04.BA260027 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
31904 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260027 – Rindal Property Variance Hearing Date: May 14, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Justin Rindal Property Owner: Justin and Magdala Rindal Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed 9,800 sf of hillside disturbance outside of the principle building envelope where prohibited per MCZO Article 901.4.1.1 Site Location: APN 211-74-061N @ 33503 N &7th St. – 7th St. and Paint Your Wagon Trl., in the Desert Hills area Site Size: 51,076 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. October 4, 2021: The subject parcel is created via minor land division as Lot 3 of MCR- 20211073088. 2. 2022/2023/2024: The subject parcel, which consists mostly of hillside, is heavily graded without a permit both within and outside the principal building envelope, apparently in preparation for developing the other lots within the minor land division. 3. December 2, 2024: The current owner takes possession of the property via warranty deed MCR20240640080. 4. October 8, 2025: The owner applies for building permit BLDR2508022. Review comments identify disturbance outside the buildable envelope as an outstanding issue. The submitted materials indicate 28,300 sf of total hillside disturbance but do not specify how much occurred outside the principal building envelope. 5. March 26, 2026: The owner applies for the subject variance. The disturbance outside the building envelope is not addressed in the application materials. 6. May 5, 2026: At staff's request, the owner confirms that 9,728 sf was disturbed outside the principal building envelope. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Under construction single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Vacant East: Rural-43 / Vacant West: 7th St. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 8. The applicant proposes to allow up to 9,800 sf of hillside disturbance outside the principal building envelope. The applicant has argued this is existing disturbance prior to current ownership. The exact timing of the original disturbance is unknown, though it is clear that most of it occurred prior to the current owner's acquisition of the property in late 2024. The proposed home is otherwise compliant with all applicable Rural-43 zoning standards. Excerpt from proposed site plan, oriented north Page 3 of 8 Photograph of subject site from east looking west Site Analysis: 9. The entire site is subject to hillside slopes, though it has already been heavily graded. It sits near the base of a series of ridges, with surrounding terrain that is rough and nearly vertical in places. The surrounding area has been developed with single-family residences consistent with the topography. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 8 Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking east into subject parcel (aerial image dated 3/1/25, north to left) Page 5 of 8 Zoning District map of the Rural-43 zoning district 10. MCZO, Sec. 901 contains the county’s hillside regulations. Art. 901.5.1.1.F requires an engineered grading and drainage plan to be prepared by a state registrant, and that has been provided. Art. 901.5.1.1.I requires the plan to include a table listing the area of lot, area of lot that is hillside, areas of previous hillside disturbance and area of proposed hillside disturbance. The submitted plan shows 0 sf of previous hillside disturbance and 28,300 sf of proposed new hillside disturbance. Staff presumes this is because none of the existing hillside disturbance on site was subject of a previously issued permit. Art. 905.1.1.E requires graphic depiction of all disturbed areas and proposed method of final treatment or restoration. It’s staff’s opinion that in order to present a variance argument, this depiction should include illustration of areas of existing and proposed hillside disturbance including areas of those categories outside the lot’s principal building envelope. This is not shown on the plan. 11. Staff believes, based on existing aerial photography, that the majority of the hillside disturbance occurred at the northern portion of the parcel in connection with easement improvements made to support development further to the east, in addition to giving access to a drilled well. The applicant has indicated they will remediate the disturbed hillside areas. Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Standard: 12. The following table is included to illustrate and contrast the standards for the underlying zoning district with those proposed by the owner. Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Permitted hillside disturbance outside principle building envelope 0 sf 9,800 sf 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.” 13. 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. “The subject property contains natural hillside terrain and varying slope conditions that limit access and usable area within the parcel. The lot is affected by topographic constraints typical of hillside properties in Maricopa County, including sloped areas and limited naturally accessible building locations. Prior to my ownership, the property was disturbed in approximately 2022, including hillside alteration, spoil placement, and the construction of a driveway along the north property line. These improvements appear to have been completed to provide access to otherwise constrained portions of the property and to allow reasonable use of the land. The variance request is to allow the existing disturbance to remain, including the altered hillside and driveway improvements, which support residential