion to deny therefore carried 4-3. The board directed staff to notify the applicant of next steps and clarified that the public hearing record would be continued if necessary to obtain missing votes during the meeting.
The record shows the applicant acknowledged the placement of containers on the property was "self inflicted" and that he had already begun permit steps but had not completed inspection signoffs or final construction. Town Attorney Cliff warned that an approved variance runs with the land and could allow accessory uses to persist indefinitely if a condition chosen by the board is satisfied, so the board must be precise about any conditions tied to a variance.
Votes at a glance
- Motion to accept the warrant register for June 2025, $7,516,765.64 — approved by voice vote during the council portion of the special meeting (recorded as "Aye"; roll call not specified in the hearing transcript).
- Board of Adjustment: Motion to deny appeal BOA-25-02 (variance for 360 North Park Street) — approved 4-3. The record includes roll-call affirmatives from Vice Mayor Cathy Adam and Council member Sherry Bedford; Council member Jose Maldonado recorded a opposing vote; Council member Neil later phoned in and registered an affirmative vote on the motion to deny.
Why it matters: The decision upholds the town’s interpretation of its accessory-structure rule requiring a primary building before accessory storage is allowed, and it signals that Florence will apply variance criteria strictly rather than use variances to regularize existing unpermitted storage in residential neighborhoods. The applicant may pursue permits and further administrative or judicial review if desired.
The hearing record will be provided to the parties and is the basis for any appeal to Pinal County Superior Court. The board and staff said they will provide the applicant with next steps on design review and permitting.
