Public Hearing Minutes

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING 
MEETING MINUTES 
 
 
April 1, 2026 
 
The Board of Adjustment of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East Main 
Street, on April 1, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. 
 
BOARD PRESENT 
BOARD ABSENT 
STAFF PRESENT 
 
 
 
Alexis Wagner, Chairperson 
Shelly Allen, Vice Chair 
Troy Glover 
Todd Trendler 
Janice Paul 
Gerson Barrera 
 
 
Charlotte McDermott 
Kirstin Dvorchak             
Cassidy Welch 
Jennifer Merrill 
Kellie Rorex 
 
 
1.  
Meeting called to order and roll call.  
 
 
Chairperson Wagner called the public hearing to order at 5:30 p.m. and conducted a roll call.  
 
2. 
Take action on all Consent Agenda items. 
All items listed with an asterisk (*) will be considered as a group by the Board of Adjustment 
and will be enacted with one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items 
unless a Boardmember or citizen requests, in which event the item will be removed from the 
consent agenda and considered as a separate item. If a citizen wants an item removed from 
the consent agenda, a request must be made prior to the Board’s vote on the consent agenda. 
 
It was moved by Boardmember Paul, seconded by Boardmember Trendler, that the consent 
agenda items be approved.  
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
 
AYES – Wagner–Allen–Glover–Trendler– Barrera–Paul 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT– None 
 
Chairperson Wagner declared the motion carried unanimously by those present. 
 
*3. 
Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written. 
 
Minutes from the Study Session and Public Hearing meetings held on February 4, 2026. 
 
4. 
Take action on the following cases:

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 2 
*4-a.    BOA25-00058. "Destination at Gateway CSP," 125± acres located at the southeast and 
southwest corners of East Williams Field Road and South Signal Butte Road.  Special 
Use Permit (SUP) for a Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP). (District 6) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Kellie Rorex 
 
 
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
 
*4-b. 
BOA25-00815. "RV Service Building," 5.8± acres located at 2038 North Country Club 
Drive. Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) to allow deviations from 
certain development standards to allow for an expansion to the existing 
Automobile/Vehicle Sales facility. (District 3) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Kwasi Abebrese 
 
 
Recommendation: Continue to May 6, 2026 
 
*4-c. 
BOA25-00836. "The Nox," 3± acres located approximately 298 feet west of the 
northwest corner of East Ray Road and East Seaver Avenue. Special Use Permit (SUP) 
for a Comprehensive Sign Plan (CSP). (District 6) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Kwasi Abebrese  
 
 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
 
*4-d. 
BOA25-00857. "Mesa Station," 0.7± acres located at 245 South Power Road. 
Substantial Conformance Improvement Permit (SCIP) to allow for deviations from certain 
development standards to allow for the redevelopment of a Service Station and 
Automobile/Vehicle Washing facility. (District 2) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Chloe Durfee Daniel 
 
 
Staff Recommendation: Continue to May 6, 2026 
 
*4-e. 
BOA25-00927. "AZ Motorsport SUP," 2.0± acres located at 25 South Val Vista Drive. 
Special Use Permit (SUP) for a parking reduction for a Automobile/Vehicle Sales facility. 
(District 2) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Chloe Durfee Daniel 
 
 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
 
*4-f. 
See: Items not on the Consent Agenda 
 
*4-g. 
See: Items not on the Consent Agenda 
 
 
 
 
*4-h. 
BOA26-00218. "AC Hotel," 0.9± acres located at 104 East Main Street. Variance from 
the Form Based Code standards to allow for a Hotel development. (District 4)

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 3 
 
Staff Planner: Kellie Rorex 
 
 
Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
 
Items not on the Consent Agenda 
 
4-f.    BOA26-00082. "Skybridge Harmony Homes," 0.2± acres located at 5848 South 
Hassett. Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a Transitional Community Residence. 
(District 6) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Kellie Rorex 
 
 
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
 
Assistant City Attorney II Kirstin Dvorchak provided an overview of the Fair Housing Act. She 
emphasized that the Act prohibits housing policies or practices that discriminate against 
individuals based on protected characteristics, including disabilities. She reminded speakers to 
be thoughtful in their comments and clarified that not all community opposition is discriminatory. 
She added that the Board may consider valid concerns that had not been addressed previously. 
 
