Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-11 BOA MINUTES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1001 NORTH IDAHO ROAD APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA APRIL 11, 1988 7:00 P.M. WORK SESSION ON AGENDA ITEMS AT 6:45 P.M. PRESENT ABSENT GUESTS OMB Mrs. Blatterspiel Mrs. Lynch List in Mrs. Castro Planning Mrs. Kelley Office Mr. Pfeifer Mr. Schaffer Mr. Sanchez, Chairman Mr. Dunn, Staff Mr. Nakagawa, Staff Mrs. Reid, Staff Mr. Newcomer, Executive Secretary Mrs. Pruitt, Recording Secretary SYNOPSIS: Agenda for April 11, 1988 approved as submitted. Minutes for March 7, 1988 approved as submitted. BA-1-88 denied. BA-3-88 denied. 1. Roll Call six members present with one absent. 2. Chairman introduced and welcomed Mrs. Kelley to the Board of Adjustment and asked for a motion to accept the minutes of March 7, 1988. 3. Pfeifer/Schaffer M/S "I make a motion that we accept the minutes as stated. " Motion passed 5-0-1 with Mrs. Kelley abstaining. 4. Chairman asked for a motion to approve the agenda. 5. Blatterspiel/Castro M/S "I make a motion we approve the agenda dated April 11, 1988. " Motion passed unanimously. 6. Chairman opened case BA-1-88 to the public. Since the case was postponed from March 7, 1988, the briefing had been done at an earlier meeting. He asked staff to introduce any new information available. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE TWO 7. Mrs. Reid read aloud a letter from the Apache Junction Fire District reviewing the request and recommending denial . She called attention to Ms. Bedard's letter requesting the variance, which had been inadver- tently omitted earlier. 8. Chairman asked if the applicant was present and cared to speak. 9. Fenton McDonough represented Ms. Bedard and Mr. Loya. He stated his opinions about setbacks in subdivisions and that if a variance is granted, it goes with the land. He again reminded the Board that the Loyas did not create the hardship. He asked the Board to deny the variance to the co-applicant, Richard Vandr Brink, Park Manager of Big Mountain Mobile Home Park, but grant the variance to Ms. Bedard and Mr. Loya for as long as they remained at that location. 10. Chairman asked if Board members had any questions of the applicant. 11. Mrs. Castro questioned what would happen if they moved out. 12. Fenton McDonough replied it was his opinion that if the mobile home was moved or if they defaulted on payment and no longer owned the trailer, the variance would cease to exist. He said stipulations could be added to that effect. 13. Chairman asked if Board members had any other questions. There were none. ••.. He asked if any others cared to speak in favor of the request. There were none. He asked if any cared to speak in opposition to the request. There were none. 14. Mrs. Reid made rebuttal to some statements Mr. McDonough had made regarding there being no conforming lots in that mobile home park because there were several . She informed Mr. McDonough that the City has no way of ascertaining when and if ownership of the mobile home changed. 15. Chairman asked if applicant wished to rebut Mrs. Reid's statements. 16. Fenton McDonough replied any notice of change of ownership would come through the change of utilities. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE THREE 17. Mrs. Reid said the City of Apache Junction does not own the utilities and would not receive changes in ownership from the privately owned companies. A mobile home permit is obtained for the purpose of determining setbacks and assuring certain types of connections have been made appropriately. 18. Debra Bedard told the Board if she moved, she would take the . mobile home with her. Even if she sold it, she would notify the city. 19. Chairman closed the hearing to the public and asked staff to read a letter from Mrs. Eleanor Lynch, absentee Board member. 20. Mrs. Reid read a letter regarding BA-1-88 from Mrs. Lynch which stated she was not opposed to a variance being granted for this case. Staff reminded the Board that Mrs. Lynch could not vote in absentia. 21. Chairman asked Board to consider the hearing and called for discussion and a motion. 22. Mrs. Castro commented she still felt it was a fire hazard. 23. Schaffer/Castro M/S "I move that case BA-1-88, a request for a variance to the setbacks required by Section 15.0802 be denied. In denying this application, the Board bases its decision on the following findings. 