Chair Schannep swore in the applicant, Mary Glenn Winscott.
It was clarified that this item was continued from the last meeting in order to correct the size reduction of the lot.
Planning and Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes presented the Staff report. She stated that neither opposition nor support had come forward since the last meeting.
Chair Schannep opened the public hearing at 3:00 p.m. There being no speakers, he closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Hickey and seconded by Member Kessler to approve OV10-08-01A a variance to revise the previously approved 6.34 acre lot size reduction to 6.27 acres, a change of .07 acres.
MOTION carried, 5-0.
Tucson resident Joel Alley stated that his father, Robert Dobbin was unable to appear before the board due to illness. Mr. Alley stated that he would testify on his behalf.
Chair Schannep swore in Mr. Alley.
Mr. Alley stated that his parents were both disabled and the remodel of the home was to promote their quality of life. He noted that he would attest to the special needs of his parents while design consultant, Scott Stoffer, would answer design questions.
Chair Schannep swore in Scott Stouffer.
Discussion noted the following:
~The addition could not be made on the west side due to the positions of the septic tank, leach lines and a tree.
~The existing garage would become part of the home.
~A three car garage would be added to the home along with wheelchair access to the home.
Member Martin clarified that the septic tank was on the east side of the home.
Mr. Stouffer stated that the front yard was short and would place the addition too close to the street. He stated that the homeowners needed a flat handicap friendly area to erect the addition. He noted that the area within the fence of the side yard was most conducive to this project.
Discussion clarified that:
~The existing garage had two bays.
~A three car garage was necessary for handicap access as both of the homeowners were disabled and each of them owned a car.
~The side yard wall was 5-6 feet from the property line.
~The garage would extend almost to the side wall of the fence.
~Measures would be taken to ensure that the garage wall would be 10 feet from the property line.
~The existing garage had two steep steps to enter the house.
*The required space for a ramp would allow for only one car in the garage.
Planning and Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes presented the Staff report:
~The house was zoned as R-143 and the required side yard setback was 20 feet.
~All property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified of this hearing by mail.
~The property was noticed online, published in the Daily Territorial and the property had a sign posted.
~Staff had received no comments in support or opposition of this case.
~Since preparation of the report, a neighbor to the east inquired about the case; no opinion was given.
~Existing home was built in 1981 under Pima Countyâ€™s CR-1 zoning standards.
*Those standards had a 10 foot side yard setback.
*When the property was annexed to Oro Valley the setback changed to 20 feet.
~Existing house placement and topography limits the placement of the addition.
~Neighboring house to the north was approximately 8 feet lower than the subject house.
Chief Civil Deputy Attorney Joe Andrews stated that the Fair Housing Amendment Act was applicable to this case; however this board was not responsible for ensuring its enforcement. He noted that it would be an issue for the Town Council. He clarified that the duty of the board would not change due to the disabilities of the applicants. He noted that it could be a consideration; however the main focus would be to meet the established criteria to qualify for a variance.
Chair Schannep opened the public hearing at 3:17 p.m. There being no speakers, he closed the public hearing.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Martin and seconded by Member Hickey to approve OV10-08-02, request to reduce the side yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet.
Member Martin stated that the five findings had been met satisfactorily. He stated that, from a topographical standpoint, there was not another viable area to place the addition. He noted that the applicant had lived there prior to annexation.
Member Hickey stated that the findings had been met and that Mr. Andrews had defined the perspective of the board very well. He noted that due to the topography, the disability of the applicant was not an issue.
Member Parisi concurred that the findings were met without allowing for a special circumstance. He noted that a number of other homes in that area were built prior to annexation and had 10 foot setbacks.
Member Kessler agreed stating that if the house had been built on a flat lot the applicant would have more room to utilize. She noted that the positioning of the septic tank was an additional obstacle.
MOTION carried, 5-0.