Welcome to the City of Tempe Board of Adjustment Meeting for January twenty eighth, twenty twenty six.

The time is now six PM.

The City of Tempe Board of Adjustment is authorized by the Arizona Revised Statute and the City of Tempe zoning ordinance.

Its function is to grant relief where a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in an unnecessary property hardship to interpret provisions of the zoning ordinance and to hear appeals from any person or city official grieved by the decision of a person responsible for the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.

Board members present, starting from my right.

Andrea Samashka.

And online, we should have Brett Siegel.

Do we still have Brett Siegel?

We do.

And do we have Mary Foy?

Mary Foy dropped off and might return.

Staff that's here.

We have uh I saw Ryan Levesque here.

I saw I don't see Eric.

We have Diane Kaminsky, principal planner.

Uh we have Jennifer Daniels, administrative assistant, Eddie Garcia for Media, Jeff Temilevich, Director of Community Development.

Robert, do we have Robert Manzalilo here?

Yes, he's hiding, senior planner.

During the public hearing, all applicants and interested citizens, when your request is called, or if you wish to address the board, please make sure you have filled out one of the citizens' request forms located in the on the table by the doors.

Please give that to Jennifer.

And then step to the microphone and state your name, City of Residence.

Please give the form before you begin speaking.

Members of the public, not the applicant, uh, you will be given three minutes to speak.

Staff will assist in monitoring time.

Agenda items.

Any opposed.

Hearing not opposed, the vote carries six to one.

Mary Foy will be our new chairperson starting at our next meeting.

She's online.

Mary, you were just elected chairperson starting at our next meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

We also have uh a nomination of Sean McCarley for vice chair.

We'll say starting at tonight's meeting.

Um we have a second.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, the motion carries seven to zero.

Congratulations to our new officers.

Um the meeting minutes.

We have the meeting minutes from our December 17th, 2025 study session and regular meeting.

It was a long one.

Thank you, Jennifer, for typing that up as always.

I don't envy you.

Um I skimmed through it.

I didn't see anything that jumped out at me.

Uh, do I have a do I have a motion to approve the minutes?

Uh-oh.

For a motion to approve the minutes.

Well, Mr.

Dalton, you were not here at that meeting.

So generally we have generally you would abstain.

I'll make a motion to uh approve the meeting minutes.

Okay, I'll take the motion from Sean.

I'll second it.

I'll take the second from Andrea.

Uh we have motion to send all those.

Do we have to vote on the study session and the regular meeting separately?

Okay.

So motion to approve the minutes from the December 17th meeting.

All those in favor uh say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Any abstentions?

Abstain.

I have two abstentions, five, zero to two motion carries.

Item four, variance request.

We have a variance, a request for a variance to allow a reduction of the side yard setback from five feet to two feet for a detached accessory building in the R1 6 district for the weed residence located at 1309 East Orange Street.

The applicant is Kate Hartley Weed, and the principal planner is Robert Manzalilo.

I have to scroll down.

Uh is the applicant here.

This is your time.

We'll hear from you and then we'll hear from the city.

Hello.

Oh.

Perfect.

Look at that.

Right here.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Okay, sorry, I'm kind of nervous.

Um, good evening, board of adjustments.

Um, my name is Kate Weed, and tonight I am here asking for approval of a variance request for our home at 1309 East Orange Street.

Thank you for allowing me to be here.

So um this evening, I will present to you our variance request.

Um, this request is narrow and specific.

Um, we are specifically asking for the um east side setback to be reduced from five feet to two feet.

This variance request applies to an existing detached garage that was constructed prior to our purchase of the home in December of 2013.

Um I will present to you this evening the reasons that this variance should be approved.

Um, I believe that we meet all of the criteria.

Um, this variance is a special circumstance.

Um, this is an existing garage, and the site constraints of um the full five feet compliance is impractical.

This um enforcing the five feet setback would be uh deprivation of privilege because it would eliminate a typical accessory structure, which is a benefit that many of our neighbors enjoy.

This request has no special privileges attached.

This is a setback request only and is consistent with neighborhood scale and character.

This variance is not due to self-imposed reasons.

Um this is a pre-existing condition that we inherited when we purchased the home in 2013, and is not a situation in which we created ourselves.

