08.BA260021 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
13673 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA260021– Nikolaus Residential Variance
Hearing Date:
April 16, 2026
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Kameron Nikolaus
Property Owners:
Kameron/Jordan Nikolaus
Request:
Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Variance for to reduce minimum lot width from 145’ to 140’ in the Rural-
43 Zoning District
Site Location:
APN 304-47-023N @16637 E. Frye Rd. in the Gilbert area
Site Size:
44,587 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Rural-43/ Single-family residence
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
c.1972: Historic aerials first show a single-family residence at subject location.
2.
February 18, 1992: First recorded deed creating the parcel.
3.
November 29, 2023: Deed recorded conveying property to current owner.
4.
January 28, 2025: permit issued for an electric panel change; BLDR2500365.
5.
November 12, 2025: application for building permit (alteration/ remodel); BLDR2509048. Zoning
issued a comment about the substandard lot width and recommended a Variance.
6.
March 17, 2026: application for subject variance.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single Family Residential
North:
Frye Rd./ Town of Gilbert
South:
Rural-43
East:
Rural-43
West:
Rural-43
Variance Request:
Page 2 of 8
8.
The applicant is requesting to reduce the lot width to 140.97’ where 145’ is the minimum width
permitted per MCZO Section 502. According to the applicant, this is to ensure that the parcel
width is granted legal status by the Board of Adjustment. Approval of this variance request will
facilitate construction of a proposed 1,527 sq. ft. addition to their residence (580 sq. ft. porch and
a 947 sq. ft. patio).
9.
Staff would argue that original construction of the single-family residence on the subject property
determined the lot was buildable and thus should be considered legal non-conforming; except
that, there appears to have been a lot-split subsequent to original home construction.
Excerpt from proposed site plan
Page 3 of 8
Photographs of subject site provided by applicant
PROPERTY FRONTAGE
REAR
Page 4 of 8
10.
During building permit review, the applicant was notified of the minimum lot width requirement
under the Rural-43 zoning district in which their lot is located. Hence the applicant is pursuing this
variance to legalize their parcel in its present state. The minimum lot width allowed under the
Rural 43 zoning district is 145 feet. The lot width of the subject parcel is 140.97 feet as shown on
the site plan.
Site Analysis:
11.
This site is surrounded on the west, east and south by single-family residences. It is bordered to
the north directly by Frye Rd. and the Town of Gilbert. The total lot area is 44,587 sq. ft., as shown
on the Maricopa County Assessor’s website and site plan. The current lot coverage is 2,273 sq.
ft., or approximately 5% of the total lot area. The area of the proposed additions, a porch and a
patio, will be 1,527 sq. ft. The total coverage when additions are completed will be 8.5% (3,800
sq. ft.) , lower than the allowed 25% coverage under the Rural 43 zoning district.
The deed dated November 29, 2023, and site plan submitted by the applicant show
the dimensions of the lot as follows: 140.97 feet width and 399.76 length. A 1992 recorded deed
obtained from the Maricopa County Assessor’s office reflected the same dimensions.
12,
The dimensions of the subject lot were established by deed more than a decade before the current
owner purchased the property. Residential development has occurred on both sides of the parcel,
making it difficult to expand the width in either direction. New additions to the front and rear of
the house would maintain the same distance from the side property lines as the existing
residence. Once completed, the residence would meet all setback and lot coverage requirements
in the RU-43 District. Granting the variance would permit reasonable construction to occur and
will not impact the property or adjacent properties.
Aerial photo of subject site
Page 5 of 8
Aerial image & surrounding environs
Zoning District map
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 (Note: changes to proposed standards are indicated in
bold).
Standard
Rural-43
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south property line)
30-feet
n/a
Maximum Height (above the natural grade)
30-feet
n/a
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
n/a
Minimum Lot Width
145-feet
140.97- feet
Lot Coverage
25%
n/a
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.”
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.
“This property/home has been on this acre lot for nearly 30 years. I am not the first owner. Now that
I am trying to get new things done on the home and permitted it is showing that when it was
subdivided many years ago that the property is not 145 feet wide- which is what the code is. I am
requesting that a variance be granted so we can continue with permits and get the things done to
the house. “
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
enforcement of the Zoning Regulations or Development Standards would impose a hardship on
the property.
“The hardship this is causing is it stops us from being able to extend our patios to enjoy our front
and back porches as well as add a closet to our daughters’ bedroom.”
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
Page 7 of 8
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.
“This wouldn’t make anything different on our property. The home is already here so we are simply
just trying to bring it to code.”
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
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.
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:
•
Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property that would prevent reasonable
development of the lot. The lot is already developed with a single-family residence.
•
It would appear the substandard lot width to be self-created in the line of title due to
unregulated land division.
