07.BA260063 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13493 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260063 – Pool Property Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner: Howard Pool Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed waiver of the sight-visibility triangle (SVT) requirement on corners at street and alley intersections (MCZO 811.4.1) 2) Proposed waiver of the 80% transparency requirement for any part of a fence higher than 3’6” located within the required front yard of a lot in a single-family residential zoning district (MCZO 811.5.4) Site Location: APN 503-44-119A @ Crozier Rd. and Pine St., in the Wittmann area Site Size: 4,711 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1 - 6 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. Circa 1924: Parcel created as Lot #4 of Nadaburg Townsite subdivision plat. This townsite is known as Wittmann. 2. Circa 1976: Maricopa County adopts subdivision regulations. 3. July 2, 2026: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 4. April 22, 2026: Date of final inspection for primary residence BLDR2505523. 5. May 15, 2026: Building permit application date for subject solid fence. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: R 1-6 / Single-family residence North: Alley then R 1-6 / Single-family residence South: Pine St then R 1-6 / Single-family residence East: Pine St then R 1-6 / Vacant West: Crozier Rd the C-1 / Vacant Page 2 of 9 Variance Requests: 7. The applicant is proposing a solid fence outside the building envelope to serve as privacy screening for the rear yard of the lot. Since the property abuts public rights-of-way on all sides and is designated in a single family zone, fences at a height above 3 feet, 6 inches located along street frontages are required to be ‘view fences’ or 80% transparent. Additionally, a 25 foot by 25 foot sight visibility triangle is required at the intersections of street frontages, the subject site is encumbered by a total of 3. The additional variance requests a waiver of these visibility triangles. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Proposed Fence Details Photographs of subject site Site Analysis: 8. The site has recently been improved with a single family residence and some site grading. The site is relatively unremarkable with no natural features. The site is flanked by Crozer Rd at the west, Pine St. at the south and an alley to the northeast. Pine St and the alley are unpaved. Page 4 of 9 Aerial photo of subject site Page 5 of 9 Aerial of site and environs Zoning District map Page 6 of 9 Zoning District Standards: 9. 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 R1-6 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Sight Visibility Triangle (MCZO 811.4.1) 25’x25’ Waive Opacity percentage of any part of fence higher than 3’-6” (MCZO 811.5.4) 80% Waive Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Sight Visibility Triangle Illustration (MCZO 811.4.1) 10. MCZO, Art. 811.4.1 requires a 25’ x 25’ SVT at all corners of a residential street or alley intersection. The subject parcel has three such corners within which there cannot be any structure or landscaping greater than 2’ in height. Page 7 of 9 Opacity Requirement Illustration (MCZO 811.5.4) 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. “Per MCZO 811.5.4 the fence must have 80% transparency outside the build envelope.“ 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. “We would like to place a 6' vinyl privacy fencing along Crozier road on our current property line to ensure a bit of privacy to the backyard. We have small children and would like to give Page 8 of 9 a bit of privacy and outdoor activity while in the backyard. This Backyard is currently exposed to a busy road, alleyway and a lot of pedestrian foot traffic due to the Post Office and community stores & shops within a 400ft radius.” 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. “We have obtained a setback variance in the past to allow for this residential home to be placed on this unique lot in the Township of Wittmann. Adding new ecological safe privacy fencing will not go outside of the current build standards in the area and will closely match the privacy fencing of the surrounding residential properties, built on property lines in the Township. This Privacy fencing will not only give additional safety to the occupants of the home, but will also define public alleyways and will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.” 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: • A peculiar condition exists on the subject parcel, that when presented with ordinance requirements for fence-transparency in residential front yards and sight-visibility triangle at all street and alley corners, creates an undue hardship preventing reasonable development of the property. • The property has unorthodox morphology. It is triangle-shaped bounded by two streets and an alley intersecting at acute angles. This factors limit private yard space on the lot reasonably expected of a detached single-family residential lot. • The lot was created by an antiquated subdivision plat that predates the county’s subdivision regulations by decades. Page 9 of 9 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 waives sight-visibility triangles at street and alley corners for APN 503- 44-119A. b) Variance approval waives the 80% transparency requirement for any portion of fencing within the required front and street-side yards for APN 503-44-119A Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 page) Fence Details )1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 8:51 AM BA260063 Application Name: Legal Description Pool Property Applicant Case Address 5N-3W-13 HOWARD MASON POOL 32424 S PINE ST WITTMANN, AZ 85361 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:503-44-119A (602) 413-5474 WITTMANN, AZ 85361 Map scale 1:375 Supervisor District No. variance to install vinyl privacy fence (less than 80% transparency) on property line, along busy road, to enclose backyard and give some privacy to children in yard. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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. Per MCZO 811.5.4 the fence must have 80% transparency outside the build envelope. We would like to place a 6' vinyl privacy fencing along Crozier road on our current property line to ensure a bit of privacy to the backyard. We have small children and would like to give a bit of privacy and outdoor activity while in the backyard. This Backyard is currently exposed to a busy road, alleyway and a lot of pedestrian foot traffic due to the Post Office and community stores & shops within a 400ft radius. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 We have obtained a setback variance in the past to allow for this residential home to be placed on this unique lot in the Township of Wittmann. Adding new ecological safe privacy fencing will not go outside of the current build standards in the area and will closely match the privacy fencing of the surrounding residential properties, built on property lines in the Township. This Privacy fencing will not only give additional safety to the occupants of the home, but will also define public alleyways and will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. BA260063 RCVD 6/29/26 4,711 sf 952 sf 20% BA260063 Received 6/29/26