01.Staff Report BA260006
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15945 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260006 – Arellano Property Hearing Date: March 12, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant/Owner: Carlos Esteban Arellano Peralta Request: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed side yard (north) setback of 10’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 502 2) Proposed rear yard (east) setback of 10’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 502 3) Proposed lot width of 135’ where 145’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 502 Site Location: APN 211-50-015H @ 38613 N. 19th Ave. in the Phoenix area Site Size: 54,948 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: N/A Background: 1. August 9, 2017: The current legal description first appears via unregulated lot split per Treasurer’s Deed MCR 2017-0584205 2. February 18, 2025: The current owner acquires subject parcel via warranty deed MCR 2025- 0087323. 3. January 14, 2026: An application for a residential variance is submitted by the property owner. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 4. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Vacant South: W. Irvine Rd then Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Vacant West: N. 19th Ave then Rural-43 / Vacant Page 2 of 9 Variance Request: 5. The applicant proposes to develop the property for a 2,550 sq. ft. single-family residence with an interior side setback of 10’ and rear yard setback of 10’. It will be served by a private well for water and a septic system for wastewater. There are also plans to develop a 400 sq. ft. detached accessory structure within the property’s rear yard near the east property line. Although the detached accessory structure may be located as close as 3 feet from the rear property line it is depicted on the site plan 10’ from the east property line. It is not the reason for the request for a 10’ rear yard setback. The applicant anticipates that the location of the single-family residence may change towards the direction of the rear property line during the plan review process for the building permit. Although a building permit application has not yet been submitted, the property owner is seeking this variance prior to the preparation of formal building and engineering plans. Excerpt from proposed site plan Page 3 of 9 Photographs of subject site Page 4 of 9 Page 5 of 9 Site Analysis: 6. Any future development of the subject parcel is impacted by an existing FEMA designated floodplain that covers nearly all of the site and a small portion of undevelopable floodway and wash along the north edge. It is a corner lot, adjacent to a key lot and enjoys access to two county maintained roads, N. 19th Ave and W. Irvine Rd. Although the immediate area is largely vacant due to development restrictions imposed by the flood hazard areas, the expanded area is comprised of single-family residential structures that have developed sporadically over time through unregulated lot splits, and are served by private or shared wells, and septic systems. If the site can be developed with proper engineering, a single-family residential structure is consistent with the existing character of the local area. Because the wash flows from northeast to southwest across the parcel at the south end, any development on the site is preferable toward the north (interior) side of the parcel. The sub-standard lot width of 135 feet appears to be the result of an unregulated lot split done by a previous owner of the parcel. Aerial photo of subject site Page 6 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Floodplain Map Page 7 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking south into subject parcel (aerial image dated March 2025). Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: Page 8 of 9 7. 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 (west property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (east property line) 40-feet 10-feet Min. Side Yard Setback (north property line) 20-feet 10-feet Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 135-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.” 8. 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. “Lot width variance of 135’ and rear and side setbacks to 10’. Requesting to build a home “ 9. 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 “L” shape and the existing wash makes it complicated to well position a home.” 10. 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 proposed home will be consistent with the area development within the zoning district, and the existing wash will remain untouched and undisturbed .” Findings: Page 9 of 9 11. 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. 12. 