2026 08 05 Variance Appeal Minutes
Extracted text (via textutil)
12435 characters
Minutes
Variance Appeal – Board of Adjustment
City Council of the City of Yuma, Arizona
City Council Chambers, Yuma City Hall
One City Plaza, Yuma, Arizona
August 5, 2026
5:30 p.m.
Mayor Nicholls explained that City Council will transition to a quasi-judicial body sitting as the statutory Board of Adjustment to hear Variance Appeal/VAR-45199-2026 for property at 1921 S. 6th Avenue. Mayor Nicholls called for a motion to recess the regular City Council meeting.
Motion (Morris/Smith) To recess the August 5th City Council Meeting and reconvene as a quasi-judicial body sitting as a statutory Board of Adjustment to hear the Variance Appeal on property located at 1921 S. 6th Avenue. Voice Vote: approved 7-0.
The regular City Council meeting recessed at 5:45 p.m.
Call to Order
Chairman Nicholls called the Variance Appeal/VAR-45199-2026 to order at 5:48 p.m.
Boardmembers Present: Martinez, Morris, McClendon, Smith, Morales, Watts, and Mayor Nicholls
Boardmembers Absent: None
Staff Representation: Acting City Administrator, John D. Simonton
Board’s Legal Counsel, Richard W. Files
Assistant Planner, Joshua Darrow
Director of Community Development, Alyssa Linville
Other various department representatives
City Clerk, Janet L. Pierson
Chairman Nicholls turned the dais over to Attorney Richard W. Files, legal advisor to the Board of Adjustment (Board) during the appeal process.
Files presented the following:
• Variance Appeal VAR-45199-2026 was requested by Appellant
• The appeal relates to Yuma City Code § 154-15.15(F) relating to height restrictions and Yuma City Code § 154-15.15(F)(1)(e) relating to compatibility.
• A third piece, involving setbacks, was granted by the Hearing Officer and is not part of tonight’s appeal.
• State law and the Yuma City Code require all four of the following conditions to be met for a variance:
• There is a special circumstance or condition that applies to the property, building, or use referred to in the application that does not apply to most other properties in the district
• The special circumstance was not created or caused by the property owner or applicant
• Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation of substantial property rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity under identical zoning regulations
• Granting the variance will not be materially detrimental to any person residing or
working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to public health, safety, and general welfare
Leonard Manos, Appellant, provided the following information:
• Acquired the property at 1921 S. 6th Avenue a little over a year ago
• Viewed the surrounding structures, homes and lots in the area as part of his decision to purchase
• Wishes to build an accessory structure in his back yard which would allow a place for his cars, RV, boat and sand car.
• Will forgo the appeal of the height variance; he will meet the height requirement
• The only variance request remaining is the size of the structure
• The structure does not exceed 50% of the lot coverage but exceeds 50% of the dwelling structure which is what Planning and Zoning (P&Z) is held up on.
• The dwelling structure is a two-bedroom house totaling around 1100 square feet in size.
• A neighbor two doors down went through the same process.
• Public records show identical applications, circumstances and setbacks.
• P&Z will allow two identical buildings with no setback between them which exceeds the actual square footage of the single building he wants to install.
• The structure would be almost completely out of sight unless you drive down the alley.
• Provided a few letters from neighbors who are not in opposition.
• Requests that City Council take the rule of 50% of the square footage of the house and apply a little bit of common sense to it.
• How is it that he can build two structures right next to each other and exceed the square footage of the structure he is requesting to build?
Darrow presented the following:
• This is an appeal of the hearing officer’s denial of the variance request to increase the allowable maximum size of a large accessory structure from 50% of the primary building to 94% and to increase the allowable maximum height of a large accessory structure from the total height of the primary residence, in this case 14 feet, to 18 feet for the property located at 1921 South 6th Avenue.
• The property is located within the low-density residential R-1-6 district in the La Mesa Hermosa Unit No. 3 Subdivision and is subject to the following development standards for a large, enclosed accessory structure: a separation of five feet from the side and rear yard setbacks, a maximum allowable height of the total height of the primary structure, or 25 feet, whichever is less, and a maximum allowable size of 50% of the primary structure.
• The purpose of the accessory structures code is to allow for detached structures and buildings that are accessory to the principal residential use in a limited number of residential zoning districts.
• These accessory buildings are to be “designed with a logical hierarchy of masses, with regards to height, size and volume” to the primary residence.
• During the variance process, staff notified neighbors within 300 feet of the subject property.
• On May 5, 2026, staff had a neighborhood meeting on the property.
• There was one neighbor in attendance who asked questions and voiced concerns about the project
• Staff received three letters from neighbors who commented in opposition to the request.
• The subject property is identified by a red star in the in the recorded plat below:
• Within the subdivision there are properties oriented vertically and horizontally.
