The age overlay in layman's terms...

Yes.
https://www.maricopa.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/8707?fileID=77423

 

The county is frustrated having to deal with these temporary requests. As are SCHOA and Sun City owners! Sun City has had more filed recently than any other 55+ community in the county.

In this Hogan case, she filed before even starting the purchase of the property, son 16 at the time. Proof she was fully aware of our age restrictions. She gambled she could stay. She did for 17 months before a neighbor filed an age restriction violation.

Prior to that case, a 67 year old father of a ten year old filed a request for a nine year temporary permit shortly after taking ownership.

The frequency of disregard for Sun City legally protected age-related overlay for 55+ status is escalating.

SCHOA is actively pursuing remedies with County input.

 

So Sun Citians need to deluge the board of supervisors with emails and letters protesting this request for exemption.

 

They already have and in all likelihood it won't make a difference. Not saying don't do it but let me be very clear; this case will not make any difference in our age overlay or whether we pay school taxes. It is not even the proverbial pimple on the elephant's ass. Our age overlay is both state and federal law and in our deed restrictions and in our CC&R's. Both the state and feds have allowances where the mandatory requirement is 80% of the units occupied by seniors over 55. That law allows for requests for variances. SCHOA routinely denies them but the county can override it. Beyond that, the fact the mother is 67 means the property actually is included in the over 55 percentage. This case is muddled by the Federal ADA statutes and there is case law that does set a precedent for it overriding our age overlay.

Everyone take a deep breath and relax. Nothing will change because of this case.

 

If SCHOA is successful in their current efforts to eliminate the loopholes, there will be welcome change.

Temporary Use Permits allow EXISTING owners to have children under the age of 19 live with them in the event of extenuating circumstances. Life happens. For example, death, serious illness, etc. may necessitate grandparents caring for grandchildren while future arrangements are determined. A compassionate community understands.

Knowingly purchasing a home in a 55+ community planning to get a Temporary Use Permit BEFORE living in the community is not how the process is intended.

Is it in the best interest of the child to live extendedly in Sun City? Are these more recent cases filed for economic reasons? As Hogan has said, “Where else can I live so inexpensively?”

 

Reading the TUP request, Ms. Hogan openly admits she lied to get in knowing the age overlay requirements but decided to ignore the law and rules and do it anyway to get the less expensive alternative.

 

The planner at maricopa county planning is joe.landis@maricopa.gov. They are still accepting comments before the board meeting on February 17.

 

Or perhaps she was familiar with this court case overturned by the Arizona Court of Appeals who ruled ADA cases had higher standing than both the Federal and State statutes covering the age overlay. I'm always interested in whether those with strong opinions (myself included) are willing to look beyond what they believe is true and try and understand what is or isn't happening based on facts, not off the cuff comments. You can read the case here.

 

The current temporary use permit request has nothing to do with disability, even though Hogan listed that as the reason for asking for an exemption.
Sun City has not, is not discriminating against her or her son. The issue is solely based our legal age restriction; children under 19 years of age are welcome to visit up to 90 days in a 12 month period.
“The "housing for older persons" exemption does not protect such housing facilities or communities from liability for housing discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin.”

 

Just one questions eyes; did you read the court of appeals ruling i linked?

 

Yes, I did read it, two trials, two judges’ opinions with two different decisions. Not unlike Sun City residents’ court of public opinion. Except, Superior Court had final ruling.

All this discussion pretty much moot when reading this:
WHY THE HOGAN CASE IS MOST LIKELY TO BE APPROVED
These are the findings of the Maricopa County Planning and Development Board of Adjustment for Temporary Use Permit case TU2023003 for underage occupancy of a minor the Hogan Property: Findings: 12. Staff has received a significant amount of apposition to the requested TUP. Most of the opposition has come from citizens that do not live near the residence but throughout other parts of Sun City (and other age restricted communities). The majority of the concerns over the case is the fear that permitting the underage occupancy will trigger (i) dissolution of the 55+ age restriction in Sun City; (ii) an increase in taxes; and (iii) an influx of families moving into age restricted communities. Staff notes that such permits for underage occupancy in the SC are relatively few with only a small handful processed by staff each year throughout the entire County. In fact, since 2009 there have only been six TUP requests, including the subject case, in the Sun City area only two of which were approved. Furthermore, MCZO Article 1006.6.2.a requires that in order for a Senior Citizen overlay to remain valid and in place at least 80% of dwelling units must comply with age restrictions – meaning up to 20% of units may deviate from the age restriction. The applicant’s request for a minor to reside at the subject property would count towards the 20% allowance thus negating the fear that this TUP would jeopardize the County’s age-restrictions overlay. 13. Staff also found the subject property was conveyed to the owner on July 1, 2021. The owner was aware of the Senior Citizen Overlay and the age restrictions when she purchased this property as shown by the letter to the apartment HOA. However, once her application was approved by the HOA in late July of that year, its staff’s understanding based upon conversation with representatives of the Sun City HOA that the owner came into compliance with Sun City’s regulations regarding underage occupancies per the terms of the condominium association’s CC&Rs. It’s important to note that the property is non-compliant with the county’s zoning ordinance unless and until a TUP is approved. The county is only concerned with enforcing the zoning ordinance. Separate from the zoning ordinance, the CC&Rs are private agreements between property owners that may be independently enforced by the Sun City HOA, condominium association, or related property owners. This enforcement of the CC&Rs may occur both those parties regardless of TUP approval in accordance with the county’s zoning ordinance. 14. Staff’s evaluation is restricted to the MCZO Art. 1302.2.3 criteria which indicates the appropriateness for a TUP for underage occupancy is based on the existence of an “exceptional or unusual family situation”. Staff is of the opinion that an applicant cannot willingly and knowingly create this circumstance, but rather, that it must arise as the result of an unintended situation for which resolving options are austerely limited. In this instance the underage occupant is autistic and unable to live independently, and the head of household is the family caregiver. Further the underage occupant will turn 19 years old on March 18, 2024 at which time he may be a non-head of household residence in the SC overlay. This request to allow for 13 months of underage occupancy is of short duration and will have no foreseeable significant impact on the senior citizens community. Staff notes the property owner received approval for underage occupancy from her condominium association, the immediate neighborhood. TU2023003 Page 6 of 6 Recommendation: 16. For the reasons outlined in this report, staff recommends the Board motion to Approve case TU2023003 with the following condition to memorialize approval: a. Temporary Use approval establishes occupancy for a minor in the Senior Citizen overlay zoning district for APN 142-80-594 through March 18, 2024. 17. However, if the Board finds that a TUP is not warranted, the Board must state on the record the basis for that determination in a motion to deny the relief sought.

