03.BA260005 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
18494 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260005 – Romero Property Hearing Date: April 16, 2025 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Property Owner: Yessika Romero Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear (west) and side (east) setback of 1’ where 3’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 806.2.1 Site Location: APN 211-86-927 @ 40908 N. Lytham Way – Spirit Dr. and Lytham Dr., in the Anthem area Site Size: 9534 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / R1-6 RUPD Background: 1. January 28, 2004: Recording date of subdivision plat S2003052 ‘Anthem Unit 38’. 2. September 22, 2020: Current owner takes possession of the subject property. 3. Sep – Oct 2024: Historical aerial photography shows the erection of the outdoor kitchen island consisting of 7’ high backsplash wall, BBQ grill and fireplace. A second shade structure next to an existing shade structure as well as a shade structure over the outdoor kitchen is also shown. 4. August 15, 2025: Date of building permit application for the as-built construction, BLDR2506557; the shade structure over the outdoor kitchen is no longer proposed and removed. 5. February 10, 2026: Applicant receives letter from Anthem HOA to produce County approved permits for the unpermitted construction by April 30, 2026. The violation was not reported to County code enforcement. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence North: R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence South: Spirit Dr. then R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence East: Lytham Way then R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence West: R1-6 RUPD / Single-family residence Page 2 of 8 Variance Request: 7. The applicant is in the process to permit an as-built outdoor kitchen that consists of a 7’ high backsplash wall setback approximately 1’ from the northern property line and 1.5’ from the east property line. The variance is necessary to secure zoning clearance for the pending building permit BLDR2506557. The minimum setback requirement for all accessory structures is 3’ from all interior lot lines. Staff notes the outdoor kitchen is uncovered, see photographs as provided by the owner. Excerpt from proposed site plan Photographs of subject structure Site Analysis: Page 3 of 8 8. The site is a typical single family residential lot developed as part of Anthem Unit 38. General regulations for detached accessory structures requires a minimum of 3’ setback from interior lot lines, all of which would have been enforced during the building permit process. 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). Page 5 of 8 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 9. 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). Detached Accessory Buildings & Structures Standards R1-6 RUPD Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (structures from eastern property line) 14’ n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (structures from western property line) 3’ 1’ Min. Side Yard Setback (structures from northern property line) 3’ 1’ Min. Street-Side Yard Setback (structures from southern property line) 7’ n/a Maximum Height 39’ n/a Minimum Lot Area 4,200-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 42’ n/a Lot Coverage 52% n/a Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards Page 6 of 8 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.” 10. 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 am applying to request a variance from the required setback to allow an existing permanent masonry outdoor barbecue and decorative fireplace to remain 1 foot from the interior rear and side property line and block wall, where a 3 foot setback was required. Strict enforcement of the setback would make the placement an HOA code violation and the structure would not be approved in the community by HOA rules and regulations. The structure was built entirely within the enclosed block wall, and not visible from neighboring homes as its lower than the block wall and does not impact surrounding homes. The outdoor fireplace is decorative only and does not have gas supply or any utilities and the grill/burner operates solely using 15 lb portable gas cylinders, making the structure safe and not a risk to neighboring properties. The structure was constructed without prior knowledge of the applicable setback requirement and I did not think it was a problem as I have seen several neighbors with the similar structures that are against the block wall. Had I been aware of this requirement I would not have built something that would make my house be in a constant HOA violation. Approval of this variance is required to get HOA approval and avoid violations and bring to full compliance. