05..BA260042 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
11410 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260042 – Broughton Variance Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Chad Broughton Property Owners: Chad Robert Broughton / Jordan Melissa Broughton Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed use-specific setback in the front yard of 15’ for two private horse stalls from the east lot line where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 603.1.2 Site Location: APN 220-05-002K @ 1324 N. 101st Pl. in the Mesa area Site Size: Approx. 44,668 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-35 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. Circa 1999: Earliest historical aerial show development of a single-family home. 2. November 17, 2025: The current owners took possession of the subject parcel. 3. May 11, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 4. On-site: R1-35 / Single-family residence North: R1-35 / Single-family residence South: R1-35 / Single-family residence East: City of Mesa / Single-family residence West: City of Mesa / Single-family residence Variance Request: 5. The property owner is requesting a variance to permit two horse stalls at a setback of 15’ from the east lot line in the front yard. The MCZO allows for corrals for the keeping of horses as an accessory use to a single-family residence. However, MCZO Article 603.1.2 requires such corrals to be located in the rear yard, setback from all lines at a distance of not less than 40 feet. Page 2 of 8 6. MCZO Article 603.1, which regulates the keeping of farm animals, includes the following standards: No limit on number of farm animals in Rural zoning districts. In the R1-35 zoning district subject to the following conditions: 1. Up to six (6) chicken hens. Lots less than 1 acre in size with a recorded subdivision community, the enclosure for the chicken hens shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing of the lot. 2. Corrals for the keeping of horses, provided such corrals are located in the rear yard, set back from all lot lines a distance of not less than 40 feet and contain at least 1,200 square feet of area for each horse kept therein. The keeping of horses on properties located in residential zoning districts in other than permitted corral areas is prohibited. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Site Analysis: 7. The property is rectangular in shape and features a 25’ access easement on the eastern portion of the site, the front yard setback is measured from the street line (edge of easement). The existing single-family residence was developed in 2001. The primary residence is located within the southern portion of the site, 30’ from the rear yard and 5’ from the southern sideyard (non- conforming under MCZO Article 1004.1), a tennis court is located on the northern portion of the property with a 10’ rear yard setback, half of the property, much closer to the rear lot line than the Page 3 of 8 front lot line. Per the most recently published aerial photograph of the site, the only portion of the property that remains undeveloped / unimproved is a small area toward the southeast and northeast corner of the lot where the corrals are being proposed. 8. 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 R1-35 zoning district specifically. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that undue physical hardship facing the property is created by the enforcement of the required setback and location for a corral. 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: 9. 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 R1-35 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east lot line inclusive of the 25’ ingress/egress + min. 40’ front yard setback) 65-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to west lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north/south lot lines) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Corral Setback (25’ ingress/egress + 40’ front yard setback)* 65-feet 15-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 35,00-sq. ft. 44,668-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 264-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 30% <30% * 40’ min. corral setback from all other lot lines 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.” 10. 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. “Horse property setback is 40’ from the property line but also in the back of house is only 30 from the property line. We have plenty of room to have the horse just need a variance on the requirements.” 11. 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. “We would have to demo the house and build a new one toward the front of the lot just to comply with the current requirements. We are trying to save money and not build the new house just so we have the horses.” 12. 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. Page 7 of 8 “Horses would still be within the required setback from neighboring properties but would not be “behind the house”.” Findings: 13. 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. 14. 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 cannot identify a peculiar condition facing 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. For this reason, it is difficult to argue that undue hardship is created by the enforcement of the required 40’ setback for horse corrals from all lot lines and prohibition within the required front yard. • The lot is located within a rather linear (column one-lot wide) county island zoned R1-35 between higher density zoning within the City of Mesa. • The variance, if approved, will result in corrals setback from all lot lines at least 40’, but due to location of a private road easement along the east lot line the corrals will be located within the ordinance-required 40’ deep required front yard where corrals would normally be prohibited. Arguably, corrals in the eastern portion of the lot is the best location maintaining at least a 40’ separation from all surrounding lots. 15. 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 15’ front yard (east) setback for horse corrals for APN 220-05-002K. 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 (1 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated June 24, 2026 8:18 AM BA260042 Application Name: Legal Description Broughton Variance Applicant Case Address 1N-7E-11 Chad Robert Broughton 1324 N 101ST PL MESA, AZ 85207 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:220-05-002K (480) 862-2582 MESA, AZ 85207 Map scale 1:671 Supervisor District No. horse allowance zoning variance