gila county board of adjustment packet.pdf · 2020. 5. 6. · arizona (apn # 201-15-009a) and is...

Gila County Board of Adjustment

April 16, 2020Meeting Packet

1

Agenda

2

REGULAR MEETING

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Roll Call

4. Review and approval of the minutes of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on February 20, 2020.

5. Director/Planner Communication:At any time during this meeting of the Board of Adjustment, the Director and Planner ofCommunity Development may present a brief summary of current events. No action may betaken.

Information/Discussion:

Public Hearing:

6. V-19-10 Beth Pierson: A request to permit an existing RV carport with a 4’-9” front yard

setback and a 6’ side yard setback. This property is located at 3694 North Mistletoe Drive in

Pine, Arizona (APN # 301-66-066A) and zoned Residence One District Limited- Density District

10 (R1L-D10).

7. U-19-11 Marta Duron: An appeal against the denial of a Use Permit application to permit six

roosters on the property. This property is located at 698 East Tonto Creek Trail in Tonto Basin,

Arizona (APN # 201-15-009A) and is zoned General Unclassified (GU).

8. Adjournment

A G E N D A GILA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

In order to decrease COVID-19 exposure, the members of the Board

of Adjustment will conduct their public hearing via a telephonic

conferencing platform.

Members of the public can access the hearing by calling 888-788-0099 or 877-853-5247 (toll free), using meeting ID

379 177 578 and following the prompts.

9:00 A.M. April 16, 2020

3

GILA COUNTY

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES

February 20, 2020

4

1

REGULAR MEETING

1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman Mickie Nye.

2. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mary Lou Myers.

3. Roll Call: Shealene Loya called the roll; Chairman Mickie Nye (in Payson), Brian Goslin (inGlobe), Mary Lou Myers (in Payson). A quorum was present.

Community Development Staff Members Present: Michelle Dahlke-Senior Planner andShealene Loya-Administrative Assistant.

4. Review and Approval of the Board of Adjustment Minutes from January 16, 2020. ChairmanNye stated that one change needed to be corrected. No other changes were suggested. Mrs.Myers motioned to approve the minutes with the amendment and Mr. Goslin seconded themotion.

5. Director/Planner Communication: At any time during this meeting of the Planning andZoning Commission, the Director and/or Planner of Community Development may presenta brief summary of current events. No action may be taken.

Mrs. Dahlke took this opportunity to welcome Mr. Goslin as the new member of the GilaCounty Board of Adjustment.

Information/Discussion/Action:

Public Hearing:

6. AV-19-43 JOSHUA SPARKMAN: An appeal has been filed against the approval of an

Administrative Variance to allow the applicant to place a residence on the property with a

10’ front yard setback where 20’ is required. The property is vacant land located in the

Beaver Valley Estates, Unit 3 subdivision in Payson, AZ (APN # 302-17-276) and is zoned

General Unclassified (GU).

MINUTES OF THE GILA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Thursday, February 20, 2020 Gila County Board of Supervisors Conference Room

610 E. State Hwy 260, Payson, AZ Gila County Community Development Conference Room

745 N. Rose Mofford Way, Globe, AZ 9:00 A.M.

5

2

Mrs. Dahlke provided the Board with some background on the case. The applicant/property

owner claimed that the subject property was limited in term of the size of home that could

be placed on the property due to the existing septic system. Staff received nine appeals

against the approval of the Administrative Variance from several property owners in the

vicinity of the subject property. Staff approved the Administrative Variance due to the

restriction of space and given that the subject lot is much smaller than surrounding property

sizes.

Chairman Nye opened the hearing up to public comment.

Mr. Sparkman was first to speak and gave the Board some background information regarding

his purchase of the property and the reasoning for applying for the Administrative Variance.

He stated that due to the existing septic system and the size and shape of the lot, the

parameters that are left are too small to house a residence.

Cynthia Brennan, an adjoining property owner, spoke next. She stated that a possible

compromise could be met by placing the home at a 15’ setback rather than a 10’ setback

due to visibility issues.

Chairman Nye closed the public hearing.

Chairman Nye asked if staff has reviewed the setback restrictions set in the CC&R’s for the

subdivision to which Mrs. Dahlke stated that Gila County does not enforce any regulations

set by CC&R’s. Mrs. Myers commented that lots with existing septic systems are very sought

after, but buyers tend to not do their due diligence to find out how large of a home they can

put on a property. Mrs. Dahlke added that the septic system was permitted and installed in

2015.

Upon motion by Mr. Goslin, seconded by Mrs. Myers, the Board upheld the staff approval of

the Administrative Variance.

7. V-19-08 DOUGLAS & KAREN MCHUGH: This case is a continuation from the January 16, 2020

meeting. An application to allow for a 6” side yard setback and a 4’ rear setback for an

6

3

existing accessory structure. The property is located at 3958 Apache Trail in Pine, AZ (APN #

301-18-118) and is zoned Residential One Limited District- Density District 12 (R1L-D12).

Mrs. Dahlke stated that at the January meeting, potential issues with the desk possibly

encroaching on the rear setback was brought up by an adjoining neighbor. Staff has visited

the property and researched the history of the deck, which is considered to be non-

conforming due to the fact that it was built prior to the building code being adopted in Gila

County. Staff determined that although the deck is considered to be non-conforming, it can

remain as long as it is not enlarged, enhanced, or replaced. Staff maintains its

recommendation that the Board approve the Variance with the condition that the side that

sits 6-inches from the side property line be painted with a fire retardant.

Chairman Nye opened the meeting up for public comment.

Mr. and Mrs. McHugh informed the Board that the structure was on the property prior to

them purchasing it.

Ed Votruba, an adjoining property owner, was the next to speak. He informed that Board of

his concerns regarding potential fire damage due to the lint trap of the laundry room, which

he claimed was on his property. He also stated that the electrical line, water line and grey

water line are all on his property and requests that they be moved.

Mrs. Dahlke suggest to the Board that the Community Development Building Official, Randy

Pluimer, explain the building code requirements in regard to the laundry room. Mr. Pluimer

informed the Board that his suggestion would be to paint the side of the laundry room that

has the 6-inch setback with an intumescent paint, which foams up when it comes into

contact with fire. Mr. Pluimer also stated that the laundry room vent direction will not

control a fire if one was to happen. He also stated that when a building permit is filed for

laundry room, the utilities will be looked at to make sure they are on the subject property

and not on the adjoining property.

Mrs. McHugh informed the Board that moving the utilities and grey water line will not be an

issue if it is determined that they are on the adjoining property.

7

4

Virgil Conrad, an adjoining property owner, stated that he was opposed to allowing the

laundry room to remain where it was and that it should be removed.

Gene Brusacoram, an adjoining property owner, also voiced concerns regarding potential

fire hazards involving the laundry room.

Mrs. Dahlke explained to the Board that the structure will be considered as “non-

conforming” and can be repaired, but not expanded.

Upon motion made by Mrs. Myers, seconded by Mr. Goslin, the Board unanimously

approved the Variance with the conditions that a building permit be obtained and the side

of the laundry room with the 6-inch setback be painted with a fire-retardant paint.

8. V-19-09 SCOTT & MICHELLE BUZAN: A variance applicant to permit a 6’ front yard setback

where 20’ is required for an existing single-family residence. The property is located at 123

North Roper Lane in the Verde Glen subdivision in Payson, Arizona (APN # 302-05-023) and

is zoned General Unclassified (GU).

