Minutes - La Paz County, Arizona

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>County</strong> 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
Page 1: Board of Adjustment May 10, 2012 MI
Page 5: Board of Adjustment May 10, 2012 bo

Minutes - La Paz County, Arizona

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?