04.BA260059 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
12125 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260059 – Kerr Residence Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Supervisor District: 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Mo Brim – Karl T Brim Construction Property Owner: Wes Kerr Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear yard, east property line, setback of 30’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502 Site Location: APN 401-11-051 @ 29831 W. San Gabriel Ave. in the Buckeye area Site Size: Approx. 86,794 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. July 16, 2025: A parcel merge was processed with the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office to combine parcels 401-11-008X & 401-11-008Y to create a single parcel, subject parcel 401-11-051. 2. April 16, 2026: Residential permit BLDR2603001 submitted for a single-family residence. 3. June 17, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 4. On-site: Rural-43 / vacant North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Vacant East: Rural-43 / Vacant West: Bruner Rd. then Rural-43 / Vacant Variance Request: 5. The property owner is requesting a variance for a rear yard setback of 30’ from the east lot line, where 40’ is the minimum required in the Rural–43 zoning district. A single-family residence is proposed at the 30’ setback. Page 2 of 8 Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Site Analysis: 6. The property is rectangular (near square) in shape and a corner lot. It features a 10’ private right- of-way easement on the north portion of the site (San Gabriel Ave.), and a 5’ irrigation easement with a 5” irrigation pipe traversing through the middle of the site from north to south. Per the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO), the front yard for a corner lot is determined to be the yard adjacent to the shortest of the street lines. Therefore, the front of the site is the west street line, along Bruner Rd. The applicant is designing the single-family residence to driveway access to the north onto San Gabriel Ave. 7. The applicant is proposing to develop the residence along the eastern portion of the lot to avoid the irrigation easement and any potential damage to the residence from a breached water line. 8. The design of the home meets all Rural–43 zoning district development standards, except for the rear yard east property line with a proposed covered patio encroachment of 10’ into the required 40’ rear yard setback. There is a 5’ irrigation easement traversing the length of the middle of the Page 3 of 8 lot. This arguably pushes development of the lot to either the east or west rather than a focus on the center of the lot. 9. Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. The development of the single- family residence can be redesigned to fulfill the general intent and purpose of the MCZO, as well as the Rural–43 zoning district. The applicant may record a 1’ vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) to create/change the determination of the lot’s frontage and the proposed development will conform with all setback requirements. If the VNAE is recorded, the new frontage would be the north property line, the rear yard would be the southern property line, and the side yards the west and east property line. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that undue physical hardship facing the property is created by the enforcement of the required setback. 10. The applicant is aware of the 1’ VNAE option, but since they are far along in the process of the variance request, they would like to obtain the variance for the rear yard setback of 30’, eastern property line. 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site Page 4 of 8 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 8 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standard: 11. The following table (next page) 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). Page 6 of 8 Standard Rural – 43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (from west street line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (from east lot line) 40-feet 30-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (from north street line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (from south lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 40-feet 40-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 44,560-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% 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.” 12. 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. “As you can see on the G&D (SITE-PLAN-1) our customers home sits to the east of the lot where the setback required by MC is considered a rear setback. If the house is moved to the west there is an existing irrigation easement and the house would be within 2 ½ feet of the easement. Where there is a 15” irrigation pipe. Our 3 to 1 fall would encroach over that line. If there were ever a breach in that line water would be under the house. Originally this parcel was two parcels, our customer combined the two parcels. The existing irrigation line ran between the two parcels. We are asking for variance from the 40’ requirement to a 30’ setback on the east. When this house was designed it was designed with San Gabriel (private road) as the front. Considering there are existing homes to the east.” 13. 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. “The hardship is if we move the house to the west there is an existing irrigation easement and the house would be within 2 ½ feet of the easement. Where there is a 15’ irrigation pipe. Our 3 to 1 fall would encroach over that line. If there were ever a breach in that line water would be under the house. Originally this parcel was two parcels, our customer combined the two parcels. The existing irrigation line ran between the two parcels. We are asking for a variance from the 40’ requirement to a 30’ setback on the east. Wen this house was designed it was designed with San Gabriel (private road) as the front. Considering there are existing homes to the east.” Page 7 of 8 14. 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 this variance would in actually benefit Maricopa County as there is sufficient setback to the west never to interfere with the potential future widening of Bruner Road. This is our customers’ forever home and the land was purchased and home designed around this piece of property. Your time and consideration is much appreciated.” Findings: 15. 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. 16. 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: • Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. that when faced with the ordinance standard creates and undue physical hardship not self-created in the line of title that prevents reasonable development of the property. • The proposed residence can be redesigned to fit within the lot’s principal building envelope or a 1’ VNAE may be recorded to change the determination of the lots frontage. • There is an irrigation easement traversing north/south the length of the parcel, and arguably said easement pushes development of the lot away from the center toward either or both the east and western portions of the lot. 17. 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 30’ rear (east) setback line for APN 401-11-051. Page 8 of 8 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 (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 5 Gross Acres: 2 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 8:48 AM BA260059 Application Name: Legal Description Kerr Residence Applicant Case Address 1S-4W-8 Mo Brim 29831 W SAN GABRIEL AVE PALO VERDE, AZ 85343 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:401-11-051 (602) 694-0418 PALO VERDE, AZ 85343 Map scale 1:812 Supervisor District No. Requesting 30' rear setback 29831 W SAN GABRIEL AVE PALO VERDE 85343