|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☐ Safe & Prosperous |
☐ Motion |
|
Planning & Neighborhood Svc |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☐ Resolution |
|
|
☐ Respected & Responsible |
☐ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☐ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Community Planning |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☒ Public Hearing |
TITLE: t
Variance Appeal: VAR-42764-2024 - 963 S. Latisha Way
end
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: Summary Recommendation
The City Council will hear and decide this variance appeal in a quasi-judicial capacity as a statutory board of adjustment pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 9-462.06 and Yuma City Code (Y.C.C.) §154-02.02. (Planning and Neighborhood Services/Community Planning) (Alyssa Linville)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
NOT APPLICABLE
REPORT:
This appeal concerns the denial of a variance application sought by the property owner and Appellant, Mario Polanco. The variance was heard on July 11, 2024, before Hearing Officer Raymond Urias, who found that the request for a variance did not meet two of the four criteria necessary to grant a variance. The four criteria are found in Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D) and A.R.S. § 9-462.06.
BACKGROUND
Appellant Polanco sought the Hearing Officer’s approval of VAR-42764-2024 to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet to allow the installation of a metal shade structure. The Department of Planning and Neighborhood Services staff report for Appellant’s requested variance is attached to this City Council Report (Council Report) and recommends denial.
Section 154-02.02 of the Yuma City Code establishes the Hearing Officer variance procedure. Consistent with A.R.S. § 9-462.06, in order to approve an application for a variance, Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D) requires a finding that the application satisfies all four of the criteria for the approval of a variance. Specifically, Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D)(1) states that the Hearing Officer:
. . . shall grant a variance(s) only when findings of fact are made that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) There is a special circumstance(s) or conditions(s) that applies to the property, building, or use referred to in the application, that does not apply to most other properties in the district.
(b) The special circumstance was not created or caused by the property owner or applicant.
(c) The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity, under identical zoning designations.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to any person residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public health, safety, and general welfare.
As set forth in the cited Yuma City Code, each of the four (4) criteria required for the approval of a variance application must be answered in the affirmative. The inability to answer any one of the four (4) criteria in the affirmative, as a matter of law, must result in the denial of the variance application.
PROCEDURE
The public hearing on Appellant’s variance application was heard by Hearing Officer Raymond Urias. After taking testimony on Appellant’s variance application, Hearing Officer Urias denied the Applicant’s request to reduce the minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet to allow the installation of a metal shade structure because the variance application failed to meet two (2) of the four (4) criteria as required by Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D). The minutes from the July 11, 2024, Hearing Officer Meeting are attached to this Council Report.
After the variance hearing, City staff notified Appellant of the right to appeal the decision and Appellant timely filed the appeal. The July 11, 2024, notice from the City and the July 13, 2024, response Notification of Appeal from Appellant are attached to this Council Report.
On July 23, 2024, City staff sent Appellant Polanco the appeal date of September 18, 2024 as well as deadlines for submission of any additional material by either the Appellee Department of Planning and Neighborhood Services or by Appellant Polanco. Appellant Polanco agreed to this schedule. Appellant’s deadline to submit any additional material was August 12, 2024. As the Appellee, Planning and Neighborhood Services’ deadline to submit any additional material was August 22, 2024. The July 23, 2024, schedule is attached to this Council Report.
As of the date of this Council Report, Appellant Polanco opted not to submit any additional material before the Appellant’s deadline and no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the Appellant. The Department of Planning and Neighborhood Services, as the Appellee, has been advised by the City Attorney’s Office, which must conflict out of representing the City Council for the appeal. Former Prescott City Attorney, Jon Paladini, will serve as attorney for the City Council during the hearing.
On August 19, 2024, Assistant Planner, Guillermo Moreno-Nunez, submitted a timely brief in support of the Hearing Officer’s decision. The Department of Planning and Neighborhood Services brief is attached to this City Council Report. Assistant Planner Moreno-Nunez will present City staff’s position during the hearing.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
City Council will hear this appeal as a statutory board of adjustment which decides appeals from Hearing Officer decisions concerning zoning ordinance variances under the four described criteria and determines whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve an owner of property from strict application of zoning laws. A.R.S. § 9-462.06(G)(2).
The quasi-judicial body hears the appeal de novo (meaning, with brand new eyes), but the authority to modify zoning decisions under a variance is limited to making findings that all four criteria are met (in which case the City Council could choose to grant the variance) or any one of the four criteria are not met (in which case the City Council would have to deny the variance). Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 551 ¶ 11 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2017).
Appellant Polanco has the burden of persuasion to show that the application for a variance should have been granted by the hearing officer. A variance is only authorized when there is a finding that the applicant affirmatively establishes and satisfies all four (4) criteria in the Yuma City Code and Arizona Revised Statutes. Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 242 Ariz. 547, 552 ¶ 12 (Arizona Supreme Court, 2017). A quasi-judicial body granting a variance without affirmatively finding that all four (4) Y.C.C. criteria are established is outside of the statutory powers and the finding is invalid as a matter of law. Arkules v. Bd. of Adjustment of Paradise Valley, 151 Ariz. 438, 440 (Arizona Court of Appeals, 1986).
The following documents are attached and submitted for City Council’s review:
|
Hearing Officer Staff Report |
Hearing Officer Minutes |
|
July 11, 2024 Notice of Right to Appeal |
July 13, 2024 Appellant’s Notice of Appeal |
|
July 23, 2024 Appeal Schedule |
|
|
Appellee Department of Planning and Neighborhood Services brief in support of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated August 19, 2024 |
FISCAL REQUIREMENTS:
|
CITY FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
BUDGETED: |
$ 0.00 |
|
STATE FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
AVAILABLE TO TRANSFER: |
$ 0.00 |
|
FEDERAL FUNDS: |
$ 0.00 |
IN CONTINGENCY: |
$ 0.00 |
|
OTHER SOURCES: |
$ 0.00 |
FUNDING: ACCOUNT/FUND #/CIP |
TOTAL $ 0.00
|
|
|
To total; right click number & choose “Update Field” |
|
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
NONE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOT ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION FORM THAT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK:
NONE
IF CITY COUNCIL ACTION INCLUDES A CONTRACT, LEASE OR AGREEMENT, WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ROUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR SIGNATURE AFTER CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL?
☐ Department
☐ City Clerk’s Office
☐ Document to be recorded
☐ Document to be codified
|
Acting City Administrator: |
Date: |
|
John D. Simonton |
09/10/2024 |
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
Richard W. Files |
09/09/2024 |