03.BA260068 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment 
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department 
 
 
Case:   
 
 
BA260068 – Martinez Residence  
 
Hearing Date:  
 
September 17, 2026 
 
Supervisor District: 
 
1 
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Applicant:  
Connor Edwards 
 
Property Owners: 
Martinez Luis/Victoria/Ries Joel Robert/Vinciguerra Cindi Ann 
 
Request: 
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit: 
 
1) 
Proposed lot area of 39,160 square feet, where 43,560 square feet is the 
minimum required in the Rural–43 zoning district per MCZO Section 502  
 
Site Location: 
APN 304-47-386E 
 
Site Size: 
 
 
Approx. 39,160 sq. ft.  
 
Current Use / Zoning: 
Vacant / Rural-43 
 
Open Violation: 
No violation on property 
 
Background: 
 
1. 
April 21, 2023:  The subject lot was created via split of parent parcel 304-47-386A. 
 
2. 
June 13, 2025: The current owners took possession of the subject parcel. 
 
3. 
May 12, 2026: The property owner applied for building permit BLDR2603740 for the development 
of a single family residence and an ADU. 
 
4. 
June 30, 2026: Zoning review comments issued on the building permit regarding undersized lot.  
 
5. 
July 10, 2026: The applicant submitted this variance request. 
 
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 
 
6. 
On-site: 
Rural-43 / Vacant 
 
North:  
Town of Gilbert / Frye Road 
South:  
Rural-43 / Vacant  
East: 
 
Rural-43 / Single-family residence 
 
West:  
Town of Gilbert / Single-family residence

Page 2 of 7 
 
Variance Request: 
 
7. 
The applicant is requesting a variance for parcel 304-47-386E in order to develop a single-family 
residence in the Rural–43 zoning district. The request is for a proposed lot area of 39,160 square 
where 43,560 square feet is the minimum required. The applicant submitted BLDR2603740 for 
the development of a single-family residence with an attached garage and an accessory dwelling 
unit. Due to the substandard lot area the proposed development is not permitted unless a variance 
is approved. 
 
8. 
The subject parcel was created as part of an unregulated division. The lot was created at 45,739 
sq. ft.  as noted under property deed 20230206157. The northern 40’ of the parcel was dedicated 
to the Town of Gilbert for infrastructure, which made the lot undersized per the new property deed 
20250355700. Staff research did not locate an active capital project with the Town regarding Frye 
Rd or documentation regarding the dedication to the Town of Gilbert. The applicant indicated the 
dedication was for MCDOT but has failed to provide any records or documentation; staffs 
research found Frye Rd is maintained by the Town of Gilbert. 
 
Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan

Page 3 of 7 
 
 
 
Site Analysis: 
 
9. 
The property is a traditional rectangular shape, and it is currently undeveloped. The applicant is 
proposing to develop a single-family residence with an attached garage and an accessory 
dwelling unit with a lot coverage of 20.3%. Access is proposed along the eastern portion of the 
site, 164th Way. The eastern portion of the subject parcel has a 10’ access easement (Fee No. 
2005-1314534) and provides vehicular access to the parcels to the south. The proposed 
development is in compliance with the allowed uses and development standards in the Rural–43 
zoning district but for the substandard lot area. 
 
2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site

Page 4 of 7 
 
Zoning District Map 
 
 
 
Zoning District Standard: 
 
10. 
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 
40-feet 
Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to east lot line) 
40-feet 
40-feet 
Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north & south lot 
line) 
20-feet 
20-feet

Page 5 of 7 
 
Maximum Height  
35-feet 
35-feet 
Minimum Lot Area 
43,560 -sq. 
ft. 
39,160 -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.”  
 
11. 
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.   
 
“The original parent parcel was subdivided into two separate residential lots, and this property was 
established as a 1.05-acre lot at the time of subdivision. The recorded survey identifies the parcel 
as approximately 45,739 square feet, which meets the minimum lot area requirements of the RU-
43 zoning district. Subsequent review of the property identified that the northern 40 feet of the 
parcel had previously been dedicated to MCDOT in the 1970s for roadway and public easement 
purposes. As a result, that dedicated area is not included in the current net lot area calculation, 
reducing the recognized lot size by approximately 4,400 square feet and causing the parcel to fall 
below the current minimum lot area requirement. This variance request is intended to address a 
unique circumstance created by the existing MCDOT dedication and allow the property to be 
developed as a single-family residence, consistent with the original intent of the subdivision and 
the surrounding RU-43 residential neighborhood. The requested variance does not seek to increase 
density or change the permitted use of the property, but rather allows reasonable use of a legally 
created residential lot that was originally established at an appropriate size for the zoning district..” 
 
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 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. 
 
