03.BA260055 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
23797 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260055 – Eshelman Residence Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Judy Eshelman Property Owners: Eshelman Trathferd/Judy K Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front yard setback of 31’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 202-14-012C Site Size: Approx. 45,763 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. October 4, 2023: The current owners took possession of the subject parcel. 2. December 19, 2025: The property owner applied for building permit BLDR2510086 for the single family residence. 3. January 13, 2026: The property owner applied for an accessory building permit BLDR2600240 for a 26’ x 42’ detached workshop and BLDR2600241 for a pool, spa and retaining walls. 4. January 23, 2026: Zoning review comments issued on the three permits regarding hillside setbacks. 5. May 23, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural - 43 / Vacant North: Rural - 43 / Vacant South: Rural - 43 / Vacant East: Rural - 43 / Single-family residence West: Rural - 43 / Vacant Page 2 of 8 Variance Requests: 7. The applicant is requesting a variance for parcel 202-14-012C in order to facilitate the development of a single-family residence in the Rural – 43 zoning district. The request is for a proposed front yard setback for the western property line of 31’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted. The applicant submitted building permit BLDR2510086 for the development of a single-family residence with an attached garage, accessory structure, and septic system, but the proposed location of the single-family residence is not permitted unless a variance is approved. 8. The subject parcel is 46% hillside with grades ranging from 17% to 42%, the proposed development of the single-family residence and septic system is placed in the portion of the site where it is relatively flat, with less than 15% in natural slope. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 8 Hillside Exhibit Site Analysis: 9. The property is square in shape with a lot area of 45,673 square feet, with 46% (21,020 square feet) being hillside. The lot is currently undeveloped, but the applicant is proposing to develop a single-family residence towards the western portion of the lots center of the lot, an accessory structure (personal workshop) along the southern portion, and the septic system in the northern portion of the site. The proposed development is in compliance with the allowed uses in the Rural–43 zoning district. Access to the site is along the western property line, with the driveway extending along the southern portion of the site and leading to the main residence and the accessory structure. A driveway does not require a variance and may extend outside the lot’s buildable area to the street line or other line which includes retaining walls related to the driveway. 10. The proposed development will not disturb hillside outside of the principal building envelope of the center south portion of the residence is considered to have a slope less than 15%, which also includes the septic system. 11. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Development of single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO, as well as the Rural-43 zoning district. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that undue physical hardship facing the property is created by the enforcement of the required building envelope as the home can be redesigned to conform with the development requirements. Page 4 of 8 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 8 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standard: 12. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural – 43 zoning district Proposed with Variance Percentage Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to west lot line) 40-feet 31-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to east lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north & south lot line) 30-feet 30-feet Maximum Height 40-feet 40-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560 -sq. ft. 43,560 -sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% Hillside Previously Disturbed in buildable area (lot max) 0 sq. ft Total Area of Lot that is Hillside 21,020 sq. ft. 46% Total Area of Hillside Disturbance 5,788 13% Total Area of Hillside Disturbance Outside Principal Building Envelope 0 0 0% Page 6 of 8 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 state that the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such Variance the general intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance will be preserved.” 13. Statutory Test 1 – Does the applicant’s property contain any peculiar condition – Discuss and explain the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “This lot has a northeast slope in the middle of the lot that makes it hard to locate the house further east without adding major fill dirt and destroying native vegetation, so to avoid this we need to move the house SW corner of the lot, which moves it into the western "front" setback. Movement of the house (West) is in conflict with code (MCZO 901.4.1.6). This lot also doesn't have a city sewer system, so we will need space to install a septic system, which fits best in the NE corner because of slope grade. Use is single family home located on the southwest side of the lot. This lot has a flat area in the southwest corner that makes a perfect spot for house and garage pad. The slope that extends from NW to SE make is very hard to build a house centered on the lot, it also has water runoff areas that we need to preserve in order to maintain lot drainage. This lot has flatter area on the NE corner to locate septic system, which forces us to move the house towards the SE corner. Enforcement of the zoning regulation will require us to move the house east, which will make the house cover more native landscape because the pad required over this steeper area will extend much further into the lot. We can also preserve the natural water runoff area to the east of our house caused by the steeper sloped area.” 14. 