County P&Z to talk proposed zoning amendments
The Yuma County Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing Monday regarding proposed amendments to the zoning code regarding enforcement of permit requirements on properties sold after non-permitted improvements were made, as well as the ability of county staff to appeal decisions made by the board of supervisors.
Commission member Danny Bryant proposed the amendments in response to a 2015 county zoning violation case that reached the state Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of a Somerton-area couple who had been cited for building a shed on their property when it had actually been done by the previous owners.
Bryant’s suggested language specifies that subsequent owners would not be required to obtain a permit for improvements done without a permit “unless the building poses an actual threat to public health or safety.”
State law also says subsequent owners can’t be held responsible in this case, except “nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the enforcement of an applicable ordinance or code provision which affects the public health or safety,” a phrase also incorporated into the county ordinance.
County zoning staff, led by Planning Director Maggie Castro, maintains the lack of permits is itself a threat to public health or safety, because it means the structure and its electrical wiring and plumbing, where applicable, having not been inspected and approved by the county.
The amendment also would prohibit county staff from appealing any decision made by the Board of Supervisors in a zoning case, which also happened in the Somerton case, and grandfather any unpermitted building that has been on the tax rolls for at least five years and has not proven to be a health or safety threat.
At last month’s commission hearing Castro and Deputy County Attorney Ed Feheley said neither change could be legally done under state law, which does not restrict the right to appeal zoning cases and, under their interpretation, considers all unpermitted buildings to be a safety threat.
The commission then voted to hold a public hearing to get citizens’ input on what the zoning ordinance should say.
Since then, Castro has written a memo to the commission with suggestions on how the changes being sought could be legally accomplished; these include rescinding the county zoning ordinance or building code entirely, add the fiveyear grandfathering clause to the building code, create a separate set of regulations for a certain part of the county, or having zoning violation appeals go to the Board of Adjustment rather than the board of supervisors, allowable under state law since 2011.
No commission vote on the amendments is scheduled for the session.
The commission meeting will begin 5 p.m. Monday at the Aldrich Auditorium in the county Department of Development Services building, 2351 W. 26th St., Yuma. Also on the agenda:
• A rezoning for a 10-acre parcel on Avenue 1E south of County 14 1/2 Street in Yuma from Rural Area10-acre lot minimum to Rural Area- 5-acre lot minimum. The property is within the 70-74 decibel noise zone for the Marine Corps Air Station-Yuma airfield, and the application is opposed by the base and adjacent Yuma International Airport.
• Rezoning one 14,100 square foot property at 12754 E. 42nd St., in the Foothills, from Manufactured Home Subdivsion, 10,000-square-foot lot minimum to Manufactured Home Subdivision-6,000 square-foot lot minimum.
The commission makes recommendations on zoning and ordinance changes, which go to the board of supervisors for a final decision.
Defendants Mario and Rosa Valenzuela appealed the county zoning citation to the Board of Supervisors, as currently allowed under the zoning ordinance. The board overturned the citation. County staff then appealed the case to county Superior Court and then the Court of Appeals, represented by the County Attorney’s office.
A three-judge appeals court panel also came down in favor of the couple because there was no evidence they built the shed, as the original complaint alleged. Court testimony indicated they could have instead been accused of “maintaining” the unpermitted structure, which is also illegal under state law.
The appeals court did not address the Valenzuelas’ contention that state statute gives a broad exemption to subsequent owners. If they had the ruling could have had wider implications.
Somerton-area couple, Mario and Rosa Valenzuela, were found guilty by a county zoning hearing officer of building a shed on their property without the required permits.
The problem was discovered while the couple, who were never told about the issue, were applying for the mandatory permits to build another structure on the property.
The appeals court ruled in favor of the Valenzuelas because there was no evidence they built the shed, as the complaint alleged. Their appeal had been upheld by a county board of supervisors vote and a Yuma County Superior Court judge, and both of those decisions were appealed by county planning staff, led by Planning Director Maggie Castro.