Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Compliance Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Adjustment affirms hearing officer in Mesa construction-without-permit case
Summary
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 3-0 vote affirmed a hearing officer's judgment ordering fines for construction without permits at a Mesa property; staff confirmed a permit was later applied for and issued and work is underway to cure violations.
The Maricopa County Board of Adjustment on a 3-0 roll-call vote Thursday affirmed a hearing officer's judgment in a code-compliance case involving construction without permits at 7628 East Mawson Road in Mesa.
The board's action upheld the hearing officer's May 20 determination that the property owner was responsible for violations and ordered the previously assessed $10,000 noncompliance fine and a $1,000 daily noncompliance fine to be applied only if continued unauthorized construction is verified. The board voted to affirm the hearing officer at the conclusion of an appeal hearing after hearing staff, county counsel and the respondent's representative.
The appeal was limited to procedural issues; county staff told the board their role was to review whether the hearing process contained a legal or procedural error. Code compliance supervisor Charles Hart summarized the investigation: staff received a citizen complaint in February alleging construction without permits, subdivision of a single-family dwelling into three living areas and debris. Staff said there were no active permits for the site, a stop-notice to comply was issued March 19 and a stop-work order by Building Safety was issued March 21. A follow-up inspection on April 11 found work continued, prompting an administrative hearing.
Attorney Tom Walcott, representing ACKB Properties LLC, urged the board to find a procedural defect and continue the matter so his client could submit additional written material. Walcott argued the hearing record lacked sworn testimony from neighborhood witnesses at the initial hearing and asked the panel to review the audio recording for that alleged defect. Deputy County Attorney Max Carpinelli summarized the board's limited options under the county zoning ordinance: affirm the hearing officer or remand for further proceedings if a procedural error is found. Carpinelli also clarified that, because the owner is an LLC, the maximum fine the hearing officer may impose for the alleged violation is $10,000 under the applicable misdemeanor cap.
Staff told the board the permit application for the project had been submitted to Building Safety on May 8 and the permit was issued June 25; Hart told the board a subsequent inspection found no ongoing violations and staff recommended affirming the hearing officer's decision. Following discussion among the board members about whether any procedural defect appeared in the record, Member Clapp moved to affirm the hearing officer's order; Member Ward seconded. The roll call vote was Clapp: yes; Ward: yes; Chairman Loper: yes. The board's decision is appealable to Superior Court.
The factual timeline in staff documents provided to the board and discussed at the hearing included: citizen complaint in February; stop-notice March 19; stop-work order March 21; building-safety inspection on April 11 verifying work; administrative hearing May 20; permit application May 8; permit issued June 25. The hearing officer's file shows the $10,000 fine and the $1,000/day continuing fine (daily to accrue only if construction continued after issuance). The owner's representative said the owner has since obtained a permit and is working to cure the violations.
The board's minutes note that the panel's role was to review process, not to redecide factual merits; no new sworn testimony was taken at the appeal. The board affirmed the hearing officer by a 3-0 vote; the order and findings remain in effect unless overturned on appeal to Superior Court.
