09.BA260024 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
21487 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260024 – Pluta Property Hearing Date: April 16, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Stanislaw Pluta Property Owners: Stanislaw and Agnieszka Pluta Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front setback of 10’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Section 502. Site Location: APN 503-30-363 @ 24032 W. Redbird Rd. in the Wittmann area Site Size: Approx. 43,568 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. March 9, 2022: The Assessor’s Office processes a split of Parcel 503-30-023P into five parcels, each measuring approximately one acre: One of these, Parcel 503-30-363, is the parcel subject to this variance request. 2. January 30, 2025: Maricopa County completes final inspections for B202208875, a building permit for a single-family residence on the subject parcel. The building permit identifies the front property line as the east property line due to the easement running along a portion of the east property line. This is because the cul-de-sac is delineated as an easement included as part of the underlying lots rather than a separate dedicated right-of-way or platted street tract. The gross area of the lot includes lot lines inside the easement so that the cul-de-sac crosses two separate lot lines. The shortest of those lines is the east lot line, which is not a traditional frontage and indeed only has frontage at the cul-de-sac itself and not along the greater plane of the lot line. 3. July 3, 2025: The current owners take possession of the subject parcel. 4. March 17, 2026: The owner submits this variance request. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 5. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 6. The property owner is requesting a variance to MCZO Section 502 to permit a front yard setback of 10’ from the east lot line. The Rural-43 zoning district requires a minimum front setback of 40’. The property owners are hoping to build a detached accessory garage toward the northeast corner of the property, which the owners have determined to be the most feasible location. Since the MCZO does not allow detached accessory structures within a street-adjacent setback, reducing the required front setback would allow the garage in the location proposed. Excerpt from Proposed Site Plan The variance Site Plan shows the front setback measured from the south rather than from the east. The case file for B202208875 confirms the front setback was measured from the east lot line. Site Analysis: 7. The subject property was created following a series of unregulated lot splits northeast of Jomax Road and 241st Avenue in the Wittmann area. It is one of 19 parcels that were created from what had been one 20-acre parcel as recently as March 2021. Page 3 of 8 8. Despite this series of splits, the subject Rural-43 property is generally flat and features no significant topographical features such as a wash or a floodplain. The most remarkable feature of the property is its angular east lot line relative to the other three, which, together, form right angles. The angled east lot line is a result of the unregulated lot split that created the subject parcel and its four neighbors. To form five parcels that each measured the minimum of one acre required in the Rural-43 zoning district, the previous owner who initiated the split formed one of the parcels in a shape generally corresponding with a baseball diamond (Parcel 503-30-364 as shown in the aerial image on the following page). To provide legal access to all five parcels, the previous owner recorded an easement through the middle of the lot split area. This easement, Redbird Road, originates at 241st Avenue on the west end of the lot split area and terminates in a cul-de-sac at the point where Parcels 503-30-363 (the subject parcel), 503-30-364 (the parcel shaped like a baseball diamond), and 503-30-365 intersect. Excerpt from Land Survey – Subject Parcel is Parcel 1B 9. With the horizontal alignment of Redbird Road, the south lot line functions effectively as the subject property’s front. However, with the Road’s terminus at the point where the horizontal lot line intersects with the angled lot lines, both the south and east lot lines are considered street- adjacent setbacks. This is in part because the subject property’s east lot line is also one of the two west lot lines for Parcel 503-40-364 (again, the parcel shaped as a baseball diamond), and because of where the easement terminates, those lot lines function as the latter parcel’s front. 10. Staff notes that, where a parcel is considered to have multiple street-adjacent lot lines, the front is considered the shortest. On the subject parcel, the east lot line is approximately 10’ shorter than the south lot line. MCZO Section 201 does allow discretion where the difference in the dimensions of two street-adjacent lot lines is less than 15’. However, it appears that the builder chose to determine the east lot line as the front and the south lot line as the street side. Determining the south as the street side had the inverse effect of determining the north as the interior side; in both cases, this allowed for reduced setbacks from the north and south for the primary residence. 