09. BA260065 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15105 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260065 – Bolton Property Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Owner: Dean Bolton Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (west) setback of 12’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 503-52-415D @ 27611 N. 143rd Dr. in the Surprise area Site Size: Approx. 60,315 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. 2006: The subject parcel was created from an unregulated minor lot split of parent parcel 503- 52-415. 2. March 29, 2022: The current owner took possession of the subject property. 3. June 20, 2022: The owner applied for a building permit (B202208897) to construct a single-family residence. The home has since been constructed and the permit completed. 4. May 12, 2026: The owner applied for a building permit (BLDR2603738) for a detached accessory garage. 5. June 29, 2026: The owner submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Vacant East: Rural-43 / Vacant (ASLD land) West: Rural-43 / Vacant Page 2 of 8 Variance Request: 7. The property owner is requesting a variance to permit a detached garage at a setback of 12’ from the front (west) lot line. Accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to the minimum front yard setback required in the underlying zoning district. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) Section 502 establishes the minimum front yard setback in the Rural-43 zoning district at 40’. The garage is subject to building permit BLDR2603738, which is currently in plan review. Variance approval to the front setback regulation would be required for the owner to obtain zoning clearance. Without variance, the garage would need to be relocated. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Site Analysis: 8. Although the property is quadrilateral in shape (i.e., it features four sides), it is neither rectangular nor trapezoidal in alignment, meaning none of the lot lines are parallel. While this is less common than a traditional rectangular lot arrangement, many examples of this arrangement nonetheless exist throughout unincorporated Maricopa County, particularly in unregulated lot split areas. Perhaps the closest thing to a peculiar condition on this property is the floodway that bisects it. This floodway is approximately equidistant between the east and west lot lines, rendering the center of the property unbuildable and forcing development toward the east or west lot lines. The existing single-family residence, which was completed in February 2026, was built on the west half of the property, proximate to an access easement corresponding with 143rd Drive. Since the west lot line has a wider frontage than the east, the building envelope (buildable area) is significantly larger toward the west lot line than the east. All of this works to push development on the lot towards the west/front. 9. The easement for 143rd Drive extends into the lot past the west lot line. This easement measures 20’ wide, with a portion extending into the property and a portion extending into the adjacent parcel to the west. This easement does not extend the entire length of the lot line: from the northwest property corner, the easement extends approximately ¼ of the way along the lot line before terminating. Page 3 of 8 10. Front setback lines are generally measured from the lot line with street frontage. However, where an access easement extends into the property, the front setback line is measured from the interior side of the easement. Since the easement for 143rd Dr. only extends down a portion of the corresponding lot line, the front setback line is measured in a “stepped” manner, paralleling the easement at a separation of 40’ and then paralleling the west lot line at a separation of 40’ after the easement ends. The proposed garage would be proximate to the portion of the west lot line that is not fronted by 143rd Drive. With a separation of 12’ between the lot line and the garage, a variance to permit a 12’ front setback would permit the garage in the location proposed. Excerpt from Site Plan with Focus on Proposed Detached Garage 11. Staff notes that, when the house was initially permitted, sole access to the property was to be provided to/from the west via 143rd Drive. The front of the house is oriented in this direction, and the approved grading plan for the house shows the driveway connection exclusively to the west. Furthermore, access to/from the east would require a crossing of the floodway, which, to date, has not been permitted. Access in this direction would also require confirmation of an existing ingress/egress easement along the east lot line (or the recording of a new such easement). Page 4 of 8 12. However, site aerials show that, since construction of the residence commenced, a crossing of the floodway and connection to the east was graded and surfaced with asphalt millings without benefit of the appropriate permits. This driveway connection to the east is shown on the current site plan for the garage. Furthermore, in May 2026, just prior to submitting the building permit application for the garage, the owners recorded a 1’ vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) along the west lot line. It appears the intention of this action may have been to designate the west a rear yard and establish legal access exclusively to/from the east, with the assumption that there is an easement along the east lot line. Site aerials do show what was, at one point, an access easement opposite the east lot line. Maps, including the Maricopa County Parcel Viewer, identify this as 143rd Avenue. 13. However, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), which owns the land opposite the east lot line, has confirmed that 143rd Avenue is no longer a legal public road on State Trust Land. Although a 20’ right-of-way for a non-public access road was previously granted by the Bureau of Land Management, ASLD confirms that the right-of-way expired in 2012 and has not been renewed or replaced. MCDOT does not maintain 143rd Avenue nor any associated right-of-way. 14. Upon reviewing the site plan attached to the permit, Zoning Plan Review advised that, since a crossing of the floodway has not been permitted, the VNAE must be removed. Staff further notes that, if the intention of the VNAE was to eliminate access via the west, it does not: as shown on the site plan, a portion of the access easement extends beyond the VNAE, effectively ensuring that legal access remains along a portion of the west lot line. At this time, the west remains the front of the property, whereas the east remains the rear due to the lack of legal access. Regardless of the Board’s determination of this variance request, staff recommends that the property owner abandon the VNAE along the west lot line. 2026 Floodplain Map of the Subject Site (Floodway in Red; 100-Year Flood Zone in Blue) Page 5 of 8 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2026 Aerial Image of the Surrounding Neighborhood Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standards: 15. 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 Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to west lot line) 40-feet 12-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to east lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to south lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 60,315-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.” Page 7 of 8 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. Findings: 19. 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. Page 8 of 8 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. 20. 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: • The lot’s unorthodox shape, together with the floodway that bisects it, may be considered peculiar conditions. These conditions effectively limit the practical building envelope to the west half of the property. • Development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. Furthermore, the residence already includes two attached garages. For these reasons, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship has been created by the enforcement of the zoning ordinance requirements. 21. 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 12’ minimum front (west) setback line for APN 503-52- 415D. Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) ASLD Comments (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated July 29, 2026 8:49 AM BA260065 Application Name: Legal Description Bolton Variance Request Applicant Case Address Dean Richard Bolton 27611 N 143RD DR SURPRISE, AZ 85387 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:503-52-415D 5038191503 SURPRISE, AZ 85387 Map scale 1:927 Supervisor District No. Requesting a variance to build an additional shop structure on the property 1 Nicholas Schlimm (PND) From: Rhonda Buss Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 11:25 AM To: Nicholas Schlimm (PND) Cc: Karen Dada Subject: ASLD Comments - BA260065 Variance This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Dear Nick, Thank you for the public notice regarding proposed variance BA260065. While the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Planning section has no comments on the project itself, there are comments regarding site access. The site plan identifies a driveway off N. 143rd Ave. and references a patent easement. However, our Right-of-Way (ROW) section has indicated that N. 143rd Ave. is not currently a legal public road on State Trust Land. Although a 20-foot ROW for a non-public access road was previously granted by the BLM, that ROW expired in 2012 and was never replaced by a new one. Additionally, the County parcel viewer does not identify N. 143rd Ave. as a public road or a County-maintained road. Accordingly, a new ROW would be required from ASLD. Please contact ASLD ROW at RWS@azland.gov for easement information. Thank you, Rhonda Buss, AICP Planner III 1110 W. Washington St Phoenix, AZ 85007 602-542-3126 land.az.gov | Facebook | Twitter/X