06..BA260046 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17991 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260046 – Landers Lot Size Variance Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Owner Travis & Jacie Landers Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot area of 28,735 sq. ft. where 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. 2) Proposed front (north) setback of 20’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 401-34-002B @ 33701 W. Cactus Rose Rd. Approx. 1,251’ west of Cactus Rose Rd. and Arlington School Rd., in the Arlington area Site Size: 28,735 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: None Background: 1. 1979: Records indicate the manufactured home was placed on site in the same location now being proposed for the new home. 2. August 4, 1997: Current parcel created. 3. February 17, 2016: Current owner acquired the property. 4. May 17, 2026: Application for front setback variance to replace residential structure. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Cactus Rose Rd. then Rural-43 / Vacant agricultural South: Rural-43 / Vacant agricultural East: Rural-43/ Vacant agricultural West: Rural-43 / Vacant agricultural Page 2 of 8 Variance Requests: 6. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow for the placement of new home structure to replace the existing structure on an undersized lot of 28,735 sq ft where 43,560 is required by Rural-43 zoning district regulation. The applicant is additionally requesting a front setback reduction to 20’ where 40’ is required by MCZO Section 502. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 8 Photographs of subject site Site Analysis: 7. The site is a rectangle shaped parcel with an existing manufactured home. The parcel borders Cactus Rose Rd. to the north with an irrigation canal between the roadway and the parcel. The manufactured home was placed in the location in 1979 when the site was part of a larger agricultural parcel. The current parcel confines were created when the parcel was initially sold in 1997 with the existing structure present. Page 4 of 8 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 5 of 8 Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel (aerial image dated Mar 2025). Zoning District map Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 8. 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 Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 40-feet 20-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (south lot line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east/west lot lines) 20-feet n/a Maximum Height 35-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 28,735-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 25% 25% Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards 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.” 9. 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. “Our property was once part of a larger parcel owned by our grandparents, Charles and Luella Vanosdell. It was purchased in 1976, Recorded Deed 19760049925. The farm was foreclosed on in 1997. The new owner quit claim deeded the real property described as 401-34-0028 to Charles and Luella Vanosdel!, Recorded Deed 19970528830. We purchased the property in 2016, Recorded Deed 20160101244. The current zoning for our parcel is RU-43 which states residential property should be a minimum 1 acre in size. We have applied for a building permit, BLDR2602744, to remove the existing mobile home and build a single-family home in its place. I have included pictures from Maricopa County Parcel Viewer demonstrating the rural nature of the property. Our closest neighbor is more than 1,750 ft away. The land use around us is farming/agriculture. There are irrigation ditches present along the west property boundary, the Irrigation ditch that travels the north and east boundary are in the process of being removed by the farmer. The mobile home that we currently reside in was placed on this property in 1979. It is in disrepair and in need of replacement. We intend to use this property as a single-family residence and would like to build a site-built home with more accessible features as Travis is undergoing treatment for cancer. He is a 100% service-connected disabled American Veteran and the VA will be assisting us with the building process to accommodate his disability. By not granting this variance request, the hardship would be not being able to make the accommodations needed to provide a safe, clean and accessible home for Travis. This property is very special to us as this is where Travis was raised and would like to be able to remain here in final years. “ 10. 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 Page 7 of 8 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. “The size restriction on RU-43 lots having to be one acre or more Is a hardship because the property has been there since 1979 and we purchased it at this size knowing this would potentially be an issue. Changes to its size cannot be made as we are in the middle of an existing farm pastures that we do no own being actively farmed with alfalfa and com. By granting this variance request means nothing will change to the use of the property or surrounding faming. The only thing that would change is we would have a new single-family site built home. All of the existing site structures will be removed from the property once the new home construction Is complete. Our goal lot coverage is approximately 14%, well under the minimum restriction 40% single story coverage.” 11. 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. “Due to the very rural area there will not be any negative impacts on the intent an purpose of the zoning ordinance as there are very few occupied structures within one square mile. Due to major flood restrictions due East of our property the likelihood of there ever being other occupied residential properties is unlikely,” Findings: 12. 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. Page 8 of 8 13. 