“When the Martinez family purchased the property, it was understood and represented as an 
approximately one-acre residential lot. At the time of purchase, they were not aware that a portion 
of the property had been dedicated to MCDOT in a manner that would reduce the net lot area below 
the minimum required for the RU-43 zoning district. The Martinez family did not create this 
condition through a subdivision, lot split, or alteration of the property boundaries. Rather, the current 
lot configuration is the result of an existing MCDOT dedication that reduced the usable lot area 
after the property was established. This creates a unique circumstance specific to this property 
that limits its ability to be developed as intended under the existing zoning designation. Without 
approval of this variance, the property would effectively become undevelopable for its intended use 
as a single-family residence, despite being located within a single-family residential zoning district 
and surrounded by other residential properties. Approval of this variance would allow the property

Page 6 of 7 
 
to maintain its intended residential use while continuing to meet the overall goals and character of 
the RU-43 zoning district.” 
 
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. 
 
“The granting of this variance will not adversely impact the intent or purpose of the RU-43 zoning 
district. The proposed lot area of 39,160 square feet continues to provide a substantial residential 
lot that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character and remains compatible with 
the existing and future single-family residences adjacent to the property. Although the lot area is 
slightly reduced due to the portion of the property dedicated to MCDOT, the proposed development 
continues to comply with all applicable zoning requirements, including allowable lot coverage, 
which remains below the maximum permitted 25%. The request does not seek to increase density, 
change the permitted use, or alter the single-family residential character intended for this zoning 
district. The surrounding properties include existing and future single-family residences, and the 
proposed home will maintain the established residential pattern of the area. This variance request 
is intended only to recognize the unique circumstance created by the MCDOT dedication and allow 
the property to continue to be developed as originally intended: as a single-family residence within 
the RU-43 zoning district” 
 
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 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.   
 
15. 
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 site was undersized due to a lot split with a dedication to the Town of Gilbert for 
infrastructure. Although staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property, without the 
variance reasonable development of the site would not be feasible .

Page 7 of 7 
 
16. 
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 39,160 sq. ft. lot area in the Rural-43 zoning district for 
APN 304-47-386E. 
 
 
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
1
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated August 26, 2026 3:48 PM
BA260068
Application Name:
Legal Description
Martinez residence
Applicant
Case Address
1S-6E-34
Connor  Edwards
16417 E FRYE RD GILBERT, AZ 85295
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:304-47-386E
(480) 622-9134
GILBERT, AZ 85295
Map scale 1:593
Supervisor District No.
Lot size due to MCDOT Dedication

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: 
  ______________________________ 
RU-43
BLDR2603740
16417 E Frye Road, Gilbert AZ 85295
.899
39,160
34
1 South
6 
304-47-386E
Connor Edwards
480-622-9134
18818 E augusta ave
Queen Creek
Az
85142
490-622-9134
Connoredwards11@gmail.com
Victoria and Luis Martinez and Joel Ries and Cindi Vinciguerra
Victoria Martinez
1790 E Redfield rd
Gilbert
Az
85234
480-254-0469
Victoria Martinez
Connor Edwards
Victoria Martinez
7/10/2026

Planning & Development Department 
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 
P: 602.506.3301 
6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet 
12/2/2 
 
 
 
6)7-()28-%0VARIANCE 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.
The original parent parcel was subdivided into two separate residential lots, and this property was established as a 1.05-acre lot at the 
time of subdivision. The recorded survey identifies the parcel as approximately 45,739 square feet, which meets the minimum lot area 
requirements of the RU-43 zoning district.
Subsequent review of the property identified that the northern 40 feet of the parcel had previously been dedicated to MCDOT in the 1970s 
for roadway and public easement purposes. As a result, that dedicated area is not included in the current net lot area calculation, reducing 
the recognized lot size by approximately 4,400 square feet and causing the parcel to fall below the current minimum lot area requirement.
This variance request is intended to address a unique circumstance created by the existing MCDOT dedication and allow the property to 
be developed as a single-family residence, consistent with the original intent of the subdivision and the surrounding RU-43 residential 
neighborhood. The requested variance does not seek to increase density or change the permitted use of the property, but rather allows 
reasonable use of a legally created residential lot that was originally established at an appropriate size for the zoning district.
When the Martinez family purchased the property, it was understood and represented as an approximately one-acre residential lot. At the 
time of purchase, they were not aware that a portion of the property had been dedicated to MCDOT in a manner that would reduce the 
net lot area below the minimum required for the RU-43 zoning district.
The Martinez family did not create this condition through a subdivision, lot split, or alteration of the property boundaries. Rather, the 
current lot configuration is the result of an existing MCDOT dedication that reduced the usable lot area after the property was established. 
This creates a unique circumstance specific to this property that limits its ability to be developed as intended under the existing zoning 
designation.
Without approval of this variance, the property would effectively become undevelopable for its intended use as a single-family residence, 
despite being located within a single-family residential zoning district and surrounded by other residential properties. Approval of this 
variance would allow the property to maintain its intended residential use while continuing to meet the overall goals and character of the 
RU-43 zoning district.