Homer Vela, Assistant County Manager of Gila County, addressed the Board first. He stated

that the Community Development Department answers to him which is why he was

addressing the Board. Mr. Vela indicated that he, the Community Development Department

staff, and the County Attorney talked about the subject variance and a possible conflict of

interest that may be present and agreed to take several steps to avoid a conflict of interest

such as: 1) Senior Planner Michelle Dahlke was instructed to discuss the facts of the request

in the staff report only and to not provide a recommendation; 2) the County hired attorney

Jason Moore, the Navajo County Attorney, to act on behalf of the Board with regard to the

variance and 3) the County researched other venues to hear the variance request but based

on State Statutes and the County Zoning Ordinance, the County determined that the County

Board of Adjustment was the only entity that could hear the variance request. Mr. Vela

stated that although Mr. Buzan serves as Director of the Gila County Community

Development, Mr. and Mrs. Buzan are also Gila County residents and are applying for the

variance as residents. Mr. Vela informed the Board that Jason Moore would be acting on

behalf of Gila County to answer any legal questions or concerns and that there were several

staff members also present to answer factual questions.

8

5

Mrs. Dahlke began her presentation by giving the Board some background on the property

and the reason for the variance. She explained that the property owners purchased the

property in 1993 and applied for a building permit in 2001 to construct a garage that

included guest quarters, a workshop and a deck. A recent survey done on the property

revealed that a portion of the deck encroached into the 20’ front yard setback by 14’ and

the reason for that encroachment may have been because the setback was measured from

the edge of Roper Lane and not the actual property line. Mrs. Dahlke stated that in 2001,

the site plan submitted with the garage building permit request showed a 20’ front setback

and referred the Board to the 2001 site plan and the site plan submitted with the variance

request for reference. Mrs. Dahlke reviewed how the variance request was evaluated by

staff.

Chairman Nye opened the hearing up for public comment.

Mr. Buzan, property owner and applicant, presented his case to the Board. Mr. Buzan stated

that he is not presenting the case as Community Development Director nor as the Zoning

Inspector, but as a Gila County property owner with his wife and utilizing a service offered

by Gila County to all property owners who reside in unincorporated areas of Gila County. Mr.

Buzan explained that he recused himself from any decision making or recommendations

regarding his variance application. He stated that at the time the building permit for the

garage was issued, he was working as a building inspector for Gila County, but was not

involved in that capacity with the garage. Mr. Buzan stated that he and his wife purchased

the property in 1993 and that his family owns the property to the north and to the west. He

stated that he has obtained 10 building permits from the County within the last 27 years. For

the building permit for the garage, they hired a local draftsman to prepare the site plan and

hired a licensed general contractor to construct the garage and that the draftsman and

contractor were responsible for ensuring the setbacks were correct and that the County

approved the building setback prior to the concrete for the foundation was poured. He stated

that in 2014, they were notified that their driveway was located on forest service land and

the forest service said not to do anything about it until they contacted the Buzans’, which

they never did. He stated that they listed their property for sale in 2019 and discussed with

their real estate agent that it may be best to have a survey done on their property. The

survey identified that a portion of the deck encroached into the front yard setback. He

9

6

indicated that upon learning about the encroachment, the Buzan’s immediately filed an

application for a variance. Mr. Buzan stated that approval for the variance is warranted as it

met the criteria for a variance listed in State Statutes and the County Zoning Ordinance and

then listed specific reasons, they felt the variance met the required criteria.

Chairman Nye asked Mr. Buzan if the County had the opportunity between 2001 and 2013

to let him know that there was an encroachment issue and Mr. Buzan indicated that he

believed that was the case. Board Member Goslin asked Mr. Buzan that when he got the

building permit, did the County survey the property or go off of the site plan and Mr. Buzan

confirmed it was based off the site plan. Board Member Myers stated that in 2001, surveys

were not as commonly used as they are today.

Chairman Nye opened the meeting to public comment.

Mike Harper, attorney for three property owners in the area, addressed the Board. Mr.

Harper argued that a variance cannot be approved as a means of correcting a mistake make

by a contractor or by a draftsman and that the property owner is who is ultimately

responsible for such mistakes. He further argued that the rules of a variance must apply to

everyone equally and that the nature of the subject variance was not eligible for a variance.

He said that a variance can only be made based on the specific conditions of a property and

not to fix an error. Mr. Harper stated that property line markers were in place to show the

boundary line between Roper Lane and the Buzan property and a survey from 1994 revealed

the boundary. He said other documents showed property pins and other markers which

would have proved where the Buzan property was in relation to Roper Lane.

Chairman Nye asked Mr. Harper a question related to an exhibit showing Roper Lane and

some property pins.

Mr. Harper stated that Mr. Buzan is the Community Development Department Director and

was a building inspector before he was the Director and because of his knowledge of

property issues, and that his job is to enforce related regulations, that he should have known

the deck encroached into the front setback.

10

7

Mr. Harper informed the Board his clients, David West and David Owens, property owners in

the Verde Glen subdivision near the subject property, were required to apply for variances

for their building projects and that Mr. Buzan was enforcing regulations on these owners

when not enforcing his own encroachment issue on his property. Mr. Harper said Mr. West

obtained a variance that was justified because there was an historic apple tree that would

have had to be removed if a variance had not been granted. He said that Mr. West was made

to remove a building.

Mr. Harper read into the record an email from another client, Mr. Owens, stating that the

County never gave him any leeway and he could have built a larger home had he not been

required to meet building setback requirements.

Mr. Harper claimed that Mr. and Mrs. Buzan have a gate that restricts public access to Roper

Lane in front of their property. Mr. Harper also claimed that the Forest Service has concerns

regarding an encroachment of a driveway leading to the Buzan’s garage and a fenced,

cultivated lawn area. Mr. Harper also claimed that there is a side yard encroachment

violation on the southern side of the Buzan property. Mr. Harper stated that the Buzan’s

filed an application with the Board of Supervisors to have part of Roper Lane abandoned and

that if the road was abandoned, it would be a better option than the subject variance.

Mr. Harper stated that the Board can only grant variances in cases that pertain to special

circumstances related to a property and not a person and that personal hardship does not

count as a hardship.

Chairman Nye called for a 5- minute break. When the meeting convened, Chairman Nye

asked Mr. Moore if the Buzan’s should speak before or after public comments and Mr. Moore

recommended waiting until after the public comment for the Buzan’s to speak.

Hallie Overman-Jackman, resident of Gila County, addressed the Board and stated that her

purpose for speaking was to inform the Board of complaints that she has heard from the

community regarding the Community Development office not treating the community fairly.

11

8

Dave West, a property owner in the Verde Glen subdivision, was next to speak. He explained

that he has had to receive multiple variances in the past for his property due to setbacks and

that he was not treated fairly.

Mr. Buzan stated that a lot of the information presented by Mr. Harper and other residents

in attendance was not relevant to the variance. He stated that that the Board has granted

similar variances and that in most of those cases, the structure in question was not built with

a permit while the Buzan’s went through the proper County processes and obtained permits.

He restated that his family was not aware of the encroachment and once they did become

aware of it, they promptly applied for a variance.

Chairman Nye asked Mr. Moore if the Board had the right to hear the variance request.

Mr. Moore stated that according to State Statutes, the Board of Adjustment is the entity that

would hear and make a decision on this case. Although Mr. Buzan is the Director of Gila

County Community Development, he has the same right as any property owner in Gila

County to apply for a variance and that the Board of Adjustment is the only venue the

variance can be heard and that the Board has an obligation to hear the request.

