Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-11 BOA MINUTESPRESENT Mrs.Gardner Mrs.Kelley Mr.Leffler Mr.Pfeifer Mr.Sanchez,Chairman Ms.Whitten,Staff Mr.Nakagawa,Staff Mr.Coleman,Interim Executive Secretary Ms.Holton, Recording Secretary BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA MARCH 11,1991 7:00 P.M. ABSENT GUESTS Mrs.Blatterspiel List in Planning Mr.Schaffer Office SYNOPSIS Agenda dated March 11,1991 accepted. Minutes for work session and regular meeting of January 7,1991 were approved with Mr.Pfeifer abstaining. ROLL CALL AGENDA MINUTES Five Board Members present with two members absent as listed. Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to accept the agenda dated March 11,1991. Board Members Leffler/Gardner - M/S "I move we accept the agenda dated March 11,1991." Motion passed 5-0-0 (with two members absent). Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to approve the work session and regular minutes dated January 7,1991 as presented. Board Members Kelley/Gardner - M/S "I move that we approve the minutes of the work session and the regular meeting of January 7,1991." Motion passed 4-0-1 (Mr.Pfeifer abstained). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND POSSIBLE ACTIONS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS There was none. There was none. MARCH 11,1991 PAGE 2 There was none. INFORMATION AND REPORTS Chairman Sanchez asked for the Interim Executive Secretary's Report. Mr. Coleman said the only item he wished to note was that Mr.Pfeifer was "back on board"as a Board of Adjustment member after a brief absence. Mr.Coleman stated that in regard to Nonconforming Use,the City Council had passed Ordinance 772 which amended the Zoning Ordinance section dealing with nonconforming uses.Section 3.0106 authorizes the Board of Adjustments to hear appeals regarding Zoning Administrator's decisions as more specifically listed in the amended section.He urged the Board members to read over the ordinance at their convenience and said that at future Board -meetings when no cases are scheduled to be heard,court cases regarding nonconforming uses will be presented as examples of the issues that may be raised in such cases. For this meeting,he selected three court cases from three different states with differing circumstances in each case regarding variances. Mr.Coleman also pointed out that the fourth case regarding a court decision in Tucson had been requested by the Board to be reviewed as a result of a former discussion.In all four cases there were hearings by the respective Boards which eventually ended with a decision by the court. He said that he had included copies of the Arizona Revised Statutes regarding the duties and obligations of the Board of Adjustment.He pointed out that under A.R.S.there is the fundamental and primary charge to the Board that there must be a showing of exceptional hardship;a variance is tied to the land,it is not an ownership situation. Mr.Coleman then discussed the Missouri case where an applicant sued the Board.The court emphasized "that variances should be granted sparingly and the applicant must prove an unnecessary hardship to obtain a use variance or show practical difficulty to obtain an area variance."He further quoted that the court noted that unnecessary hardship involves circumstances where denial of a variance would BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 11,1991 PAGE 3 amount to denial of any permitted use and that proof of practical difficulties involves the existence of conditions only slightly less rigorous.The court stated that variances should be granted only for severe interference with an owner's ability to use land,not for mere inconvenience. Mr.Coleman said that in the Iowa case,the municipal government appealed the Board's decision to grant a variance and the court reversed the decision of the Board.The court affirmed that "to qualify for a variance,the applicant must establish unnecessary hardship by showing that:1)the land cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for a purpose allowed in the zone;2)the owner's plight is due to unique circumstances and not to general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself;and 3)the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality." The third case from the State of Pennsylvania involved an appeal by a Township's Supervisors of the Board's decision which was overturned.The Appeals Court reversed a lower court's decision regarding an "agricultural" land use.The Appeals Court noted a fur business was not a "permissible use for an agricultural zoned area in general"nor was it a "specialized use"as noted in the ordinance.There was no finding in the case to support the conclusion of the Board. The Tucson case involved a request for a variance to add a third story to a shopping center store in an area zoned for two story buildings.Mr.Coleman said that a distinction was made between a "use variance"and an "area variance"in the determination to deny granting the variance.A use variance must show an economic hardship while an area variance must show hardship not related to financial or economic difficulties,but must rely on hardship created by the shape or topology of the land. Mr.Nakagawa noted that this court decision disturbed two accepted zoning principles regarding variances.One was that a use variance is not the appropriate remedy when a rezoning is available;the second was that satisfying area criteria for a variance in order to make reasonable or economic use of land is the classic case for granting a variance. Mr.Coleman asked if there were any questions.There were none. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MARCH 11,1991 PAGE 4 SELECTION OF MEETING DATES.TIMES,LOCATIONS.AND PURPOSES Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion regarding the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT Board Members Leffler/Kellev -M/S "I move that that we have an executive session at 6:30 p.m.,a work session at 6:45 p.m.prior to a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m.on April 8,1991." Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Sanchez asked for a motion to adjourn. Board Members Pfeifer/Gardner -M/S "I move we adjourn." Unanimous.The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Charles Coleman,Interim Executive Secretary Ken SancheZ-Chairman