Planner Kellie Rorex presented the proposed case number BOA26-00082 and displayed a 
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 1) 
 
 
 
Ms. Rorex explained that citizen participation was completed and that the request meets the 
approval criteria, including compatibility with surrounding residential uses and no 
overconcentration of similar facilities. The applicant submitted a Good Neighbor Policy 
addressing operations and complaint procedures. Staff found the request consistent with the 
2050 Mesa General Plan and recommended approval with conditions. 
 
Boardmember Paul asked whether staff’s recommendation of approval was based on a 
determination that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning district and surrounding 
neighborhood. 
 
Ms. Rorex responded that the recommendation of approval is based on the request’s 
compliance with the Special Use Permit criteria and consistency with the General Plan, which 
are evaluated in making the recommendation. 
 
Ms. Dvorchak added that compatibility is one of the criteria considered in evaluating a Special 
Use Permit request. 
 
Boardmember Paul expressed concern regarding the submitted spreadsheet provided by 
Michelle Dafaria, a Mesa resident, noting it did not include the questions posed to neighbors, 
supporting documentation, or signatures verifying the responses. She also noted that it can be 
difficult to evaluate materials submitted by residents at the meeting. 
 
The following citizen addressed the Board in opposition to case number BOA26-00082: 
 
• 
Michelle Dafaria, a Mesa resident  
 
 
The above speakers offered a series of comments in opposition to the case number BOA26-
00082 including, but not limited to the following:

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 4 
• 
Concerns were raised regarding compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential 
neighborhood. 
 
• 
The speaker cited operational intensity, including staffing levels, 24/7 supervision, length of 
stay, and increased traffic. 
 
• 
Concerns were expressed about potential impacts to neighborhood safety and shared 
community amenities. 
 
• 
Questioned the adequacy and enforceability of the Good Neighbor Policy and operational 
plan. 
 
• 
Referenced cumulative impacts of similar facilities in nearby areas. 
 
• 
Requested denial of the Special Use Permit or, alternatively, deferral until a more detailed 
and transparent operational plan is provided. 
 
Boardmember Paul asked whether the City enforces deed restrictions. 
 
Ms. Rorex answered that the City does not enforce deed restrictions. 
 
The applicant Tumacha Agheneza introduced himself and described his professional 
background as a pharmacist and facility manager with experience since 2020. He stated they 
currently operate a facility in San Tan Valley and focus on maintaining regulatory compliance. 
The applicant reported that their existing facility has had no violations from state inspections and 
no complaints from law enforcement or neighbors since operations began. The applicant further 
stated that the proposed facility would follow the same policies and procedures to ensure 
continued compliance and prevention of issues, and emphasized a history of operating without 
reported complaints or enforcement actions. 
 
Boardmember Paul asked the applicant to describe, in general terms, the services provided and 
the types of behavioral disorders treated. 
 
Mr. Agheneza answered the facility serves individuals with substance use and mental health 
disorders and provides supportive, non-institutional services such as counseling, medication 
reminders, supervision, and assistance with daily living. They stated no skilled medical 
treatment is provided on-site, and all medical care is received off-site. The applicant also stated 
residents participate in off-site community activities and do not use nearby neighborhood 
amenities, and that transportation is provided directly between the residence and outside 
facilities without lingering in the neighborhood. 
 
Boardmember Paul questioned if the residents are transported by the Skybridge Harmony 
Homes. 
 
Mr. Agheneza stated that residents are provided 24-hour supervision and that transportation to 
off-site services and activities is conducted under staff supervision, with direct travel between 
the residence and outside locations. 
 
Boardmember Paul inquired about employee parking. 
 
In response the question from Boardmember Paul, Mr. Agheneza stated that the site provides 
three parking spaces, including garage parking and on-site parking. He explained that the

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 5 
garage space is used for staff and resident-related parking based on staffing ratios, and that 
additional on-site spaces are available for limited, scheduled family visitation on weekends. The 
applicant further stated that visits are controlled, require advance notice, and are limited to 
specified hours, with parking accommodated on-site. 
 