Chairman Nye reiterated that was the subject of the variance is the encroachment into the

front setback. Board Member Myers asked Mr. Harper to clarify what he meant by a side

yard setback encroachment. Mr. Harper said there is supposed to be a 7’ setback on the

southern side of the property. Mrs. Dahlke confirmed that a 7’ setback is required on one

side and a 9’ side yard setback required where there is a driveway on a side. She stated that

based on records provided, the 9’ side yard setback on the Buzan property had always been

the northern side. Since the Buzan property has one side yard setback of 7’ and one of 9’,

that would meet County requirements. Board Member Myers asked staff if open decks are

allowed to encroach into setbacks and Mrs. Dahlke confirmed that the Zoning Ordinance

allows for this type of encroachment.

Board Member Goslin asked for clarification on why this came to light by the property owners

now rather than 10 years ago. Chairman Nye stated that it came to light as a result of the

Buzan’s getting a survey. Mr. Harper stated that the issue should have been noticed by the

Buzan’s as a result of a 2014 survey showing a corner of the residence encroaching into Roper

12

9

Lane. Board Member Goslin asked if the property corners of the Buzan property was surveyed

in relation to the 2014 survey. Mr. Buzan stated that he 2014 survey shows the corner of a

fence, not the property, and that the survey was not to scale.

Mr. Moore stated that he was not sure how relevant the 2014 survey was to the main issue

of the variance request being discussed.

Chairman Nye closed the meeting to public comments.

Chairman Nye asked staff if the County has approved similar variance requests. Deb Bradway,

employee of Gila County Community Development, stated to the Board that variance cases

such as this have been approved many times in the past. An example would be the case that

was heard at this same hearing involving the built-without-permit laundry room with a 6-inch

side yard setback. She also confirmed that the County did not require surveys at the time the

garage was built but that today, property owners are required to at least string their property

lines in conjunction with a variance or building permit request.

Upon motion by Board Member Myers, seconded by Chairman Nye, the Board unanimously

approved the Variance for Case No. V-19-09.

9. Adjournment. Board Member Myers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Chairman

Nye. The motion to adjourn was unanimously approved at 11:26 A.M.

13

GILA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

V-19-10BETH PIERSON

14

Staff Report

15

STAFF REPORT

TO THE

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

GILA COUNTY CASE NUMBER V-19-10

VARIANCE REQUEST

Public Hearing March 19, 2020

610 East Highway 260

Payson, Arizona

and

1400 Ash Street

Globe, Arizona

Subject

Property

North

16

2 | P a g e

Case Details

Gila County Case Number: V-19-10

Request: A 4’-9” front yard setback where 20’ is

required and a 6’ side yard setback where 7’

is required for an existing RV carport

Owner: John A. and Beth E. Pierson, Trustees of the

Pierson Family Trust

Applicant: John and Beth Pierson

Staff Member: Michelle Dahlke, Senior Planner

Date of Report: March 11, 2020

Property Details

Assessor Parcel Number: 301-66-066A

Property Address: 3694 North Mistletoe

Property Location: Pine, Arizona

Parcel Size: 0.69 acres

Current Zoning Designation: R1L-D10

Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential (2 to 3 dwelling units per acre)

Current Land Use: Single family residential

Surrounding Land Uses: North – R1L-D10

East – R1L-D10

South – R1L-D10

West – R1L-D10

Background

• July 9, 2019 - The applicants submitted a request for an Administrative Variance (Gila

County Case Number AV-19-24) to allow an existing RV carport to be located in the

front yard of the property.

• August 14, 2019 - Gila County Planning and Zoning Division staff denied the

Administrative Variance request.

• August 23, 2019 - The applicants submitted an appeal to the Gila County Community

Development Department regarding the staff decision to deny the Administrative

Variance.

• November 21, 2019 - The Board of Adjustment continued the appeal to a special meeting

scheduled for December 12, 2019.

• December 12, 2019 – The Board of Adjustment overruled staff’s denial of the

Administrative Variance to permit the RV carport to be located in the front yard;

therefore approving the Administrative Variance.

Please note that the Administrative Variance pertained to allowing the RV carport to be located

within the front yard. The 4’-9” front yard setback could not be approved administratively

through the Administrative Variance process. While staff could approve the 6’ side yard setback

17

3 | P a g e

administratively, both the 4’-9” front yard setback and the 6’ side yard setback are included in

this Variance request.

Figure 1: Site Plan Provided By Applicant

Figure 2: Looking at the RV carport and side yard from Mistletoe Drive.

Location

of RV

Carport

18

4 | P a g e

Figure 3: Looking at the subject property from Mistletoe Drive toward the center of the subject property.

Figure 4: Photo provided by the applicant identifying the property line string looking north to south along Mistletoe Drive. Note the exhibit reference is not related to this staff report.

19

5 | P a g e

Figure 5: Photo provided by the applicant identifying the property line string looking south to north along Mistletoe Drive.

Note the exhibit reference is not related to this staff report.

Figure 6: Photo provided by the applicant identifying the distance between the front property line and the RV carport. Note

the exhibit reference is not related to this staff report.

20

6 | P a g e

Figure 7: Photo provided by the applicant identifying the distance between the side property line and the RV carport. Note the exhibit reference is not related to this staff report

Staff Review and Analysis

Per Section 101.3.H of the Gila County Zoning Ordinance, a variance shall only be granted

under four criteria (see excerpt from Zoning Ordinance below):

A variance shall be granted under the following:

a. Due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape,

topography, location, impact to adjoining property uses and destruction of vegetation, 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.

b. That a grant of a 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.

c. The special circumstances applicable to the property are not self-imposed by any person

presently having an interest in the property.

d. The variance will not allow the establishment of a use which:

i. is not otherwise permitted in the zoning district;

ii. would result in the extension of a non-conforming use; or

iii. would change the zoning classification of any or all of the

property.

Criteria A: Staff does not believe special circumstances exist related to the property that

warrants a Variance. While the rear of the property has an irregular shape, the area of the RV

21

7 | P a g e

carport and the eastern half of the property in general are not irregular. A site visit conducted by

staff revealed other places on the property to relocate the RV carport with minimal tree removal.

The applicants stated at the December 12, 2019 Board of Adjustment special meeting that it was

possible to relocate the RV carport further away from the front property line to reduce its

visibility; however, the Variance request does not include a proposal to relocate the RV carport

from its current location. Additionally, staff continues to believe that the RV carport being so

close to the front property line has a negative impact on adjoining properties as it is extremely

visible from Mistletoe Drive and, there are no other RV carports adjacent to the property.

As part of the Administrative Variance request, four County residents voiced their support of the

project while three voiced their opposition (see table below).

In Favor Against

Donald and Rochelle Tyler – 5761 West

Solitude Trail, Pine

Matthew and Carolyn Coehlo – 5771 West

Bunny Hollow, Pine

Geri Reski- 5742 W Solitude TRL, Pine Mike and Debbie Cummings – 5689 Karla

Court, Pine

Brenda Hamric- 5686 Sundance Cir, Pine Jeanne Cox – 4180 Woodland Trail, Pine

Glyn Phillips- 5733 Solitude TRL, Pine

As part of the Variance request, staff has received three emails in opposition to date (see table

below).

In Favor Against

Mike and Debbie Cummings – 5689 Karla Court, Pine

Steven Escalante – 4084 N. Woodland Trail, Pine

Matthew and Carolyn Coelho – 5771 W. Bunny Hollow, Pine

Criteria B: Granting the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent

with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity of the zoning district in which it is located.

Other property owners who face similar circumstances would have the ability to apply for a

Variance.

