Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Board of Adjustment (41)       AGENDA ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SPECIAL SESSION August 10, 2020 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING Join Zoom Meeting: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/93325662976 To attend via phone only, dial 1-669-900-6833 then enter meeting ID: 93325662976        SPECIAL SESSION AT OR AFTER 2:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE   CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Board on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Board members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Board may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In order to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS   SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 28, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES   2.DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: 8/3/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Board meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Board meeting at 229-4700. Instructions to Speakers: Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing. However, those items not listed as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Board of Adjustment during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair. In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice: 1. In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited. 2. Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online: https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom: https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/93325662976 or may participate telephonically only by dialing 1-669-900-6833 prior to or during the posted meeting. 3. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is highly encouraged to email your request to speak to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and town/city of residence in order to provide the Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more efficiently during the Zoom meeting. 4. All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again muted. 5. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Board of Adjustment for their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to jancona@orovalleyaz.gov, no later than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the public body prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please contact the Commission’s recording secretary at jancona@orovalleyaz.gov. Thank you for your cooperation. “Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only.”    Board of Adjustment Special Session 1. Meeting Date:08/10/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Jeanna Ancona, Community and Economic Development Case Number: N/A SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE JULY 28, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A. SUGGESTED MOTION: I MOVE to approve (approve with changes), the July 28, 2020 meeting minutes as written. Attachments 7/28/2020 Draft Minutes  D R A F T MINUTES ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR SESSION July 28, 2020 MEETING HELD VIA ZOOM            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 2:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER Chair Dankwerth called the meeting order at 2:09 p.m. and welcomed everyone.   ROLL CALL Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair Stephen Roach, Vice Chair Octavio Barcelo, Member Mary Murphy, Member David Perkins, Member Staff Present:Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Milini Simms, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney  Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance and reviewed the instructions on how to participate in the meeting.   EXECUTIVE SESSION – Pursuant to ARS §38-431.03(A)(3) for legal advice with the Chief Civil Deputy along with discussion, and consultation with designated Town representatives regarding application of the criteria for deciding a variance.    Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Vice Chair Stephen Roach to enter into Executive Session.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Perkins - Aye Member Barcelo - Aye Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried    Chair Dankwerth listed the members of staff joining the Board in Executive Session: Mr. Spaeth, Mr. Andrews, Ms. Ancona and Ms. Simms.   RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 PM     CALL TO ORDER Chair Dankwerth called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. and thanked everyone for attending.   ROLL CALL    Present: Helen Dankwerth, Chair Stephen Roach, Vice Chair Octavio Barcelo, Member Mary Murphy, Member David Perkins, Member Staff Present: Michael Spaeth, Principal Planner Milini Simms, Principal Planner Joe Andrews, Chief Civil Deputy Attorney   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Dankwerth recited the Pledge of Allegiance for the Board and Audience. Chair Dankwerth reviewed the instructions on how to paticipate in the meeting.   CALL TO AUDIENCE There were no speaker requests.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS The Town Council Liaison was not present at the meeting. Mayor Winfield was in attendance, but as an observer only.   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 26, 2020 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Vice Chair Stephen Roach, seconded by Member Mary Murphy to accept the meeting minutes as written.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Perkins - Aye Member Barcelo - Aye Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   2.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10971 N. POINSETTIA DR. (2000517)       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location Map - Applicant's request - Five Criteria - Criteria - Special circumstances applying to the property - Criteria - Special circumstances not created by the owner - Criteria - Substantial property right - Criteria - Shall not grant special privileges - Criteria - Not detrimental to the neighborhood - Summary and Recommendation Applicant Michael West provided a presentation that included the following: - His previous rebuttal brief and requested that it be added into the public record - Agrees the five findings have been satisfied and agrees to the conditions The Board did not have any questions of the staff or applicant. Chair Dankwerth opened the public hearing. Oro Valley resident Peter Wong, a neighbor to the direct north of the applicant, spoke in support of Agenda Item 2. Chair Dankwerth closed the public hearing.    