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 any peculiar condition facing the property that when presented with the ordinance requirement has created an undue physical hardship not self-created in the line of title that prevents reasonable development of the property. There are no physical obstacles to prevent the property owner from acquiring adjacent territory to bring the lot into conformance with the zoning district’s minimum lot area and to provide space for the new building to meet the zoning district’s minimum setbacks. • The parcel although substandard in area is remote and isolated surrounded by agricultural fields and has no impact on other, residential lots. • The 20’ front setback is an existing condition considered legal non-conforming (LNC) having been in place on the subject parcel well prior to the ordinance’s January 1, 2000 critical date. However, any LNC status is negated when the existing building is removed. 14. 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 establishes a 28,735’ sq. ft. lot area in the Rural-43 zoning district for APN 401-34-002B. b) Variance approval establishes a 20’ (north) front setback line for APN 401-34-002B. Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 5 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated June 24, 2026 8:16 AM BA260046 Application Name: Legal Description Landers New Build Applicant Case Address 1S-5W-33 JACIE LANDERS 33701 W CACTUS ROSE RD ARLINGTON, AZ 85322 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:401-34-002B 6023860802 ARLINGTON, AZ 85322 Map scale 1:434 Supervisor District No. Requesting variance for lot size not meeting minimum requirement for RU-43 RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE SUPPLEMENT AL 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. Our property was once part of a larger parcel owned by our grandparents, Charles and Luella Vanosdel!. It was purchased in 1976, Recorded Deed 19760049925. The farm was foreclosed on in 1997. The new owner quit claim deeded the real property described as 401-34-0028 to Charles and Luella Vanosdel!, Recorded Deed 19970528830. We purchased the property in 2016, Recordeb Deed 20160101244. The current zoning for our parcel is RU-43 which states residential property should be a minimum 1 acre in size. We have applied for a building permit, BLDR2602744, to remove the existing mobile home and build a single family home ih rts _place •. I have included pictures from Maricopa County Parcel Viewer demonstrating the rural nature of the property. Our closest neighbor 1s more than 1,750 _F: away. The land use around us is farming/agriculture. There are irrigation ditches present along the west property boundary, the ImgatIon ditch that travels the north and east boundary are in the process of being removed by the farmer. The mobile home that we currently reside in was placed on this property in 1979. It is in disrepair and in need of replacement. We intend to use this property as a single family residence and would like to build a site built home with more accessible features as Travis is undergoing treatment for cancer. He is a 100% service connected disabled American Veteran and the VA _will be assisting us with the building process to accommodate his disability. By not granting this variance request, the hardship would be not being able to make the accommodations needed to provide a safe, clean and accessible home for Travis. This property is very special to us as this is where Travis was raised and would like to be able to remain here in final years. 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. !The size restrlctlOfl on RU-43 lots tiaving to be ooo acre or more Is a tiardship because the property has been thrs s12e smce 1979 and we purchased it at II is size no knowing this would potentially be an 1&sue. Ctianges to its size eannol be made as we are in he middle of e:,ustlng farm pastures that we do no own being aciively farmed with .alfalfa and com. By granting this variance request means nothing will change to the use ofttlc property or surrounding faming. The onJy thing Ihm wo d change is 11e would have a new single family site built home. All of the existing site strucwres wlU be removed from the property onoe lhe new home construction Is complete. Our olal lot coverage is approximately 14%, well under the minimum restriction 40% single s,ory 0011erage. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 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. Due to the very rural area there will not be any negative impacts on the intent an purpose of the zoning ordinance as there are very few ocupied structures within one square mile. Due to major flood restrictions due East of our property the likelihood of there ever being other occupied residential properties is unlikely, *Additional sheets may be attached. ** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION - - - - - - - ~~-------- Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 FFE=781.20 PAD=780.53 COVER SHEET 1 ARLINGTON, AZ 85322 (APN: 401-34-002B) 33701 W. CACTUS ROSE RD GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLOT PLAN A PORTION OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Date: Checked by: SEAL JOB NUMBER SHEET Designed by: Drawn by: OF Version MJP MJP MJP 100 03/06/2026 4435 E. Chandler Blvd Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85048 480-625-9795 33701 W. CACTUS ROSE RD ARLINGTON, AZ 85322 A PORTION OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. 1 EXPIRES: 09/30/28 PREFLING Engineering CIVIL GRADING AND PAVING PLAN 2 2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SITE DATA OWNER ENGINEER VICINITY MAP FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP INFORMATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION BENCHMARK FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION “ ” SURVEY CERTIFICATION FINISH FLOOR CERTIFICATION OUTDOOR LIGHTING NOTE EARTHWORK DOMESTIC WATER DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE LEGEND ENGINEER'S GENERAL NOTES MARICOPA COUNTY P&D RESIDENTIAL NOTES AND CONDITIONS PROPOSED HOUSE CACTUS ROSE RD B-3 B-3 A-3 A-3 BASE FLOOD ELEVATION