• The subject property is similar in shape and size as most other horizontal lots in the subdivision.
• As mentioned before, State law and City code require four conditions for a variance and a variance may only be granted when all four of the following conditions exist.
• Regarding the size and height aspect of the request, staff found that it did not meet three of the four conditions required for a variance, as indicated in the brief filed by staff with the City Clerk’s Office on July 7, 2026. Also attached to the report.
• If the applicant fails to meet any single condition of the four required elements, then state law and City Zoning Code forbids the Hearing Officer from granting the variance.
• On May 28, 2026, the Hearing Officer held the hearing on the applicant’s request for a variance
• City staff filed the report with the Hearing Officer and recommended approval of the setback aspect of the request, and denial of the size and height aspect, nothing that those aspects failed to meet the four criteria needed for a variance.
• After testimony on the variance application, the Hearing Officer approved the setback variance request and denied the size and height request.
• As noted in the brief filed with the City Clerk, the Hearing Officer found the third criteria of the variance application to be met, as opposed to staff analysis, but stated that the applicant failed to demonstrate a special circumstance.
• Therefore, staff respectfully requests City Council, sitting as a Board of Adjustment, affirm the decisions of staff and the Hearing Officer that the required conditions for a variance were not satisfied with this request.
Manos clarified that he had agreed over a month ago to forgo the height requirement part of the appeal. Manos stated he has a building that he can put in that matches the height of his home. The only issue is the size of the building and what sets his property apart from others.
Discussion
• Staff had recommended denial for the property previously mentioned as receiving a similar variance in 2021, Lot 105. (Morris/Darrow)
• Besides Lot 105 being significantly larger, there is nothing that differentiates the two properties. (Morris)
• The four criteria apply to each property uniquely and there is not a precedent set by other variances even within the same zoning district. (Darrow)
• There is a strong concern with a variance being approved then an identical variance request being denied setting an unjust precedent. (Morris)
• Per the accessory structures code, there is no limit on the number of accessory structures that you can have on a given property, as-long-as they are within the 50% size of the primary building. (Martinez/Darrow)
• The code was amended in 2017 to include the 50% size limitation to maintain the character of residential neighborhoods. (Darrow)
• The intent of the Ordinance is to ensure that accessory structures were not overwhelming the primary residence. An example of the intent of no limit on accessory structures would be if a resident met the 50% but then wanted to build a gazebo or something else in their back yard. There being no limit on accessory structures would allow that. The ability to construct two buildings next to each would be a loophole in the Ordinance. (Linville)
• The similarities between the 2021 application and the current applications are very close. Lot 105 is twice the size of the subject property and the property owner does have the opportunity to increase the size of his home. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville)
• Attaching the building to the applicant’s home, which has been presented as an option to Manos, would make the issue go away. (Mayor Nicholls/Linville)
• The accessory dwelling being requested is 100% going to be used as a personal garage for storing toys. There will be no workshop or any use of the building for the applicant’s business. (Mayor Nicholls/Manos)
• Although letters from neighbors in support were provided, there are neighbors who are not in support due to noise or alley traffic if used as an extension of the applicants business; which, the applicant has clarified is not going to be the case. (McClendon/Manos)
• Lot size limitations were recently increased for most residential zoning districts within our community. The intent of the provisions for accessory structures is to try and prevent buildings, which are not residential in nature, from overwhelming the character of the main home. There may be some validity to needing to review our accessory structures code regarding limitations. The code has been amended three times since 2017 and is a work in progress. If there is something City Council would like to be reviewed, that can be done. (Smith/Linville)
• The disadvantage may be that the square footage of the applicants house is smaller than the average home. (Nicholls/Morales/Morris)
• There are rules and regulations within the zoning code specific to home-based businesses. The type of activity being done on the property would be examined and a determination would be made as to whether it fit within those regulations. If it did, then a business license would be issued allowing that type of activity to occur. If it didn’t, then a code enforcement action could be initiated. (Martinez/Linville)
• Usage or concern of usage should have no bearing on the decision in front of the Board. (Morris)
Motion (Morales/Smith):
I find that all four (4) of the necessary variance criteria WERE present, therefore, I move to REVERSE the Hearing Officer’s decision and approve Variance VAR-45199-2026 for the property located at 1921 S. 6th Avenue subject to the conditions of approval in the Staff Report.
Voice vote: reversed (Hearing Officer’s denial reversed) approved 7-0.
Motion (Smith/McClendon) to reconvene the regular City Council Meeting at 6:37 p.m. Voice vote: approved 7-0.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________ ______________________________
Janet L. Pierson, City Clerk Richard W. Files, Counsel for Board
APPROVED:
Approved at the City Council Meeting of:
_______________________________
City Clerk: __________________________
Approved at the City Council Meeting of:
_______________________________
City Clerk: __________________________
Douglas J. Nicholls, Mayor