Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tempe Board of Adjustment approves reduced setback for garage at 1309 East Orange Street
Summary
The Board of Adjustment voted 7–0 to allow the existing detached garage at 1309 East Orange Street to remain two feet from the east property line, granting a variance from the 5-foot setback. Staff said the structure predates the current owner and was built without permits in the 1990s.
The City of Tempe Board of Adjustment on Jan. 28 approved a variance to reduce the east-side setback for an existing detached garage at 1309 East Orange Street from 5 feet to 2 feet.
Applicant Kate Weed told the board she purchased the home in December 2013 and that the garage was built before her ownership. "This request is narrow and specific," she said, asking the board to approve a setback adjustment only and noting the east-side neighbor Martin Wheaton had provided written support and attended the meeting in person.
Senior planner Robert Manzalillo presented the staff report and recommended approval subject to standard conditions. "It's worth noting that this building was built without permits in the mid nineties," Manzalillo said, and staff said Maricopa County aerial images show the structure appearing between 1993 and 1996. Staff told the board the city contacted the owner about the violation in 2024 and the owner later applied for a building permit and, after permit expiration, submitted the variance application in August 2024.
Manzalillo said staff found several nearby, previously approved variances within the 600-foot notification radius, and reported that staff had received one letter and four emails in support and one email in opposition. The opposition email expressed concern that allowing the variance could set a precedent for accessory dwelling units and detached structures being built as close as 2 feet from property lines; staff responded that prior variances exist in the neighborhood for similar circumstances.
Board members asked whether the owner initiated contact with the city or was notified; Manzalillo said the city reached out after finding the nonpermitted building. Members also confirmed that rear setbacks measured from the alley midpoint met requirements and that the requested change would not alter use or density.
A motion to approve the variance was made and seconded; the board voted by voice and the motion passed 7–0. The variance was approved "subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report," according to the board's announcement of the outcome.
The board’s action allows the owner to proceed with permitting steps required by building safety to bring the structure into compliance under the approved setback. No further conditions beyond the staff report were stated at the meeting.
