Board of Adjustment continues Moak application, again

An artist’s rendering of the proposed Mummy Mountain home. (submitted photo)

The Paradise Valley Board of Adjustment granted a second continuance to a variance proposal pursued by Steven and Deborah Moak on a proposed 6,300-square-foot hillside home.

On Wednesday, Sept. 6, the Board of Adjustment voted 4-0 to continue the request to a date to-be-determined by the applicant. Members Hope Ozer, Jon Newman and Quinn Williams were absent from the vote held at Town Hall, 6401 E. Lincoln Drive.

The first continuance was issued by the Board of Adjustment on June 7, with a 4-1 vote. Board member Eric Leibsohn was the dissenting vote, and Catherine Kauffman and Quinn Williams were absent.

The Moaks seek to construct a single-family residence on the property and request a variance to exceed the allowable amount of disturbance on a 1.03-acre Mummy Mountain lot at 5211 E. Cheney Drive.

The amount of allowable disturbance is dependent upon how great the building pad slope is. Greater slopes are allowed less disturbed area per town zoning ordinance, officials say.

The Moak residence has a building pad of 38.7 percent, which results in an allowable disturbance of 10 percent. The applicant is proposing a disturbance of 21.8 percent.

On Aug. 9, Braden Santarcengelo of Scottsdale-based Drewett Works Architecture emailed Town of Paradise Valley planners George Burton and Paul Michaud requesting a continuance to assess changes needed.

“We wish to request a continuance such that we can assess what changes need to be made to get us to the 10 percent number,” Mr. Santarcengelo wrote in an email. “We will approach the town once we feel we have a viable proposal based upon the advisement of Town officials.”

The Board of Adjustment is a group of seven residents appointed by town council to hear appeals of zoning code interpretations by the zoning administrator and variance requests.

When a property has a “hardship” that makes it so the property owners don’t get the same enjoyment or use out of a property, an exception can be made, assuming they meet all the criteria.

Criteria set by town code and Arizona Revised Statutes state an applicant must meet all stipulations before the board can grant a variance. A variance can be turned down if the board finds the applicant does not meet all criteria.

Plans presented to the Board of Adjustment and town staff in June illustrated the owner’s intent to design and construct a home with 6,300 square feet of livable space, a 1,200-square-foot garage and 600-square-foot detached guest house.

The town received over 20 letters of opposition, and one citizen petition, Mr. Burton said at that time.

News Services Editor Melissa Fittro can be reached by e-mail at mfittro@newszap.com or follow her on Twitter at www.twitter.com/MelissaFittro

You are encouraged to leave relevant comments but engaging in personal attacks, threats, online bullying or commercial spam will not be allowed. All comments should remain within the bounds of fair play and civility. (You can disagree with others courteously, without being disagreeable.) Feel free to express yourself but keep an open mind toward finding value in what others say. To report abuse or spam, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box.