Prescott Valley board denies variance for backyard pool at 7369 Weaver Way
Loading...
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted 3‑0 to deny a request to reduce a rear‑yard setback from 10 feet to 6 feet for a residential pool at 7369 Weaver Way after staff recommended denial and the Stoneridge homeowners association opposed the request.
The Prescott Valley Board of Adjustment on Nov. 24 denied a variance request to reduce the rear‑yard setback for a swimming pool at 7369 Weaver Way from 10 feet to 6 feet, voting 3‑0 to reject Variance V25‑001.
Chair Dana Shaffer opened the hearing and read the application into the record. Town staff told the board the approved site plan (permit B25‑1059) showed a 10‑foot setback but that field conditions revealed the pool had been excavated and partially built at a 6‑foot distance from the rear property line. Staff recommended denial, saying the approved site plan had not been implemented and the condition appeared to be self‑imposed.
The applicant, Nathan Green of Yavapai Landscaping, testified that subcontracted excavation produced the excavation as built and that moving the pool closer to the house would require removing a covered patio with footings and roof structure. He also told the board his project manager received a suspicious email claiming the variance had been approved and asking that $3,500 be wired to finalize approval; the town’s building department later flagged that message as likely a phishing attempt.
Kathy Andrews, representing the Stoneridge at Prescott Valley Community Association, told the board the subdivision’s lots share similar configurations and that pools in the community have typically been installed only on larger lots that can meet setback requirements. Andrews said construction began on what appears to be mistaken measurements before a variance was sought and argued the request did not meet the legal criteria for a variance because the purported hardship was not unique to the lot.
Board members questioned staff and the applicant about plan measurements, pool width, and whether alternatives (a narrower pool or reconfiguring the patio) were feasible. At least one board member cited town code 13‑13‑020(n), which prohibits granting a variance for conditions that are self‑imposed by the property owner.
After closing the public hearing, a member moved to deny the variance; the motion was seconded and approved by roll call. Vice Chair Michael Carson, Member William Kunish and Chair Dana Shaffer voted in favor of denial, producing the unanimous 3‑0 outcome required for the motion to pass with the current board membership.
The board had no further business and adjourned the meeting.
