111925_BOA_REGULAR MEETING MINUTES.PDF

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment, of the City of Tempe, which was held in Council Chambers 
31 East Fifth Street, Tempe, Arizona 
 
Present: 
        Staff: 
Chair Kevin Morrow 
Jeff Tamulevich, Community Development Director 
Vice Chair Mary Foy 
Ryan Levesque, Comm Dev Deputy Director 
Board Member Andrea Somishka 
Eric Anderson, City Attorney 
Board Member Lily Drosos 
Diana Kaminski, Comm Dev Principal Planner 
Board Member Katie Cross 
Robert Mansolillo, Comm Dev Senior Planner 
Board Member Robert Miller  
Joanna Barry, Comm Dev Administrative Assistant 
 
Jason Wolf, Media 
 
 
Absent: Board Members Raun Keagy & Sean 
McCarley, Brett Siegal 
 
 
 
1) CALL TO ORDER: Hearing convened at 6:00 p.m. and was called to order by Chair Morrow. 
 
 
2) CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES  
 
2A) Board of Adjustment – 10/29/25 Study Session 
2B) Board of Adjustment – 10/29/25 Regular Meeting  
 
Motion by Vice Chair Foy to approve Meeting Minutes from Study Session and Regular Meeting from 
October 19, 2025; second by Board Member Drosos.  
Ayes: Vice Chair Foy, Board Members Somishka, Drosos, Cross, and Miller   
Nays: None 
Abstain: Chair Morrow  
Absent: Board Members Keagy, Siegal and McCarley  
       Vote: Motion passes 5-0 
 
 
3) VARIANCE REQUEST– NONE  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4) ABATEMENT APPEAL – NONE 
 
 
5) ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION APPEAL  
Minutes of the 
Board of Adjustment  
REGULAR MEETING 
November 19, 2025

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES 
November 19, 2025 
 
2 
 
 
 
5A) Request for an appeal of the denial of a Reasonable Accommodation Wavier to exceed the maximum 
number of residents (no more than five, excluding staff) for LUMEVERA LIVING LLC, located at 1354 East 
Brentrup Drive. The appellant is Benjamin Bayless. (PL250207)  
 
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:  
Ms. Kimberly Rodriguez, representative of Mr. Benjamin Bayless, gave a presentation for Lumevera Living. Ms. 
Rodriguez addressed why ten resident’s matter. Approving this waiver would provide an equal housing opportunity 
for disabled seniors and address the shortage of home-like assisted options that families need.  
 
Chair Morrow asked Ms. Rodriguez, is the home currently being used as an assisted living home or been used as an 
assisted living home previously? Ms. Rodriguez stated that the house is not currently being used as an assisted living 
home.  
 
Vice Chair Foy asked Ms. Rodriguez if she was given a specific reason as to why her request was denied? Ms. 
Rodriguez stated that based on the information, the first round was denied due to no valid justification. After the 
information was provided, we received a second letter regarding the nexus showing the link between the disability 
and the accommodation requested and required parking.  
 
STAFF PRESENTATION: 
Mr. Robert Mansolillo, Community Development Senior Planner, gave a staff presentation. On June 10, 2021, 
Ordinance No: 02021.22 was adopted and limited occupancy from ten to no more than five, excluding staff. A group 
home with six-ten residents now requires an occupancy change and additional safety measures. All approval criteria 
must be met in order to approve the wavier. There are 19 group homes within two miles of this site. The applicant 
needs to provide the nexus for the request. Three parking spaces would be required for more than five bedrooms, 
which requires a Use Permit to park in the front yard setback. In review of the criteria in Section 3-409D, the first 
criteria is being met, the second criteria was not being met as the group home is allowed to operate and 
accommodate five residents. The code does not take into account fiscal operations of a business. The third criteria 
will be met through building plan review. The fourth criteria was not met with intensification of the site. The fifth 
criteria is that financial hardship cannot be taken into account, and the application used profitability and affordability 
as justification. The applicant did not demonstrate conformance with all five criteria. 
 