Criteria C: Staff believes the hardship is self-imposed. The applicants did not obtain a building

permit for the RV carport before it was constructed and if they had done so, the front property

line would have been verified and the requirement for an Administrative Variance to permit the

RV carport within the front yard, and a Variance for reduced setbacks, would have been

explained.

22

8 | P a g e

Criteria D: The granting of this variance will not allow the establishment of a new use which is

not permitted in the R1-D10 zoning district. Additionally, granting this variance will not result

in the extension of a legal nonconforming use or change the zoning classification of the property.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends denial of the Variance request to permit a 4’- 9” front yard setback where 20’

is required and a 6’ side yard setback where 7’ is required.

If the Board of Adjustment should decide to deny the request, the RV carport must be relocated

to meet front and side yard setback requirements and a building permit obtained.

23

Important Dates

24

Case Number: V-19-10

Applicant Name: PIERSON, BETH

Address: 3694 NORTH MISTLETOE DRIVE, PINE, ARIZONA

Parcel: 201-15-009A

Zoning: GENERAL UNCLASSIFIED (GU)

Date Application was Received: December 30, 2019 (Applicant requested that application be put on hold until March meeting )

Date Legal Ad Must Be In Newspaper: April 8, 2020

Date Legal Ad Posted in the Newspaper: April 8, 2020

Date Sign Posting Required on Property: April 9, 2020

Date Property Posted with Sign: April 6, 2020

Date Letters Mailed to 300’ Radius: March 10, 2020

Date Agenda Required to be Posted: April 9, 2020

Date Agenda Posted: April 9, 2020

Date Staff Report Completed: March 11, 2020

Date Agenda Packets Sent to Commissioners/Board Members: April 10, 2020

Date of Board of Adjustment Hearing: April 16, 2020**

** Case was originally on the March 19, 2020 Board of Adjustment agenda;

however, that meeting was canceled.

25

Application Materials

26

Site Plan

31

300' RADIUS PROPERTY OWNERS & HEARING LETTERS

33

Legend AP

N 301-

66-066

ASel

ected P

arcels

(26)

300 ft B

uffer

Other P

arcels

´301

-66-06

6A 300

ft Buffe

r0

300600

150Fee

tCre

ated 3/1

1/2020

Gila Co

unty GIS

Imager

y Date:

Sep 2

016

APN301

-66-01

0301

-66-01

2A301

-66-01

4301

-66-01

5301

-66-01

6A301

-66-01

9301

-66-02

1D301

-66-02

2B301

-66-03

1B301

-66-05

9A301

-66-06

0301

-66-06

1301

-66-06

4A301

-66-06

7301

-66-06

8301

-66-06

9301

-66-07

0301

-66-07

1301

-66-07

3A301

-66-07

4A301

-66-07

5301

-66-07

6301

-66-08

4C301

-66-08

5B301

-66-08

5C301

-66-08

6

34

JOHN & GAIL ELLIOTT PO BOX 1241

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-068

FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PINE PO BOX 354

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-069

FRANK & KIMBERLY LENTINE 13219 S 39TH ST

PHOENIX, AZ 85044 301-66-070

PHILIP & CHERIE GRIFFIN 275 CINNABAR CT

PRESCOTT, AZ 86303 301-66-071

JOHN TOONE PO BOX 2349

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-076

RONALD REITER & NICKI LAUFENBERG PO BOX 1661

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-075

DONALD & ROCHELLE TYLER 13907 E PARADISE LN

SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85259 301-66-074A

KEVIN & TIFFANY DORRIS PO BOX 1114

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-073A

NICHOLAS & CORINTHIA WALTERS 1806 E HERMOSA VISTA DR

MESA, AZ 85203 301-66-067

GLYN & ALGA PHILLIPS PO BOX 433

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-064A

DUANE & ROSEMARY HARMON PO BOX 170

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-061

STEVE & MARGARET MINARD 8814 N 58TH PL

PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 301-66-060

THOMAS & GERI RESKI 17211 E ALTA LOMA

FOUNTAIN HILLS, AZ 85268 301-66-059A

M DIANE SCHUSTER 7990 N RIDGEVIEW DR PARADISE

VALLEY, AZ 85253 301-66-031B

LARRY & LISA SWANSON 8846 E RIVIERA DR

SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260 301-66-022B

CURTIS & TAMMY CHANEY PO BOX 969

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-021D

ALBERT & KAREN HOLLER 4607 E COLLINWOOD DR

GILBERT, AZ 85298 301-66-019

ROBERT BAKER PO BOX 591

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-010

ROBERT & LUCIE BANHOLTZER PO BOX 1766

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-012A

TOMMY & RHODA FILLER 4532 E ENROSE ST

MESA, AZ 85205 301-66-015

EDWARD & KATHY STEELE 3853 N STONE POINT CIR

MESA, AZ 85207 301-66-016A

DEBRA SMITH 4551 S AVENIDA CORAZON DE ORO

GOLD CANYON, AZ 85118 301-66-086

ROY STROUSE 841 N POPLAR CT

CHANDLER, AZ 85226 301-66-085B & 085C

FRED & CONITA WILLIAMS 5751 W BUNNY HOLLOW

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-084C

ROGERS DRAHOS PO BOX 1957

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-014

JOHN & BETH PIERSON PO BOX 2009

PINE, AZ 85544 301-66-066A

35

GILA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

March 10, 2020

John and Beth Pierson

P.O. Box 2009

Pine, Arizona 85544

Re: Variance (V-19-10)

APN: 301-66-066A

Existing Zoning: R1L-D10

Location: 3694 North Mistletoe Drive, Pine, Arizona 85544

Request: A variance for a 4’-9” front setback where 20’ is required and a 6’ side setback

where 7’ is required for an existing RV carport

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pierson,

The Gila County Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on March 19, 2020 at 9:00

A.M. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room located at 610 East Highway 260 in

Payson to hear your Variance request. The hearing will be simultaneously telecast to the

Community Development Conference Room located at 745 North Rose Mofford Way in

Globe. Please make plans to attend this meeting to answer any questions the Board of

Adjustment might have regarding your request.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 928-402-8514 or via email

at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michelle Dahlke

Michelle Dahlke

Senior Planner

PLANNING & ZONING BUILDING SAFETY WASTEWATER • CODE ENFORCEMENT

745 N. Rose Mofford Way

Globe, Arizona 85501

(928) 402-4224

FAX (928) 425-0829

608 E. Hwy 260

Payson, Arizona 85541

(928) 474-9276

FAX (928) 474-0802

36


March 10, 2020

Re: Variance (V-19-10)

APN: 301-66-066A

Existing Zoning: R1L-D10

Location: 3694 North Mistletoe Drive, Pine, Arizona 85544

Request: A variance for a 4’-9” front setback where 20’ is required and a 6’ side setback

where 7’ is required for an existing RV carport

To Whom It May Concern,

The Gila County Board of Adjustment will hold a public hearing on March 19, 2020 at 9:00

A.M. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room located at 610 East Highway 260 in

Payson. The hearing will be simultaneously telecast to the Community Development

Conference Room located at 745 North Rose Mofford Way in Globe. You are receiving this

letter because your property is located within a 300-foot radius of this property.

You can comment on this request by attending the hearing in person or sending written

comments to the attention of Shealene Loya, Administrative Assistant, at 745 North Rose

Mofford Way, Globe, AZ 85501. You may also email comments to Shealene at

[email protected] or contact her at 928-402-8512. All comments are public

information and subject to release.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dahlke

Michelle Dahlke

Senior Planner




(928) 402-4224

FAX (928) 425-0829

608 E. Hwy 260


(928) 474-9276

FAX (928) 474-0802

37

November 21, 2019

Minutes

38

REGULAR MEETING


2. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Bill Marshall.

