HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-26 BOA SP MINUTESBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 26,1990
6:00 P.M.
NO WORK SESSION WAS HELD
PRESENT ABSENT GUESTS
Mrs.Blatterspiel Mr.Baker List in
Mrs.Kelley Mr.Wilson Planning
Mr.Leffler Office
Mr.Schaffer
Mr.Sanchez,Chairman
Mr.Coleman,Staff
Mr.Esquivias,Staff
Mr.Nakagawa,Staff
Ms.Brown -White,Executive Secretary
Mrs.Pruitt,Recording Secretary
SYNOPSIS Agenda for April 26,1990 approved with changes.
Presentation by David Alexander,City Attorney,to
the Board regarding Case BA -2-90.
ROLL CALL Five members present with two absent as shown above.
AGENDA Chairman Sanchez stated the agenda had no provisions
for approving the agenda so he asked for a motion to
accept the agenda.
REPORT FROM THE
CITY ATTORNEY
Board Members Leffler/Shaffer -M/S
"I make a motion that we approve the agenda and
regarding Item #3,move i t to the No.1 position,
Item #3 being the approval of the agenda."
Motion passed 5-0-0.
Chairman Sanchez informed the Board the item would
require no action that evening but was a report from
the City Attorney regarding a staff memorandum dated
April 12,1990,regarding Case BA -2-90.He asked
Mr.Alexander to address the Board.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 26,1990 PAGE TWO
David Alexander,City Attorney for the City of
Apache Junction,referred to a memorandum addressed
to himself from Rudy Esquivias,Assistant Planner,
concerning a hearing the Board had conducted on
April 9,1990,BA -2-90.
He pointed out staff had taken an adverse position
to the Board's decision regarding Case BA -2-90.
Though the City Attorney generally served as legal
counsel for the Board,at this time he could not
offer advice to them.Planning had asked
Mr.Alexander,as the City's attorney,for advice as
to whether or not the City ought to commence a
special action against the Board to have the
Superior Court of Pinal County review their decision
in Case BA -2-90.Mr.Alexander explained that a
lawsuit,or "special action"was a request by an
aggrieved party to review an administrative board's
decision and could be filed by anyone who felt they
had been harmed by a decision of an administrative
body.
The purpose of the Special Meeting was to inform the
Board what their options were.If any Board member
felt an incorrect decision had been made at the
April 9,1990 meeting,any member on the prevailing
side could make a motion for reconsideration of the
case.
On May 7,1990,at the Board's next regularly
scheduled meeting,Mr.John Heston would be present
to discuss any concerns the Board members might have
regarding their legal status.Mr.Heston had served
on at least one previous occasion as legal counsel
to the Board of Adjustment.A packet of materials
and a tape of the proceedings for Case BA -2-90 would
be forwarded to him for his review so he would be
aware of all that had transpired.
Mr.Alexander would wait to see what the Board
decides at their May 7,1990 meeting and what the
reasons were for that decision.Subsequently,there
might or might not be a petition for special action
filed in Superior Court.He stated his position was
that Planning was correct in asking for a petition
for review in this particular matter.The Board
would have to rely on Mr.Heston,their legal
counsel,for legal advice.
He asked i f the Board had any questions for him
regarding his comments,a "special action,"
Planning's position,or Mr.Heston's role.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 26,1990 PAGE THREE
Mr.Schaffer asked what Mr.Heston was supposed to
do.
Mr.Alexander said Mr.Heston would be the Board's
attorney.He would be the one to whom they should
direct their legal questions as a result of reading
staff's report and hearing Mr.Alexander's comments.
Mr.Leffler asked i f there were other statutes that
pertained to the Board's actions regarding this
matter.
Mr.Alexander said those in the report were the
pertinent ones to this case in particular as far as
he and Planning were concerned,but there could be
others.Mr.Heston might know of others,and they
could ask him that question.
Mr.Leffler withdrew his question.
Mr.Alexander pointed out they should ask Mr.Heston
what he thought was applicable because he was
familiar with Title 9.
He apologized for any misunderstanding or confusion
that had occurred as a result of his suggestion to
city staff that they contact individuals from the
prevailing side to see if they might make a motion
to reconsider the approval of the variance.He
thought the Board should be aware of Planning's
inquiry to him regarding the special action.
Chairman Sanchez asked if the Board had any
questions or wished to discuss anything.There were
no questions and no discussion.
He informed the public that the special meeting was
strictly to hear Mr.Alexander's report.No action
would be taken at that time.At the next meeting,
if the Board decided to reconsider the motion,the
public would be invited to speak at that time.
ADJOURNMENT Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to adjourn.
Board Members Leffler/Kelley -M/S to adjourn at
6:17 p.m.Motion was unanimous.
Adriane Brown -White,Executive Secretary
Ken Sandhez,Chairman