Boardmember Paul sought clarification on the procedure in place if a neighbor raises a concern, 
such as residents smoking in the backyard, and how such complaints are processed, including 
whether a form or reporting method is available. 
 
Applicant Mr. Agheneza stated that there is a formal process in place for handling complaints, 
including providing contact information and responding within approximately four hours, with 
follow-up communication regarding any actions taken. The applicant also stated that smoking is 
permitted only in a designated area located at least 20 feet from property lines and at scheduled 
intervals, with measures in place to manage and contain smoke. 
 
Boardmember Paul sought clarification from the applicant regarding whether staff on duty are 
instructed to contact the applicant immediately if a complaint or issue arises. 
 
Mr. Agheneza answered that staff are instructed to contact him immediately if a complaint or 
issue arises and that additional contact procedures are also in place. The applicant further 
stated that, to date, his operations have not resulted in any complaints over approximately three 
and a half years of operation. 
 
Boardmember Paul questioned whether residents are permitted to be employed and whether 
they are allowed to have or bring vehicles while residing at the home. 
 
In response to Boardmember Paul, Mr. Agheneza stated that residents in the 24-hour 
supervised setting are in a structured step-down program focused on stabilization and 
reorientation toward independence. They indicated that residents are not employed while in this 
level of care and are under supervision until they demonstrate sufficient independence to 
transition to a lower level of care outside of the proposed property, at which point employment 
and greater autonomy may be allowed. The applicant also stated that residents are not 
permitted to have or operate personal vehicles while residing at the property. 
 
Boardmember Paul inquired about the cost of living at the residence.  
 
The applicant Mr. Agheneza explained that the funding structure is used to cover facility 
operations, including staff, housing, food, and transportation. The applicant stated that 
placement is coordinated through contracts with insurance and state systems, and that 
residents are assigned to the facility through those arrangements to support continuity of care 
and stability. The applicant further stated that residents remain in the program until they are 
clinically discharge-ready, meaning they have demonstrated sufficient independence in areas 
such as medication management and daily living skills, and that transition to a lower level of 
care occurs through a step-down process that may take an extended period of time, including 
application for flex care programs. 
 
Boardmember Glover questioned the typical length of stay and minimum length of stay of the 
residents.  
 
Mr. Agheneza clarified that residents do not sign leases, as placement is coordinated through 
insurance-funded programs. He explained that the expectation is for residents to develop 
independence over time through the structured program, with continued placement supported

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 6 
by insurance funding until they are ready to transition to a lower level of care. The applicant 
further stated that residents are not discharged prematurely and remain in the program until 
they meet criteria for step-down placement. 
 
Boardmember Trendler asked whether the CC&Rs include any provisions related to rentals, 
including rental length, short-term rentals, or long-term rentals, and what those provisions state. 
 
Michelle Dafaria, a Mesa resident, responded that the CC&Rs prohibit short-term rentals, 
including Airbnb-type uses, and are intended for residential use only. The CC&Rs reference a 
minimum rental period and that the housing is designated for residential occupancy rather than 
short-term tenancy. 
 
Chairperson Wagner noted that a minimum rental period of six months was referenced from 
memory, though it was acknowledged that this may not be confirmed. The housing was 
described as being designated for residential use rather than short-term tenancy. 
 
Assistant City Attorney II Kirstin Dvorchak added that CC&Rs are private contracts between 
individuals and are not part of zoning regulations or enforceable by the City. Staff noted that any 
enforcement of CC&R violations would be the responsibility of the HOA or neighborhood 
association, not the City. 
 
Chairperson Wagner stated that the proposal meets the requirements for approval of the 
Special Use Permit based on the evidence presented. 
 
Boardmember Trendler discussed the subjective nature of the compatibility standard and 
expressed concern about how transitional residential uses fit within primarily single-family 
neighborhoods, particularly in terms of length of stay and residential stability. He also noted 
that longer-term residency is more consistent with typical single-family neighborhood patterns 
and indicated that longer stays are more favorable when considering compatibility. 
 
Boardmember Glover expressed support for the proposal, citing appreciation for the detail 
provided in the project narrative and stating general agreement with approval based on the 
applicable criteria and operational characteristics of the facility. 
 
