Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Criteria topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates whether subdivision-created access issue meets variance criteria; planning officer cites ADOT restrictions
Summary
A planning board member questioned whether a landowner-created access issue qualifies for a variance; planning officer Tyler Young said existing buildings and ADOT's denial of access create a hardship that meets the variance criteria.
During deliberations on the K And K Estates plat, Planning member Leaping questioned whether the variance standard applied when the access problem resulted from the owner's decision to subdivide the parcel. Leaping said the lot "had perfectly legal access, and it's only through their own desire to subdivide it that they've created this problem."
Planning officer Tyler Young responded that staff concluded the application met the variance criteria, pointing to existing buildings on the parcel and ADOT's restriction on access. "We believe that this does meet the criteria of the variance. The physical restrictions on the property are the buildings existing...The hardship created is imposed by DOT," Young said. The board discussed that any future development affecting wetlands would require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits and that DNR oversees septic approvals.
The exchange framed the board's rationale for approving a variance notwithstanding member concerns about whether the hardship was self-imposed. The transcript records no further formal challenge to the staff's analysis before the motion to approve was made and passed.
