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

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 2 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 3 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 Proposed with
zoning Variance
district
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 20-feet 20-feet
line)
Page 4 of 7

Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet
Minimum Lot Area 43,560 -sq. 39,160 -sq. ft.
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 5 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 6 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)
Page 7 of 7

Application Name: Martinez residence
Legal Description
1S-6E-34
Applicant Applicant Phone/Email
(480) 622-9134
Connor Edwards
BA260068
Case Address Parcel Primary:304-47-386E
16417 E FRYE RD GILBERT, AZ 85295
GILBERT, AZ 85295
Generated August 26, 2026 3:48 PM Gross Acres: 1 approx. Map scale 1:593
Supervisor District No. 1
Lot size due to MCDOT Dedication
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ

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: RU-43
Related Case Number(s): BLDR2603740
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address (if known): 16417 E Frye Road, Gilbert AZ 85295
General Location (include nearest city/town):
Size in Acres: .899 Square Feet: 39,160
Legal Description: Section: 34 Township: 1 South Range: 6
Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 304-47-386E
Subdivision Name (if applicable):
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name: Connor Edwards Contact: 480-622-9134
Address: 18818 E augusta ave
City: Queen Creek State: Az Zip: 85142
Phone #: 490-622-9134 Fax #:
E-mail Address: Connoredwards11@gmail.com
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Victoria and Luis Martinez and Joel Ries and Cindi Vinciguerra Contact: Victoria Martinez
Address: 1790 E Redfield rd
City: Gilbert State: Az Zip: 85234
Phone #: 480-254-0469 Fax #:
E-mail Address:
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT AUTHORIZATION
I (property owner) Victoria Martinez authorize (applicant’s name) Connor Edwards
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.
Victoria Martinez 7/10/2026
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: ______________________________
Planning & Development Department Residential Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 12/2/24
P: 602.506.3301

6)7-()28-%0 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.
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.
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.
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 6IWMHIRXMEP Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 12/2/2
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.
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
*Additional sheets may be attached.
** DO NOT USE THIS FORM IF YOU ARE SUBMITTING AN INTERPRETATION
Planning & Development Department
6IWMHIRXMEP Variance Application Packet
301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 /1 /2
P: 602.506.3301

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