A resident seeking to split his 22-acre lot in the 16400 block of Log Lane in Fountain Hills has withdrawn his application for variance with the Neighborhood Property Owners Association …
You must be a member to read this story.
Join our family of readers for as little as $5 per month and support local, unbiased journalism.
Current print subscribers can create a free account by clicking here
Otherwise, follow the link below to join.
To Our Valued Readers –
Visitors to our website will be limited to five stories per month unless they opt to subscribe. The five stories do not include our exclusive content written by our journalists.
For $6.99, less than 20 cents a day, digital subscribers will receive unlimited access to YourValley.net, including exclusive content from our newsroom and access to our Daily Independent e-edition.
Our commitment to balanced, fair reporting and local coverage provides insight and perspective not found anywhere else.
Your financial commitment will help to preserve the kind of honest journalism produced by our reporters and editors. We trust you agree that independent journalism is an essential component of our democracy. Please click here to subscribe.
Need to set up your free e-Newspaper all-access account? click here.
Non-subscribers
Click here to see your options for becoming a subscriber.
Register to comment
Click here create a free account for posting comments.
Note that free accounts do not include access to premium content on this site.
I am anchor
Lot split request withdrawn
Posted
A resident seeking to split his 22-acre lot in the 16400 block of Log Lane in Fountain Hills has withdrawn his application for variance with the Neighborhood Property Owners Association (NPOA).
Craig Grotsky also applied for a preliminary plat on the lot split with the Town of Fountain Hills. Town officials confirmed they had discussed the withdrawal of that application with Grotsky, but as of late last week it was unofficial.
Following a hearing on May 5 the NPOA Architecture Committee issued its decision regarding a variance for the lot split on May 12. The committee denied the request.
In its eight-page decision the NCOA stated, “Having applied the three required factors and the evidence presented relative to the variance request and opposition to same, (the committee) has decided unanimously that the applicants did not meet their burden of providing that a variance should be granted under the facts of this variance request. Moreover, NCOA unanimously concluded and is of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to establish that ‘good planning’ had occurred and presented to justify the exception.”
The committee letter also stated that following the hearing May 5, Grotsky notified NPOA and NCOA they had decided to withdraw the application for a variance.
“Therefore, NCOA has determined that any further action on the application for variance to be moot requiring no further current action by NCOA,” the decision states.
The variance Grotsky was seeking was related to a deed restriction placed on the property by developer MCO Properties in 1989. That restriction prohibited the proposed split. MCO relinquished authority over properties in Fountain Hills after that. The NPOA was formed to assume control of properties that wished to join the group as the HOA.
The deed restriction is a private contract that the Town government has no legal authority to enforce. The Town would be obliged to process Grotsky’s plat request as long as he wished. Planning and Zoning and the Town Council would eventually hear the case but would not be obligated to approve it.
Dozens of neighbors in the area of Golden Eagle Boulevard, Log Lane and Cerro Alto and Paradox drives turned out for the NCOA hearing on May 5 and unanimously opposed the lot split. The committee also heard that MCO Properties, although no longer operating in Fountain Hills, still opposes the lot split. It was also reported that Town officials had urged Grotsky to reconsider his plat request to them.