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 wash is in the south end of the subject parcel limits development pushing it northward toward the interior/north side yard. • The substandard lot width, in conjunction with the location of the wash, minimizes the amount of developable space within the typical building envelope. Although this was not created by the current property owner, it is created in the line of title. • The 10’ rear yard setback request is speculative and not shown on the site plan for the single-family residence. It is also not necessary for the detached accessory structure as depicted on the site plan. 13. 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 10’ side setback along the 173’ dimensioned property line and a lot width of 135’. Presented by: Isaac Perez, 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 February 23, 2026 10:30 AM BA260006 Application Name: Legal Description My Dream Ranchito Applicant Case Address 6N 3E 30 CARLOS Carlos ARELLANO 38613 N 19TH AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-50-015H (305) 399-1351 PHOENIX, AZ 85086 Map scale 1:746 Supervisor District No. Residential Variance request to allow a new residence MARĪCOPA COUNTY RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE REQUEST RESIDENTIAL VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION APPLICATION FORM ALLFEES AREDUEAT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARENON-REFUNDABLE Description of Request: ExistingZoningDistrictandUseofProperty: Ruk 43 Related Case Number(s): PROPERTY INFORMATION Address (if known): ZI-S0-- OLSE (include nearest city/town):eh eass coner ag vine Ko cht 191°Aue Square Feet: Township: Legal Description: Range: General Location Size in Acres: Assessor's Parcel Number(s): Subdivision Name (if applicable): Is this subject property within an APPLICANTINFORMATION Name: Address: City: Phone #: E-mail Address: PROPERTYOWNER NFORMATION City: Cavlos Esteban Arellana Name: Address: 3208 E Ana haenix Phone#: 305-3 de E-mail Address: PROPERTYOWNER AN T I S4243 sg Section: area of15%orgreaterhillsideslopes?Yes No Contact: State: Zip: Fax #: Contact: State: Zip: 85032 I(propertyowner) 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 property. authorize (applicant's name) conditions, development agreements, and/or any other requirement that may encumber or otherwise affect the use of my PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER- SIGNATUREREQUIRED 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.RS.$1S12-1132 through 1138, the property owner does hereby waive any and all claims for diminution in value of the açtion-taken-byMacjcopa Countyas result of the filing of this application. property with regard to any Property Owner Signature: INSPECTIONS Date: Bysubmittingthisapplication,laminvitingCountystaff toconductallsiteinspectionstheydeemnecessary. VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION INFORMATION- SIGNATUREREQUIRED -14-26 I certify that the statements in this application andsuppart material aretrue. Any approvals or permits granted by Maricopa County in reliance upon the truthfulness of these statements may be evoked or rescinded. Owner or Authorized Agent Signature: 2 Date: -14-6 ARS$ 1605TIMEFRAMEXTENSION |Iauthorizea50%timeframeextensionforthereviewofmyagplicationasadoptedbytheBoardofSupervisorsperARS§1605andas amended. Property Owner Signature: Date: L426 Residential Variance Application Packet 12/2/24 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 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 puposes of the zoning ordinance will bepreserved. Please discuss and explain what is/are the peculiar oondition(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. ldentify 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 Developmet Standard(s) would impose a hardship on the property. ot whvattdne henr and hequeshn 135ft dh side set brlcde s tu tu buld hone 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. 2 The 'shipe elhe the eastins wtsh mdsesit Complateo tu ell Posíion à home well Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Sute 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Residential Variance Application 1. Packet 12/2/24 rease discussandexplainhowthegranting f therequestedvariancewouldnot the generat irtent end purpose of theZoningOrdinance. causea negattve impact or Pepsed hee will be the clted Otulapmnt withn te he Consistn with Zunagditat, dhothe cxishng st ill remainuntuhadnwnstrbed *Additional sheets may be attached. * DO NOTUSETHISFORMIFYOUARESUBMITTINGANNTERPRETATION Planning Z Development Department 301 W. Jetterson St, Sute 170 Phoeno, Artzona 85003 P:602.5063301 Residential Varlance Application Packet 6/17/24 TyeICAL VICINITY NAP VACANT LAN TRVINê RD VITNTTY MAP NOT To SCALE LDT COVERAGG RESIDENCE 2150 SF GARAGE SHED 400 SF 400 SF TOTAL 950SE PAREEL No 21-50-O15HT OWNER CARLOS E. ARELLANG NOTE ADJAENT USE VACANT MINIMVM SETJACKS TO SEPLL TANK DESPUSAL FTELD DUILDING DRTVEWA ProrERy LTUE WASH WEL 10 I00+ 50 50 THIS SITE NorE ADJACENT USEVACANT -S0'- 50 - ..90- S0 -I3 ia Ser--50 - DRTVE TESTYENLE s- -TN SD 20 25 NASH 288 W IRVINE RD EXTSTING WELL lem-19.2