Spinka: Request for Sun City variance should be denied

This request for another overlay variance (“Overlay decision in limbo,” Sun City Independent, Dec. 7, 2022) should be denied on several counts.

First is that we here in Sun City knew the restrictions and agreed to them. For the sake of clarity, I will try to state them again.

This community was established for those of us who are 55 or older. While many of us have grandchildren, we do not want to hear them running around our neighborhoods yelling and screaming or playing their loud music. If we didn’t mind any of the above, we would have purchased our house anywhere else in Arizona.

Since the greater majority of us are retired and living on a fixed income, we also don’t want to pay school taxes or any other burdens that would come from losing our restrictions.

I hope that the Board of Adjustment realizes that everyone who purchased property in Sun City did consciously so that we can enjoy our retirement in peace without the burden of extra taxes or loud noise. I hope the board also realizes that the majority of the residents follow this overlay restriction. This homeowner should also.

Add to that the person requesting the overlay did not attend the meeting arranged for them to meet. In a court of law, this would be almost an automatic denial.

Your article also stated that SCHOA was told that the child would be leaving in July of this year. Again, the homeowner reneged on this promise.

I don’t see why the board didn’t deny this request at their last meeting. I understand that the vice president wasn’t there, but after the homeowner didn’t show up for the arranged meeting and since the child is still there, as long as there was a quorum to conduct the meeting, this request should have been denied. 

Editor’s Note: The Independent welcomes all points of view. Email your opinions, pro or con, to AzOpinions@iniusa.org.