Staff Assistant City Attorney II Kirstin Dvorchak clarified that, under Open Meeting Law 
requirements, a motion to enter Executive Session must include the specific statutory basis for 
the session, such as legal advice or another applicable authorized purpose, along with the 
relevant agenda item. 
 
It was moved by Boardmember Paul, seconded by Boardmember Glover, that the Board enter 
into an executive session at 6:15 p.m. to discuss case number BOA26-00082, “Skybridge 
Harmony Homes.” 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
 
AYES – Wagner–Allen–Glover–Trendler–Barrera–Paul 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT– None 
 
Chairperson Wagner declared the motion carried unanimously by those present.

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 7 
a. 
Discussion for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body pursuant to 
A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3).  
 
(At 6:40 p.m., the executive session adjourned, and the Board reconvened the Public Hearing.)  
 
In response to a request from Vice Chairperson Allen expressing ongoing concern about 
compatibility within the neighborhood, noting that the uncertainty around timelines whether 
changes happen in six months or two years makes the situation more difficult. Although she 
understands the variability, the turnover and inconsistency continue to weigh on her. This is an 
issue she has revisited before, and it remains a persistent challenge. 
 
It was moved by Boardmember Paul, seconded by Boardmember Barrera, that case number 
BOA26-00082, “Skybridge Harmony Homes”, be approved. 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
 
AYES – Wagner–Glover–Barrera–Paul 
NAYS – Allen–Trendler  
ABSENT – None  
 
Chairperson Wagner declared the motion passed. 
 
4-h.    BOA26-00112. "Mid-Mesa Medical Building Comprehensive Sign Plan," 1.1+ acres located 
at 3155 East Southern Avenue. Special Use Permit (SUP) for a Comprehensive Sign Plan 
(CSP). (District 2) 
 
 
Staff Planner: Sergio Solis 
 
 
Recommendation: Approval with Conditions 
  
Planner Sergio Solis presented the proposed case number BOA26-00112 and displayed a 
PowerPoint presentation. (See Attachment 2) 
 
Boardmember Glover stated he needed to recuse himself.  
 
Assistant City Attorney II Kirstin Dvorchak added that if a Boardmember needs to recuse 
themselves, they should clearly state on the record that they are recusing or have a conflict, 
provide a brief statement without going into detailed justification, and then allow the remaining 
board members to proceed with considering the application. 
 
Boardmember Glover stated that he would be recusing himself from voting on the case due to a 
conflict of interest. 
 
It was moved by Boardmember Trendler, seconded by Boardmember Paul, that case number 
BOA26-00112, “Mid-Mesa Medical Building Comprehensive Sign Plan”, be approved. 
 
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:  
 
 
AYES – Wagner– Allen–Trendler –Barrera–Paul 
NAYS – None 
ABSENT – None  
ABSTAINED – Glover

Board of Adjustment Public Hearing 
April 1, 2026 
Page 8 
 
Chairperson Wagner declared the motion passed. 
 
 
5. 
Adjourn. 
 
Without objection, the Board of Adjustment Public Hearing adjourned at 6:53 p.m. 
 
 
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Board of 
Adjustment meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on 1st day of April 2026. I further certify that the 
meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. 
 
 
 
__________________________________________ 
ALEXIS WAGNER, CHAIRPERSON 
 
vf 
(Attachments – 2)

Board of Adjustment

BOA26-00082
April 1, 2026
Charlotte Bridges, Planner II

Request
• Special Use Permit to allow for a 
Transitional Community 
Residence
Hassett

Location
• 5848 S Hassett
• East of Signal Butte Road
• North of Williams Field Road
• Located on the west side of 
Hassett

General Plan
Mixed Residential 
Placetype with a Sustain 
Growth Strategy
• Single-family residential is a 
principal land use
Mixed Residential
Mixed Residential

Zoning
• Single Residence-6 with a 
Planned Area Development 
Overlay 
• Single residence use permitted
• Transitional Community 
Residences require approval of 
a SUP
RS-6

Site Photos
Looking west from Hassett

Citizen Participation
• Notified property owners within 
150 feet
• Spreadsheet from neighbor