11. Although the subject parcel’s east lot line is legally a street-adjacent lot line, it functions effectively as an interior side lot line. If it were legally an interior side lot line, the detached accessory garage would be allowed by right where the property owner has proposed building it. Detached accessory structures are allowed by right within required rear and interior side yards so long as they meet a minimum setback of 3’ (as required per building codes) and do not cover more than 30% of a required yard. Page 4 of 8 2026 Aerial Image of the Subject Site 2026 Aerial Image of Surrounding Environs Note: Subject Parcel is in Red. Original Parent Parcel (Pre-2021) is in Blue. Page 5 of 8 Zoning District Map 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 (proposed changes to standards are indicated in bold). Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east lot line) 40-feet 10-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (residence to west lot line) 40-feet 40-feet Min. Interior Side Setback (residence to north lot line) 20-feet 20-feet Min. Street Side Setback (residence to Redbird Road) 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 35-feet 35-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,568-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 198-feet Lot Coverage 25% ≈20% Page 6 of 8 State Statute / County Zoning Ordinance Tests - ARS § 11-816.B.2 and MCZO Article 302.2.2 state that the Board of Adjustment may, “Allow a Variance from the terms of the Ordinance when, owing to a peculiar condition of the land that is not self-created in the line of title, a strict interpretation of the Ordinance creates an unnecessary hardship, as long as in granting such 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 the peculiar conditions facing the property and include reference to the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance Regulations or Development Standards to be varied. “The property has an irregular shape that limits the ability to place a detached garage in compliance with standard setback requirements. The only feasible buildable area is located within the required 20-foot street side setback. However, there is no physical street along this side of the property, and it functions as an interior side setback rather than true street frontage. “There are no washes, drainage concerns, or utility conflicts affecting this portion of the lot. The proposed structure will not interfere with any easements and is consistent with the approved site plan of the residence. Due to the configuration and limited usable space of the parcel, strict enforcement of the setback requirement would prevent reasonable use of the property and create an unnecessary hardship.” 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 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 is caused by the unique shape and layout of the lot, which is not self-created and exists as part of the original parcel design. Because of this configuration, the proposed location is the only area on the property with adequate space to accommodate a detached garage while maintaining proper access and functionality. “Denying the variance would prevent reasonable residential use of the property that is consistent with similar properties in the area. The request is minimal and will not negatively impact surrounding properties or conflict with existing easements or utilities.” 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 requested variance preserves the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood while accounting for the property's unique layout. Specifically, the east side of the lot functions as an interior setback with no adjacent street, meaning the reduction does not interfere with public rights-of-way, sight visibility triangles, or traffic safety. Furthermore, the placement ensures that all structures remain a safe and proper distance from existing utility easements, thereby protecting public infrastructure and ensuring continued access for utility maintenance, which fulfills the ordinance’s goal of promoting public safety and orderly land use.” Page 7 of 8 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 302.2.2, 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. 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 is unable to identify a peculiar condition facing the property. Although the property is not rectangular in shape, it otherwise meets area and width requirements, is generally flat, and is not encumbered by unusual topographical features like washes or floodplain. Furthermore, the development of a single-family residence as the primary use means that the property already fulfills the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. That a primary use was established without need for variance means that enforcement of the MCZO cannot be interpreted as imposing an unnecessary hardship on the property. • The site plan shows what appears to be ample room for the garage to be located further to the west, closer to the existing residence. It appears possible that the garage could be located outside the existing required front setback and still maintain sufficient separation distance from the primary residence. • However, the lot line from which the property owner is requesting variance functions effectively as an interior side lot line. If not for the Redbird Road easement terminating at the east lot line (for the purpose of allowing legal access to the adjacent property), the east lot line would be considered the interior side, and the detached garage would be allowed by right where proposed without need for variance. The proposed detached accessory building will be located 75’+ from the actual street. 