Owners seek variance after newly built garage encroaches on setback at 24 Sedona View Drive

The Sedona Board of Adjustment on April 3 heard a variance request from James Taylor, the owner of 24 Sedona View Drive, after a newly constructed garage was found in violation of the exterior side setback and the city’s 20-foot driveway-length requirement. Hearing officer Mike Gomeric took testimony from the applicant, the contractor, the owner’s engineering representative and city staff and said he would issue a written opinion within 21 days.

Taylor and his representatives told the board that the garage was relocated during construction after crews uncovered an existing concrete drainage culvert and catch basin. “It made sense that where we have it was the most accommodating location and still within our setbacks,” said Ryan Protski, the general contractor. Protski told the board the garage sits approximately 18 feet 6 inches from the street; city staff described the public right-of-way at the location as 50 feet wide and said the garage sits about 2 to 2.5 feet from the right-of-way edge.

The city’s planning manager, Carrie Meyer, told the board the project’s permits were approved in 2022 and construction proceeded. At final inspection staff observed the structure’s placement appeared inconsistent with the approved plans; a subsequently requested survey showed the garage had been built in the wrong location. “They did submit it for a revision but because of the setback in the driveway length we could not approve that and so we cannot final the permit as it is,” Meyer said.

The applicant’s representative, David Nicolella of Sefton Engineering, said neighbors on the cul-de-sac had been consulted and voiced support for the garage’s appearance and location. Nicolella asked the board to consider the subdivision’s age and existing landscaping, saying the public right-of-way’s vegetation contributed to confusion about the lot boundary.

City staff and the building official described a split in responsibility. Building official Dave Zellner said inspectors try to verify compliance but that site surveys are not routinely required for every permit in the region. “So we don’t ask for site surveys for permits. That’s kind of the norm in Arizona,” Zellner said, adding the inspectors have some discretion but that a change of the magnitude at issue would typically require a formal revision.

Staff also said the engineering and public works divisions had reviewed the original drainage plans and that any substantive change to drainage or site layout should have returned for formal engineering review. Steve Mertes, the city’s director of community development, told the board that without submitted revised plans the city could not determine whether the existing inlet could be relocated or whether the originally approved plans could be made to work.

During questioning, the hearing officer explored whether the preexisting culvert and slope made the originally approved location impractical. The owner and contractor said moving the garage back would have risked compromising footings and required costly masonry and grading; the city answered that such constraints would be evaluated through a formal revision and engineering review.

To address off-street parking and right-of-way concerns, city staff proposed—and the applicant accepted—a condition that the lot provide two additional off-street parking spaces south of the garage and that vehicles not be permitted to park on the driveway between the garage and the street. Nicolella said the applicant had provided an exhibit showing those spaces would be feasible.

No members of the public spoke during the public-comment period. At the hearing’s close, Gomeric said he would take the matter under advisement and issue a written decision within 21 days; he also notified the parties of appeal rights to the Sedona City Council and, subsequently, to the superior court if needed.

The board’s decision will determine whether the city accepts the applicant’s stated site constraints and neighborhood support as grounds for the requested variances or whether enforcement of the approved plans and driveway/setback standards requires remediation.