We also understand that the variance has limitations, and we are not asking for any use or density changes, and this is a setback adjustment only.

To give some context to the property, um, this is the detached garage.

It is located on the rear of the lot with alley access.

The structure predates our current ownership.

Again, we purchased the home in December of 2013.

Detached garages are common in the area, and this one is matching neighborhood scale.

We included in the application the seller disclosure and MLS listing from 2013.

The MLS listing does include a description of the detached garage, and the seller disclosure indicates that there was some work done to the property by the previous owner, but that permits were not required.

The seller disclosure also indicates that work was performed by a licensed person.

According to the Maricopa County Historical Records, you can see in an aerial aerial view from 2000 that the red square shows that this garage was able to be seen on aerial images as early as 2000.

So this is not a structure that we built.

And we believe that this variance will have no material impacts to our neighbors.

Again, no change in use.

This is still a standard detached garage.

We're not asking for any height or density requests.

And the east side neighbor who would be impacted by the setback is Mr.

Martin Whedon.

He's actually here this evening.

He has given written support and is also here this evening to support our variance request.

I've included an excerpt from his email in this slide.

This is just a Google Maps picture.

You can see that our garage is in the red box, and there are three other structures that are similar to our garage in yellow boxes.

According to the variance application, we did make sure to include a public the public involvement.

We notified 130 surrounding property owners within 600 feet, and we also held a neighborhood meeting on December 8th, 2025 at Cramery Park.

Thank you to Robert for being there.

Myself, my husband, Mr.

Martin Whedon, and his wife, Mrs.

Stephanie Whedon were all in attendance.

Everyone was there to support.

Also a reduced setback on the east side.

The Trick residence had three variances that were granted in 2002.

And most recently, I found that the Powell residence was granted a setback from eight feet to one feet for a detached accessory building that was also built prior to the variance request.

So in summary, um, I would like to ask for your approval of our variance request.

Once again, this is a special circumstance of an existing garage on a property that we that was built prior to our ownership.

A strict five feet setback would eliminate or cause great change to this accessory structure, which is enjoyed by many of our neighbors.

We're not asking for any special privileges simply to have the setback request only approved.

And this is not self-imposed.

This is not a situation we intended to get ourselves into.

This is not something that was created by us.

And we feel that this variance approval does respect the variance limitations and does not ask to change use or density.

So in closing, I would like to ask the board of adjustment to please approve our variance for a reduced setback from five feet to two feet on the east side of our property.

Thank you so much for allowing me to be here today.

Thank you very much.

Are there any questions for the applicant from the board?

I'm not seeing any.

So go ahead and sit.

We'll hear from staff and then you'll have a chance to talk again.

Thank you.

All right.

Good evening, Chair Morrow, members of the board.

Uh, for the record, my name is Robert Mance Lillo.

I'm a senior planner for the planning division.

And this is a variance for a reduction of a side setback for an accessory detached accessory building from five feet to two feet.

And the site is zoned R16 and is roughly at the corner of Orange and Dorsey, about three houses in to the east.

Uh, the one on the left shows the distance from that property wall to the building wall itself.

And then the image on the right is from the alley looking north.

And then looking east on the on the left-hand image looking east in the yard at the building, and then again on the right from the alley looking at the building itself.

And here is a site plan of the existing residents and the garage itself showing the two-foot setback.

Um, it's worth noting that this building was built without permits in the mid-90s.

Um, the all other setbacks are being met.

The setback from the alley is also five feet, but the uh setback is taken from the midpoint of the alley.

So it can be built up to the property line.

And here is a floor plan of the interior of the of the building itself.

And some elevations.

So the height of this is about 10 feet four inches.

And so for a detached accessory building, the required setback for a building between 10 and 11 feet is five feet.

It's uh it's an increasing scale up from eight feet up to 15 feet.

But this one would require five feet from property lines.

Some history of this property uh based on Maricopa County historical imagery.

Um, the building appears somewhere between 93 and 96.

There's a gap there in imagery, but it's not there in 93, and then it is there in 96.

So it was built sometime in that in those years without a building permit.

Building safety was notified of a non-permitted building in the backyard of this property on June 13th, 2008.

Um in December of 2013, the applicant owned uh purchased the residence.

And then in April of 2024, building safety was um brought contacted the current owner and informed them of the existing violation.