3. Roll Call: Shealene Loya did the roll call; Mickie Nye (in Globe), Bill Marshall (in Globe), and MaryLou Myers (in Payson). A quorum is present.

Community Development Staff Members Present: Senior Planner, Michelle Dahlke, AdministrativeAssistant, Shealene Loya and Director, Scott Buzan.

4. Review and approval of the Minutes of the Board of Adjustment Hearing on September 19,2019.

5. Director/Planner Communication: At any time during this meeting of the Planning and ZoningCommission, the Director and/or Planner of Community Development may present a briefsummary of current events. No action may be taken.

Scott Buzan took this opportunity to apologize to the property owner and board members for staffnot posting the notification of the Board of Adjustment meeting in the proper amount of time.

Public Hearing:

6. AV-19-24 Beth PiersonAn appeal has been filed against the denial of the Administrative Variance application. Theapplicant wishes to permit an existing RV carport within the front yard of her property. Thisproperty is located at 3694 North Mistletoe in Pine, Arizona (APN # 301-66-066A) and zonedResidential One District Limited (R1L).

Mrs. Dahlke opened the public hearing by explaining to the Board that because the property wasnot properly posted in time per regulations set in the Arizona Revised Statutes, the Board will notbe able to make a decision on the case, but instead will hear from the property owners andneighbors wishing to comment on the case. The meeting will need to be continued to the nextmonth to allow staff to properly post the property.

Mrs. Pierson stated that she had some questions for the Board and staff in regard to the postingand whether a decision could be made that day. It was her understanding that since the sign postedon the property stated that it was posted on November 6th – 15 days prior to the Board ofAdjustment meeting- that a decision could be made.


Thursday November 21, 2019 9:00 AM

GILA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFERENCE ROOM 610 E. Highway 260, Payson, AZ

GILA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONFERENCE ROOM 1400 E. Ash St., Globe, AZ

39

Mr. Buzan and Mrs. Dahlke explained to Mrs. Pierson that although the sign was dated November 6th, the property was not actually posted until November 8th, which does not meet the 15-day requirement for postings.

Mrs. Pierson also wanted to clarify that this was also the reason her case was postponed from the October Board of Adjustment meeting.

Mrs. Loya clarified that the case was postponed in October due to the legal advertisement in the local newspaper not being sent in to the newspaper in time to meet their deadline.

Mrs. Pierson inquired if a decision from the Board could be made that day rather than extending the case to the December Board of Adjustment meeting.

Mr. Buzan explained that because Arizona statute requires that postings be made a minimum of 15-days prior to the scheduled meeting, the Board could not make a final decision on the case. Heasked Chairman Nye how he would like to proceed with the meeting.

Chairman Nye explained that Community Development staff will make their presentation about the case and then open it up for anyone in attendance that wished to comment on the case. Chairman Nye asked if there was a way to have a special meeting for this case rather than waiting until the next regular Board of Adjustment meeting in December.

A suggestion of having a special meeting on December 12th was presented. The Board and staff broke out in to a discussion on what deadlines needed to be met in order to host the special meeting.

Mrs. Dahlke was urged to begin her presentation on the case. Mrs. Dahlke began by explaining to the Board that Mrs. Pierson applied for an Administrative Variance to permit an existing RV carport 4’ 9” from the front property line and 6” from the side property line where 20’ is the minimum requirement for the front yard and 7’ for the side yard. The applicant believed that her property line was the edge of Mistletoe Dr. which would make the distance between the edge of the street and the RV carport 20’. The Administrative Variance was denied for several reasons, for which another RV carport in the area was denied an Administrative Variance. First, the RV carport is extremely visible from the right of way. Mrs. Dahlke also did not want to set a negative precedent in the area due to RV carports being so tall and clearly visible on a property. The applicant’s RV carport had been previously looked at due to some complaints from neighbors and mainly because of visibility reasons, the Administrative Variance was denied.

Mrs. Dahlke also explained that the existing RV carport was also never permitted to be constructed. If the applicant had gone through the proper steps of obtaining a building permit for the structure, staff could have then verified setbacks prior to issuance of the permit.

Mrs. Dahlke asked the Board of uphold staff’s decision to deny the Administrative Variance, but informed that Board that if they do not uphold the denial and allow the RV carport to be permitted, the property owner will still need to obtain a Variance to allow the structure to be 4’ 9” from the front property line. If the Board chooses to uphold the denial, the RV carport will have to be moved

40

from its current location in an area that meets setback requirements and a building permit will also need to be issued. Chairman Nye asked Michelle how this case came to be known by County staff. Mrs. Dahlke stated that a previous case for an RV carport had come before the Board by a Mrs. Cox who appealed her denial for an Administrative Variance to permit an RV carport in front of her property. The denial triggered a lot of addresses being provided to Community Development with potential violations for RV carports, all of which have been investigated and have either been dealt with or are currently being dealt with. Chairman Nye opened the floor to anyone in attendance who wished to speak to the Board. The property owner, Beth Pierson, was the first to speak. She explained that she wanted to touch on 2 topics- the Gila County Zoning Ordinance referenced in the denial letter and staff opinions. Mrs. Pierson explained that according to the Zoning Ordinance, she believes there is doubt in regard to the phrase “front yard” in relation to where the car port is located. The carport is located on the far south side of the property, described as a “side yard”, which is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as “a yard abutting the portion of the side lot line between the front and rear yards.” Mrs. Pierson directed the Board to many examples through the agenda packet that included photos of the RV carport, site plan and property topography. According to Mrs. Pierson, the property is of an irregular shape and the entire north side of the property is unusable due to creek beds, washes and slopes, which leaves the only buildable land on the south side where the existing RV carport is located. Also, Mrs. Pierson directed the Board to a photo that showed they met the 3’ minimum setback requirement that a zoning inspector may grant according to the Zoning Ordinance. In regard to staff’s opinion of the RV carport, Mrs. Pierson stated that although staff believes there is adequate room to relocate the RV carport, they have future plans for the property including a garage and breezeway. Mrs. Pierson also addressed that moving the carport back would hinder the access to the property and that there are many other carports around the neighborhood that are adjacent to the roadway. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and request that the Administrative Variance be granted. Chairman Nye asked Mrs. Pierson if the garage indicated on the site plan has been built. Mrs. Pierson answered with no, that the garage was a future plan for the property. Mrs. Myers stated that after purchasing the property in 2015, the property owners had a record of survey done which would have marked the property lines of the property, indicating to the property owners that they must remain within their setbacks based on those property lines. Mrs. Myers asked Mrs. Pierson if a licensed builder built the RV carport for them to which Mrs. Pierson answered no. Mrs. Myers continued by stating she was unsure why a permit was not applied for in order to construct the carport. She also stated that she believes there to be adequate room to move the carport toward the back of the property to which Mrs. Pierson claimed that there was not.

41

Mr. Marshall asked if the RV carport could be attached to the proposed garage that may be constructed in the future. Mrs. Pierson stated that there would not be sufficient room to attach the RV carport to the future garage due to the house being placed toward the back of the property. Geri Reski was the next member of the public to speak to the Commission. She stated that she is a neighbor of Mrs. Pierson’s and believes that their structure is tasteful, doesn’t block any views and she and her husband believe that the structure should be allowed to remain where it currently sits. Brenda Hamrick also spoke on behalf of Mrs. Pierson. She agreed with Mrs. Reski that the appearance of the RV carport is very nice and that it should be allowed to remain where it is already existing. Glyn Phillips also spoke in favor of Mrs. Pierson, stating that he has no problem with the structure and believes it should remain where it is. Mrs. Myers stated that her problem is not with the beauty of the structure, but rather that no permit was taken out to construct the structure and how close it is to the road. Chairman Nye asked Mrs. Pierson who had determined where the RV carport was going to be placed.