18. 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 10’ east setback line for APN 503-30-363. Page 8 of 8 Presented by: Nick Schlimm, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (1 pages) Land Division Survey (3 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated March 30, 2026 2:13 PM BA260024 Application Name: Legal Description RV GARAGE Applicant Case Address 5N 3W 33 Stanislaw Pluta 24032 W REDBIRD RD Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:503-30-363 (773) 704-7537 WITTMANN, AZ 85361 Map scale 1:791 Supervisor District No. REDUCE EAST PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS TO BUILD DETACHED RV GARAGE 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. The property has an irregular shape that limits the ability to place a detached garage in compliance with standard setback requirements. The only feasible buildable area is located within the required 20-foot street side setback. However, there is no physical street along this side of the property, and it functions as an interior side setback rather than true street frontage. There are no washes, drainage concerns, or utility conflicts affecting this portion of the lot. The proposed structure will not interfere with any easements and is consistent with the approved site plan of the residence. Due to the configuration and limited usable space of the parcel, strict enforcement of the setback requirement would prevent reasonable use of the property and create an unnecessary hardship. The hardship is caused by the unique shape and layout of the lot, which is not self-created and exists as part of the original parcel design. Because of this configuration, the proposed location is the only area on the property with adequate space to accommodate a detached garage while maintaining proper access and functionality. Denying the variance would prevent reasonable residential use of the property that is consistent with similar properties in the area. The request is minimal and will not negatively impact surrounding properties or conflict with existing easements or utilities. 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 "The requested variance preserves the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance by maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood while accounting for the property's unique layout. Specifically, the east side of the lot functions as an interior setback with no adjacent street, meaning the reduction does not interfere with public rights-of-way, sight visibility triangles, or traffic safety. Furthermore, the placement ensures that all structures remain a safe and proper distance from existing utility easements, thereby protecting public infrastructure and ensuring continued access for utility maintenance, which fulfills the ordinance’s goal of promoting public safety and orderly land use." 1.0 A Site plan DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: SHEET NO.: JOB: DRAFT RES D R A F T I N G & D E S I G N AS NOTED 3-9-2026 SITE PLAN PARCEL #: 503 - 30 - 363 24032 W. RED BIRD RD. WITTMANN, AZ 85361 JAR SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" Site plan NORTH BUILDING INFORMATION OWNER INFORMATION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EXISTING BUILDING AREA: EXISTING BUILDING:........................ 5,009 SQ. FT. TOTAL:............................................. 5,009 SQ. FT. BUILDING AREA: GARAGE:......................................... 3,600 SQ. FT. TOTAL:............................................. 3,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOOTPRINT TOTAL:......... 8,609 SQ. FT. STAN PLUTA 24032 W. RED BIRD RD. WITTMANN, AZ 85361 BUILDING DATA: BUILDING CRITERIA: PARCEL #: 503 - 30 - 363 24032 W. RED BIRD RD. WITTMANN, AZ 85361 MARICOPA COUNTY ZONING............................ RU-43 OCCUPANCY................... SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION............... TYPE V MAX. BLDG. HGT............ 35' / 2 STORIES ACTUAL BLDG. HGT........ 28'-0" +/- FRONT:............................................. 40'-0" REAR:.............................................. 40'-0" LEFT SIDE:....................................... 20'-0" RIGHT SIDE:..................................... 20'-0" LOT SETBACKS: LOT SIZE:......................... 43,568 SQ. FT. (1.00 ACRES) MAX. LOT COVERAGE:... 25% LOT COVERAGE:............. 8,609 SQ. FT. / 43,568 SQ. FT. = 20% TOTAL LOT COVERAGE LOT coverage: PROPERTY LINE - 208.39' N89°35'26"W PROPERTY LINE - 164.91' N0°16'47"E PROPERTY LINE - 320.10' S89°34'25"E PROPERTY LINE - 198.90' S34°27'00"W W. REDBIRD RD. REAR SETBACK - 40' SIDE SETBACK - 20' SIDE SETBACK - 20' FRONT SETBACK - 40' 6'-0" 10'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 6'-0" GARAGE 3,600 SQ FT EXISTING BUILDING 5,009 SQ FT ELEC. ELEC. POOL FENCE FENCE FENCE FENCE FENCE FENCE FENCE DRIVE WAY SIDE WALK