Motion by Member Octavio Barcelo, seconded by Vice Chair Stephen Roach to accept the staff recommendation and approve this variance with the conditions listed in Attachment 1.    A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Perkins - Aye Member Barcelo - Aye Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 5 - 0 Carried   3.PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 525 W. GOLF VIEW DR. (2001494)       Senior Planner Hannah Oden provided a presentation that included the following: - Purpose - Location Map - Applicant's request - Five Criteria - Criteria: Special circumstances applying to the property - Criteria: Special circumstances not created by the owner - Criteria: Substantial property right - Criteria: Shall not grant special privileges - Criteria: Not detrimental to the neighborhood - Summary and Recommendation Applicant Tracey Alexander provided a presentation that included the following: - Overview and background - Background on the custom home designer/builder Thomas Gist - Purpose of variance - Site plan and request for variance - Site Plan detail - Architectural design statement - Elevation - Roof line attachment - Oro Valley Country Club (OVCC) Estates HOA Architectural Review Committee approval for this proposal - OVCC Estates HOA Architectural Review Committee denial on the construction of the garage on side of home - Excerpt from OVCC Estates HOA and CC&Rs - Overhead view and backyard view of property - Closest point on property to the setback - Current view of privacy wall from the road - View of home from middle of Golf view Dr, from the north and south approaches - Carport rot - Burnt adobe wall to be preserved - Gist garages building and location excerpt - Other OVCC Estates properties - Unusual zoning in OVCC Estates - Community support - University of Arizona College of Architecture Project - Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation Ms. Alexander then went through each criteria of the Five Findings and summarized the variance request.    Discussion ensued among the Board and the applicants. Chair Dankwerth opened the public hearing. - Oro Valley resident Tim Bohen, spoke in support of Agenda Item #3 and read a letter he sent to the applicants last year from the Historic Preservation Commission. - Oro Valley resident Brian Davies, who shares a property line with the applicant, reviewed each of the five findings, how he agreed or disagreed with the staff presentation, and stated his concerns with a shed on the applicant's property. - Oro Valley resident Alexis Paterson, Chair of the Architectural Review Committee for Oro Valley Country Club, provided perspective on their approval. - Oro Valley resident Hilary Backlund, who is a neighbor, spoke in support of Agenda Item #3. Chair Dankwerth closed the public hearing.    Discussion ensued among the Board. Chair Dankwerth accommodated another public speaker request: Oro Valley resident Walt Vette, a neighbor across from the applicant's home, who spoke in support Agenda Item #3. Discussion continued among the Board.    Motion by Vice Chair Stephen Roach, seconded by Chair Helen Dankwerth to deny this variance request to reduce the front building setback to 27.5 feet at a property located at 525 W. Golf View Drive, based on the finding that the five criteria have not been met.    A roll call vote was taken:  A roll call vote was taken: Chair Dankwerth - Aye Vice Chair Roach - Aye Member Perkins - Nay Member Barcelo - Nay Member Murphy - Aye    Vote: 3 - 2 Carried  OPPOSED: Member Octavio Barcelo  Member David Perkins   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Vice Chair Stephen Roach, seconded by Member Octavio Barcelo to adjourn the meeting.    Chair Dankwerth adjourned the meeting at 4:58 p.m.     I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Board of Adjustment of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 28th day of July, 2020. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. Dated this 29th day of July, 2020. ___________________________ Jeanna Ancona Senior Office Specialist    Board of Adjustment Special Session 2. Meeting Date:08/10/2020   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2001623 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT UPDATING THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this item is to provide information about a proposed zoning code amendment to update the required findings for variance cases to ensure alignment with State law (Attachment 1). Zoning code amendments are considered for recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved by the Town Council. However, the proposed amendment directly impacts the Board of Adjustment's duties. Therefore, it is being provided for information and discussion purposes only. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the required findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code. Updates to the zoning code to reflect State law have not occurred in quite some time and the Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Most jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes. However, several court rulings (as recent as 2017) have added clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) in conformance with the law. This makes our differences problematic as they can lead to conclusions that conflict with State law and recent case law. This has been the Town's experience with recent variance applications.  Using legal case law in unison with comparing other jurisdictions' findings (Attachment 3), the proposed code amendment adds language that is mostly verbatim with State law to clarify the following:  Finding 1: Defines a special circumstance as only applicable to the property with regard to its shape, size and topography, location and surroundings. Building configuration may also be included as a special circumstance but only when its location was a result of other conditions related to the property. For example, when the home has to be built at the rear of the lot as that is the only level area on the property. Finding 2: Defines owners, as anyone past or present that created the special circumstance. As clarified through case law, future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the previous person who created the situation.  Finding 3: Clarifies the preservation of privileges and rights as only those enjoyed by other properties of the same classification and within the same zoning district Finding 4: Clarifies a variance may be subject to conditions to ensure the granting of it does not create a special privilege. In summary, the proposed code amendment provides clarity to consistently apply the findings in more alignment with State law. