Prescott Valley board denies variance to allow pool 6 feet from rear property line

The Prescott Valley Board of Adjustment on Nov. 24 denied a variance request to reduce the required rear-yard setback for a pool at 7369 Weaver Way from 10 feet to 6 feet, voting 3-0. The request, filed by Yavapai Landscaping LLC on behalf of the homeowner, was opposed by town staff and the StoneRidge community association.

Chair Dana Shaffer presided over the quasi-judicial hearing. Planner Sam (staff) told the board that the approved site plan tied to permit B25-1059 showed a 10-foot setback but that the as-built pool edge measured about 6 feet from the rear property line. "Staff recommends denial of V25-001 because the approved site plan was not implemented in the field and has now created a self-imposed hardship on the property," Sam said.

Nathan Green, owner of Yavapai Landscaping and agent for the applicant, said the contractor who performed excavation moved the pool farther toward the property line than the approved plan reflected and described site constraints. "I've never built a 5 foot wide pool," Green said when asked whether the pool could be narrowed to meet setback requirements; he said moving the pool closer to the house would conflict with an existing covered patio and its footings. Green also told the board that the project team received a fraudulent email telling them the variance had been approved and asking for a $3,500 wire as part of the misdirection.

Kathy Andrews, representing the StoneRidge at Prescott Valley Community Association, urged denial. Andrews said the homeowners have owned the lot about four years, that the lot configuration and topography are common in the neighborhood and that pools in the community have typically been installed only on larger lots where setbacks can be met. "The association believes this request does not meet the criteria for a variance," Andrews said, arguing that granting the request could set an inconsistent precedent for other homeowners.

Board members questioned whether the circumstances constituted a legally cognizable hardship rather than a self-imposed condition. Members noted that the town code (Article 13-13-020) forbids granting a variance when the special circumstances are created by the owner or contractor and that the code requires three affirmative votes to pass a motion when three members are present. One board member outlined alternatives including narrowing the pool (staff said a compliant configuration could be about 5 feet 5 inches wide) or shifting it closer to the house, but members and the applicant agreed those options would either produce a very small pool or require altering the home’s shade/roof structure and adding expense.

After public testimony and board discussion, a board member moved to deny variance V25-001; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote with Vice Chairperson Michael Carson, Member William Kunish and Chair Dana Shaffer all voting yes.

The board also approved meeting minutes from Feb. 24, 2025 earlier in the session and adjourned after the variance decision. No further public hearings were scheduled on the variance at the end of the meeting.

The property subject to the variance is listed as 7369 Weaver Way, APN 10305815. The permit referenced by staff is B25-1059. The variance request and the board’s denial were recorded in the meeting minutes; the record shows staff and the StoneRidge association cited the self-imposed nature of the discrepancy and neighborhood consistency as central reasons for denial.