Mrs. Pierson explained that when she first purchased the RV, she placed the RV on a gravel pad in

the location it sits now. She did not want to have to drive over her asphalt driveway for fear of cracking it and she didn’t want to have to remove the trees that are located right behind the carport.

Mrs. Dahlke explained to the Commission that although Mrs. Pierson stated that the carport is in

the side yard rather than the front yard, staff defines the area as the front yard per the Zoning Ordinance and that a 20 foot front yard setback is required and Mrs. Pierson only has a 4’9” setback as the RV carport sits now.

Chairman Nye asked Mrs. Dahlke if the address of the property is what defines where the front

yard is versus side or rear yard. Mrs. Dahlke indicated that the front yard is generally the property line that fronts on to a street. Mr. Marshall indicated that in some circumstances, after a survey is done on a property, placement

of lot lines can change greatly and put some residences in violation of setbacks. Mrs. Myers indicated that the applicants had a survey done on their property prior to construction of the carport.

Mrs. Dahlke made it clear to the Board that the side yard setback can be approved through the

Administrative Variance process, but the front yard setback has to be approved through a Variance. She also added that staff cannot take into consideration future projects on a property when determining if the RV carport could be moved to a different location on the property.

42

Chairman Nye voiced concerns regarding setting a precedent for future cases if the Board were to approve the carport.

Mrs. Dahlke stated that from a planning perspective, approving this case could set a negative

precedent, but each case that comes before the Board is looked at and analyzed on a case by case basis.

Upon motion from Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Myers, the Board unanimously voted to

continue the case to a special meeting held on December 12, 2019.

7. Adjournment. The meeting was suspended at 9:41 A.M. and set to continue at a special meeting held on December 12, 2019.

43

December 12, 2019

Special Meeting

Minutes

44

1

REGULAR MEETING


2. Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mary Lou Myers.

3. Roll Call: Shealene Loya called the roll; Chairman Mickie Nye (in Globe), Bill Marshall (in Globe), Mary Lou Myers (in Payson). A quorum was present.

Community Development Staff Members Present: Scott Buzan-Director, Michelle Dahlke-Senior Planner and Shealene Loya-Administrative Assistant.

4. Director/Planner Communication: At any time during this meeting of the Planning and

Zoning Commission, the Director and/or Planner of Community Development may present a brief summary of current events. No action may be taken. Mr. Buzan- Mrs. Dahlke is attending the meeting via telephone. Information/Discussion/Action:

Public Hearing:

5. AV-19-24 Beth Pierson

An appeal has been filed against the denial of the administrative variance application. The applicant wishes to permit an existing RV carport within the front yard of her property. This property is located at 3694 N Mistletoe in Pine, Arizona (APN # 301-66-066A) and zoned Residential One District Limited (R1L). This meeting is a continuation from November 21, 2019. Mr. Buzan gave some background on the case for those in attendance that were not at the prior meeting. He stated that staff denied the Administrative Variance because they felt that the criteria to qualify for an Administrative Variance were not met. The applicant filed an


Thursday, December 12, 2019 Gila County Board of Supervisors Conference Room

610 E. State Hwy 260, Payson, AZ Gila County Community Development Conference Room

745 N Rose Mofford Way, Globe, AZ 9:00 A.M.

45

2

appeal against the denial, claiming there was no other place to move the RV carport due to future projects. If the Board upholds the appeal, the applicant will need to go through the Variance process due to the proximity of the carport to the side and front property lines. The applicant also did not apply for a building permit prior to constructing the carport. Since the meeting in November, staff received 1 letter in favor of the carport remaining where it is and 3 emails that are against it. Staff recommended that the Board uphold staff’s decision to deny the request. Chairman Nye opened the public hearing for comments from anyone in attendance. Beth Pierson, property owner and applicant, spoke first. She requested clarification on what determines the “front yard” to be. The Gila County Zoning Ordinance defines the front yard as a yard abutting the front lot line and the side yard is a yard abutting the side lot line lying between the front and rear yards. The RV carport is encroaching into both the front and side yard setbacks. Staff cannot take into consideration future plans for a property as that is not one of the required hardships list in the Zoning Ordinance to qualify for an Administrative Variance. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Board upheld her appeal, if the Board would approve the Variance at this meeting, to which Mr. Buzan briefly explained that there is a separate application process for a Variance and could not be approved by the Board at that time. Surrounding property owners, Thomas Reski, Rosemary Harmon, Duane Harmon and Glen Phillips, spoke in favor of the location of the RV carport. Chairman Nye closed the public hearing. Chairman Nye briefly read an email from Jeanne Cox, who opposed the RV carport because her Administrative Variance for an RV carport in a similar circumstance was denied. Mr. Marshall asked Mrs. Pierson if there was a way to incorporate the carport into the future garage to which Mrs. Pierson expressed that the space needed would not be sufficient to accomplish this. Mrs. Myers clarified that the front of the property is along Mistletoe Drive and that the property lines should have been clarified by a Record of Survey (ROS) that was done on the property. Mrs. Pierson claimed that she has never seen the ROS and considered her front yard to be in front of her residence. Mr. Buzan added additional clarification on what is considered the front yard and side yard of a property.

46

3

Mrs. Pierson received clarification from Mr. Buzan about the Administrative Variance process that would be required for a structure to be located at the front yard of a property. Chairman Nye confirmed with Mr. Buzan that the plans for a future garage do not affect the decision of the Board for this case.

Mrs. Pierson stated that minimizing the size of the future garage and moving the carport toward the back of the property would not be feasible due to the topography of the lot.

Mr. Buzan clarified to the Board that if it were to uphold the appeal for this case, it would be

allowing an Administrative Variance to be approved without meeting any of the requirements designated in the Zoning Ordinance.

Concerns were brought up by the Board regarding any utility easements and septic leech

fields that may be present where the carport currently sits. Chairman Nye asked Mrs. Pierson if they were willing to move the carport back from the

front property line as part of the future Variance request and compromise with the County. Mrs. Pierson stated that she was willing to move the carport to meet these requirements.

Upon motion by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Myers, the Commission unanimously

approved the appeal for Case No. AV-19-24.

6. Adjournment. Mrs. Myers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Marshall. The motion to adjourn was unanimously approved at 12:54 P.M.

47

GILA COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

U-19-11MARTA DURON

48

Staff Report

49

STAFF REPORT

TO THE

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

GILA COUNTY CASE NUMBER U-19-11

APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL REGARDING

USE PERMIT REQUEST

Public Hearing

March 19, 2020

610 East Highway 260

Payson, Arizona

and

1400 Ash Street

Globe, Arizona

Subject

Property

North

50

2 | P a g e

Case Details

Gila County Case Number: U-19-11

Request: Appeal of staff decision to deny a Use

Permit request

Purpose of Request: To allow six roosters on the property

Owner: Marta Duron

Staff Member: Michelle Dahlke, Senior Planner

Date of Report: March 12, 2020

Property Details


Property Address: 698 E. Tonto Creek Trail

Property Location: Tonto Basin, Arizona

Parcel Size: 0.64 acres

Current Zoning Designation: General Unclassified

Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Residential (3.5 - 5 dwelling units per acre)

Current Land Use: Vacant

Surrounding Land Uses: North – General Unclassified

East – General Unclassified

South – General Unclassified

West – General Unclassified

Background

• December 20, 2019: The applicant submitted a request for a Use Permit.

