Minutes - La Paz County, Arizona

Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2012
MINUTES
La Paz County Board of Adjustment
May 10 th , 2012, 4:00 pm Regular Meeting/Public Hearing
1108 Joshua Avenue, Parker, AZ
Those present were: Chairman Todd Cramer, Board Members Joyce Plog, Nina
Chumley and Danny Clark. Other Staff present were: Development Services Director,
Mike Baker and Administrative Specialist Christine DeMoss and Code Enforcement
Officer Juan Hernandez to assist with slide presentation. Others present were: Mr. &
Mrs. Dynarski, and Brian & Bill Tierney.
Chairman Cramer called for the second item on the Agenda today; the approval
of the April 12 th , 2012 minutes.
Board Member Plog moved to approve the minutes of the April 12 th , 2012
meeting. Board Member Clark seconded the motion.
Chairman Cramer called for the vote. The motion to approve the April 12 th ,
2012 minutes passed unanimously.
Chairman Cramer asked Director Baker to give the staff report on Docket No. V2012-
002– Brian & Andrea Tierney – APN: 310-36-029. Applicants are requesting a total
of one (1) Variance from the La Paz County Zoning Regulations, Section 607.06/B.
Minimum Yard Setback Requirements: 1) Requesting a two foot (2’) Variance from the
required ten foot (10’) Front yard setback, resulting in an eight foot (8’) Front yard
setback for a freestanding metal boat awning. The property is located in a TR
(Transitional Residential) Zoning District in the Buckskin Valley Subdivision @ 37393
Bighorn Dr., Parker, AZ 85344. Section 27, Township 11 North, Range 18W of the Gila
& Salt River Meridian (Supervisor Dist. 2)
Director Baker gave the staff report. He advised 18 surrounding property owners
were notified with 3 letters of opposition received from Sandy & Joe Dynarski, Mr. Steve
Stevens and Mr. Eron Martins. The Holiday Harbour Property Owner’s Association
(HHPoA) hand delivered a letter of opposition at the hearing to be read into the record.
The letter read: “The Holiday Harbour Property Owner’s Association, Board of Directors
is opposed to granting a variance in the above matter. Mr. Tierney received approval
from the HHPoA Board of Directors to build the freestanding metal boat awning, but Mr.
Tierney did not ask for a variance from the Board of Directors regarding the setbacks.
He was made aware of the setbacks as required by the Association Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) and built the structure outside of the restrictions.
Therefore, the HHPoA Board of Directors is opposed to La Paz County granting Mr.
Tierney a variance after he has built the structure, ignoring the setback restrictions of the
HHPoA. Sincerely, Jackie Yarbrough, President HHPoA.” Director Baker said this was a
zoning code violation and not a building code violation. He noted all surrounding land
uses were TR (Transitional Residential.) He said no objections or comments were
received from the Review Committee. Mr. Baker said based on a site plan submitted for
1

Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2012
a building permit application, Mr. Tierney received approval to construct. At final
building inspection, Building Inspector Ken Olkowski was advised property boundary
pins had been discovered showing the structure was placed within the required 10 foot
front setback. Mr. Olkowski sent the following letter to Mr. Tierney: “This letter is in
regards to a complaint that our department has received regarding BD11-0217. A final
inspection was performed on 12/06/2011 by Building/Zoning Inspector Ken Olkowski.
At that time the carport appeared to meet the 10’ front setback. After further
investigating, the property survey pins were found and the carport is extending 7’ into the
required 10’ setback. At this time a Variance will be required to keep the structure where
it is or the building will have to be modified to meet the setback requirements. This is a
request for Compliance by March 28, 2012 or a Notice of Violation will be issued. If I
can be of further assistance please contact me at 928-669-6138. Sincerely, Ken
Olkowski/Building Inspector.” In response to that correspondence, Mr. Baker said the
Tierney’s removed as much structure has they felt they could which resulted in an 8’
front setback. The Tierney’s therefore applied for a Variance. Director Baker said
driving through the Buckskin Valley Subdivision about 30-40 properties appeared to
have possible setback violations. A map was projected showing 13 approved Variances
and 1 denied Variance within the Subdivision. Director Baker said Staff recommended
approval and that he was available for questions.
Chairman Cramer referred to pictures in the packet and asked if this was the way the
property looked today?
Director Baker confirmed yes, the metal boat cover as shown, was how it looked today.
Chairman Cramer said at the time of the structures’ first inspection, it appeared to the
Building Inspector that the boat cover met the 10’ front setback?
Director Baker said yes, based on an on-site visual and comparing to other structures on
adjacent properties, the Building Inspector assumed the structure was not within the front
setback.
Board Member Chumley wanted to know if this Board was being asked to correct a
wrong.
Director Baker stated at the time of building permit application, everything looked good
on paper. It was after the fact that a complaint was received regarding the location of the
applicant’s front property boundary line.
Chairman Cramer called for questions from the Public.
Pat Jones, Board Member of the HHPoA, approached the Board. He stated when the
Tierney’s approached the HHPoA’s Architectural Committee with their building plan,
they were informed to locate their front boundary survey pins as that was considered a
responsibility of the homeowner. He said the HHPoA approved a site plan showing a 10’
front setback on paper, however, the applicants never did expose the front property pins.
2

Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2012
After the boat cover was erected and a complaint was received by a neighbor, Mr. Jones
located the Tierney’s front boundary pins using a metal detector. It showed the structure
had been built 3’ from the front property line (encroaching 7’ into the required 10’ front
setback.) He said it was the HHPoA’s position to deny the Variance as the Tierney’s
did not follow the HHPoA’s procedures to build as described in the subdivision’s
CC&R’s.
The Applicant, Mr. Bill Tierney addressed the Board. He said the building permit was
applied for in August of 2011 but that construction did not commence until December
2011. He said his neighbors, the Dynarski’s (1 of the letters of opposition received) had
graciously helped him with taking boat measurements, etc. as this was his vacation
property and the Dynarski’s were full-time residents. It was after the carport was
constructed that the Dynarski’s complained about where they had installed it on the
property. He explained he purchased the carport used, from another property within this
Subdivision, and although it was not in perfect condition, it was structurally sound and it
had passed building inspection. Mr. Tierney said that after they received the letter from
Building Inspector Olkowski, they removed 5 feet of boat cover but could not remove
any more due to vertical posts, so they also applied for a 2’ Variance to allow an 8’ front
yard setback. He said regarding Pat Jones comments about locating the front property
pins, he said he had received an estimate for a record of survey but could not afford the
$3,000.00 quote saying that was more than what he paid for the boat cover.
Joe Dynarski commented to the Board that his property was right next door and the boat
cover was in plain view. He said Mr. Tierney had actually covered up his own front yard
survey pins when he did landscaping work. He said Mr. Tierney’s claims of not knowing
where the pins were, was a lie. He described the Tierney’s as weekenders from
California coming out a few weekends a year. Mr. Dynarski said he didn’t know how the
building inspector didn’t catch this during his field inspection. Mr. Dynarski handed out
his own pictures to the Board for their review.
Director Baker said the entire Buckskin Valley Subdivision would be looked at as far as
building code violations as it appeared there were many structures placed w/out permits
and too close to property lines. He said his Building Department Staff tried to do their
due diligence at plan review, but sometimes, it took a complaint to generate action.
Board Member Chumley asked what Staff planned to do regarding the other violations?
Director Baker said administratively, we can cite them to get a building permit at double
the normal fee. Some may also need to apply for a Variance to bring into compliance.
Mr. Baker said his other recourse as the Building Official was to request the structure(s)
be removed.
Pat Jones returned to the podium. He said he was in no way blaming the County for this
situation. He said Community Development was not a babysitter. He agreed many
structures have been built w/out permits. He said in Buckskin Valley and Holiday
3

Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2012
Harbour, it was the homeowner’s responsibility to do their due diligence when it came to
developing their property.
Chairman Cramer asked why the HHPoA did not want to approve a 2’ Variance in
front for this applicant.
Mr. Jones said he has been a Board Member of the HHPoA for 8-10 years. He said it
had become practice to not allow a reduction to the front setback, only the sides and rear.
He said unfortunately many structures with a front setback reduction were built pre 1983
or without the proper permits.
Board Member Plog asked in the last 8-10 years, how much new construction has
occurred?
Director Baker said there have probably been 3-4 building permits and a few Variance
approvals.
Board Member Clark asked how many violations were within the subdivision.
Director Baker said potentially between 30-40 properties were in violation.
Board Member Clark asked how that got by the HHPOA.
Mr. Jones said a lot of construction projects seem to “pop up” on the weekends or in the
evenings. He said the HHPoA didn’t want to act like a big brother, but oftentimes he has
had to go to the County himself to see if permits had been pulled.
Joe Dynarski said he has lived in this subdivision for 25 years. He said the new
HHPoA Board Members were trying to stop this, but agreed many projects were thrown
up quickly by weekenders with no consideration for the year rounder’s.
Board Member Chumley asked what happened if they denied this Variance.
Director Baker said they would have to remove 2 more feet off the front of the boat
cover.
Chairman Cramer asked Mr. Tierney if he felt he could cut off 2 more feet of structure
from the front.
Mr. Tierney said the boat cover was originally 26’ long. He said he had already cut off
5’ and if he cut off any more it would not cover the boat completely, which was the
whole intent of the cover (to shade the boat.)
Board Member Plog said we’re talking about 2’ feet here and with all the other
development out of compliance within the subdivision she felt they shouldn’t ask the
Tierney’s to remove 2 more feet of structure. She commented that she has been on this
4

Board of Adjustment
May 10, 2012
board a long time and had seen a lot worse (building issues,) but never with this kind of
dispute between neighbors.
Chairman Cramer called for questions from the Public. There being none he called for
a motion.
Board Member Plog made a motion to approve Docket No. V2012-002– Brian &
Andrea Tierney – APN: 310-36-029 for a total of one (1) Variance from the La Paz
County Zoning Regulations, Section 607.06/B. Minimum Yard Setback Requirements: 1)
Requesting a two foot (2’) Variance from the required ten foot (10’) Front yard setback,
resulting in an eight foot (8’) Front yard setback for a freestanding metal boat awning. As
an addendum to the motion, it was made clear the 2 foot Variance was for the existing
boat cover only (i.e. no other future structures can be built in front utilizing this 2 foot
Variance.) Board Member Clark seconded the motion and the motion passed with 3
ayes and 1 nay by Board Member Chumley.
Agenda Item #5 Call to the Public: There were no comments from the public.
Agenda Item #6 Adjournment: There being no further questions or comments,
Chairman Cramer adjourned the meeting at 4:49 p.m.
________________________ ___________________________
Todd Cramer, Chairman Mike Baker, Director
____________________________
Christine DeMoss,
Administrative Specialist
5