Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Board of Adjustment - 12/28/2004 MINUTES OF THE ORO VALLEY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 28,2004 ORO VALLEY TOWN HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: 3:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Bill Adler,Vice Chair Colleen Kessler,Member John Hickey,Member Bart Schannep,Member EXCUSED: Matt Adamson, Chair STAFF PRESENT: Dee Widero, Senior Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes,Zoning Inspector Joe Andrews, Civil Attorney Kristi Curry,Recording Secretary Vice Chair Adler confirmed with Mr. Andrews that, with four members present, a two-to-two vote would result in a failure of the motion. MINUTES Vice Chair Adler questioned the status of the Board of Adjustment Rules and Procedures. Dee Widero responded that, to her knowledge, the Rules had not been completely reviewed, and that they were not ready to be sent to Town Council. The motion in the last meeting's minutes, stated Vice Chair Adler, indicated that the proposed Rules and Procedures were to move forward to the Town Council, with a cover letter authored by Chair Adamson requesting a joint study session. It was confirmed that the Rules would not be held for further review by the Board of Adjustment or for the addition of language by staff, but that they would move forward to the Town Council. Member Schannep asked whether it was known if Chair Adamson had authored a cover letter; the response was that a cover letter had been written and would be available for review, along with the Rules, at the joint study session with the Town Council. MOTION: Vice Chair Adler moved to approve the minutes for the Board of Adjustment meeting on November 23, 2004,with no objections. 1. CASE NO. OV10-04-04 JAMES AND WENDI ROSSI REQUEST A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR December 28, 2004 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 2 SHADOW MOUNTAIN ESTATES SUBDIVISION, LOT 35. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 520 WEST HARDY ROAD, ORO VALLEY, AZ 85737 (PARCEL#225-11-0670). Vice Chair Adler moved the staff report forward on the agenda in order to introduce a consideration pertaining to the case. Mr. Andrews asked the Board to consider the case an encroachment, as reducing setbacks is not within the Board's purview. Vice Chair Adler voiced that the case before them was a variance. Mr. Andrews clarified that the variance was to allow encroachment into the setbacks, not to reduce the setbacks of the property. Dee Widero reviewed the staff report. She informed the Board that the subject property has a 50' utility and drainage easement at the rear property line and a 25' drainage easement at the west property line. She explained that the applicant is requesting to encroach into the eastern side yard setback by 3 feet to add a third bedroom and possible bath to the existing home. Upon suggestion to relocate the proposed addition, the applicant informed staff of future plans for a garage addition to replace the existing carport, and added that they would like the home's windows to remain. Ms. Widero reported that the applicant also plans to give the front of the home a new façade to update its look. She added that the uniqueness of this parcel is not the land,but the angle by which the home was placed. Member Kessler inquired whether or not the zoning was grandfathered when the property was annexed. Mr. Andrews responded that the only grandfathered item was the setback encroachment, making the residence a legal non-conforming structure. Member Hickey questioned whether a permit was required for a legal non-conforming use to an existing structure. Mr. Andrews answered that an additional permit was not necessary for an existing structure having continuous use,but only for new additions to the property. Vice Chair Adler voiced his belief that a variance was not needed in this case. He quoted Sec. 1- 802, which states, "The lawful use of a building or land existing at the time of the passage of this ordinance may be continued although such use does not conform with the provisions of the Code for such building or land and such use may be continued providing only reasonable repairs and alterations are made." In addition, he noted the last sentence of Sec. 1-805, which says, ...nothing herein shall prohibit any reasonable repairs or alterations in a building or land used for such existing purposes." Vice Chair Adler expressed his opinion that the proposed addition is a reasonable alteration to the property, thus it should not require a variance. Mr. Andrews disagreed that further encroachment into the setback should be considered an alteration. Member Schannep stated that, because the proposed addition requires further encroachment, it should be reviewed by the Board. MOTION: Vice Chair Adler moved to dismiss Case No. OV 10-04-04 request for variance to reduce the side yard setback for Shadow Mountain Estates Lot 35, finding that a variance is not necessary, and that any fees paid for the variance be refunded. Motion not seconded, thus failed. December 28, 2004 MINUTES,BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 3 Vice Chair Adler swore in the applicant, Mr. James Rossi, residing at 520 W. Hardy Rd. in Oro Valley. Mr. Rossi shared his plans to improve his property and its appearance. He explained that, by adding the addition to the front of the property, the façade of the house would also be renovated. The location of the proposed addition was chosen so as to preserve the light and views from the existing windows. Member Schannep questioned if the neighbor to the immediate west of the property had voiced his opinion of the proposed addition. Mr. Rossi responded that this neighbor, as well as ten others,had signed a document indicating approval of the variance. Member Hickey inquired where the proposed bathroom would be constructed. The response was that it would be included within the footprint of the addition, if built at all. Vice Chair Adler asked Mr. Rossi to respond to Item C of the Board of Adjustment's findings, which requires, "... that the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights." Mr. Rossi voiced his belief that the variance was necessary for the enjoyment of his property rights so that he could create a functional living space. Furthermore, to place it elsewhere on the property would hinder future plans for a garage or infringe on existing windows. Member Hickey inquired if the proposed bathroom was included as part of the proposed addition,which was answered affirmatively. Vice Chair Adler made known that he would not be able to support the requested variance, as he did not believe that it met Finding C. Member Hickey disagreed, stating that additions should be allowable under"substantial property rights". MOTION: Member Kessler moved to approve Case No. OV 10-04-04 request for a variance to allow this addition only to encroach within the setback by an additional 3' for Shadow Mountain Estates Lot 35, in that it meets the five variance criteria. Member Hickey seconded. Motion approved 3-1 (Adler opposed). ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Member Hickey moved to adjourn the meeting at 3:40 p.m. Member Kessler seconded the motion. Motion to adjourn carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kristina Curry,Recording Secretary