Now I understand that is uh a large gap in time, um, and I do understand that there was a gap in that position.

So when someone was placed in that position, they started digging through old files and saw this one.

On June 14th, 2024, the applicant did submit a building permit for that for that detached building.

Um there were comments that were sent out in early 2025.

A second submittal was not uh submitted.

Um the building permit did expire, but soon after that in August, the applicant submitted for this variance.

So getting to the approval criteria for a variance.

Uh number one that um special circumstances are applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings.

The site itself doesn't have any of those.

It doesn't have any topography uh issues or shape issues.

The circle, the the special circumstance concerns information provided by the seller to the property owner when they bought the property, the seller's property disclosure statement stated that uh they were not aware of any zoning violations on the property.

And they they indicated that there were modifications and repairs made to the residents, but that they did not need a permit for those and did not give any explanation as to why those modifications did not require a permit.

So it appears that the seller or the buyer's real estate agent did not contact the city to verify any zoning zoning issues with the property.

Number two, the strict application of the code would deprive such properties of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the area.

Doing research for this project, I found within the 600 foot notification radius, five other approved variances for reduced setbacks.

Four are on orange, right around the subject property.

One is on Don Carlos, just south of the property.

And these are all for reductions of side yard setbacks ranging from seven feet to three feet.

1305 East Orange has two variances to reduce it from seven feet to one foot on both the side and rear for a similar circumstance, a detached building that was built without building permits.

Robert, real quick.

Are a bunch of these uh like garages with alley access?

Is that kind of the practical reason people have been building these?

Chairmoro, uh, let me advance to the next slide.

I put an image in here.

So You knew I was gonna ask this.

I thought it might come up.

Uh so the red dot is the subject's property.

The two houses to the west, the one directly to the west is for a detached structure.

The one right on the corner of Dorsey and Orange, I believe was for a conversion to a living room.

That was the reduction there across the street, directly to the north.

That was a reduction of the front yard setback.

And the one further to the west was for a carport conversion to a living room that encroached into the side setback.

And the one on Don Carlos was also for a living room conversion to uh or a carport conversion to livable space.

Um that encroached into the side yard setback.

There was another outside of the 600 foot uh notification area in this neighborhood, further south.

That was for a detached garage building.

Uh number three, the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges.

Um with the granting of five previous variances.

I uh this would not constitute a grant of special privilege because as we've seen, there are variances granted to other other houses in the area.

And number four, variants may not be granted if the special circumstance applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner.

As we've heard, the building was constructed well before the current owner bought the property, and it was not conveyed to them when they did buy the property that the that the building had a zoning violation on it.

Um since they were informed by the city in 2024, the owner has uh taken steps to apply for a building permit and to seek the variants to to be sure that the property does comply with the code.

There was a neighborhood meeting held on December 8th, and five people, including staff were in attendance.

And to date, uh staff has received one letter and four emails in support and one email in opposition.

The email and opposition stated that they were concerned about uh setting a precedent for um buildings or specifically they were concerned about setting a precedent for ADUs being built two feet from the property line.

Now the applicant has stated that there are no modifications to this building that they're proposing.

And staff recommends approval subject to conditions, and there are no special or non standard conditions of approval.

And I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Are there any questions for staff?

Um I had a question as to how did the um applicant became aware of this because the city informed them?

Was that because they applied for a permit to do something or they they were just check it was just a routine check or yeah, board member Dalton?

I I do not believe the applicant was applying for any building permits or anything.

I believe the city reached out to them with with this existing violation.

All right, thank you.

Uh if I remember the email in opposition, there were also some concerns about having this be a garage access accessing the alley.

But then I remembered this is for the side yard setback, not the rear alley setback.

So I'm just assuming there's no problems with its encroach potential encroachment on the alley itself.

Correct, Chair Mara.

Um the setback from the alley is taken from the midpoint of the alley.

So it's a 20-foot wide alley.

So from the midpoint to the property line is 10 feet, so it it meets the five-foot rear setback.

Yeah.

I don't think I have any other questions.

Um Mary Brett, any questions?

No, Mary and Brett, do you have any questions?

I don't.

No questions, sorry.

Okay.

And then um, was there uh you mentioned that uh in the 600 uh square feet radio or the 600 foot radius?