use consistent with the RU-43 zoning district. The intended use of the property remains single-family residential, and the existing improvements are necessary to facilitate safe and practical access. The peculiar conditions affecting the property include the natural slope and terrain, as well as the existing disturbed areas that now define the current site conditions. Due to these factors, strict enforcement of Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance regulations related to hillside disturbance and grading would impose a hardship by requiring removal and restoration of improvements that are necessary for access and reasonable use of the property. Compliance with the current regulations would require significant regrading and restoration of previously disturbed areas, which would be impractical given the sites topography and would limit the ability to safely access and utilize the property. The existing driveway and graded areas represent the most feasible location for access due to the natural constraints of the site. Therefore, the combination of natural hillside conditions and existing site constraints creates a hardship if the zoning regulations are strictly applied, as it would restrict reasonable residential use of the property and eliminate functional access. “ 14. 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 Page 7 of 8 enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on the property. “The unnecessary hardship associated with this property is created by the combination of its natural hillside terrain and the existing disturbed conditions that were established prior to my ownership. The property contains sloped areas that limit access and usable space, and the existing driveway and graded areas are necessary to provide functional and safe access to the site. Strict enforcement of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, particularly regulations related to hillside disturbance and grading, would create an unnecessary hardship by requiring the removal and restoration of improvements that are essential for reasonable use of the property. Without the existing disturbance, access to portions of the property would be significantly limited due to the natural topography. This would restrict the ability to utilize the property in a manner consistent with other similarly zoned RU-43 properties. The hardship is directly related to the physical characteristics of the land, including slope and terrain, and is not based on personal preference or financial considerations. Zoning law requires that hardship arise from the property itself and not from the owner, and in this case, the hardship is caused by site conditions beyond the control of the current owner. Additionally, the existing disturbance, including hillside alteration and driveway construction, was completed prior to my purchase of the property in 2022. Therefore, the condition is not self-created in the line of title. Under Arizona law, a variance cannot be granted if the hardship is self-imposed; however, conditions that existed prior to ownership are not considered self-created by the current owner. Because the hardship results from the natural topography and pre-existing site conditions, strict application of the zoning ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship by preventing reasonable access and use of the property, while providing no corresponding public benefit.” 15. 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 negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to ensure orderly and appropriate land use. The requested variance does not propose any change in land use, density, or zoning classification. The property will continue to be used for single- family residential purposes consistent with the RU-43 zoning designation. The variance request is limited to allowing existing disturbance, including hillside alteration and a driveway, to remain in place to support access and reasonable use of the property. The existing disturbance does not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties, neighborhood character, or public safety. The improvements are consistent with typical residential access and development patterns in the area and do not introduce any incompatible use or intensity. Additionally, the variance will not negatively affect drainage, traffic, or environmental conditions. Any necessary improvements, such as erosion control or site stabilization, can be implemented to ensure compliance with County standards and to maintain the integrity of the site. Granting this variance would preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing reasonable use of the property while maintaining compatibility with surrounding properties and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The request is limited in scope and does not undermine the purpose or spirit of the regulations, but rather allows for practical application of those regulations given the specific conditions of the property..” Findings: 16. 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 Page 8 of 8 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. 17. 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: • The entire lot is subject to hillside slopes. • The lot and surrounding lots were created via unregulated land division. • Hillside disturbance on the lot is existing and predates current ownership. Allegedly this was done in staging construction on other surrounding lots. • The lot and proposed home meets all Rural-43 zoning requirements. • Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property that is not shared by other hillside lots in the Rural-43 zoning district, that when presented with application of the ordinance requirements creates an undue physical hardship not self-created in the line of title that prevents reasonable development of the lot. • The presence of hillside slopes does not warrant relief from the ordinance’s hillside regulations. • The ordinance allows for remediation of disturbed hillside slopes (contours and groundcover) with an engineered grading permit. 