02.BA260013 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19291 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260013 – Navarrete Wall SVT Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant & Owner: Leonard Navarrete Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Eliminate the requirement for a Sight Visibility Triangle (SVT) where a 25’ X 25’ SVT is required per MCZO Article 811.4.1 Site Location: APN 304-87-415B @ 26523 S. 170th Way – Stacey Rd. and 170th Way, in the Gilbert area Site Size: 25,366 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R-4 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. May 20, 2020: Lot created via minor land division with recordation of a new deed from parent parcel 304-87-415. 2. October 7, 2021: Application for single family residence permit submitted with B202114173. 3. June 6, 2023: Application for residential block wall permit submitted with B202304407. 4. November 1, 2023: Final inspection for single family home. 5. November 21, 2023: Applicant purchases home per recorded deed. 6. February 14, 2024: Application for detached casita with RV garage that includes original wall location with 20’ easement are submitted under B202401650.Finalized 2/2/2025. 7. October 3, 2024: Application for attached and detached patio covers are submitted under BLDR240034. The submission includes easement termination and abandonment documentation. The site plan shows the wall in the current location but the wall is not within the scope of the requested permit. Finalized 8/5/2025. 8. July 1, 2025: Final inspection of the initial CMU wall permit B202304407 failed due to the wall placement and lack of drainage blocks from the original plan. 9. July 2, 2025: Revised wall application submitted B202304407 for new wall placement. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 10. On-site: R-4 / Single-family residence North: R-4 / Single-family residence South: Town of Gilbert / Stacey Rd. then Single-family residences East: R-4 / 170th Pl. then Single-family residence West: R-4 / 170th Way then Single-family residence Variance Request: 11. The applicant is requesting a variance to the MCZO to eliminate the requirement of a 25’ X 25’ sight visibility triangle from the corner of Stacey Rd. and 170th Pl. in order to finalize building permit B202304407 for a 6’ high CMU wall and gate that has already been constructed. The original site wall was constructed by the homebuilder in 2023 prior to the initial home sale. The wall was positioned 20’ from the western parcel boundary as a 20’ easement was indicated to be located on the eastern parcel boundary on the original building plans. The original wall had a 5’X5’ SVT built into it. While not a standard size the SVT was presumably placed to accommodate an SVT from the parcel boundary. The wall construction permit was issued on 6/6/2023, received initial footing inspection on 8/22/2023 and subsequently was closed for inactivity on 8/17/24. The permit was reopened on 5/15/2025 after a compliance inspection application (CMPI250088) was submitted. The wall permit remained open until a final inspection occurred on 7/1/2025 which failed due to the location of the wall constructed 20’ to the west as well as the wall not meeting drainage requirements of turned block construction. A subsequent permit revision was submitted on 7/2/2025. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Photograph of subject site look north, subject site on left side with ingress/egress along western perimeter. Page 4 of 9 Photograph of subject site looking northwest at subject site. Photograph of subject site looking at existing wall. Page 5 of 9 Site Analysis: 12. The squared-shape parcel is approximately one-half acre in size, and developed as a single-family residential home. The home faces west towards 170th Way with 6’ high CMU block walls encompassing the parcel on the north, east and south side. The parcel has 3 driveway access points on the west, and gate access points on the western and southern wall boundaries. Stacey Rd. to the south is owned and maintained by the Town of Gilbert. 170th Way to the east is assumed to be comprised of private access easements, staff has been unable to find easement documentation and none was provided by the applicant. 170th Way is utilized by approximately 12 parcels for access. 2026 Aerial Image Aerial Image November 2023 (with 25 ’X 25’ SVT location shown) Page 6 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated November 2025) Page 7 of 9 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 13. 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 R-4 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to west property line) 10-feet 10-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (east property line) 25-feet 25-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to north property line) 5-feet 5-feet Min. Street Side Yard Setback (residence to south property line) 10-feet 10-feet Maximum Height 40-feet 40-feet Minimum Lot Area 6,000-sq. ft. 6,000-sq. ft Minimum Lot Width 60-feet 60-feet Lot Coverage 60% 60% Required Sight Visibility Triangles 25’ X 25’ 0’ X 0’ Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 8 of 9 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.” 14. 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. “I need a varience to no have a visibility triangle at the southeast corner of my property. I submitted all the required information to get the work done to build a property line wall and a rolling gate at that corner. once the work was done I requested to have the final inspection to complete the project. At that time I was told that I “May” need to have a visibility triangle at the corner. I went ahead and explained that the visibility from cars going in and out was greater that mort property walls on that street (Stacy). Also explained that there is a stop sign and an SRP light/power pole east of the corner in question which makes all cars veer east another 10 to 15 feet away from that corner. I have explained this to several members of your team and they have agreed that there should not be a visibilty corner added to that corner.” 15. 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 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. “This would create a cost of more than $25,000 to complete the work required to add a visibilty triangle on that corner. Money that our family doent have to spend nor could we afford at this time.” 16. 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. “As I explained on Question #1. The road in and out on the east side of that corner is at least 20 feet away from my wall and there is a stop sign in the corner. every car stops and has plety of visibility in and out of that street” Findings: 17. 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. Page 9 of 9 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. 18. 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 different and unique from other properties in the zoning district, that when the ordinance requirement is applied creates an undue hardship not self-created that prevents reasonable development of the property. • The property is already developed containing a single-family residence, and the original wall was permitted around the perimeter of the property observing the clear-sight visibility triangle at the street corner. • The wall was relocated and constructed by the current property owner encroaching into the clear-sight visibility triangle without the benefit of an issued building permit or zoning clearance, and not in conformance to the ordinance standard. 19. 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 eliminates the need for a Sight Visibility Triangle at Stacey Rd. and 170th Place at the southeast corner of APN 304-87-415B. 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 (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 1 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:30 AM BA260013 Application Name: Legal Description 26523 S 170th Way Queen Creek AZ 85142 Applicant Case Address 2S 6E 35 LEONARD FRANK/ELIZABETH NAVARRETE 26523 S 170TH WAY Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:304-87-415B (480) 202-3818 QUEEN CREEK, AZ 85142 Map scale 1:400 Supervisor District No. I need final inspection to close this permit without adding a visibility triangle. 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: ______________________________ 2/2/2026 2/2/2026 2/2/2026 I need to lave the existing wall and gate on the south east corner of my property. Permit # B202304407 26523 S 170th Way Queen Creek AZ 85142 1/2 Acre 304-87-415-B ■ Leonard Navarrete 26523 S 170th Way Queen Creek AZ 85142 480-202-3818 leoazmail@gmail.com Same As Above Leonard Navarrete Leonard Navarrete Residential Home 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. I need a varience to no have a visibility triangle at the southeast corner of my property. I submitted all the required information to get the work done to build a property line wall and a rolling gate at that corner. once the work was done I requested to have the final inspection to complete the project. At that time I was told that I “May” need to have a visibility triangle at the corner. I went ahead and explained that the visibility from cars going in and out was greater that mort property walls on that street (Stacy). Also explained that there is a stop sign and an SRP light/power pole east of the corner inquestion which makes all cars veer east another 10 to 15 feet away from that corner. I have explained this to several members of your team and they have agreed that there should not be a visibilty corner added to that corner. This would create a cost of more than $25,000 to complete the work required to add a visibilty triangle on that corner. Money that our family doent have to spend nor could we afford at this time. 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 As I explained on Question #1. The road in and out on the east side of that corner is at least 20 feet away from my walland there is a stop sign in the corner. every car stops and has plety of visibility ina nd out of that street