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 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. “This Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO 901.4.1.6 & MCZO 901.4.1.2) creates a hardship because there is a slope that continues from the NW corner of our lot to the SE corner. This slope makes it hard to put the house in the middle of the lot without adding excessive fill dirt and covering natural vegetation. Moving house to the middle of the lot would also disrupt the natural drainage of the lot. This unusual slope for this specific parcel does not exist on other surrounding lots that are not located on a hillside. Furthermore, if we moved the house to the middle of the lot we would not have the space to add a septic system which is required because we don't have city sewer access. Moving the septic to the flat area with less vegetation reduces destruction of natural habitat in an specific section. (no big ugly spot) These lot limitations on his site are caused by the natural slope of the land and shape of the lot.” Page 7 of 8 15. 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. “Granting of this will not cause a negative impact on the intent of the code because by moving the house closer to the SW corner we will avoid excessive destruction of natural habitat caused by building a house on an extreme slope. This will give the lot more natural look with the current landscape. Furthermore, the road created to access our property cuts into the lot to the west of us, this deviation from the exact middle creates a natural extended setback for our house that extends 80'+ past our property line where we will encroach into the standard setback on our lot. This road construction location gives the appearance that our house is much further back from the property line (80'-160') than it actually is (31'). See attached images and lot line assignments Within hillside slopes vegetation shall be reestablished on all exposed fill slopes, cut slopes, and graded areas, or areas otherwise disturbed, by means of means of a mixture of grasses, shrubs, trees or cacti to provide a basic ground cover which will prevent erosion and permit re-vegetation. In lieu of the reestablishment of vegetation, all exposed cut slopes shall be rip-rapped with stone or chemically stain treated with materials which blend in with the natural setting. (MCZO Article 901.4.2.).” Findings: 16. 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 302.2.2, 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 by memorializing the above. 17. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following observations the Board may consider in its findings: Page 8 of 8 • The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO will be preserved with the variance, the single-family residence may be developed in multiple ways within the area of existing disturbance without a need for a variance. • The site is encumbered by hillside slopes, but Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that would prohibit reasonable development of the site as the proposed square footage or location of the residence may be reduced or designed to fit within the building envelope in the Rural–43 zoning district. 18. 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 established a minimum 31’ front setback line for APN 202-14-012C. Presented by: Paola Jaramillo, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (3 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 1:35 PM BA260055 Application Name: Legal Description Eshelman Residence Applicant Case Address 7N-2E-35 Judy Joy Eshelman Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-14-012C (619) 807-2185 Map scale 1:542 Supervisor District No. Applying for a variance from meeting the minimum Hillside Development Regulations / setback regulations. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No REQUEST Description of Request: Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): General Location (include nearest city/town): Size in Acres: Square Feet: Legal Description: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION I (property owner) authorize (applicant’s name) to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER 7MKREXYVIVIUYMVIH The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application. The property owner further acknowledges that it is the property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application. Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. Property Owner Signature: Date: INSPECTIONS By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION 7MKREXYVIVIUYMVIH I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: Date: ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as amended. Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ ■ Request for Variance to build house within the lot setback No Case Pending Not Assigned Yet New River 1.051 45,763 35 7 North 2 East 202-1-012C No Subdivision Judy Eshelman 2302 N 10th St Phoenix Az 85006 (619) 807-2185 judyjeshelman@gmail.com Judy Eshelman 2302 N 10th St Phoenix Az 85006 (619) 807-2185 Judy Eshelman Judy Eshelman 05/26/2026 Single Family Home 05/26/2026 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 VARIANCE SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE ARS §11-816 B.2 The Board of Adjustment may allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance when, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship, if in granting such variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved. 1. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar condition(s) facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) to be varied. 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 Regulation(s) or Development Standard(s) would impose a hardship on the property. 2. Please explain the unnecessary hardship the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance creates because of a peculiar condition/the peculiar conditions on site. Please discuss and explain that the peculiar condition of the property is not self-created in the line of title. This lot has a northeast slope in the middle of the lot that makes it hard to locate the house further east without adding major fill dirt and destroying native vegetation, so to avoid this we need to move the house SW corner of the lot, which moves it into the western "front" setback. Movement of the house (West) is in conflict with code (MCZO 901.4.1.6). This lot also doesn't have a city sewer system, so we will need space to install a septic system, which fits best in the NE corner because of slope grade. Use is single family home located on the southwest side of the lot. This lot has a flat area in the southwest corner that makes a perfect spot for house and garage pad. The slope that extends from NW to SE make is very hard to build a house centered on the lot, it also has water runoff areas that we need to preserve in order to maintain lot drainage. This lot has flatter area on the NE corner to locate septic system, which forces us to move the house towards the SE corner. Enforcement of the zoning regulation will require us to move the house east, which will make the house cover more native landscape because the pad required over this steeper area will extend much further into the lot. We can also preserve the natural water runoff area to the east of our house caused by the steeper sloped area. This Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO 901.4.1.6) creates a hardship because there is a slope that continues from the NW corner of our lot to the SE corner. This slope makes it hard to put the house in the middle of the lot without adding excessive fill dirt and covering natural vegetation. Moving house to the middle of the lot would also disrupt the natural drainage of the lot. This unusual slope for this specific parcel does not exist on other surrounding lots that are not located on a hillside. Furthermore if we moved the house to the middle of the lot we would not have the space to add a septic system which is required because we don't have city sewer access. These lot limitations on his site are caused by the natural slope of the land and shape of the lot. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet /23 3. Please discuss and explain how the granting of the requested variance would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION Granting of this will not cause a negative impact on the intent of the code because by moving the house closer to the SW corner we will avoid excessive destruction of natural habitat caused by building a house on an extreme slope. This will give the lot a more natural look with the current landscape. Furthermore, the road created to access our property cuts into the lot to the west of us, this deviation from the exact middle creates a natural extended setback for our house that extends 80'+ past our property line where we will encroach into the standard setback on our lot. This road construction location gives the appearance that our house is much further back from the property line (80'-160') than it actually is (31'). See attached images and lot line assignments Within hillside slopes vegetation shall be reestablished on all exposed fill slopes, cut slopes, and graded areas, or areas otherwise disturbed, by means of means of a mixture of grasses, shrubs, trees or cacti to provide a basic ground cover which will prevent erosion and permit re-vegetation. In lieu of the reestablishment of vegetation, all exposed cut slopes shall be rip-rapped with stone or chemically stain treated with materials which blend in with the natural setting. (MCZO Article 901.4.2.). SHEET 1 OF 3 SCALE HORIZ.: - VERT.: - ’ ’ GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APN 212-14-021C NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APN 202-14-012C NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 ” ” ” ” BLDR2510086 DESIGNED BY: RMA DRAWN BY:PDJ CHECKED BY: RMA DATE: 5/11/26 APN-202-14-012C S E LFE = 2,241.00 PAD = 2,240.33 WORKSHOP APN 202-14-012D APN 202-14-012D APN 202-14-012A APN 202-14-042A APN 202-14-041A HOUSE LFE = 2,240.00 PAD = 2.239.33 SHEET 2 OF 3 SCALE HORIZ.: 1"= 10' VERT.: N/A GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APN 202-14-012C NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 BLDR2510086 DESIGNED BY: RMA DRAWN BY:PDJ CHECKED BY: RMA DATE: 5/11/26 SEE SHEET 3 FOR BLOW UP HILLSIDE SHEET 3 OF 3 SCALE HORIZ.: 1"= 5' VERT.: N/A POOL ENCLOSURE AND PATIO BLOWUP 1"= 5' GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN APN 202-14-012C NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 BLDR2510086 DESIGNED BY: RMA DRAWN BY:PDJ CHECKED BY: RMA DATE: 5/11/26 WALL PROFILE LOOKING SOUTH