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Applications for a variance, or modification from the zoning code requirements, are considered by the Board of Adjustment. To grant a variance, the Board of Adjustment must find the request meets all the required findings established in State law and Section 22.13.C of the Zoning Code.  This section of code has not been updated to reflect State law in the past 15 years. The Town's findings are significantly different from those required by law. Several jurisdictions tailor the findings for consistency with their codes (Attachment 3). However, several court rulings have been issued (as recently as 2017) adding clarity for how to apply the findings (Attachment 2) in conformance with the law. As such, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) is a legal effort to revise the Town's findings to align with State law. Zoning code amendments are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. However, this code amendment impacts the Board of Adjustment's duties. Therefore, it is being provided to the Board for information and discussion purposes only.  More information on the existing findings and proposed changes is provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS The existing code language is provided below in italics, followed by the proposed code language (revisions are shown in bold CAPS) and staff commentary.  A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district.  Proposed: That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district.  BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY. Rationale:   State law defines special circumstances are only applicable to the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Court rulings have included building configuration as a special circumstance but only when it is a result of the property's size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. For example, when washes or steep slopes constrain the buildable area of a lot. The proposed language reflects this new information by adding building configuration to the list of special circumstances. 2. That special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant. Proposed: That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION, were not created by A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner. Rationale:  State law explicitly states the same special circumstances mentioned above (finding 1) apply to this finding as well. Court rulings have clarified the "owner" includes both current and previous owners. Future owners should not be in a "better" position to be granted a variance than the previous person who created the situation.   To add clarity, the proposed language refers to the first finding and the owner as anyone, past or present. 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Proposed:That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation of PRIVILEGES AND rights  ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION AND WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. Rationale:  Although implied, the existing code does not provide context for what constitutes a substantial property right. This is important to consider since property rights vary between areas and zoning districts. State law specifies these rights are those enjoyed by other properties with the same classification and State law specifies these rights are those enjoyed by other properties with the same classification and within the same zoning district. The new language (shown in bold caps) is verbatim of State law. 4. That any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. Proposed: That any variance granted IS SUBJECT TO  such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.  Rationale:  As established in State law, the intent of this finding is provide jurisdictions the ability to apply conditions to make sure the granting of a variance does not result in a special privilege given to one property. For instance, granting a variance to reduce a setback with landscaping conditions to screen the new building is appropriate. To meet the intent of State law, the word "imposes" has been replaced with " is subject to," which is verbatim of the law.  5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. Proposed: No changes Rationale:  Although not established in State law for variance applications, this finding is legally defensible as a constitutional police power function to protect public health, safety and welfare. SUMMARY In summary, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 1) updates the findings for variances for alignment with State law. This specific section of code has not been updated in quite some time and the Town's findings are too divergent from State and case law. As such, the proposed code amendment includes the following:  Definition of a special circumstance to only apply to the property or building when its location has resulted from special property conditions  The same special circumstances apply to the first two findings  Defines owner as both past and present  Clarifies a property right as one enjoyed by property owners within the same classification and zoning district Clarifies the ability for jurisdictions to apply conditions of approval  The proposed code amendment provides necessary clarity to consistently apply the findings in alignment with State law. Zoning code amendments require consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. As such, this item is provided to the Board of Adjustment for information and discussion purposes only. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: This item is for information and discussion purposes only.  Attachments ATTACHMENT 1- PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT  ATTACHMENT 2- STATE LAW AND CASE SUMMARIES  ATTACHMENT 3- COMPARISON OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS  Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 1 Section 22.13 Variances A. Application Application for a variance of zoning regulations shall be made to the BOA in the form of a written application. Said application shall be filed with the Town Clerk upon forms provided by the BOA and shall be accompanied by: 1. Plans and description sufficient to indicate the nature of the project involved and the proposed use with ground plans and elevations of all proposed buildings. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the BOA of the ability and intention of the applicant to proceed with actual construction work in accordance with said plans within six (6) months after issuance of the variance. 