• January 9, 2020: An administrative Use Permit hearing was held.

• January 29, 2020: A decision letter denying the Use Permit request was mailed to the applicant.

• February 7, 2020: The applicant appealed the staff decision to deny the Use Permit.

The subject Use Permit request was to permit six roosters on the property. Per the Gila County

Zoning Ordinance, roosters are not listed as an animal under the definition of a Domestic Farm

Animal or Livestock. As such, a determination was made by staff that a Use Permit was

required in order to have roosters on a property.

The Use Permit process requires an administrative Use Permit hearing (“hearing”) to be

scheduled within 21 days following receipt of a Use Permit application, site plan and fee. In

addition, staff notifies all adjoining property owners of the date, time and location of the hearing

and makes a record of all testimony in favor or against the request received at the hearing. The

Community Development Department Director or designee conducts the hearing and is required

to notify the applicant in writing no longer than 15 working days after the hearing of the decision

to approve or deny an application. The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Board

of Adjustment within 15 working days following the issuance or denial of an application.

51

3 | P a g e

Staff Review and Analysis

At the hearing, the applicant explained that she raises and sells chickens at her property in the

South Phoenix area for food consumption and eggs. She also has several small flocks of hens,

each with their own rooster who protects the hens. When she is residing on the subject property,

she brings her animals with her and of these animals, she will have six roosters.

Two neighboring property owners attended the hearing and were opposed to the request to allow

the six roosters on the property. In summary, their arguments centered on the disruptive nature

of roosters, that the area is not rural or agricultural, and therefore not suitable for roosters, and

that the roosters had disturbed these neighbors in the past when trying to sleep at night. The

aerial photo below shows the location of the neighbors in opposition in relation to the subject

property.

Figure 1: Location of Subject Property in Relation to Properties in Opposition to the Use Permit

Subject Property

Location of property

owners who attended

the hearing opposed

to the Use Permit

request.

52

4 | P a g e

Figure 2: Looking West from End of Tonto Creek Trail

(Subject Property is Located on the Bottom Right Hand Corner of this Photo, Out of Sight)

Figure 3: Looking East Toward End of Tonto Creek Trail

(Subject Property is Located on the Top Left Hand Corner of this Photo)

53

5 | P a g e

Figure 4: Looking Southeast from Tonto Creek Trail

Figure 5: Looking South from Tonto Creek Trail

54

6 | P a g e

Figure 6: Looking Northwest from Subject Property

Figure 7: Looking at the Area of the Rooster House on the Subject Property

In evaluating the request, staff came up with the following concerns:

• The immediate area is not a rural, farming or agricultural area with large lots and

substantial space between parcels and buildings where roosters would be more acceptable

and tolerated. There are a variety of parcel sizes in the immediate area. For example, the

subject property is 0.64 acres in size and the parcel to the immediate east is just over 6

55

7 | P a g e

acres in size. To the southeast, there are parcels that range in size from 1 to 2 acres. A

few parcels to the immediate north are roughly a half acre in size. The majorities of the

parcels to the immediate west, south and southwest are much smaller; however, and

range in size from 0.14 acres to 0.30 acres.

• The General Unclassified zoning district does allow farm and ranch uses which permit domestic farm animals and livestock but roosters are not listed in the definition of these

types of animals in the Gila County Zoning Ordinance.

• Staff does not have as its disposal tools to require noise mitigation measures such as sound proof structures housing the roosters. Even if staff could require such measures, it

would seem contrary to the applicant’s desire to have the roosters freely roam the

property and protect the hens.

• Neighbors came to the hearing strongly expressing their concerns with allowing the roosters and complaining how the roosters have already been disruptive to their lives.

Staff ultimately decided the roosters on the property would not result in a harmonious or

compatible use with adjoining properties and parcels in the immediate area and issued a decision

letter to that effect. The applicant has since suggested that there are measures she can take to

mitigate the noise of the roosters, such as a rooster collar which limits the airflow to a rooster’s

voice box which in turn, reduces the volume of the noise a rooster can make.

Staff informed the applicant of her right to appeal the Use Permit decision to the Board of

Adjustment and knows that she has been communicating with other neighbors in the area to

obtain support for her appeal. To date, staff has not received any communication from any

County property owners regarding the appeal.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment uphold the decision to deny the Use Permit to allow

six roosters on the property.

56

Important Dates

57

Case Number: U-19-11 (Appeal)

Applicant Name: DURON, MARTA

Address: 698 TONTO CREEK TRAIL, TONTO BASIN, ARIZONA 85553

Parcel: 201-15-009A

Zoning: GENERAL UNCLASSIFIED (GU)

Use Permit

Date Use Permit Application was Received: December 20, 2019

Date Letters Mailed to Adjoining Property Owners Regarding Use Permit Hearing: December 30, 2019

Date of Use Permit Hearing: January 9, 2020

Date Use Permit Decision Letter Sent to Applicant: January 29, 2020

Appeal to Board of Adjustment

Date Appeal Received from Applicant: February 7, 2020

Date Legal Ad Must Be in Newspaper: April 8, 2020

Date Legal Ad Posted in the Newspaper: April 8, 2020

Date Sign Posting Required on Property: April 9, 2020

Date Property Posted with Sign: April 6, 2020

Date Agenda Required to be Posted: April 9, 2020

Date Agenda Posted: April 9, 2020

Date Staff Report Completed: March 12, 2020

Date Agenda Packets Sent to Board Members: April 10, 2020

Date of Board of Adjustment Hearing: April 16, 2020**

** Case was originally on the March 19, 2020 Board of Adjustment agenda; however, that meeting

was canceled.

58

Application Materials

59

Site Plan

65

ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS & HEARING LETTERS

67

EARL & REBECCA BENNETT 82235 EAGLE FEATHER TRL

CRAWFORD, CO 81415 201-15-008A

CLIFTON CROFF 1612 W WILSHIRE

SANTA ANA, CA 92704 201-15-010

MARTA DURON 7840 S 12TH ST

PHOENOX, AZ 85042 201-15-009A

TRACY & PATRICIA MCGINNIS PO BOX 1121

TONTO BASIN, AZ 85553 201-15-048C

LOWER TONTO BASIN 3255 N 90TH ST

MESA, AZ 85207 201-06-017E

68


NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

This is your notification that an administrative hearing will be held to consider your application for a

Use Permit. Notices have been mailed to adjoining property owners.

DATE: January 9, 2020

TIME: 3:30 P.M.

LOCATION: Gila County Community Development

745 N. Rose Mofford Way, Globe, AZ and will be simultaneously telecast to the

Board of Supervisors Conference Room at 610 E. State Hwy 260, Payson, AZ

CASE #: U-19-11

APN: 201-15-009A

ADDRESS: 698 E. Tonto Creek Trail, Tonto Basin, AZ 85553

This administrative hearing is to consider the following Use Permit application: A Use Permit

application to permit six roosters to be kept on the property. The parcel is zoned GU (General

Unclassified District).

You must be present at the hearing in order to avoid any delays in the issuance of a decision

letter on this matter or a continuance of this request. If you are absolutely unable to attend in

person, please contact Shealene Loya to make other arrangements, such as attending the meeting via

telephone. Should you have any questions concerning this application, please contact Shealene at

(928) 402-8512 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michelle Dahlke

Michelle Dahlke

Senior Planner

Dated: December 30, 2019




(928) 402-4224

FAX (928) 425-0829

608 E. Hwy 260


(928) 474-9276

FAX (928) 474-0802

69


NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

This is notification that an administrative hearing will be held to consider an application for a Use

Permit. You are receiving this notice because your property adjoins the subject property.