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 
6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet 
/1/2 
The granting of this variance will not adversely impact the intent or purpose of the RU-43 zoning district. The proposed lot area of 
39,160 square feet continues to provide a substantial residential lot that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood character 
and remains compatible with the existing and future single-family residences adjacent to the property.
Although the lot area is slightly reduced due to the portion of the property dedicated to MCDOT, the proposed development continues 
to comply with all applicable zoning requirements, including allowable lot coverage, which remains below the maximum permitted 
25%. The request does not seek to increase density, change the permitted use, or alter the single-family residential character 
intended for this zoning district.
The surrounding properties include existing and future single-family residences, and the proposed home will maintain the established 
residential pattern of the area. This variance request is intended only to recognize the unique circumstance created by the MCDOT 
dedication and allow the property to continue to be developed as originally intended: as a single-family residence within the RU-43 
zoning district

238.1'
164.47'
238.1'
164.47'
N
SCALE 1" = 20'
5
10
15
20
25
50
N
VICINITY MAP
UP
COND.
COND.
COND.
EP
EP
78'-8"
51'-6"
47'
25'-6"
4'
SEPTIC
SEPTIC
14'
24'
40'
10'
10'
60'
20'-5 3/16"
34'
8'
20'
8'
45'
10'
10'
29'
4'
4'
23'
60'-2"
60'-5 5/8"
44'
10'
42'
95'-5 11/16"
51'-4"
44'
34'-5 5/8"
40'
30'
10'
10'
30'
40'
40'
20'
20'
REAR YARD = 6,578 S.F.
GUEST HOUSE IN REAR YARD =1,600 S.F.
1,600 / 6,578 = 0.243
GUEST HOUSE = 24.3% COVERAGE OF REAR YARD
SITE PLAN
       LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA: 39,160 S.F.
      RESIDENCE
1ST FLOOR: 2,156 S.F.
2ND FLOOR: 692 S.F.
TOTAL LIVABLE: 2,848 S.F.
PORCH: 88 S.F.
PATIO: 780 S.F.
DECK: 743 S.F.
GARAGE: 1,199 S.F.
TOTAL NON-LIVABLE: 2,810 S.F.
TOTAL: 5,658 S.F.
TOTAL UNDER ROOF: 4,915 S.F.
      GUEST HOUSE
LIVABLE: 2,002 S.F.
PORCH: 137 S.F.
PATIO: 182 S.F.
GARAGE: 734 S.F.
TOTAL NON-LIVABLE: 1,053 S.F.
GUEST HOUSE TOTAL: 3,055 S.F.
TOTAL UNDER ROOF: 7,970 S.F.
     20.3% COVERAGE
25% MAX COVERAGE
-THE GRADE AWAY FROM
FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL
FALL 6" WITHIN THE FIRST 10'
PARCEL #: 304-47-386E
OWNER NAME: MARTINEZ LUIS/VICTORIA/RIES JOEL ROBERT/
                            VINCIGUERRA CINDI ANN 
JURISDICTION: MARICOPA COUNTY
LOT SIZE (SQ FT): 45,739 S.F.
ZONING: RU-43
E FRY RD
R.O.W.
INGRESS/EGRESS 
EASEMENT PER
FEE NO. 2005-1314534
SBL
200 AMP 
SUB PANEL
SBL
SBL
RESIDENCE
GUEST HOUSE
GARAGE
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
CONC.
DRIVEWAY
WALK
SBL
F.F.E. = +18" ABOVE THE 
CURB OR LOT OUTFALL
F.F.E. = +18" ABOVE THE 
CURB OR LOT OUTFALL
100 AMP 
SUB PANEL
SEPTIC TANK
10' FROM STRUCTURE MIN.
0W2600784
W
E
400 AMP 
SERVICE PANEL
500 GAL L.P. TANK
10' FROM STRUCTURE MIN.
SEPTIC TANK
10' FROM STRUCTURE MIN.
OW2600783
HIGHWAY EASEMENT 
PER DOCKET 13287, PAGE 1458
INGRESS/EGRESS &
IRRIGATION EASEMENT
PER DOCKET 12939, PAGE 1397
POWER DISTRIBUTION 
EASEMENT FOR S.R.P. 
PER FEE NO: 2007-1082996
IRRIGATION EASEMENT 
PER DOCKET 6941, PAGE 884
164TH WAY
POWER DISTRIBUTION 
EASEMENT FOR S.R.P.
PER FEE NO: 2007-1082996
250 GAL L.P. TANK
10' FROM STRUCTURE MIN.
WATER ROUTE
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
RA
RA
RA
THESE DRAWINGS SHALL
NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT
FROM THESE DRAWINGS
WITHOUT CONSENT FROM
GRAND DESIGNS
RESIDENTIAL DRAFTING
EMAIL: GRANDDESIGNS.PLANS@GMAIL.COM      PHONE: (480) 745-5288
REVISIONS
#
DATE
SHEET:
MARTINEZ RESIDENCE
SCALE:
PARCEL: 304-47-386E
DATE:
7/30/2026
6-11-26
3
2
1
7-8-26
S1
1"=20'
S1
SITE PLAN
1"=20'