3. A filing fee according to the fee schedule adopted by the Town Council. The owner of a nonconforming sign shall not be required to pay a filing fee when applying for a variance from the ordinance that renders the sign nonconforming. 4. From the time of filing the application until the time of such hearing, the application and all maps, plans and other accompanying data shall be available for public inspection during office hours at the office of the Town Clerk. B. Hearings and Notice Upon receipt in proper form of any such application, the BOA shall proceed to hold a public hearing upon said application not more than thirty (30) days, nor less than fifteen (15) days, after such filing, at which time all persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard. Such BOA shall cause one (1) notice of such hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town and one (1) notice to be posted on the subject property, giving at least fifteen (15) days’ notice of said hearing, and the time and place where said hearing will be held. Said notice, both as published and posted, shall also show the nature of the variance or exception requested and state that anyone wanting to protest may appear in person or by writing. All property owners within three hundred (300) feet must be notified. Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 2 C. Findings A variance from the provisions of this Code shall not be authorized unless the Board shall find upon sufficient evidence: 1. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including STRICTLY RELATED TO its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties in the district. BUILDING CONFIGURATION SHALL BE INCLUDED ONLY WHEN CONSTRAINED BY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY; and 2. That THE special circumstances OR CONDITIONS AS DEFINED IN SUBSECTION C.1 OF THIS SECTION were not created by the A PREVIOUS OR CURRENT owner or applicant; and 3. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property PRIVILEGES AND rights ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF THE SAME CLASSIFICATION IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT; and 4. That any variance granted imposes IS SUBJECT TO such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; and 5. That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general. D. Action The Board shall prescribe, in connection with any variance, such conditions as the Board may deem necessary in order to fully carry out the provisions and intent of this Code. Such conditions may include, among other things, a limitation of the time for which such variance shall be valid. Violation of any such condition shall be a violation of this Code and such violation shall render the variance null and void. E. Review Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Board after hearing on application made by any taxpayer or municipal officer may petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Board’s decision pursuant to A.R.S. Section 9-465 (1956) as amended. Chapter 31 Definitions Code Amendment to Section 22.13 and Chapter 31 of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised: Additions shown in CAPS and deletions shown with strikethrough. 3 Variance A modification of the literal provisions of this zoning code granted by the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that strict enforcement of the provisions would cause undue hardship owing to circumstances unique to the individual property for which the variance is granted. and not caused by the applicant for said variance. State Law Applicable sections of Arizona Revised Statute §9-462.06 G. A board of adjustment shall: 1. Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. H. A board of adjustment may not: 2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner. Applicable Court Rulings and Findings Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment: One of the earliest zoning cases in Arizona was Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). In 1973, Ivancovich requested that the Tucson Board of Adjustment grant a variance to build a third floor up to 51 feet 4 inches. Several persons who lived in the El Encanto area, which is adjacent to the shopping center, appeared at the hearing to protest granting of the variance. In addition, some sixty persons residing in El Encanto and in the area north of the shopping center, filed protests. In support of the variance Mr. Leon Levy stated that the Levy's Department Store had outgrown its space and needed to expand. As he put it, ‘A business either grows, or it dies.’ Mr. Levy told the Board that the department store then had more than 800 employees with a payroll of over 4 million dollars which made it ‘quite a sizeable industry’ in Tucson. If permitted to build a third story, he stated that Levy's would add in the next three years about 200 employees and an additional million dollars to the payroll. Furthermore, the expansion would cut down the amount of ‘outshopping’ that occurs in Tucson and keep the money in the community. In Ivancovich, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, held that In Arizona Boards of Adjustment cannot arbitrarily pick and choose individuals of whom it will or will not require strict compliance with the ordinance, rather, Board must find as a jurisdictional prerequisite to the granting of a variance that the situation or condition of the property in question is extraordinary and exceptional and that application of the zoning requirement would cause peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). It is important to note that the Ivancovich, Court went on to hold that it must be shown that zoning ordinances preclude the use of property in question for any purpose to which it is reasonably adapted; such a showing need not be made in the case of area variances, rather, the nature and extent of a showing that warrants an area variance must depend on facts and circumstances of the particular case. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Another important point from the Ivancovich case was that financial considerations alone cannot 1 govern action of city Board of Adjustment on application for variance; such boards are required to take a broader view than the apparent monetary distress of the owner. . Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). Finally, the power and authority of the Tucson Board of Adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242(App. Div.2 1974). The conclusions to be drawn from the Ivancovich case are: 1. All of the variance criteria apply to a variance application; 2. Financial considerations are neither a special circumstance nor an undue hardship; 3. Variances are rarely the method to be used to cure building height needs; 4. Variances are supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd.: In Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988), SPA Automotive was a new car dealership seeking variances for a free-standing sign it wished to erect on the new premises of its Porsche–Audi dealership located on McDowell Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. SPA also planned to operate a third dealership at this location. The agreements which SPA entered into with the three automobile manufacturers prohibited the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name. The agreements also required SPA to display the manufacturers' logos individually. Thus, the free-standing sign had to be large enough to meaningfully display three manufacturers' logos. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The holding in Burns, was then a simple one, “Special circumstances” or “hardship” upon which new car dealership's application for variance for free-standing sign was based were created by dealership, which entered into agreements with three automobile manufacturers prohibiting the manufacturers' names and logos from being included in a single dealership name and requiring the dealership to display the manufacturers' logos individually, and thus, dealership was not entitled to variance. Burns v. SPA Automotive, Ltd. 156 Ariz. 503, 753 P.2d 193 (App. Div.2 1988). The conclusion to be drawn from the Burns case is that Special Circumstances or Hardships that stem from a contract entered into by a property owner have nothing to do with the land and therefore cannot be considered by Arizona Boards of Adjustment. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix: With regard to Special Circumstances applicable to the land the controlling case is Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). The Pawn 1st case concerns the standards a municipal zoning board applies in considering an application for a zoning variance. Pawn 1st, holds that to obtain an area variance, an applicant must show that strictly applying a zoning ordinance will cause “peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties” that deprive a property of privileges enjoyed by other similarly zoned properties and clarifies that the applicant’s desire to use the property for purposes allowed on other similarly zoned properties does not in itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance justifying denial of an area variance. In the “Pawn 1st”, the Arizona Supreme Court held that an applicant or owner's selection of a property, even with knowledge that an area variance is required for an intended use allowed on other similarly 2 zoned properties, does not itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance precluding an area variance. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94(2017). In coming to this holding the Arizona Supreme Court states that zoning statutes and local ordinances require city zoning boards of adjustment to consider special circumstances applicable to the property, not the property owner, in issuing variances. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). However, the opposite was also determined to be true, when a city zoning board of adjustment exceeds its statutory jurisdiction and authority to issue a variance, and its decision is ultra vires and void, if it grants a variance in violation of the prohibition against self-imposition, which prohibits granting variances based on a finding of special circumstances if the circumstances are self-imposed by the property owner. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 399 P.3d 94 (2017). Power and authority of Tucson board of adjustment to grant variance is to be exercised sparingly and under exceptional circumstances. Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment (App. Div.2 1974) 22 Ariz.App. 530, 529 P.2d 242. The conclusions to be drawn from the Pawn 1st case are: 1. Selecting a property that requires a variance to allow a use allowed by the underlying zoning does not make the request for a variance a self-imposed special circumstance or hardship; 2. Once again, Special Circumstances or Hardships must be based on the condition of the land; 3. Arizona Boards of Adjustment are precluded from considering self-imposed special circumstances in their variance determinations. 3 Finding 1 Special circumstances applying to the propertyState law Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the property referred to in the application including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to other properties in the district; Tucson*That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district;MaranaSpecial circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district.Sahuarita*That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; Flagstaff*That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district;Phoenix**There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) Gilbert**There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; * / ** duplicate langage used1 Finding 2 Special circumstances not created by the ownerState lawA board of adjustment may not grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self‐imposed by the property owner.Oro ValleyThat special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; Tucson*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property;Marana**The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self‐imposed or created by the owner. Sahuarita*That such special circumstances were not self‐imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; Flagstaff**The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self‐imposed by the property ownerSedonaThe applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions;PhoenixThe special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self‐imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) GilbertSuch special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; */** duplicate langage used2 Finding 3Deprive of privileges enjoyed by other property ownersState lawHear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; andTucsonThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC;Marana Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Sahuarita The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; FlagstaffThat, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district.SedonaThe strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden;PhoenixThe authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) Gilbert