Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Maricopa County Board of Adjustment upholds hearing officer order in Chandler code-compliance case
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted 5-0 to affirm a hearing officer's finding that the respondent was responsible for construction without required permits at 13433 E. Chandler Blvd.; daily fines continue while some permits have since been issued.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on Dec. 12 unanimously affirmed a hearing officer's order finding the respondent responsible for unpermitted work at 13433 East Chandler Boulevard and maintaining daily fines while remediation continues.
The board's action stems from case V202401236, a county code-compliance matter brought after a property-owner complaint led staff to inspect a tenant's work at the Chandler-area site. Staff told the board the complaint found construction that exceeded previously approved permits and that an initial $300 noncompliance fine and a $30 daily noncompliance fine were imposed; the $300 fine has been paid and daily fines continue to accrue.
Staff presented a timeline: notice to comply was mailed and posted on-site, the owner was asked to bring the property into compliance by Sept. 4, no permits were applied for in August, and the administrative hearing occurred on Sept. 10, 2024. The tenant later applied for permits; building-safety staff approved the interior-improvement permit the day before the Dec. 12 hearing, and that permit was issued the morning of the board meeting. A sign permit had been issued earlier.
Code-compliance staff advised the board that fire-code issues are handled by the State Fire Marshal or local fire agencies because Maricopa County refers fire matters to the applicable fire authority. Staff said the building-related permits (plan review, drainage, building) had been reviewed and issued and that inspections could proceed.
Member Carden moved to uphold the hearing officer's decision; Vice Chair Persson seconded. The roll-call vote was 5-0 in favor (Carden, Clapp, Ward, Vice Chair Persson and Chairman Loper), and the board recorded that the respondent had been properly served and the site posted.
The board did not issue further penalties at the meeting beyond upholding the hearing officer's order. Staff said enforcement of any remaining fire-safety compliance is the responsibility of the State Fire Marshal or the local fire provider, and civil remedies between neighbors would remain available if grading or materials from permitted work encroached on adjacent property.