Staff Report Update
•
Treatment plans are written for a length of six months and renewed every six 
months until a resident achieves sufficient clinical stability for step-down 
placement. Once clinically discharge-ready, they may continue to stay at the 
home for up to two years while they are waiting to be placed in a FlexCare 
program. [The tenancy in a traditional owner-occupied single-family home is 
relatively permanent with a lower occupancy turnover rate and tenancy in a 
Transitional Community Residence is more akin to multiple-family residential 
uses with a higher turnover rate. To promote stability for residents and 
ensure compatibility with the residential uses allowed by right in an RS 
single residence zoning district, City staff recommends a condition of 
approval requiring a minimum length of stay of at least six months (see the 
Conditions of Approval below).]

Approval Criteria
Per Section 11-31-14(B):
The proposed use will be compatible with the residential uses allowed as of right in the zoning 
district; and
The proposed use in combination with any existing community residences, assisted living 
homes, and assisted living centers will not result in a clustering of such uses or alter the 
residential character of the surrounding neighborhood by creating or intensifying an 
institutional atmosphere; and
The proposed use will not interfere with normalization and community integration of the 
residents of any existing community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted living centers, 
and that the presence of other existing community residences, assisted living homes, or assisted 
living centers will not interfere with normalization and community integration of the residents of 
the proposed use;

Approval Criteria
Per Section 11-31-14(B):
The applicant has submitted a "good neighbor policy" in narrative form that includes:
(a) A description of acceptable measures to ensure ongoing compatibility with 
adjacent uses;
(b)The name and telephone number of the manager or person responsible for 
the operation of the facility;
(c) Complaint response procedures including investigation, remedial action, and 
follow-up procedures; and
(d)The proposed use complies with all other development standards in this 
Chapter.

Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan 
Meets required findings for a SUP in Section 11-31-14(B) of the 
MZO
Staff recommends Approval with Conditions

Board of Adjustment

Board of Adjustment

BOA26-00112
Mid-Mesa Medical CSP
April 1, 2026
Sergio Solis, Planner I

Request
• Special Use Permit (SUP) for 
a Comprehensive Sign Plan 
(CSP)

Location
• East of Lindsay Rd.
• West of 32nd St.
• North of Southern Ave.

General Plan
Traditional Residential – Sustain
• Small-scale offices are 
supportive uses in this 
Placetype when located along 
arterial roadways and 
designed to be compatible 
with and connected to the 
surrounding neighborhood

Zoning
• Office Commercial (OC)
• Business Offices are permitted 
in the OC District

Site Photo
Looking south towards the project site

Site Plan

Sign Plan – Detached Signs 
Development Standard
MZO Allowance
CSP Proposed
MZO §11-43-3-C-2
Detached Signs Allowances:
Maximum Height
Maximum Aggregate Sign 
Area (attached and 
detached combined)
8 feet (96 in.)
32 square feet
11 feet – 4 inches (136 
in.)
200 square feet 
(detached sign only)

Sign Plan

Sign Plan

Rendering

Color & Materials

Citizen Participation
• Notified property owners within 
500 feet
• No comments received from 
neighboring property owners

Approval Criteria
Section 11-46-3(D) CSP Criteria
The site contains unique or unusual physical conditions that would limit 
or restrict normal sign visibility.
The development exhibits unique characteristics of land use, that 
represent a clear variation from conventional development.
The proposed signage incorporates special design features that 
reinforce or are integrated with the building architecture.

Approval Criteria
Section 11-70-5(E) Special Use Permit Criteria
Project will advance the goals and objectives of the General Plan and other City 
plan and/or policies;
Location, size, design, and operating characteristics are consistent with the 
purposes of the district where it is located and conform with the General Plan and 
any other applicable City plan or policies;
Project will not be injurious or detrimental to the surrounding properties, the 
neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City; and
Adequate public services, public facilities and public infrastructure are available.

Findings
Complies with the 2050 Mesa General Plan
Meets the CSP criteria of Section 11-46-3(D) of the MZO
Meets the SUP findings of Section 11-70-5(E) of the MZO
Staff recommends Approval with Conditions

Board of Adjustment