|
|
STRATEGIC OUTCOMES |
ACTION |
|
Department: |
☐ Safe & Prosperous |
☒ Motion |
|
Community Development |
☐ Active & Appealing |
☐ Resolution |
|
|
☐ Respected & Responsible |
☐ Ordinance - Introduction |
|
Division: |
☐ Connected & Engaged |
☐ Ordinance - Adoption |
|
Community Development |
☐ Unique & Creative |
☐ Public Hearing |
TITLE:
title
Variance Appeal: VAR-45199-2026 - 1921 S. 6th Avenue
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.) § 9-462.06 and Yuma City Code (Y.C.C.) § 154-02.02. (Community Development/Community Planning) (Alyssa Linville)
end
STRATEGIC OUTCOME:
NOT APPLICABLE
REPORT:
This appeal concerns the denial of a variance application sought by the property owners and Appellants, Leonard and Ana Manos. The variance was heard on May 28, 2026, 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 A.R.S. § 9-462.06 and Y.C.C. § 154-03.04(D).
BACKGROUND
Appellants Leonard and Ana Manos sought the Hearing Officer’s approval of VAR-045199-2026 to increase the allowable maximum size of a large accessory structure from 50 percent of the primary building to 94 percent of the primary building, to increase the allowable maximum height of a large accessory structure from the total height of the primary residence, 14 feet, to 18 feet, and reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet for a large accessory structure. The Department of Community Development staff report for Appellants’ 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 Appellants’ variance application was heard by Hearing Officer Raymond Urias. After taking testimony on Appellants’ variance application, Hearing Officer Urias approved the Applicants’ request to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 3 feet for a large accessory structure, and denied the request to increase the allowable maximum size of a large accessory structure from 50 percent of the primary building to 94 percent of the primary building, as well as the request to increase the allowable maximum height of a large accessory structure from the total height of the primary residence 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 May 28, 2026 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 May 28, 2026, notice from the City and the June 1, 2026, response Notification of Appeal filed by the Appellants are attached to this council report.
On June 8, 2026, City Staff sent Appellants Leonard and Ana Manos the appeal date of August 5, 2026 as well as deadlines for submission of any additional material by either the Appellee Department of Community Development or by Appellants Leonard and Ana Manos. Appellants’ deadline to submit any additional information was June 23, 2026. As the Appellee, Department of Community Development’s deadline to submit any additional material was July 7, 2025. The appeal schedule is attached to this report.
As of the date of this Council Report, Appellants Manos opted not to submit any additional material before the Appellants’ deadline and no attorney has entered an appearance on behalf of the Appellant. The Department of Community Development, as the Appellee, has been advised by an Assistant City Attorney but the City Attorney was screened from those conversations. Accordingly, the City Attorney will represent City Council in a quasi-judicial manner for the appeal hearing and decision of this matter.
On July 7, 2026, Assistant Planner, Joshua Darrow, submitted a timely brief in support of the Hearing Officer’s decision. The Department of Community Development’s brief is attached to this City Council Report. Assistant Planner Darrow 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).
Appellants Leonard and Ana Manos have 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, 551 ¶ 11 (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 - Attached
Hearing Officer Minutes - Attached
May 28, 2026 Notice of Right to Appeal - Attached
June 1, 2026 Appellants’ Notice of Appeal - Attached
June 8, 2026 Appeal Schedule - Attached
Appellee Department of Community Development’s brief in support of the Hearing Officer’s decision dated July 7, 2025 - Attached
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 |
- |
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 |
|
|
Reviewed by City Attorney: |
Date: |
|
John LeSueur, Assistant City Attorney |
|