The Gila County Board of Supervisors, at its Tuesday, Jan. 17 meeting, denied a request for a conditional use permit for an accessory building in Tonto Basin.
The CUP was sought by Harold and Mary Sens for property at 171 S. Starkey Lane, Tonto Basin. It would allow for a 2-foot side setback on the southeast corner, where 7 feet is required, and a 3-foot-by-3-inch side setback on the southwest corner, where 7 feet is required, for an existing 12-foot-by-32-foot storage shed that was constructed and placed by the Sens without a permit. It was also connected to electric service and is being used as “habitable” space as a sewing room, according to Randy Pluimer, director of the Gila County Community Development Department, who brought the matter to the board. He said his staff, along with the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission, recommended the denial of the CUP application.
Pluimer, in his written report to the BOS, said on November 2021, the Sens requested a permit for a roof mount solar at 171 S. Starkey Lane, Tonto Basin. At that time, staff inspected the property to see if all structures on the property were compliant and determined the storage shed on the property was constructed and electric service provided to the shed without a permit and the shed was placed within the side yard setbacks. He said the Sens shared that the 12-foot-by-32-foot wood storage shed was constructed about eight years ago.
The Sens said that at the time they purchased the shed, they were informed by Graceland Buildings that no permit was required.
The zoning ordinance, building ordinance, and fire codes that were in place at the time the shed was placed would have required a building permit and setback requirements.
The Sens stated in their application that the building was placed in its current location, close to the fence, in order for a septic truck to drive into the yard and access the septic tank. They stated it would be a hardship to move the structure to meet the required setback of 7 feet as required by the Gila County ordinance. They said if the shed were moved, there would be no room for a truck to access the septic tank, two well-established trees may be destroyed, and it would be physically stressful as well as expensive due to their age as they could not do it themselves, and they are concerned that moving the shed could cause structural damage to the building.
Pluimer said in talking with septic companies and shed companies, staff was informed that septic truck access is not required as septic trucks use hoses for access and sheds of this type are made to be movable.
With an established principal use, accessory structures are subject to the required use of district setbacks. The current location is in violation of not only current zoning setbacks but also building and fire codes.
Keep it Clean. Avoid obscene, hateful, vulgar,
lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Be Nice. No name-calling, racism, sexism or any
sort of -ism degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article. Real names only!
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Avoid obscene, hateful, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful.
Be Nice. No name-calling, racism, sexism or any sort of -ism degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article. Real names only!