DATE: January 9, 2020

TIME: 3:30 P.M.

LOCATION: Gila County Community Development

745 N. Rose Mofford Way, Globe, AZ and will be simultaneously telecast to the

Board of Supervisors Conference Room at 610 E. State Hwy 260, Payson, AZ

CASE #: U-19-11

APN: 201-15-009A

ADDRESS: 698 E. Tonto Creek Trail, Tonto Basin, AZ 85553

This administrative hearing is to consider the following Use Permit application: A Use Permit

application to permit six roosters to be kept on the property. The parcel is zoned GU (General

Unclassified District).

Any comments you may have concerning this application may be presented in person at the

administrative hearing or written comments may be filed with this office prior to the hearing date.

Written comments can be submitted in person to the Community Development Department or via

email. Should you have any questions concerning this application, please contact Shealene Loya at

(928) 402-8512 or via email at [email protected]. All comments are public information and

subject to release.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dahlke

Michelle Dahlke

Senior Planner

Dated: December 30, 2019

Attachments:

1. Application

2. Site Plan

3. Assessor Map




(928) 402-4224

FAX (928) 425-0829

608 E. Hwy 260


(928) 474-9276

FAX (928) 474-0802

70

January 9, 2020 Use Permit Hearing

Sign-In Sheet

71

Decision Letter

73


January 29, 2020

Marta C. Duron

7840 South 12th Street

Phoenix, Arizona 85042

Re: Use Permit (U-19-11)


Existing Zoning: General Unclassified

Location: 698 East Tonto Creek Trail, Tonto Basin Area

Request: To permit six roosters to be housed on the subject property

Dear Ms. Duron,

I regret to inform you that your application for a Use Permit to allow six roosters on the

subject property has been denied. After a careful review of your application materials and

the testimony presented at the Use Permit hearing on January 9, 2020, including yours and

that of the neighbors who attended, Community Development Department staff has

determined that allowing the roosters on the property would not result in a use that would be

harmonious or compatible with neighboring uses.

You have the right to appeal this decision to the Gila County Board of Adjustment within 15

working days following the issuance of this letter, which would be February 19, 2020. A

copy of the Use Permit appeal form is attached to this decision letter for your convenience.

If you choose to appeal this decision, we will make every effort to get your appeal on the

soonest available Board of Adjustment meeting agenda.

Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact

me at (480) 228-2150 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michelle Dahlke

Michelle Dahlke

Senior Planner




(928) 402-4224

FAX (928) 425-0829

608 E. Hwy 260


(928) 474-9276

FAX (928) 474-0802

74

Public Comment

75

From: [email protected]: Loya, ShealeneSubject: 698 Tonto Creek Trail Case # U-19-11Date: Thursday, January 09, 2020 12:40:22 PM

CAUTION: Please VERIFY the actual email address matches sender name to avoid phishingattempts. Since this email originated from outside of Gila County, please be careful whendeciding to click links or open attachments.

Dear Ms. Loya, I am the neighbor at 699 Tonto Creek Trail adjacent to the above mentioned property. Following isour response to their request for a Use Permit to have roosters on the aforementioned property. Wewould like to formerly protest this Use Permit for the following reasons:

1. This property is not the owners primary residence. They live in Phoenix on a full-time basis. Forthis reason, they would not be in attendance at all times to address any issues with theseroosters. A few months back, they brought a rooster up from the valley and then went backhome, leaving the rooster to crow all night long. My husband and I both work for a living andwere unable to sleep due to the noise created by the rooster. I called the owner the next dayand tried to find an amenable solution to the issue and was told that we would just have to“live with it” as there was nothing they were willing to do to resolve the issue. I then called thecounty and they were told to remove the animal as it was there illegally.

2. This is a high-density community neighborhood with very small lots – not zoned for farmanimals. The neighbors are entitled enjoy their properties in peace and quiet. Much the sameway we have ordinances against barking dogs, we need ordinances against animals that willinfringe on our rights to a peaceful and quiet existence. If the owners wanted to run a smallfarm for profit, they should have purchased a rural property that is appropriate for those typesof activities. These animals are not domestic pets but animals kept for a profitable businesspurpose which theses properties are also not zoned for.

3. The presence of these types of animals will attract more predatory animals to the area, thusendangering neighbors and their domestic pets. This creates a hazard not appropriate for thistype of neighborhood.

4. We also have domestic wells that feed our properties and there is a concern of hazardouscontamination of our water supply from the waste that will be generated. Our well personallydraws water at the 15’ level and the aquafer that feeds our well is downstream from theproperty in question.

5. Many of our properties are also in the flood way and we are all required to follow Gila Countyand FEMA rules regarding what we can and can’t do on these properties. The property inquestion, should they be allowed this Use Permit, should be required to bring their dwellingsand land up to all of the current county zoning and federal FEMA codes for flood areas.

76

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Thank you for your time and consideration in the matter. We, along with our adjacent neighbors willbe in attendance at the administrative hearing on January 9, 2020.

I would also like to request that you communicate any updates regarding that issue in writing addressed to John and Melinda Beebe at PO Box 1365, Tonto Basin, AZ 85553.

Regards,

Melinda BeebeCell: 520.306.0065

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

77

https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/kqi6CwpAYkTLnMguVXwdD?domain=go.microsoft.com

(1) Cover Packet Title Page - Board of Adjustment(2) Cover Agenda(3) 4-16-20 BOA Agenda(4) Minutes Cover page(5) 2nd REVISED 2-20 BOA Minutes Draft(6) Pierson Cover page(6.1) Pierson Cover Staff Report(7) V-19-10 (Pierson) 2nd REVISED Draft Staff Report (3-11-20)(7.1) Cover Important Dates(7.2) 2nd REVISED Important Dates- Pierson(8) Pierson Cover Application Materials(9) PIERSON VARIANCE(10) PiersonCover Site Plan(11) Pierson Site Plan(12) Pierson Cover Letters(13) 301-66-066A Buffer(14) LABLES1(15) REVISED DRAFT V-19-10 Hearing Letter- Pierson(16) REVISED DRAFT V-19-10 (Pierson) Hearing Letter-300' radius property owners (2)(17) Pierson 11-21 Minutes Cover(18) REVISED 11-21-2019 BOA Minutes DRAFT(19) Pierson 12-12 Minutes Cover(20) REVISED 12-12- BOA Minutes Draft (002)(21) Duron Cover page(22) Duron Cover Staff Report(23) U-19-11 (Duron) -2nd REVISED Draft Staff Report (3-12-20)(23.1) Cover Important Dates(23.2) REVISED Important Dates- Duron(24) Duron Cover Application Materials(25) DURON U-19-11 APP(26) Duron Cover Site Plan(27) Duron Site Plan(28) Duron Cover Letters(29) Duron LABLES(30) Duron Use Permit Hearing Letter (applicant letter)(31) Duron Use Permit Hearing Letter (adjoining property owners)(32) Cover UP Hearing Sign In Sheet(33) Use Permit Hearing Sign In Sheet(34) Cover Decision Letter(35) U-19-11 Decision Letter (Duron) (1-28-20) (003)(36) Cover Public Comment(37) 698 Tonto Creek Trail Case # U-19-11

gila county board of adjustment packet.pdf · 2020. 5. 6. · arizona (apn # 201-15-009a) and is...

Documents