The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1986-04-21 BOA MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA APRIL 21,1986 7:00 PM PRESENT Mr.Berry Mr.Carter Mr.Setliff Mr.Burgess Mrs.Blatterspiel Mr.Gardom,Chairman Mr.Newcomer,Executive Secretary Mr.Nakagawa,Staff Mr.Class -Erickson,Staff Ms.Ortberg,Recording Secretary ABSENT GUESTS Mr.Schaffer List in Planning Office SYNOPSIS Agenda dated April 21,1986 approved as submitted Minutes dated February 10,1986,approved as submitted BA -1-86 recommended for denial 1.Roll Call Six members present with one absent as noted above. 2.Blatterspiel/Carter MIS "I make a motion that we approve the Agenda dated April 21,1986." Motion passed 6-0-0. 3.Carter/Setliff M/S "I make a motion to approved the Minutes as published of February 10,1986." Motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr.Burgess abstaining. 4.Chairman Opened BA -1-86 to the public and asked for staff to brief the Board. 5.Mr.Class -Erickson showed :a video of the subject site and gave the background regarding this case.Included in the background information he indicated staff had discussed with the applicant alternatives for resolving this situation;those alterna- tives being readjustment of the lot line in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance,or the applicant moving the mobile home to meet the ordinance requirements.He also stated the staff's recommendations.Recommendations were that the Board of Adjustment determine i t lacks authority in this matter as per Section 9-462.06 (1)(2) of the Arizona Revised Statute;or,the Board deny the variance on the grounds that the hardship is self-imposed; or,that non -conformity of the south side yard setback could be resolved by adjusting the lot line or by moving the mobile home. 6.Board discussed questions among themselves and with the staff'. 7.Eugene McAtee stated that i f he had known there could have been a problem,he could have put down a twenty foot setback instead of a four and a half foot setback and no one would have been able to check i t very easily. He also feels that,when the previous owner applied for the building permit for the carport,he should have been informed by the City at that time of the problems. Also,when he had to cut i t off at the property line, the City should have looked at i t and informed him then. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT .MINUTES APRIL 21,1986 PAGE TWO 8.Bill Beaulieu 9.Mrs.Blatterspiel 10.Mr.Beaulieu Stated he was the listing realtor who sold this property to Mr.McAtee.Gave a background of how he sold this property and the relationship with Sandy Whitten.He also presented documentation of the original contract to the Board. Stated that the previous owner (Mr.Mueller)contacted him and stated he and his wife could no longer live there.Mr.Beaulieu felt that this property would be difficult to sell because of several washes crossing through it.After some time the property wasn't selling. He went out and measured and he knew exactly where the trailer set and how i t was set.He then told Mr.Lake that the trailer was too close to the property line and he didn't see how he could divide the lot nor sell the property for the price MIr.Mueller wanted.He spoke to Mr.Mueller and stated he should split the land and sell 14 acre with the trailer on i t for a lesser price and sell the other two portions for a lesser price. The seller agreed.Mr.Beaulieu then said he had to find out about the position of the trailer to the property line because he knew it was three to four feet from the property line and he didn't know i f i t could be cut off there.To do this he went to Sandy Whitten and told her about the carport that extended over 12 -14 feet and i t extended over where he considered the lot line to divide out the property.He wanted to be sure he could sell the ft acre with the trailer on it. He told Sandy Whitten that he wanted to tear the carport out.She responded that i f that was done,the trailer would have to be moved back 20 feet.Since the carport is part of the structure and is attached,i f i t is left on the line or i f it's extended over the line the trailer can stay there.Mr.Beaulieu stated that this is his recollection of the conversation as best as he could recall.He decided to cut the carport right over the line so i t encroached on the other line and would not have to move the trailer.Stated that "this is exactly what I remember".He now drew up the listing contracts with the seller and he could now sell them as pieces. I t was understood by both seller and buyer that this carport would be cut on the property line. On April 1st he was advised by Mr.Lake who said "You'd better get a letter confirming what you've said."He stated he didn't get one confirming enough,knowing that now,but having no reason to at the time.He felt he was assured that by cutting the carport on the line he wouldn't have to move the trailer.He knew the trailer was only four feet (4')away and Mr.Lake,who's been in business for 25 years,knew i t as well. Mr.McAtee was not involved in any of these discussions at this time,in fact he didn't even know about the property at this time.When Mr.McAtee purchased the property Mr.Beaulieu went to Sandy for confirmation and stated that he felt what he had done was appropriate and Mr.Lake had concurred. asked i f he created these property lines to the south, knowing the trailer was too close to the property line. after speaking with Sandy Whitten,he advised Mr.Mueller that the lot could be subdivided and cut out in that direction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES 11.Mrs.Blatterspiel 12.Mr.Beaulieu 13.Chairman 14.Mrs.Blatterspiel 15.Mr.Beaulieu 16.Mr.Perrault 17.Board 18.Ms.Whitten 19.Carter/Berry 20.Mr.Burgess 21.Mr.&Mrs.McAtee 22.Board 23.Board 24.Mr.Berry 25.Chairman 26.Mr.Newcomer 27.Mrs.Blatterspiel 28.Mr.Carter APRIL 21,1986 PAGE THREE stated "in other words,you knew in establishing the new property line that the buildings were going to be too close to the property line?" stated that yes he did know that.That's why he came to the City.He was told then i t could be cut in this way by the City and so he did so to conform with the City. stated that that doesn't in any way conform with the City Planning and Zoning. Asked i f there wasn't any way he could have regulated the subdivision line so that he'd come far enough away at the building site?In other words,like an irregular shaped lot. stated "I could have at that time but there was no need to do it.I was told that this was all right the way it was." Asked that this request be granted. discussion among themselves. In reference to a conversation with Mr.Beaulieu and the letter of April 1,1985 submitted to him,she clarified that Section 6.0118 only refers to detached accessory buildings,not attached.Stated that discussion with Mr.Beaulieu was in regard to a detached accessory building, not a carport which is attached to a main building. I t was not a detached accessory building that was being considered and discussed.Different types of accessory buildings require different setbacks. M/S "I make a motion that these good people work out their own problems and bring i t back in 60 to 90 days." Stated he did not believe this would resolve anything, and that this would be delaying the problem.He then asked the applicants i f they wanted a 60 day extension or i f they want i t settled tonight. stated they wanted i t settled here tonight. after discussion this motion was withdrawn. discussed among themselves whether or not they had authority to act in this matter. stated that the decision has to be based on the rules and regulations and not by feelings. asked for a restatement of staff's recommendations. responded and restated the above described recommendations (listed in item #5). Made the following motion:"I feel we have to disapprove this because the Board of Adjustment lacks the authority in this matter." I feel we have the authority and I would amend that motion to finding number three which states that: Non -conformity of the south side yard setback could be resolved by adjusting the lot line or by moving the mobile home. The above motion was withdrawn and the following motion was voted on and adopted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 21,1986 PAGE FOUR 29.Carter/Blatterspiel MIS "I make a motion that this case be denied." 30.Berry/Carter Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: The finding for denial is: 1.Non -conformity of the south side yard setback could be resolved by adjusting the lot line or by moving the mobile home. Motion carried 4-2-0 with Mr.Setliff and Mr.Burgess dissenting. Motion to adjourn.The meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M. ,—Execlitive Secretary Sanfdrd'77—GTFC6m, Chdirman