18. 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 an allowed disturbance outside of principle building envelope of a hillside lot of 9,800 sf for APN 211-74-061N. Presented by: Joel Landis, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (4 pages) Applicant Correspondence re: Disturbance (2 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated April 23, 2026 9:30 AM BA260027 Application Name: Legal Description 211-74-061N 33503 N 7TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85085 Variance Applicant Case Address 5N 3E 9 JUSTIN/MAGDALA RINDAL Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-74-061N (480) 734-8339 Map scale 1:636 Supervisor District No. Variance for previously disturbed land from prior owner. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 VARIANCE / INTERPRETATION APPLICATION ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE Is this Design Build? Yes No Is this Residential? Yes No Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. Residential Variance Non-residential Variance Interpretation BA Blanket Variance Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes? Yes No 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): 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: ______________________________ Jrindal2012@gmail.com I The land was previously disturbed prior to me owning the property Building permit: BLDR2508022 33503 N 7th St Phoenix AZ 85085 Phoenix, anthem, cave creek 1.17 51,076 211 74 061N 211-74-061N Justin Rindal Justin Rindal 26710 N 11th Dr Phoenix AZ 85085 (480) 734-8339 jrindal2012@gmail.com Justin Rindal Justin Rindal 26710 N 11th Dr Phoenix AZ 85085 (480) 734-8339 Justin Rindal Justin Rindal 3/25/2026 Vacant Land, Submitted permits for my primary residential build requires a variance on disturbance 3/25/2026 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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. The subject property contains natural hillside terrain and varying slope conditions that limit access and usable area within the parcel. The lot is affected by topographic constraints typical of hillside properties in Maricopa County, including sloped areas and limited naturally accessible building locations. Prior to my ownership, the property was disturbed in approximately 2022, including hillside alteration, spoil placement, and the construction of a driveway along the north property line. These improvements appear to have been completed to provide access to otherwise constrained portions of the property and to allow reasonable use of the land. The variance request is to allow the existing disturbance to remain, including the altered hillside and driveway improvements, which support residential use consistent with the RU-43 zoning district. The intended use of the property remains single-family residential, and the existing improvements are necessary to facilitate safe and practical access. The peculiar conditions affecting the property include the natural slope and terrain, as well as the existing disturbed areas that now define the current site conditions. Due to these factors, strict enforcement of Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance regulations related to hillside disturbance and grading would impose a hardship by requiring removal and restoration of improvements that are necessary for access and reasonable use of the property. Compliance with the current regulations would require significant regrading and restoration of previously disturbed areas, which would be impractical given the sites topography and would limit the ability to safely access and utilize the property. The existing driveway and graded areas represent the most feasible location for access due to the natural constraints of the site. Therefore, the combination of natural hillside conditions and existing site constraints creates a hardship if the zoning regulations are strictly applied, as it would restrict reasonable residential use of the property and eliminate functional access. The unnecessary hardship associated with this property is created by the combination of its natural hillside terrain and the existing disturbed conditions that were established prior to my ownership. The property contains sloped areas that limit access and usable space, and the existing driveway and graded areas are necessary to provide functional and safe access to the site. Strict enforcement of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, particularly regulations related to hillside disturbance and grading, would create an unnecessary hardship by requiring the removal and restoration of improvements that are essential for reasonable use of the property. Without the existing disturbance, access to portions of the property would be significantly limited due to the natural topography. This would restrict the ability to utilize the property in a manner consistent with other similarly zoned RU-43 properties. The hardship is directly related to the physical characteristics of the land, including slope and terrain, and is not based on personal preference or financial considerations. Zoning law requires that hardship arise from the property itself and not from the owner, and in this case, the hardship is caused by site conditions beyond the control of the current owner. Additionally, the existing disturbance, including hillside alteration and driveway construction, was completed prior to my purchase of the property in 2022. Therefore, the condition is not self-created in the line of title. Under Arizona law, a variance cannot be granted if the hardship is self-imposed; however, conditions that existed prior to ownership are not considered self-created by the current owner. Because the hardship results from the natural topography and pre-existing site conditions, strict application of the zoning ordinance would impose an unnecessary hardship by preventing reasonable access and use of the property, while providing no corresponding public benefit. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 The granting of this variance will not negatively impact the general intent and purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance, which is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to ensure orderly and appropriate land use. The requested variance does not propose any change in land use, density, or zoning classification. The property will continue to be used for single-family residential purposes consistent with the RU-43 zoning designation. The variance request is limited to allowing existing disturbance, including hillside alteration and a driveway, to remain in place to support access and reasonable use of the property. The existing disturbance does not create adverse impacts to surrounding properties, neighborhood character, or public safety. The improvements are consistent with typical residential access and development patterns in the area and do not introduce any incompatible use or intensity. Additionally, the variance will not negatively affect drainage, traffic, or environmental conditions. Any necessary improvements, such as erosion control or site stabilization, can be implemented to ensure compliance with County standards and to maintain the integrity of the site. Granting this variance would preserve the intent of the Zoning Ordinance by allowing reasonable use of the property while maintaining compatibility with surrounding properties and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The request is limited in scope and does not undermine the purpose or spirit of the regulations, but rather allows for practical application of those regulations given the specific conditions of the property. 4 OF 4 This Message Is From an External Sender This message came from outside your organization. Please use caution when corresponding outside the county. Outlook Re: FW: Disturbance Outside Setbacks on APN 211-74-061N From Justin Rindal <jrindal2012@gmail.com> Date Tue 5/5/2026 6:42 AM To Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Good Morning Joel, I spoke with my civil engineer & had them review the disturbance in the setback areas. After the review, the disturbance in the setbacks is 9,728 sq ft or 19.24% of the lot. The areas within the setback have been disturbed by transporting in/off the property from the previous owner using the lot as a staging area, temporarily placing material in the center of the building envelope and moving them back and forth to the above lot. The disturbed areas on the setback are due form transportation & access to the well (drilling). All areas that have been disturbed in the setbacks will be returned to its natural state prior to its disturbance. Let me know if there's any other information you need. I would greatly appreciate it, if it can be addressed at the earliest hearing. We have scheduled a few contractors in early June & would greatly appreciate it if we didn't have to push them back. Thanks, Justin Rindal On Wed, Apr 29, 2026 at 2:01 PM Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> wrote: Hello, I discussed this with our senior staff today. I don't believe it's possible to get us the total disturbance by the time our staff reports are required to be completed, so I'm going to have to ask you to request a continuance to the June 18 Board of Adjustment hearing. Please confirm the request to move this to June 18. That will give you time to be able to get us the required info per my earlier info. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2026 8:57 AM To: Justin Rindal <jrindal2012@gmail.com> Subject: Re: FW: Disturbance Outside Setbacks on APN 211-74-061N Hello, An engineer should be able to run topo to determine the area of disturbance from the contours and provide those figures for the variance request. I'm assuming there's no previous permit pulled for any disturbance outside the building envelope for us to evaluate. Since fill dirt has been dumped on site, there should be contours showing the change in grade. The engineer will need to identify the area of previous disturbance for approximate figures and address how that area will be restored. Joel Landis PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 301. W Jefferson St. Phoenix, AZ 85003 Planner O: 602-506-8358 MARICOPA.GOV Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | YouTube Maricopa County is developing the Framework 2040 Comprehensive Plan – a document which guides growth and development for the next decade and beyond. Visit Framework 2040 to learn how to participate, attend meetings and be heard! Please be aware there is rampant fraud attempts to solicit wire transfer payments based upon email addresses found in public records. Maricopa County will never ask for a wire transfer payment. From: Justin Rindal <jrindal2012@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2026 8:58 PM To: Joel Landis (PND) <Joel.Landis@maricopa.gov> Subject: Fwd: FW: Disturbance Outside Setbacks on APN 211-74-061N Good Morning Joel,