Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-27 BOA MINUTESPresent BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA FEBRUARY 27,1984 7:00 P.M. MINUTES Absent Mr.Gardom None Mr.Carter Mr.Schmidt Mr.Morrison Mrs.Blatterspiel Mrs.Luddy Mr.Berry,Chairman Mr.Nakagawa,Acting Executive Secretary Mrs.Samuelson,Recording Secretary Guests Betty Workman David Workman Rene C.Lesieutre C.D.Crockett G.R.Luddy Synopsis Minutes of January 9,1984 -approved as printed. Minutes of February 13,1983 -approved as read. BA -6-83 (Workman)-Variance to 25 foot frontyard setback approved. BA -1-84 (Maier/Alvin)-withdrawn. 1.Chairman asked the recording secretary to call the roll. 2.Mrs.Samuelson 3.Chairman 4.Carter/Gardom 5.Chairman 6.Carter/Schmidt 7.Chairman 8.Carter/Gardom 9.Chairman called the roll and determined that all members were present. there being no deletions or additions to the Agenda,he called for a motion. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the Agenda dated February 27,1984,be accepted as read." The motion passed unanimously (7-0-0). there being no corrections,additions,or deletions to the Minutes dated January 9,1984, he called for a motion. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the Minutes dated January 9,1984,be approved as printed." The motion passed 4-0-3,with Mrs.Blatterspiel, Mrs.Luddy,and Mr.Berry abstaining. there being no corrections,additions,or deletions to the Minutes dated February 13,1984, he called for a motion. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that the Minutes dated February 13,1984,be approved as read." The motion passed 6-0-1,with Mr.Berry abstaining. opened the public hearing on BA -6-83,a request for a variance to the 25 foot frontyard setback. He asked for staff briefing on this case. Page Two -Board of Adjustment Minutes -February 27,1984 10.Mr.Nakagawa briefed the Board stating that the request is for a variance from the 25 foot frontyard setback to 23 feet on previously built apartments.He added that the applicant is offering this special circumstance and hardship for his request. 11.Chairman asked the applicant to speak on the case. 12.David Workman 13.Mrs.Luddy 14.Mr.Workman 15.Mr.Carter 16.Mrs.Blatterspiel 17.Mr.Workman 18.Mr.Morrison 19.Mr.Workman 20.Mr.Gardom 21.Chairman 22.Rene Lesieutre stated that he purchased the property from the bank and that after purchasing he discovered the setbacks were wrong after having the property surveyed.He said that he did not create the problem,and that he assumed the City had approved the setbacks with their inspections.He also discovered that the final building inspection had never been made which was now complete.He added that he is making an effort to make everything right. asked i f the bank was represented by a real estate agent and i f the bank had any knowledge of any violation. replied that the bank acted as agent on the repossession of the buildings,and that the bank had no knowledge of the setback violation. commented that he could find nothing wrong when he went to look at the property and that a violation was not evident in appearance. asked who discovered that the property was being occupied without a certificate of occupancy. replied that he was the one. asked why the surveying was done after purchasing the property.He commented that one is obligated to know that the survey is right before closing the deal. replied that the survey was done after purchasing the property because he was considering a condo conversion.He added that the buildings were complete and occupied for 18 months. commented that i f there is any fault i t should possibly rest at the inspector's doorstep for failure to inspect the foundation when it was ready to pour. asked i f there was anyone present to speak in favor of the case. represented United Bank who foreclosed on the property.He said that Mr.Workman found the two foot problem about a month after closing.He commented that the City, the bank and FHA had made inspections and no one noted the violation.He added that the buildings have now been final inspected and that the fault rests with the builder and the City.He said that Mr.Workman did not cause the problem so he should not suffer any hardship. Page Three -Board of Adjustment Minutes -February 27,1984 23.Chairman 24.Mr.Nakagawa 25.Mrs.Luddy 26.Mr.Nakagawa 27.Chairman 28.Mr.Nakagawa 29.Mr.Morrison 30.Mr.Lesieutre 31.Mr.Morrison 32.Mrs.Luddy 33.Chairman 34.Mr.Gardom 35.Carter/Schmidt noted that from a legal standpoint the Board had three criteria that had to be met by State law and that the Board could only do what was permitted by law.He then asked for staff recommendation. stated that staff took no position one way or another.He said that he had presented the history and circumstances of the case.He then referred to the three criteria that need to be satisfied. commented that the A.R.S.states that i f the special circumstances are self-imposed the variance cannot be granted.She added that they could table this item or consult the City Attorney.She asked i f the seller was responsible.She also commented on new procedures to be instituted for surveying. stated he did not know about any new City procedures on surveying.He said the land owner may be required to provide it. He commented on a previous Board case,on finding lot lines and measuring from them which is the builder's responsiblity.He added that the Building Department says i t is not responsible for the frontyard setback. asked if an action is taken and i t is contrary to law i f it was binding. replied that it was considered binding, unless the City was sued,and that the court can reverse an action. said he was in favor of tabling this case. stated that the case referred to previously was a court action against a builder.He said that the builder here went bankrupt. commented that the court says the builder, seller,and buyer are to have the property surveyed right. said that in the other case the hardship was self-imposed.She added that this applicant had no knowledge of the violation and he did not build the buildings. stated that he would entertain a motion to postpone this case until the next meeting to get a legal opinion. felt it would be within the Board's rights to approve the variance. M/S "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,that a variance to Section 1306,allowing a 23 foot frontyard setback instead of the required 25 feet is hereby approved. "Reasons for granting this variance are: 1.The Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-462.06.H.2 states,"A board of adjustment may not grant a variance i f the special circumstances applicable Page Four -Board of Adjustment Minutes -February 27,1984 36,Chairman 37.Mr.Nakagawa 38.Chairman. .39.Gardom/Luddy Recorded and transcribed by: CZA Marge S to the property are self-imposed by the property owner.'The applicant has presented the Board that he had no knowledge that the buildings were in violation at the time of purchase from the bank. 2.I t is economically unfeasible and physically impractical to enforce the minimum area requirement. 3.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights." The motion passed 5-1-1,. with Mr.Morrison dissenting,and Mr. Berry -abstaining. asked for.briefingeon stated that Mr.Alvin requested that this case be Withdrawn due to-the;passing away of Mr.Maier,the co --ipplicant -,on February 16,1984. said this item is eliminated from the Agenda. MIS to adjourn.There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. uelseLrding Secretary Respectfully submitted by: James A,.-Nakagawa,:A APPROVED: Art F.Bdrry,Chi WEkecutive Secretary