Board Member Somishka asked if a traffic impact analysis was done on this request? Mr. Mansolillo stated that is not 
required for these types of applications. Board Member Somishka asked what is the basis of the claim stating that it 
would increase traffic in the area? Mr. Ryan Levesque, Community Development Deputy Director, stated we are not 
intending to use traffic as a basis for determination. We are looking to omit the traffic reference at this time. Your 
review is based on the criteria provided in the report and the criteria provided by the applicant. The parking 
requirement is a separate process and will not involve the Board of Adjustment.   
 
Board Member Miller asked staff to identify the original four bedrooms in the house. Mr. Mansolillo stated he did not 
include the original floor plan of the house in the presentation. Board Member Miller stated that Mr. Mansolillo stated 
in one of the criteria, changing a four-bedroom house into an eight-bedrooms will change the character of the 
neighborhood. How do you determine that? Mr. Mansolillo stated it was determined by the number of bedrooms that 
are being proposed, number of residents and number of staff that will be at the house. Those will all impact parking, 
utilities and will change the character of the neighborhood. Board Member Miller asked, changing it from a four-
bedroom house to an eight-bedroom house essentially changes the character of the house, is that correct? Mr. 
Mansolillo stated that is correct. Board Member Miller stated, we cannot make any determination about any events 
that may or may not transpire going forward but it would appear once it is a group home it will stay a group home. Mr. 
Mansolillo stated we cannot make that determination right now.  
 
Vice Chair Foy stated she had a question about the nexus between the therapeutic basis that the appellant argued in 
their second application and today. Why would that not be supporting the reasonable accommodation? Mr. Mansolillo  
stated, we believe that the therapeutic impact and benefit can be achieved with five residents. We do not believe that 
ten residents are needed. Vice Chair Foy stated they are basing theirs on letters from medical professionals for 
therapeutic support. What are you basing your opinion on for five residents? Mr. Mansolillo stated it is based on the

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES 
November 19, 2025 
 
3 
 
 
information received in the original and follow up applications. Vice Chair Foy stated the information you received in 
those applications, in your mind did not support what they were saying that ten people were needed. Mr. Mansolillo 
stated that we are not trained doctors and cannot speak to the therapeutic aspect. The assessment was that ten 
residents are needed to afford and cover the costs of the business. There are services that are provided that are 
beneficial to the residents, but we cannot make the determination that it can only be provided to ten and not five 
residents.  
 
Chair Morrow stated that he recalls the Northsight Siesta case from 2023. The city has approved four group homes 
since then. The appellant claims that the four are materially identical to this application. Is she correct? Mr. Mansolillo 
stated that three of the applications are what we considered grandfathered in; they were approved for ten residents 
before the ordinance was adopted in 2021, so they were renewed as ten resident homes. These are all reviewed 
individually; it is difficult to compare the fourth application to others. I did not review that request but there were items 
in the request that made the justification to approve that request.  Board Member Miller asked what is the population 
being served in that (4th) facility? What is the nature of the population? Mr. Mansolillo stated it is the same as this 
application for ten residents.  
 
PUBLIC COMMENT: 
None 
 
 
APPLICANT RESPONSE: 
Ms. Rodriguez stated she would like to address some items mentioned. In order to support anyone with needs does 
come with financial costs. I do not want it to be misunderstood for the justification of why ten residents matter. In 
regard to changing the house from four-bedroom to eight-bedroom, does this mean that because I have a disability, I 
don’t have the right to privacy or a thriving community. This request is not financially based. The main focus is how 
can I thrive as an ageing individual with a disability. We have ensured that we have suitable parking. We have two 
parking spaces in the driveway and other available parking spaces out front. Nothing will change on the outside of 
the home.  
 
COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 
Vice Chair Foy stated she does not understand why the evidence that was presented about the therapeutic benefit of 
having ten people is not enough to support the reasonable accommodation in this case. One other home was 
granted and we do not have the specifics on that case. It does not make sense to me.  
 
