Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boa Votes Roundup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment: approvals, a denial and a continuance on variances and appeals
Summary
At the Maricopa County Board of Adjustment hearing the panel voted on multiple variances and appeals: the board affirmed a code-enforcement judgment, denied one variance request, continued a sports-court case after public comment and approved several variances across the county.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment handled a slate of appeals and variance requests at its hearing and recorded the following outcomes: the board affirmed a hearing officer's judgment in code-compliance case v2500307 (3-0); denied BA250002 (Thompson property) (3-0); continued BA250033 (private sports court) to the next August hearing (3-0); and approved eight variances including BA250017 (hillside disturbance), BA250021 (Sun City West rear setback), BA250035 (detached accessory coverage), BA250039 (front-yard addition setback), BA250040 (height variance), BA250015 (front/rear setback for undersized lot), and BA250035 (Craig accessory) by votes recorded on the record.
The board moved promptly through individual land-use items after staff presentations and public comment. Where motions were made and seconds recorded, roll-call votes were taken. In each instance where staff recommended conditions or stipulations, the board generally attached those stipulations to approvals.
Summary of actions taken (motions, movers, seconds, outcomes):
- Case v2500307 (7628 E. Mawson Rd., Mesa): Motion by Member Clapp, second by Member Ward to affirm the hearing officer's order of judgment. Vote: Clapp/yes; Ward/yes; Chairman Loper/yes. Outcome: Affirmed (3-0). The hearing officer had assessed a $10,000 noncompliance fine and a $1,000/day continuing fine to be applied if construction continued; staff reported a building permit had been applied for May 8 and issued June 25.
- BA250017 (Amator property, hillside disturbance, APN 21124105F): Motion to approve by Member Ward; second by Member Clapp. Vote: 3-0 to approve. Approval memorializes 1,162 sq ft of hillside disturbance (staff stipulations apply).
- BA250021 (Olenich, Sun City West, rear setback reduction to attach workshop): Motion to approve by Chairman Loper, second by Member Clapp. Vote: 3-0 to approve subject to staff stipulations.
- BA250033 (Wylie, private sports court/pickleball): Motion to continue to the August BOA meeting by Member Clapp; second by Member Ward. Vote: 3-0 to continue. Staff noted sports courts are treated separately in the ordinance and generally require 20-foot setbacks; public comment from the adjacent neighbor raised noise, stray balls and safety concerns; the applicant removed lighting and offered to remove court equipment if needed.
- BA250035 (Craig, detached accessory garage/storage coverage): Motion to approve by Member Clapp; second by Member Ward. Vote: 3-0 to approve a rear-yard coverage up to 57% for APN 22007023E; staff noted the case arose after a contractor constructed beyond approved plans and the property owner changed contractors and sought to regularize the work.
- BA250039 (Crow, front-yard setback for addition at 24812 W. Patton Rd.): Motion to approve per staff stipulations by Chairman Loper; second by Member Ward. Vote: 3-0 to approve.
- BA250040 (Little, increase maximum height to 32 ft): Motion to approve by Member Clapp; second by Member Ward. Vote: 3-0 to approve a maximum height of 32 feet above natural grade for the lot.
- BA250002 (Thompson property, rear-yard accessory coverage): Motion to deny by Member Clapp; second by Member Ward. Vote: 3-0 to deny; staff noted alternatives (move or reduce building) that would avoid the need for a variance.
- BA250015 (Urshan, front/rear yard setback variances for undersized lot in Chandler Heights Citrus District): Motion to approve by Member Ward; second by Member Clapp. Vote: 3-0 to approve the requested 10-foot front and rear setbacks for the lot.
Most motions recorded included the explicit mover and seconder and a roll-call vote. Where staff recommended stipulations, the approvals were made subject to those stipulations recorded in the staff report. The board noted its role is to evaluate statutory tests for variances and to ensure procedural correctness in appeals; in several cases, members expressed sympathy for homeowners who said they were misled by prior contractors but emphasized that alternatives may exist (for example moving a structure 16 feet to avoid a coverage variance).
