Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Board of Adjustment affirms $10,000 fine in Mesa unpermitted conversion case
Summary
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 3–0 vote affirmed a hearing officer’s decision fining the owner of 7628 E. Mawson Road after staff found construction without permits converting a single‑family home into multiple living areas.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 3–0 roll‑call vote on a procedural review affirmed a hearing officer’s judgment that found code violations at 7628 East Mawson Road in Mesa and upheld a $10,000 noncompliance fine and a $1,000 daily fine for continued construction.
The action matters because the board’s role was limited to reviewing whether the hearing officer followed proper procedure, not re‑weighing the underlying facts; the vote leaves in place the administrative penalties and preserves the hearing officer’s determination unless further appealed to superior court.
Charles Hart, a county code compliance officer, told the board the case began after a citizen complaint in February alleging construction without permits, subdivision of a single‑family residence into three living units and debris. Hart said inspections on March 7 and April 11 verified construction without active permits and that a stop‑work order was issued March 21. Hart also told the board the department sent certified notice, posted the site and that “the respondent did appear at the hearing through a representative.”
Deputy County Attorney Max Carpinelli advised the panel on the standard of appeal, explaining the board may either affirm the hearing officer, remand for procedural error or continue the matter. Carpinelli quoted the relevant zoning hearing review provision and said the board could remand if a procedural defect was found.
Attorney Tom Walcott, representing ACKB Properties LLC, asked the board to consider procedural defects at the hearing and told the board his client had since applied for and obtained a building permit. Walcott also argued the file lacked documentation of his client’s repeated outreach to staff and requested reduction or waiver of the fine now that a permit had been issued. "He's got his dust permits. He's done everything he can," Walcott said, summing his client’s compliance efforts.
Hart confirmed to the board that the building permit application had been submitted May 8 and that the permit was issued June 25; he said a subsequent inspection found no outstanding violations. Carpinelli noted the maximum fine for a corporate respondent can be up to $10,000 for a Class 2 misdemeanor, which is why the hearing officer used that figure.
Member Clapp moved to affirm the hearing officer’s order of judgment; Member Ward seconded. The board recorded a 3–0 vote to affirm. The board chair reminded the appellant the decision is appealable to superior court and encouraged the parties to work with county staff on finalizing permit requirements and any outstanding compliance steps.
The board’s action preserves the hearing officer’s penalties while leaving administrative and judicial avenues available to the respondent.
