Chair Hickey swore in Robert Staples of Pima County. Mr. Staples spoke on the applicant’s behalf. He stated that the intent was to build an in-ground spa. He explained that the setbacks were three feet from the side yard and five feet from the rear yard. He stated that the request was for a three foot variance in the setback as the backyard was 15 feet deep. He noted that in order to maintain the required five foot setback, it would bring the spa within two feet of the back porch column. He explained that the in-ground spa would need to be further from the porch due to the weight of the home that the column bore and the instability that would be created by the spa if it were located too close to the column.
Zoning Inspector Patty Hayes presented the staff report:
~The request was to build an in-ground spa with a decreased rear yard setback of three feet.
~The rear yard setback for the River’s Edge subdivision is ten feet.
~The Oro Valley Zoning Code provided an exception for swimming pools and spas to be as close as five feet to the rear property line.
~The request would decrease the rear yard pool setback an additional two feet.
~The lot was surrounded on 3 sides by common area.
~One adjacent neighbor on the side opposite to the proposed spa.
~All property owners within 300 feet of the property were notified by mail.
~The property was posted with a Notice of Hearing.
~The hearing was posted online and advertised in the Daily Territorial
~No comments of support or protest were submitted regarding this case.
Chair Hickey opened the public hearing.
He swore in Oro Valley resident Bill Adler. Mr. Adler stated that he wanted the Town to discourage citizens from filing for variances. He stated that he did not feel that the applicant was aware of the five criteria that must be met in order to receive a variance. He noted that the property was not responsible for the difficulty, but rather the layout of the house was the problem.
Chair Hickey closed the hearing.
Mr. Staples stated that the side yard setback was three feet. He explained that moving the spa back 24 inches and placing it below ground would not cause neighbors undue harm. He stated that it was a safety issue as room was needed to move around the spa.
Discussion noted the following:
~Should the spa be moved further than three feet from the side wall, it would not eliminate the problem with the column
*The spa was positioned in the largest area of the yard.
*The porch column was placed in the ground at a 45 degree angle and would put weight on the spa.
~The plans as presented were considered by Mr. Staples to be the best use of space and took into consideration engineering and safety issues.
~The pool setback was measured three feet from the wall to water’s edge.
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Fields and seconded by Vice Chair Parisi to approve the variance.
Member Fields stated that he felt the criteria were met in order to approve the variance. Member Parisi concurred.
MOTION carried, 3-0.