1. The building permit was obtained using incorrect dimensions. 2. The applicant occupied dwelling unit prior to final approval and produced a self-imposed hardship. 3. The condition necessitating the variance is self-imposed and as such, the Board has no authority to grant a variance. 4. Granting of this variance would constitute special privileges inconsistent with the limitations of other properties in the vicinity and zone. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE FOUR 5. A variance is not necessary to relieve property owner from demonstratable hardship, but rather to serve his personal convenience, a reason for which the Board has no authority to grant a variance. 6. There are reasonable alternatives available to the applicant which have not been exhausted. " Motion passed 4-1-1 with Mr. Pfeifer dissenting and Mrs. Kelley abstaining. 24. Chairman told Ms. Bedard the Board moved to deny the request and advised her to contact the Planning Department or seek her attorney' s advice for further possible action. 25. Mr. Newcomer said the enforcement proceedings on the applicant would be initiated within 30 days and asked if the Board wished to give staff any other instructions concerning the time frame for initiating the enforcement proceedings. 26. Board decided 30 days was sufficient. 27. Fenton McDonough stated Ms. Bedard and Mr. Loya would be filing an appeal to the Superior Court within the 30-day time frame. 28. Chairman opened case BA-3-88 to the public and asked for staff briefing. 29. Mr. Dunn briefed Board on BA-3-88, a variance request of -.... Wendell and Doreen Rossman requesting to allow construction of a swimming pool straddling the lot line between Lot 20 and Lot 18 of the Beaty Subdivision. He gave staff recommendations. 30. Chairman stated for the record that if half the property were ever sold, it is not the Board's problem to ascertain that. 31. Mr. Dunn told the Board if it became known, it could become their problem. He reminded the Board the pool could be owned by two different parties at some time in the future. 32. Chairman asked Board if they had questions of staff. 33. Board questioned if the pool were built, would the owners have the option of resubdividing the lots at some future time. 34. Mr. Dunn answered they would have to bring the property back into conformance or remove the pool . BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE FIVE 35. Chairman asked if applicant would care to address the Board. 36. Doreen Rossman addressed the possible future sale of these two lots and said the pool could be filled up, if necessary. She pointed out the pool would be enclosed and located partially between buildings, not in front as the staff diagram had indicated. 37. Chairman asked Board if they had questions of Mrs. Rossman. There were none. He asked if any wished to speak in favor of the request. There were none. He asked if any wished to speak in opposition to the request. There were none. He asked Board to deliberate and make a motion. 38. Mr. Pfeifer asked for clarification regarding reasons to grant a variance and if all three criteria had to be met. 39. Mr. Dunn renamed the reasons to grant a variance and said all criteria had to be met and reasons stated if a variance was granted. 40. Mrs. Kelley commented the applicants might not intend to sell property, but the parcels could be sold separately at a future time by heirs. 41. Mrs. Blatterspiel added there is an alternative, and that is to combine the lots, thus eliminating the need for a variance. AMOR 42. Pfeifer/Blatterspiel M/S "I move that case BA-3-88, an application for a variance to set-back requirements to allow a swim- ming pool to be built straddling the lot line between Lots-18 and Lot 20, Beatty Subdivision, be denied. In denying this application the Board bases its decision on the following findings: The request does not meet all the criteria for a variance because the request meets only one of the criteria, that being it poses no detrimental impacts. " Motion passed unanimously. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 11, 1988 PAGE SIX 43. Chairman informed the applicants the request was denied. He suggested she contact staff for further information or consider the other alternatives. 44. Pfeifer/Schaffer M/S to adjourn at 7:58 p.m. harles R. mer, Executive Secretary Ken Sanchez, airman