•
Having said that, the lot and the adjacent lot to the east have been developed each with a
single-family residence for over 40 years. When viewed with the adjacent lot to the east, they
appear to be two one-acre single-family lots. The subject lot is 140’ wide and the lot to the
east is 147’ wide.
•
This variance will have no discernable impact on development patterns along this street. The
purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.
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 memorializes the 140’ lot width for APN 304-47-023N.
Presented by:
Evelyn Amekudzi, Planner
Page 8 of 8
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (1/2 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
Historical Recorded Deed (3 pages)
/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated March 30, 2026 2:16 PM
BA260021
Application Name:
Legal Description
Nikolaus Home
Applicant
Case Address
1S 6E 34
JORDAN/KAMERON NIKOLAUS
16637 E FRYE RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:304-47-023N
(480) 234-6051
GILBERT, AZ 85295
Map scale 1:769
Supervisor District No.
Asking to get our home and property approved for further permitting.
BA260021
03/17/2026
BA260021
03/17/2026
BA260021
03/17/2026
THESE DRAWINGS SHALL
NOT BE REPRODUCE OR
OTHER STRUCTURES BUILT
FROM THESE DRAWINGS
WITHOUT CONSENT FROM
GRAND DESIGNS
RESIDENTIAL DRAFTING
EMAIL: GRANDDESIGNS.PLANS@GMAIL.COM PHONE: (480) 745-5288
REVISIONS
#
DATE
310'
140.97'
310'
140.97'
N
SCALE 1" = 20'
5
10
15
20
25
50
EXISTING
SEPTIC
58'
28'
54'-4"
58'
10'
58'
16'-4"
N
VICINITY MAP
40'
40'
30'
30'
40'
5'
124'-6"
5'
52'-11 11/16"
51'
30'
20'
10'
204'-8"
9'-6"
118'-5 11/16"
116'-11 11/16"
159'-10 1/2"
132'-1 7/16"
166'-10 9/16"
8'
123'-11 11/16"
19'
19'
12'
11'
12'
13'
24'
W
E
SITE PLAN
LOT COVERAGE
LOT AREA: 44,587 S.F.
RESIDENCE
EXISTING LIVABLE: 1,624 S.F.
NEW PORCH: 580 S.F.
NEW PATIO: 947 S.F.
TOTAL NON-LIVABLE: 1,527 S.F.
RESIDENCE TOTAL: 2,535 S.F.
EXISTING BARN: 361 S.F.
EXISTING SHADE: 156 S.F.
EXISTING STORAGE 1: 132 S.F.
TOTAL: 3,800 S.F.
8.5% COVERAGE
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURES-
LOW PRESSURE SODIUM
(150 WATTS INCANDESCENT LIGHT)
COMPLY W/ (MCZO SECTION 1112 AND ARTICLE 1112.4)
-THE GRADE AWAY FROM
FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL
FALL 6" WITHIN THE FIRST 10'
304-47-023N
OWNER INFORMATION
OWNER NAME: NIKOLAUS JORDAN/KAMERON
ADDRESS: 16637 E FRYE RD
GILBERT, AZ 85295
JURISDICTION: MARICOPA COUNTY
LOT SIZE (SQ FT): 44,587
ZONING: RU-43
E FRYE RD
EXISTING 200 AMP
SERVICE PANEL
EXISTING SHADE
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EXISTING BARN
EXISTING STORAGE 1
EXISTING 4'
VINYL FENCE
EXISTING 6'
VINYL FENCE
EXISTING 6'
VINYL FENCE
EXISTING 6'
RAIL FENCE
EXISTING GATE
SBL
SBL
SBL
SBL
SEPTIC TANK
10' FROM STRUCTURE MIN.
781634
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
GRAVEL
DRIVEWAY
NEW ADDITION
NEW ADDITION
F.F.E. = TO MATCH
EXISTING PATIO
F.F.E. = TO MATCH
EXISTING PORCH
R.O.W.
MCDOT R.O.W.
RESIDENCE
304-47-047
RESIDENCE
304-47-023F
RESIDENCE
304-47-023R
S1
SHEET:
NIKOLAUS ADDITION
SCALE:
16637 E FRYE RD
GILBERT, AZ 85295
SITE PLAN
DATE:
1"=20'
12/18/2025
12-18-25
3
2
1
SCOPE OF WORK
-DEMO EXITING PORCH AND PATIO
-DEMO HALLWAY CLOSET
-FRAME OUT NEW CLOSET
-FRAME OUT NEW PORCH AND PATIO
-TIE NEW ELECTRICAL INTO EXISTING 200 AMP PANEL
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
BA260021
03/17/2026
BA260021
03/31/2026
BA260021
03/31/2026
BA260021
03/31/2026