The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 3 Finding 4 Subject to conditionsState lawHear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.Oro ValleyThat any variance granted imposes such conditions as will assure that the authorizing of the adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is locatedTucson*That the variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;MaranaNot inlcudedSahuarita*The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located;Flagstaff*That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located.SedonaNot includedPhoenixNot includedGilbertNot included* duplicate language4 Additional findingsState lawNot applicableOro Valley*That the authorizing of the variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood or the public welfare in general.That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and,That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question.Marana*The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; FlagstaffThe variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non‐conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property.The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought;The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; andPhoenix*The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.)Gilbert*The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general* duplicate languageTucson*SahuaritaSedona5 Southern Arizona City of Tucson 1. That, because there are special circumstances applicable to the property, strict enforcement of the UDC will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or one in possession of the property; 3. That the variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 4. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, and surroundings, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of the UDC; 5. That the granting of the variance shall not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 6. That the proposed variance shall not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; and, 7. That the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the UDC provisions that are in question. Town of Marana 1. Special circumstances are inherent to the property pertaining to its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. Approval of the variance is necessary to ensure the preservation of privileges and rights enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district without constituting a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property may not be self-imposed or created by the owner. 4. The granting of a variance shall not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, adjacent property, or to the public welfare in general. Town of Sahuarita 1. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district such that the property cannot be reasonably developed in conformity with the zoning provision; 2. That such special circumstances were not self-imposed or created by the owner or person in possession of the property; 6 3. The unnecessary hardship arises from a physical condition that is unusual or peculiar to the property and is not generally caused to other properties in the zone; 4. The variance is the minimum necessary to afford relief; 5. The variance granted is subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to other properties in the vicinity and shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 6. The variance does not allow a use which is not permitted in the zone by the code; 7. The variance may not be from a condition of approval by the town council. Northern Arizona City of Flagstaff 1. That, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of these regulations will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. 2. That a grant of variance will be subject to conditions as will ensure that the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located. 3. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by the property owner 4. The variance will not allow the establishment of a use which: (1) is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district; (2) would result in the extension of a non-conforming use; or, (3) would change the zoning classification of any of the subject property. City of Sedona 1. The subject property has an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration or other exceptional site condition that is not a general condition throughout the zone district; 2. The strict application of the Code standards for which a variance is sought would produce undue hardship not related to purposes of convenience or financial burden; 3. The applicant did not create the hardship by their own actions; 4. The variance requested does not harm the public and does not impair the intent or purposes of this Code, goals, and policies, including the specific regulation for which the variance is sought; 5. The variance request will not violate building or fire code requirements or create a safety hazard; and 6. The requested variance is the minimum relief necessary from the subject standards of the Code. 7 Central Arizona City of Phoenix 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building, or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. (Background: Special circumstances or conditions would include, for example: an unusual lot size, shape, or topography. This condition is considered a property hardship and it must be a condition relating to the property that is so unique it cannot be replicated on any other similarly zoned land in the City.) 2. The special circumstances or conditions described above were not created by the applicant or owner. The property hardship cannot be self-imposed. (Background: Owners include current and previous owners) 3. The authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of a variance the property cannot be reasonably used. There is no cause for a variance if the property can be used, even if it is in a manner other than that desired by the owner or applicant.) 4. The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. (Background: A variance which will not be compatible with the surrounding development or will create an adverse impact on other properties cannot be approved.) Town of Gilbert 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location or surroundings whereby the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district; 2. Such special circumstances were not created by the owner or applicant; 3. The variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is located; 4. The variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or the public welfare in general 8