01.BA250076 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
12179 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250076 – Gonzalez Property Hearing Date: August 13, 2026, (Cont. from December 11, 2025) Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ * Denotes changes from the December 11, 2025 staff report. Applicant: Juan Gutierrez, Blueprints & Design Property Owner: Jesus Ricardo Gonzalez Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) * Proposed side setback (north) of 17’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.2 2) * Proposed side setback (south) of 17’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.2 Site Location: APN 504-32-374C @ 5953 S. 337th Dr. in the Tonopah area Site Size: 43,913 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. October 11, 2022: The legal description for the subject parcel is created via lot split MCR 2022- 0768278 2. June 2, 2025: Jesus Ricardo Gonzalez takes ownership of the property via warranty deed MCR 2025- 0316283 3. July 10, 2025: A building permit for a single-family residence is submitted. The plan review comments indicate a variance is needed to allow for a deviation in side yard setback requirements. 4. November 11, 2025: An application for a residential variance is received. The case was originally scheduled for the December 11, 2025 BOA hearing but was continued to allow for the applicant to obtain a waiver from MCDOT. 5. * December 11, 2025: The applicant requested an indefinite continuance of the case at the December 11th Board of Adjustment hearing to work with MCDOT on the MCDOT right-of-way reservation for Southern Ave. alignment. On April 27, 2026, a right-of-way reduction waiver was obtained from MCDOT. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Southern Ave alignment then IND-2 / Solar field East: Rural-43 / Vacant West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 7. The applicant proposes to develop the property for a single-story single-family residence of 2,866 sq. ft. which will cover 6.52% percent of the 43,913 sq. ft. parcel. Water will be provided via a shared well and sewer will be provided via a septic system. * Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Floor Plan Site Analysis: 8. The subject site is in a rural and distant section in the Tonopah area. It is not located within the proximity of any significant urban or commercial centers and is only within distance of sporadic single-family residential development in the form of manufactured homes and rural industrial development in the form of solar fields. There is a mix of county-maintained rights-of-way such as 339th Ave. and Salome Highway which provide connectivity to residential developments via private access easements. Development is largely supported by land uses that can be served by private wells and septic systems. 9. * The entirety of the subject site is within a FEMA designated floodplain. While this does not outright restrict development, it may affect its location and placement. Additionally, the subject site’s south property line abuts a section line where the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) has reserved a 65 ft. half-width for future right-of-way development. This future right-of-way development is classified as a principal arterial and would align with Southern Page 4 of 9 Ave. The is documented in a waiver that was obtained by the applicant on April 27, 2026 following a continuance from a previously scheduled hearing date. Aerial photo of subject site Page 5 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Floodplain Map Page 6 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/26/2020). Zoning District map Page 7 of 9 Zoning District Standards: 10. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (west property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (east property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (north property line)* 20-feet 17-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (south property line)* 20-feet 17-feet Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 145-feet n/a Lot Coverage 25% n/a Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2 states the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.” 11. Statutory Test -1 Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition– Discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “Hi my name is Jesus Gonzalez. Me and my family bought this acre without knowing some issues. Flood zone. 95 ft. future “ROW”, which most of it is been handled in over a year of waiting time. Recently MCDOT reduced the ROW to 65 ft, but I’m still needing 6 ft, 3’ to the north and 3’ to the south because our house plan is 65 ft wide and doesn’t fit. We are closer than before, me and my young son are ready to start working on this family project. Please let me know if you can help us. Changing the plan will take longer.” 12. Statutory Test 2 – Does applying the requirements of the Ordinance to the applicant’s property create an Unnecessary Hardship – Explain how the peculiar condition identified in #1 causes an unnecessary hardship to the property when the requirements of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance are applied. Explain how the that the peculiar condition of the property came to be and whether the condition was created by the applicant or someone in the property’s line of title. Explain the proposed use of the property with the variance request. Identify and explain all peculiar conditions on your property in regard to the following areas: slope, narrowness, shallowness, irregular shape, location, washes, vegetation, and easements, etc. Explain how enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. “Me and my wife picked this floor plan without knowing the issues that were going to come with it. We would like to be able to start working on this project. We really appreciate if you can help. Thanks.” Page 8 of 9 13. Statutory Test 3 – General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Ordinance – Discuss the purpose of the zoning requirement from which the variance is being sought. Then, discuss and explain how, provided statutory tests #1 and #2 are satisfied, the granting of the requested variance would preserve the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. “I don’t think that reducing 3 ft off the 20’ setback to the north and south will make a huge difference. The property has a shared well and the septic lines fit just fine plus it has plenty of room to the east.” Findings: 14. The applicant has the burden of proving to the Board that, in accordance with the standard set forth in ARS §11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 303.2.2, the property requires a variance. To grant the relief, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, a physical condition of the applicant’s property that is peculiar and not common to the area or the universe of the zoning district. Also, any such peculiarity must not have been created either by the applicant or anyone in the chain of title. If the Board determines that there is no such peculiar physical condition, its inquiry stops, and the application must be denied. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the applicant’s property which is not self- imposed, then the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, an unnecessary hardship imposed upon the property due to the strict application of the requirements of the zoning ordinance which the applicant wishes to have varied such that there is no viable use of the property without the variance. If the Board identifies a peculiar physical condition of the property which is not self-imposed, and that in applying the requirements of the zoning ordinance to the property, because of the peculiar physical condition, an unnecessary hardship exists, the applicant must prove, and the Board must find and identify, how the granting of the variance will preserve the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 15. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following positive and/or negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: • Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition that would create an unnecessary hardship for relocating the property that is inherent to the land. The future half-width reservation of 65’ would not be considered a peculiar condition because it is a regulation built within the zoning ordinance per Article 805.1.2. • The current property owner is responsible in the line-of-title for the subject site’s current lot size and dimensions which was produced via an unregulated land division. Had the subject site remained configured in its preceding form, sufficient space would have allowed for development of a single-family residence without the need of a variance. • While the floodplain may limit the location and placement of the proposed residence, this has not been demonstrated by the applicant. It can neither be inferred through the submitted application materials nor through available information. Floodplain covers the entirety of the subject site. Page 9 of 9 • The subject site’s lot area and width meet the Rural-43 zoning district’s minimum requirements. 16. And further, if the Board finds the applicant has satisfied the statutory test, and has stated its findings on the record, the grant of this variance will memorialize the following: a) Variance approval establishes a minimum 17’ side setback line (north) for APN 504-32- 374C. b) Variance approval establishes a minimum 17’ side setback line (south) for APN 504-32- 374C Presented by: Isaac Perez, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 8:46 AM BA250076 Application Name: Legal Description GONZALEZ PROJECT Applicant Case Address 1N-5W-28 Juan M Gutierrez 5953 S 337TH DR TONOPAH, AZ 85354 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:504-32-374C (480) 395-4305 TONOPAH, AZ 85354 Map scale 1:656 Supervisor District No. VARIANCE TO HAVE 24 SETBACK INSTEAD 30 IN NORTH Received 06/17/2026 Received 06/17/2026 PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL SITE PLAN 1"=30'-0" SCALE: 10' 5' 1' CONTACT INFO. MARK DESCRIPTION AREA J. Robert Oppenheimer SCOPE OF WORK VICINITY MAP BUILDING AREA SCHEDULE PARCEL INFORMATION 266.27' ZONING RU-43 266.27' ZONING RU-43 164.93' ZONING RU-43 164.90' ZONING RU-43 A. B. C. D. VACANT LAND VACANT LAND VACANT LAND VACANT LAND Received 06/17/2026