04. BA260016 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17310 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260016 – Everett Property Variance Hearing Date: April 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Shannon Everett Shannon Everett Living Trust Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed street-side setback of 33’ where 43.46’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Rural & Residential Zoning District Development Standards and variance BA2005098 APN 202-13-045E @ 46013 N. 38th Ln. –Black Canyon Hwy. and 38th Ln., in the New River area 54,450 sq. ft. Accessory Stable and Riding Area / Rural-43 Applicant: Property Owner: Request: Site Location: Site Size: Current Use / Zoning: Background: 1. December 15, 2004: The subject parcel is created via unregulated land division. 2. July 13, 2005: Variance BA2500098 is granted to allow for a 43.46’ setback where 53’ was required. This was necessitated by a patent easement which splits the subject property from the parcel directly east, APN 202-13-044C. The patent easement extends 33’ west from the east parcel line into the subject parcel. The original variance granted an approximately 10’ east setback. The variance was proposed to permit a single-family residence which ultimately never developed. 3. 2018: The subject parcel remained vacant until around 2018 when historic aerials indicate a stable and horse fencing having been constructed. 4. March 1, 2023: The current owner takes possession of the subject property and adjacent east property via MCR20230104339. 5. November 26, 2025: The owner applies for a building permit to develop a 4,024 sq. ft. single-family residence. The provided grading & drainage plan indicates the northeast corner of the home being 30.9’ from the east parcel line, or about 2’ into the patent easement. 6. February 19, 2026: The owner applies for the subject variance to allow the home to be directly on the patent easement. Page 2 of 6 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. On-site: Rural-43 / Stable and horse pens North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: 38th Ln. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43/ Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 8. The applicant proposes to vary the east setback from 43.46' to 33' to accommodate a single- family residence. Staff notes that abandonment of the patent easement has not been proposed. If the easement were abandoned via MCDOT, the updated Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance would allow 20' side setbacks — less restrictive than what this variance is requesting. The patent easement does not appear to provide access to any other properties. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 6 Site Analysis: 9. The site is flatter toward the front and hillier toward the rear, limiting development to the front portion of the parcel. The existing structures — a stable and horse pen — are already located in that developable area, roughly where the proposed home would be sited. No drainage issues or other constraints appear to affect development within the setback envelope. The patent easement is on the east side of the subject parcel at the parcel line. Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 4 of 6 Eagle view of subject site oriented from the west looking east into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/16/2020) Zoning District map Page 5 of 6 Zoning District Standards: 10. 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 Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east parcel line) 43-feet 33-feet Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards 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.” 11. 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. “Buildable area after set-backs and right-of-way shrinks by 16,170 sq ft from 54,450 sq ft.. Just the 33' easement on the South and East lot line reduce the space to 38,280 without accounting for the 30' side set back. With 160' East to West lot size minus 2-side set backs of 30' each and the 33' easement, I only have 77' to build and we have topography to deal with on top of that. For this reason and due to the aesthetic of the neighbors and neighboring properties, it makes sense to face the house to the South with a slight angle West” 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 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. “Due to the shape and topography of the land facing the home East/West instead of North/South allows for no backyard at all and is not highest and best use of the lot itself. In addition, would quite simply, not look right. With the 33' Easement on top of the 30' set back, there is just not enough room to position the house facing South without a variance to remove the East side 30' set back. Obviously, we are leaving the 33' easement so effectively, standard "set backs" remain.” 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. Page 6 of 6 “I don't believe there is a negative impact since the 33' easement will remain. In addition, I also own 46010 N 38th Ave to the East of the subject property. This lot also has a 33' easement that still exists.” 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 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. 15. 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: • A variance permitting a reduced east setback already exists on this parcel. • The patent easement does not appear to constitute a peculiar condition, as after easement areas are subtracted the parcel still has approximately a three-quarter acre building envelope. • Administrative remedy has not been exhausted as the applicant has not pursued abandonment of the easement — which, if granted, would allow a 20' street-side setback under the current MCZO, less restrictive than the subject variance request. 16. 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 a 33’ east setback line from the ultimate street line for APN 202-13-045E. 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 (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated March 30, 2026 2:11 PM BA260016 Application Name: Legal Description Everett Residence Applicant Case Address 7N 2E 34 SHANNON EVERETT 46013 N 38TH LN Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-13-045E (602) 550-8002 NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:821 Supervisor District No. Due to the topography of this lot , combined with the imposed setback restrictions (30' side set back AND 33' GLO easement). It has been determined that the space available for a typical residential 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: ______________________________ Residential Variance Request 46013 N 38th Lane New River, AZ 85087 1.25 54,450.00 37 7N 2E 202-13-045E I Shannon Everett 602-550-8002 46010 N 38th Ave New River AZ 85087 (602) 550-8002 sreverett@msn.com Shannon Everett 602-550-8002 46010 N 38th Ave New River AZ 85087 (602) 550-8002 sreverett@msn.com Shannon Everett Shannon Everett R-43 Authentisign ID: 36FF40FF-380C-F111-A69A-000D3A4FF82A 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 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. Buildable area after set-backs and right-of-way shrinks by 16,170 sq ft from 54,450 sq ft.. Just the 33' easement on the South and East lot line reduce the space to 38,280 without accounting for the 30' side set back. With 160' East to West lot size minus 2-side set backs of 30' each and the 33' easement, I only have 77' to build and we have topography to deal with on top of that. For this reason and due to the aesthetic of the neighbors and neighboring properties, it makes sense to face the house to the South with a slight angle West Due to the shape and topography of the land facing the home East/West instead of North/South allows for no backyard at all and is not highest and best use of the lot itself. In addition, would quite simply, not look right. With the 33' Easement on top of the 30' set back, there is just not enough room to position the house facing South without a variance to remove the East side 30' set back. Obviously, we are leaving the 33' easement so effectively, standard "set backs" remain. 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 Residential Variance Application Packet 6/17/24 I don't believe there is a negative impact since the 33' easement will remain. In addition, I also own 46010 N 38th Ave to the East of the subject property. This lot also has a 33' easement that still exists.