Fountain Hills Board of Adjustment has turned down an application by a local couple to appeal an interpretation by town staff of zoning regulations defining front and side yard lot frontage.

The staff decision relates to a corner lot at Echo Hill and Brodiea drives. For a corner lot the Zoning Ordinance defines the front property line as the narrowest street frontage. The longer street side frontage is considered the side yard for purposes of zoning regulation.

The case came about when the town’s chief building inspector, Peter Johnson, noticed an accessory building (garage) under construction on the property that had no building permit.

Additional research found that the building was encroaching within the rear-yard setback. The town ordered construction to stop.

At about the same time the contractor building the garage disappeared. He was not licensed.

Attorney Christopher Enos asked the board to find that Zoning Administrator Bob Rogers’ interpretation of the ordinance definitions of the front and side yard to be incorrect. He asked that the longer lot line, which the house fronts to, be considered the front yard. That would make the location of the garage in compliance with the setback requirements if it were defined as the side yard rather than rear yard.

The board voted 4-0 to accept the staff interpretation of the ordinance definitions.

The board then took up the issue of granting a variance for the garage encroachment into the rear yard setback.

There are four criteria defined in the ordinance that must be met for the board to consider variance approval.

Those include existing special circumstances related to the site that require a variance that do not apply to surrounding properties.

Those special circumstances must be preexisting and not created or self-imposed by the property owner.

A variance is necessary to preserve substantial property rights. Without the variance the property cannot be for purposes otherwise permitted in the zoning district.

Authorization of a variance would not be materially detrimental to neighbors living or working within the neighborhood or adjacent property.

In order for the board to grant a variance all four criteria should be met. In this case the board found that none of the standards could be applied, also with a 4-0 vote.

The resident explained how he happened to hire an unlicensed contractor, and both he and his attorney recognized this situation has no bearing on the variance request.

The couple may appeal the decision to the court of appeals. The town’s remedy is to have the building removed.

“Obviously, Mr. and Mrs. Mandel are disappointed in the outcome of their applications to have the front of their home recognized as such by the town,” Enos told The Times. “At this time they are exploring all available lawful options.”