Tempe board denies appeal in abatement case for 321 East Beatric Street

The Tempe Board of Adjustments voted to deny an appeal of a code-abatement decision for the Kelly residence at 321 East Beatric Street, the board said Wednesday night, leaving the property owner with a 30-day window to bring the yard into compliance before the city may contract for abatement.

Appellant Keith Kelly, who identified himself as the homeowner, told the board his family has owned the house since 1960 and described allowing two people to stay temporarily in his backyard after a nearby county encampment was cleared. He said the guests accumulated large amounts of material and personal property in the yard and that he has been cleaning the site himself when he can. "I want to continue what I'm doing until the place is the way it used to be," Kelly said.

City staff reviewed the enforcement record and municipal code sections the case rests on. Robert Manolo, senior planner with the planning division, said staff documented exterior storage, trash and debris and presented photos taken in August and November 2025 and in January 2026 that show ongoing violations. Drew Yokum, deputy community development director, summarized the enforcement timeline: a complaint on June 10, 2025; inspection June 11; citation after no change; a court appearance Oct. 9, 2025; notice of intent to abate posted Nov. 14, 2025; a hearing officer action on Jan. 6, 2026; and a written appeal filed by Mr. Kelly on Jan. 20, 2026. Yokum said the case has been open far longer than the typical 30-day compliance window and that staff had granted multiple administrative extensions.

Yokum told the board: "This is something that we use to encourage and assist people to come into compliance," adding that the abatement process is intended to resolve a community health and safety issue while also offering the property owner avenues to address the problem. He explained that if the city performs an abatement the contractor's invoice is provided to the owner; if it is unpaid the amount can become a lien on the property and accrue interest.

Kelly told the board he cannot afford a contractor to remove all remaining material and asked for 30 more days to finish cleanup. He also said he had difficulty obtaining assistance from law enforcement earlier in the case. The city disputed that the matter was a trespass issue, saying instead the circumstances required eviction procedures that were not pursued by the property owner; staff noted that orders of protection were ultimately used to remove the occupants in November 2025.

Board members focused their remarks on the narrow scope of the board's authority — whether to grant or deny the appeal of the abatement decision — and on ensuring the neighborhood's health and safety. Several members observed that whether the appeal was granted or denied the administrative process would provide a 30-day period for the owner to address the violations; at least one member said denying the appeal would best guarantee a prompt outcome.

A board member moved to deny the appeal; another seconded. The board voted to deny the appeal (motion passed). The transcript records five affirmative responses and no opposing votes. The board chair then noted that, with the denial, the property owner will have the standard 30-day compliance window before the city may schedule abatement work and invoice the owner.

The board adjourned at 6:48 p.m. The city record presented at the hearing lists the property as 321 East Beatric Street and cites Tempe Municipal Code section 21-3 for nuisance and exterior storage violations.