 

So, we in Sun City do not count if we do not live next to or near Ms. Hogan and the Maricopa planning staff ( all of which are not residents of Sun City) are free to ignore our CCRs and jeopardize our community age overlay. Maybe a legal challenge to the planning board is justified.

it is a fact that none of the planning board are elected, they are appointed. Therefore they do not represent the citizens of Maricopa county let alone Sun City.

 

Why do people keep saying this? As Bill as stated ad nauseam: we are NOWHERE CLOSE TO HAVING OUR AGE OVERLAY JEOPARDIZED!!!! The CCR's allow for exceptions. 20% allowed and we are nowhere close. I'M sick of the "what if everyone did it" argument. Everyone IS NOT doing it. The exceptions need to be approved by HOA Boards. These cases filed with County need to be approved by that Board - and even then according to above

So there are already checks in place to prevent "OMG YOUNGSTOWN!!!!" Can we just maybe focus on supporting SCHOA, trusting it's Board to allow exceptions only in extreme circumstances, and have an additional process in place where Residents are encouraged to write in objections if/when it ever goes before the County?

 

If we want to get rid of the risk of under age issues regarding our age over lay then amend the CC&R's to recite 100% instead of 80%. Those units in Sun City that don't vote 51% for the change then they continue to live with the 80% rule. At least the owners know where they can live without the threat of underage problems or variances. Really pretty simple if the SCHOA ad hoc committee to amend the CC&R's will take the challenge again.

 

EYESOPEN....You may want to go to the first part of this thread and read BPearson comments on this percentage issue and see if we are all saying the same thing or not...maybe not.

 

GCotten
Bill confirms the 80/20 law in his first two post on this thread.
First
“At that point it was legally added to our deed restrictions and to our CC&R's. At least one person living in the household had to be 55 and no children for more than 90 days could live there per year. The law allows for up to 20% of the residents be under 55, but 80% has to be over.”
Second
“ from The Fair Housing Act: Housing For Older Persons:
In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements

• At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older;

Are you suggesting some areas of Sun City could choose to have no age restrictions and no longer be factored in the age related overlay?
I don’t think SCHOA should consider that as a solution. Doubt most Sun City owners, as well as realtors, would favor two communities being created within Sun City. One with 55+ age requirement CC&Rs, the other with no age restrictions. Any ideas how best to map that?

 

EYESOPEN.....Refer to the link that BPearson provided from the Law Firm Krupnik and Speas in his posting of 1-31-23. That is the info I am referring to. In addition when you read "at least" and even type or say "at least" 80 per cent or "up to" or "no less" than certainly leaves room for additional conclusions. You also need to be careful how you have a tendency to try to put words in other peoples mouths. No where in my comments did I suggest the age overlay be removed. If you absorb my comments you will see that if the 100% wasn't passed in all the single family units (57) then the 80 per cent is still in the CC&R's. I will more than happy to share my thoughts on a one on one basis to insure you do not misinterpret my words and to make sure there is clarity. It would be nice for you to see the simple design.

 

I did post senior communities can adopt (something i didn't know till i read it) varying percentages. If you look one of the articles says it could be as high as 100%. The norm is in fact conforming to both state and federal statutes, 80/20. The reality of where we are today is for any of the 57 units to change to anything different, it would take 100% of the residents living in each unit to approve it. Clarifications of existing CC&R's is 50% plus, new CC&R's need 100%. Never going to happen.

SCHOA, based on their email is working on legislation giving the recording body (typically the HOA), greater enforcement abilities. No idea how they would do that, other than just asking the county to stay out of it. The reason i posted the link to the court case was the HOA involved, once the case was overturned by the appeals court, ending up eating court costs and opposing attorney's fees. Obviously the case sets the precedent. The fact they won the initial case is meaningless at that point.

Hence the discussion becomes, even if it were at 100% seniors, does an ADA claim override the state and federal age overlay. Not an attorney so i don't know? I also don't know whether condos are included in the overlay? They should be because SCHOA submits the data and to my knowledge includes attached housing. As i said before it would be illogical to have used them in the reporting and not have the ability to stop them from selling/renting to people under 55.

And, i still don't know if the percentages are based on population or rooftops? It's why i have encouraged SCHOA to hold an informational meeting to answer the myriad of questions.

 

If you are wondering what the end objective is by the Woke Establishment about Residential Zoning and Age Overlays, read this:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/next-dems-hit-list-suburbs

The objective is to END residential zoning and move in low income housing in order to change the demographics of the community and forced us all back into the cities. Why? Because progressives believe the cities fell apart, not because of bad progressive policies, but because of white flight.

 

More proof that the end objective of the Biden Regime and progressives is the destruction of the suburbs and residential communities: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-latest-whack-suburbs-change-your-neighborhood-worse