Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Septic Setbacks Adus topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves front-setback variance for Bratton property after owners cite septic and wash constraints
Summary
The Board of Adjustment approved a 20-foot front-yard setback reduction for a Mesa property in R1-35 zoning to allow a proposed residence with accessory dwelling units; applicants told the board septic location, an on-site wash and a nearby well constrain placement and require the variance.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on Feb. 13 approved a variance reducing the front-yard setback by 20 feet (to allow placement closer to the south lot line adjacent to Redberry) for the Bratton property in Mesa, in the R1-35 zoning district.
Staff told the board the roughly 35,000-square-foot rectangular parcel can accommodate a home within the zoning envelope and that it did not identify a peculiar condition that would create an undue physical hardship under the county’s variance standard. Staff also noted the applicant’s submitted plans included multiple accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and that county rules permit only one EDU per lot of record; staff said the applicant told them a modified plan is being worked on to reduce ADU count to one.
Applicant Sonia Minas (joined by her husband, Sam) told the board the variance is necessary because on-site constraints—an existing well near the north property line, a wash along the southern portion of the property with a required setback, and a high leaching rate—restrict locations suitable for septic systems. Minas said removing an attached kitchen from the front ADU did not materially change the septic sizing in their engineer’s assessment; they reported the engineer recommended an alternative leach bed and a roughly 3,000-gallon septic tank because of the site conditions, including a high water table at approximately 10 feet.
Member Clapp queried staff and the applicant about whether modifying the ADU (removing the kitchen) would negate the need for a variance; staff and the applicant explained the septic-engineering constraints and the location limits meant the variance could still be necessary even with the ADU modification. Member Carden moved to approve, Member Vice Chairperson seconded, and the motion carried 5-0 by roll call (Member Carden, Member Clapp, Member Ward, Vice Chairperson and Chairman Loper voting yes).
Staff cautioned that an approved variance would apply in perpetuity to the parcel and that no building permit for the proposed residence had yet been submitted; the board recorded the approval but noted future permit-level plans could change and that the variance sets a new development standard for the lot.
