07.BA260053 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18195 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260053 – Steadman Property Hearing Date: July 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Owner: Victoria Steadman Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front (north) setback of 5’ where 10’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 141-63-530 @ 6255 E. Ensenada St. in the Mesa area Site Size: Approx. 7,439 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-6 SC (Senior Citizen overlay zoning district) Open Violation: V2600662 Background: 1. August 2, 1971: The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved the final plat for the Dreamland Villa Fifteen subdivision. 2. 1972: The existing single-family residence was built onsite per the Maricopa County Assessor. 3. 2024: The previous owners attached a carport to the front of the residence. 4. February 27, 2025: The current owner took possession of the subject property. 5. April 20, 2026: Maricopa County received and later confirmed a code violation (V2600662) onsite for constructing an attached carport without benefit of zoning clearance and building permits. 6. May 21, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence North: Ensenada St., then R1-6 SC / Single-family residence South: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence East: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence West: R1-6 SC / Single-family residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 8. The property owner is requesting a variance to permit an attached carport at a setback of 5’ from the front (north) lot line. Accessory structures, whether attached or detached, must adhere to the minimum front yard setback required in the underlying zoning district. The Steadman Property is within the R1-6 SC (Senior Citizen overlay) zoning district. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) Section 502 establishes the minimum front yard setback in the R1-6 zoning district at 10’ (but no less than 18’ to the plane of the front-facing garage). The carport subject to this request has already been built without benefit of zoning clearance and construction permits. Variance to the front setback regulation would be required for the owner to obtain zoning clearance on an as- built permit for the carport. Without variance, the carport would need to be removed or modified. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 9. Aside from the carport, the property appears typical for a lot in the Dreamland Villa subdivision. It is flat, rectangular in shape, has been developed with a primary use (a single-family residence), and does not appear to possess any peculiar conditions (such as washes or areas of floodplain) that may present an unnecessary hardship. The site aerials show well-maintained landscaping both to the front and rear of the residence, as well as what appear to be at least two detached storage sheds and a detached cabana in the rear yard of the property (these structures do not appear to measure more than 200 square feet each and therefore do not require building permits). Put together, the primary residence and the existing accessory structures, including the attached carport and the detached structures, account for a total lot coverage that approaches, but does not exceed, the maximum of 50% allowed in the R1-6 zoning district. 10. Staff notes that the Dreamland Villa 15 subdivision plat illustrates the setbacks effective when the plat was recorded in 1971. At the time, the R1-6 zoning district required a minimum front setback of 20’. This regulation was effective until January 2026, when the updated MCZO established a required front setback of 10’. Neither the subject property specifically nor the encompassing subdivision are within a Residential Unit Plan of Development (RUPD) overlay zoning district that modifies the development standards from those established by the MCZO. Therefore, the required front setback established for the subject property is 10’ unless or until modified by variance. 2025 Eagle Eye View of the Subject Property Page 4 of 7 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Neighborhood 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Page 5 of 7 Zoning District Map Zoning District Standards: 11. 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 R1-6 SC Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to north lot line) 10-feet 5-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to south lot line) 25-feet 25-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to east lot line) 5-feet 5-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to west lot line) 5-feet 5-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 7,439-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 60-feet 78-feet Maximum Lot Coverage 50% <50% Page 6 of 7 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. “I purchased the property at 6255 East Ensenada Street Mesa AZ 85205 with the existing carport. I was never told that there wasnt a permit for the carport.The carport measures 7 feet high, 18ft 10 inches by 18 feet. It is 9 feet 7 inches from the sidewalk.” 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. “Carport was existing when house was purchased. It would create a financial hardship if it were to be removed or modified. It is only 5 inches from the requirement listed for a carport.” 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. “The carport has been in existance for 3 years with no issues to report . Everything seemed to be in compliance when the house was purchased.” 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 Page 7 of 7 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. 