There was uh uh several that were approved.

Were there any that were denied?

Uh board member Dalton, I did not find any that were denied.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll take ones that I found were approved.

All right, well, with no more questions, um, or at least hearing none.

Uh then we'll go to call to the public.

Did Jennifer, did we get any requests to speak?

Okay, we didn't get any requests to speak, looking out, seeing none.

Um the applicant, you're allowed to do rebuttal if you want.

I don't know if you um okay, no rebuttal.

Um, so I'll open uh it up to discussions from the board.

Um any thoughts or do you want me to start?

The the only thing I really had to think, and I'm kind of glad the applicant reminded me.

I remember the Powell residents meeting last April.

That one was actually a bit more contentious than this because it was such a big building encroaching so close.

The neighbor was kind of not happy, and I think the rain gutters had to be removed.

Um don't really remember why I approved that one, but like compared to that one, this one seems yeah, pretty easy.

Um we else have thoughts?

Um I think that because they bought the house without the without knowing that the building permit was not polled, that it really is not on them.

And the fact that they are trying to get it a permitted in an actual building, uh, I think that's good.

So I have no opposition to this.

Yeah, I would agree.

I commend the applicant for coming forward, going through the process, applying, and uh taking the time to speak here and the neighbors that supported uh supported the applicant.

I commend that uh that as well.

Brett Mary, I want to make sure you guys have an opportunity to comment if you guys have any comments or questions.

I commend the neighbors and the applicant for their behavior and their actions in this issue also.

I would just add that the one concern raised, or at least uh I think the one concern raised was that this would set a precedent in the neighborhood, which from my understanding was already set by previous houses uh that have similar attachments, so I don't have any issue with this application.

All right, um, hearing no more discussions.

Does anybody want to give me a motion?

Um I'd like to put a forward a motion to um approve the uh applicant's variance.

I second.

I have a motion and a second.

Uh all those in favor signify by saying aye.

I need opposed, aye.

Any abstaining?

Hearing none.

It seems to pass uh the motion passes seven to zero, and the uh requested variance is approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report.

Uh next item chair and staff updates and announcements.

Uh here we're having a meeting in February.

I'll be there for that one.

Don't worry.

Uh February 25th.

Um, any other staff announcement?

My sort of I have a curious question for staff.

Is anything come from our our decision in December regarding the AD ADU?

Did anybody appeal it?

We're just sort of curious more than anything.

Referring to the special zoning ministry's opinion that was denied.

Yeah, did anything happen after that?

We actually had that 30-day appeal period just passed on the 16th.

Okay.

So we um are scheduled to bring the item back with city council in uh I think it's March 5th.

Ooh.

Okay.

Um we also have information that the original applicant uh for the Cairo ADU has withdrawn their use permit application.

Uh they've since modified their plans, built a 15-foot structure with no second story uh component to it.

So as a result of that withdrawal, um, we're taking the although we're taking the appeal to the hearing with council, we're at recommending the council um vacate the decision made by the DRC and make the appeal moot since there is no use permit to file against.

I like to hear that.

Thanks.

I was just mostly just curious.

Um hopefully it'll be a very procedural meeting, not a lot of angster opposition.

Always like to hear that.

Uh any other updates or announcements from anyone else?

Hearing none.

Oh, oh, Diane has one.

I apologize.

It was just brought to my attention that for the vote for the chair and the vice chair.

We needed to have a motion and second during the formal session.

So we did nominations during study session.

We had to renominate.

Um, not a nomination, but a move and second to vote.

Ah, okay.

Um, do I thanks to Jennifer for keeping us on target?

Thank you, Jennifer.

Um back to agenda item four, nomination of officers.

Uh, do I have a motion to what are we moving?

Vote.

Motion to motion to vote to elect Mary Foy as chairperson.

I make a motion to vote for chairperson.

I'll second it.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

The ayes have it.

Aye.

Uh, do I have a motion to uh elect and vote Sean McCarley as vice chair?

I motion to elect and vote.

Sean Carly is vice chair.

All right.

Katie has moved.

Richard has seconded.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

Unless there's anything else.

Okay, do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Motion to adjourn, second.

All of those in favor.

Aye.

We're adjourned.

Aye.

Thank you, everyone.