PROCEEDINGS OF THE COCHISE COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REGULAR MEETING HELD ON
Wednesday, FEBRUARY 28, 2024
- Present:
- John Pintek, Vice-chair; Paul Brick, Chair; Clint Briseno, Member
- Staff Present:
-
- Matthew Taylor, Planner II
- Christine McLachlan, Planning Division Manager
THE ORDER OR DELETION OF ANY ITEM ON THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE MEETING
No one present or online elected to speak during call to the public.
Chair Brick asked whether there were any volunteers or nominations for 2024 Chair.
Chair Brick offered to remain chair. Member Briseno seconded the motion. All voted in favor of Chair Brick remaining as Chair for 2024. Chair Brick asked for volunteers or nominations for vice chair. Member Briseno nominated Vice-chair Pintek to remain as vice-chair. Chair Brick seconded the motion. All voted in favor of vice-chair Pintek remaining as vice-chair for 2024.
Motion by Member Clint Briseno, Second by Vice-chair John Pintek
Vote: 3 - 0 Approved
Motion by Member Clint Briseno, Second by Chair Paul Brick Case planner Taylor provided a presentation, which is preserved in the file. The applicant, CJ Abraham, spoke during the applicant's statement.
Vice-chair Pintek asked the applicant to clarify ownership of a block wall. The applicant stated it belonged to her neighbor. Vice-chair Pintek asked the applicant to clarify the placement of the addition. Case planner Taylor stated the lot was platted prior to the institution of zoning in the county, and was non-conforming. Vice-chair Pintek questioned the fairness in restricting the use of the non-conforming status. Case planner Taylor explained that a degree of flexibility was built into the zoning regulations as it relates to non-conforming lots. Chair Brick questioned whether grandfathering provisions applied. Planning Division manager McLachlan pointed out that in this case, the "legally non-conforming lot" section of zoning was appropriate and applied in this case. Member Briseno asked for clarification on the exact setback reductions and if the most impacted neighbor was in support.
Case planner Taylor recommended conditional approval. Conditions recommended included water mitigation and application of the variance to only the carport. The board discussed whether the water mitigation condition needed more specificity.
The board voted to approve the variance.
Vote: 3 - 0 Approved
_____________________________________
Paul Brick, Chair
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Development Services Director