Chair Morrow stated that they need to connect the therapeutic needs to the specific population as Dr. Miller was 
talking about. Generally the critical mass of eight to twelve might be better for some, but some group homes might 
not need that many from a clinical perspective, even if they need it from a financial perspective. Viewing this from the 
reason of why it was not approved makes sense to me.   
 
Vice Chair Foy stated that there does not seem to be any evidence to counter specifically, besides the opinion of the 
Zoning Administrator that it is the same. There is a lot of evidence that the appellant presented that having ten people 
is very beneficial.  
 
Board Member Somishka stated she wanted to weigh in on the evidence of whether it is “better” to have ten 
residents. I looked at the sources provided; there are not many that state it is better to have more residents. The one 
source cited she was not able to actually find the source.  
 
Board Member Miller stated that he previously worked for a company that ran group homes in the past. None of 
which at the time had over six residents. That was a decision we made based on staffing. There is a degree of 
compelling information here that suggests increasing the number of individuals does have some therapeutic benefit. 
But on the other hand when does one stop? Possibly it has more to do with the nature, personalities and capabilities 
of the residents there than the number of them. It is a selective process of who goes into the situation. I don’t believe 
the city made a compelling argument stating that nexus was not demonstrated. On the other hand it was anecdotal 
information that was presented (from the applicant). I saw a lot of opinions from people who work in the field, but I did 
not see a lot of data.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES 
November 19, 2025 
 
4 
 
 
 
Vice Chair Foy stated there was only one included from the nurse. She wished there was more evidence or studies 
that we could look at regarding that issue. I do not know if it is valid or not.  
 
Board Member Cross stated that one thing that is clear is that there are 19 group homes within the two-mile radius 
still functioning at five residents. There may be a preferred setup in these group homes, it is not a barrier of not being 
able to have the accommodation waiver (to operate a group home). Vice Chair Foy asked if all 19 homes had five 
residents? Mr. Mansolillo stated the group homes are of various group homes, behavioral health, assisted living or 
childcare homes. I do not have information on which of them are beyond the five residents.  
 
Vice Chair Foy asked, how close are the homes that were approved by the city for ten residents to this home? Mr. 
Mansolillo stated that one of them is within the two-mile radius. The other three I did not map.   
 
Chair Morrow asked, do you have to approve group homes that are under five residents? Mr. Mansolillo stated yes, 
for the 1,200-foot separation requirement.  Chair Morrow asked if the city has looked at other group homes in last 
four years? How many? Mr. Mansolillo stated he was unsure of the number. Chair Morrow stated that he is 
concerned if we accept in a general sense that ten is clinically better than five then we have undone the city’s code 
change. Vice Chair Foy stated that she agrees, the city made it five and changed the law for a reason. Chair Morrow 
stated with one accommodation granted in the last four years we know given the right circumstances the city is willing 
to grant an accommodation if it was specific enough for that application. I think that is what was missing here.  
 
Chair Morrow asked if the board denies the appeal, can they refile a new application in the future? Mr. Eric Anderson, 
City Attorney, stated that this would not foreclose further legal proceedings. There could be a potential lawsuit for 
failure to grant a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Levesque stated that the decision is valid for 1 year. They can 
make another request in one year. They can also modify their request and move forward with up to five residents if 
they choose to proceed.  
 
Motion by Vice Chair Foy to deny the appeal; second by Board Member Miller.  
Ayes: Chair Morrow, Vice Chair Foy, Board Members Somishka, Drosos, Cross, and Miller   
Nays: None 
Abstain: None  
Absent: Board Members Keagy, Siegal and McCarley 
       Vote: Motion passes 6-0 
 
 
6)    CHAIR/STAFF UPDATE(S) AND ANNOUNCEMENT(S): 
 
Chair Updates: None 
Staff Updates: Ms. Kaminski let the Board know there will be a December meeting. The item is an appeal of the 
Zoning Administrator’s Opinion.  
 
 
7)   ADJOURNMENT: Hearing adjourned at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Morrow.  
 
Next meeting is scheduled for December 17, 2025 
 
 
 
Prepared by:   Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assistant  
 
Reviewed by:  Diana Kaminski, Principal Planner