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and will allow an existing, safe residential improvement o remain. None of the contractors we used to help us let us know of this setback requirement and now we ask you to help us with this difficult situation. “ 11. 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. “While the structure was constructed prior to knowledge of the setback requirement, The enclosed rear yard had limited space to built the structure and if we would have left the 3 foot setback the structure would not have had a functional placement due to the physical limitations of the rear yard. Shifting the structure further into the yard would disrupt the proportional relationship between the structure, existing hardscape and outdoor living area, resulting in an impractical layout. The current placement allows the structure to be properly integrated with the existing patio and yard configuration. Additionally, the HOA places emphasis on maintaining consistent community aesthetics and quality design. This impact is not a matter of personal preference, but rather a result of the physical constraints of the property, which limit viable placement . The placement of the structure resulted in a private structure that does not affect any neighboring homes. Unfortunately, I was not aware of this rule prior to completing the structure. We found out once the HOA sent us a letter with the facts. We did not wish to impose our ideas over the rules, and need this variance to have the house be in full code compliance per Maricopa county and Home Owners Association rules.” Page 7 of 8 12. 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. “Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Several neighboring homes already feature structures similar to the one built and many of which are attached to the block wall, demonstrating that such constructions are consistent with the character of the area. The requested variance pertains to an accessory structure that poses no risk to the neighboring properties, as it is safe, solid, and well constructed addition. Appoval of this variance would simply bring a home into full compliance with both HOA and county regulations ,ensuring that the structure meets all apllicable safety and code requirements. Far from undermining zoning objectives, this variance would have a positive effect by formalizing a complaint, secure structure that aligns with existing development patterns.” Findings: 13. 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. 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. 14. 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: • After reviewing the submission, Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property that prevents reasonable development of the lot. • The reduced setback allowances (up to 3’ from interior property lines) for detached accessory structures is more than adequate to accommodate typical single-family accessory structures. • The variance is unwarranted because the hardship is self-imposed and not caused by a peculiar condition. 15. 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: Page 8 of 8 a) Variance approval establishes a 1’ rear (west) setback line for APN 211-86-927. b) Variance approval establishes a 1’ side (north) setback line for APN 211-86-927. Presented by: Daniel Johnson, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 0 approx. Generated March 30, 2026 2:10 PM BA260005 Application Name: Legal Description Romero Property Applicant Case Address 6N 3E 19 Yessika Romero Gonzalez 40908 N LYTHAM WAY Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-86-927 (480) 625-7968 PHOENIX, AZ 85086 Map scale 1:327 Supervisor District No. Rear setback request to 1-foot. 02/06/2026 I am applying to request a variance from the required setback to allow an existing permanent masonry outdoor barbecue and decorative fireplace to remain 1 foot from the interior rear and side property line and block wall, where a 3 foot setback was required. Strict enforcement of the setback would make the placement an HOA code violation and the structure would not be approved in the community by HOA rules and regulations. The structure was built entirely within the enclosed block wall, and not visible from neighboring homes as its lower than the block wall and does not impact surrounding homes. The outdoor fireplace is decorative only and does not have gas supply or any utilities and the grill/ burner operates solely using 15 lb portable gas cylinders, making the structure safe and not a risk to neighboring properties. The structure was constructed without prior knowledge of the applicable setback requirement and I did not think it was a problem as I have seen several neighbors with the similar structures that are against the block wall. Had I been aware of this requirement I would not have built something that would make my house be in a constant HOA violation. Approval of this variance is required to get HOA approval and avoid violations and bring to full compliance. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and will allow an existing, safe residential improvement o remain. None of the contractors we used to help us let us know of this setback requirement and now we ask you to help us with this difficult situation. While the structure was constructed prior to knowledge of the setback requirement, The enclosed rear yard had limited space to built the structure and if we would have left the 3 foot setback the structure would not have had a functional placement due to the physical limitations of the rear yard. Shifting the structure further into the yard would disrupt the proportional relationship between the structure, existing hardscape and outdoor living area, resulting in an impractical layout. The current placement allows the structure to be properly integrated with the existing patio and yard configuration. Additionally, the HOA places emphasis on maintaining consistent community aesthetics and quality design. This impact is not a matter of personal preference, but rather a result of the physical constraints of the property, which limit viable placement . The placement of the structure resulted in a private structure that does not affect any neighboring homes. Unfortunately, I was not aware of this rule prior to completing the structure. We found out once the HOA sent us a letter with the facts. We did not wish to impose our ideas over the rules, and need this variance to have the house be in full code compliance per Maricopa county and Home Owners Association rules. BA260005 RCVD 2/27/26 Granting the requested variance would not negatively impact the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. Several neighboring homes already feature structures similar to the one built and many of which are attached to the block wall, demonstrating that such constructions are consistent with the character of the area. The requested variance pertains to an accessory structure that poses no risk to the neighboring properties, as it is safe, solid, and well constructed addition. Appoval of this variance would simply bring a home into full compliance with both HOA and county regulations ,ensuring that the structure meets all apllicable safety and code requirements. Far from undermining zoning objectives, this variance would have a positive effect by formalizing a complaint, secure structure that aligns with existing development patterns. 56' - 4" 57' - 0" 14' - 2" 4' - 7 1/2" 10' - 7" 15' - 5 1/2" 19' - 3 1/2" 6' - 9 1/2" 28' - 6 1/2" 12' - 10" 1' - 4 1/2" 10' - 0" 12' - 0" 28' - 8 1/2" 2 ' - 3 1/2" ' - 3 12' - 0" 14' - 0" 14' - 0" 12' - 0" N W OUTDOOR KITCH N XISTING GAZ BO XISTING GAZ BO EXISTING HOUSE 1' - 8 1/2" 8' - 6" 117.60 SF 3' - 4" LIN 168 SF 168 SF N. Lytham Way PROPERTY LINE FENCE STREET LINE OUTDOOR KITCHEN WALL CONCRETE DRIVE WAY 2792 SF 23' - 2 1/2" 9' - 11" 9' - 1" 3' - 1 1/2" 7' - 7 1/2" 2' - 9" 9091.4 SF 2792 SF 30.71% 100% AREA (SF) (%) FENCE HEIGHT: 8' 66' - 3 1/2" 40' - 0 1/2" 7' - 3" 18' - 4" 1' - 4" D AWN BY: SHEET TITLE: ENGINEE OF ECO D: A B C D E F G CLIENT: A.P.N: SCALE: P OJECT: DATE: EVISIONS: 1 2 3 DESIGNE /D AFTE : M C SHEET #: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2025-02 17/10/2025 NAME: MAXWELL CARLSEN E-MAIL: MAXC ESIGNS@GMAIL.COM MOBILE: SIGNATURE: OUTDOOR KITCHEN DESIGN 1/8" = 1'-0" A101 Site Plan 78' - 32" GAZEBO 1 GAZEBO 2 168 SF 168 SF 1.85% 1.85% 34.41% Scale: 1" = 25' Vicinity Map Project Address Address: Maricopa County, AZ Project Name: LOT AREA : TOTAL LOT COVERAGE : . 3128 SF ProPERTY LINE GAS TANK CYLINDER CAPACITY 15 LBS TANK .Key Specifications for AmeriGas. . Fuel capacity 15lbs of propane .Height 18 inches .Valve type OPD (overfill protection device) .Material Steel Spirit Dr. 110.12' ProPERTY LINE ProPERTY LINE 122.12' 3' 66 PRoperty E GAZEBOS HAVE NO EXISTING UTILITY CONNECTIONS. EXISTING H0USE BUILDING LOT NO. 82 SUBDIVISION: ANTHEM COUNTRY CLUB UNIT 38 ADDRESS: 40908 N LYTHAM WAY, ANTHEM, AZ 85086 PARCEL NO: 211-86-927 OWNER: YESSIKA E ROMERO AND REINALDO LOPEZ RODRIGUEZ PERMIT SCOPE OF WORK: NEW OUTDOOR KITCHEN WITH FIREPLACE Grayed Area Not A Part No Changes Proposed BA260005 RCVD 2/27/26