Chair takes Sedona setback variance under advisement after city staff raises conditions and neighbors offer support

The Sedona Board of Adjustment on June 9 took under advisement a request to reduce rear setback requirements for a single-family lot, after an applicant described tight site constraints and city staff said it would not object if recommended conditions are imposed.

Jordan Newton, who said he is a Sedona native and a general contractor, told the board he bought the lot two years ago and removed an earlier structure. "I bought it 2 years ago," Newton said, and later described how removal of the prior mobile home caused the lot to lose its nonconforming status under current setback rules. Newton told the board that, under current setbacks, he could only fit an unusually narrow dwelling — he described the constrained envelope as roughly a 12-foot-wide home — and asked for a variance to move the rear setback from about 20 feet to roughly 2 feet to match the pattern of adjacent houses.

City staff told the board it does not object to granting the variance "should you make the variance findings in the land development code," but asked that the three staff-recommended conditions listed on page 10 of the packet be attached if the board grants relief. Staff also noted that Alex Ortega was available to answer technical questions about the proposal.

During the presentation Newton said he had met with surrounding neighbors and submitted letters of support from adjacent residents he named in the hearing. He also said neighbors asked him to include drainage or retention measures in the design to prevent erosion of an older, uncurbed private road near the lot.

Dan Wills, speaking for the Mission Hills Property Owners Association, said Tremere Lane is a private road and told the board the association "doesn't have any objections to this," while suggesting the applicant coordinate with the fire district on exposure and routing issues and circulate final elevations to adjacent homeowners as a courtesy.

The chair asked staff to clarify precedent and nonconforming rules; staff explained that many nearby houses predate incorporation and remain legally nonconforming, but that removal of the previous mobile home led to loss of the lot's nonconforming status. The board discussed whether an existing small brick accessory building on the lot could be integrated into a permitted primary structure or would need removal; staff characterized the on-site structure as an accessory building but said the primary structure is the focus of the variance decision.

With no further public comment, the chair said he would "prepare [a] written opinion" addressing the variance factors and took the matter under advisement. No vote or final decision was recorded at the hearing; the board's written opinion is the next procedural step.