16. Based upon what the applicant has submitted and the staff analysis in this report, staff offers the following negative observations the Board may consider in its findings: • Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property. It is flat, rectangular in shape, and is not encumbered by any apparent topographical challenges that would justify reducing the required front yard setback. • 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 an attached garage. For these reasons, it is difficult to argue that an undue hardship has been created by the enforcement of the ordinance requirement. 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 5’ north minimum setback line for APN 141-63-530. 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) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 2 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated June 24, 2026 8:18 AM BA260053 Application Name: Legal Description Steadman Carport Applicant Case Address 1N-6E-13 VICTORIA STEADMAN 6255 E ENSENADA ST MESA, AZ 85205 Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:141-63-530 4802004751 MESA, AZ 85205 Map scale 1:236 Supervisor District No. Zoning for parcel 141-63-530 is R1-6. Variance request to reduce the minimum set back from 10 feet to 9 feet of the sidewalk...to allow existing carport. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION FORM ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST Description of Request: Existing Zoning District and Use of Property: Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): General Location (include nearest city/town): Size in Acres: Square Feet: Legal Description: Section: Township: Range: Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION Name: Contact: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone #: Fax #: E-mail Address: PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION I (property owner) authorize (applicant’s name) to file this application on all matters relating to this request with Maricopa County. By signing this form as the property owner I hereby agree to abide by any and all conditions that may be assigned by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Planning and Zoning Commission, or Maricopa County Planning and Development Department staff as applicable, as part of any approval of this request, including conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my property. PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER – SIGNATURE REQUIRED The property owner acknowledges that the approval being sought by this application may cause a reduction in the existing rights to use, divide, sell or possess the private property that is the subject of this application. The property owner further acknowledges that it is the property owner who has requested the action sought by the filing of this application. Therefore, with full knowledge of all rights granted to the property owner pursuant to A.R.S.§1§12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the property with regard to any action taken by Maricopa County as result of the filing of this application. Property Owner Signature: Date: INSPECTIONS By submitting this application, I am inviting County staff to conduct all site inspections they deem necessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION – SIGNATURE REQUIRED I certify that the statements in this application and support material are true. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be revoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: Date: ARS § 1605 TIMEFRAME EXTENSION I authorize a 50% timeframe extension for the review of my application as adopted by the Board of Supervisors per ARS § 1605 and as amended. Property Owner Signature: _________________________________________________________ Date: ______________________________ Victoria Steadman 5/28/26 Victoria Steadman 5/28/26 Victoria Steadman 5/28/26 Allow existing carport to remain on property; The set back is 10' and the carport is at 9'7" R1-6 V2600662 7,439.00 13 1N 6E 141-63-530 Victoria Steadman Victoria Steadman 6255 E. Ensenada St. Mesa AZ 85205 (480) 200-4751 Same Victoria Steadman Victoria Steadman 6255 E Ensenada St Mesa 0.17 Dreamland Villa 15, Lot 452 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 RESIDENTIAL 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. Carport was existing when house was purchased. It would create a financial hardship if it were to be removed or modified. It is only 5 inches from the requirement listed for a carport. I purchased the property at 6255 East Ensenada Street Mesa AZ 85205 with the existing carport. I was never told that there wasnt a permit for the carport.The carport measures 7 feet high, 18ft 10 inches by 18 feet. It is 9 feet 7 inches from the sidewalk. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 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 Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 The carport has been in existance for 3 years with no issues to report . Everything seemed to be in compliance when the house was purchased. FEMA X (Shaded) Ensenada St 141 63 516 141 63 531 141 63 530 141 63 517 141 63 518 141 63 529 0 20 40 Feet The Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC) - Unofficial Document This document cannot be used for floodplain determinations. Current studies, erosion setbacks and other factors may also affect the floodplain status of the property. The information shown for pending floodplains are the best technical information available at this time to determine the one percent chance flood and are subject to change. Date: 05/26/2026 Time: 4:24 PM User: Doug.Jones Floodplain Management & Services 2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 Phone: (602) 506-2419 Fax: (602) 372-6232 www.maricopa.gov/5308/Flood-Control-District 1:240 Ü 1 inch = 20 ft. 18'-0" 18'-10" 5'-0" 9'-7" Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Victoria Steadman 6255 E. Ensenada St. Mesa, AZ 85205