04.BA260001 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19281 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA260001 – 11313 W Hidalgo Ave Variance Hearing Date: February 12, 2026 Supervisor District: 5 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Ricardo Lopez Property Owner: Ricardo and Jessica Lopez Request: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: Proposed street side (west) setback of 0’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Sec. 502 Site Location: APN 101-43-055 @ 11313 W. Hidalgo Ave. – Southern Ave and Avondale Blvd., in the Tolleson area Site Size: 50,835 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: V2400665 Background: 1. 1976: The existing residence and accessory structure (subject of the application) appear for the first time on historical aerials. 2. 2006: Eagle-eye photography on the site indicates the accessory structure having been expanded to the west property line without benefit of a building permit. 3. 2011: Property owners take possession of the parcel. 4. 2022: The accessory building is finished to its current extent. This includes enclosing the garage and expanding the rear of the building. 5. November 20, 2024: Violation V2400665 is opened due to citizen complaint of unpermitted construction. The violation is verified and is in the “in review” status 6. September 16, 2025: Building permit BLDR2507431 is submitted to address the unpermitted construction. If the permit is completed it will resolve the zoning violation.. Plan review staff indicate the building fails to meet the minimum required street-side setback. 7. January 5, 2026: The subject variance is requested. Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 8. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Hidalgo Ave then Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: 114th Ave then Rural-43 / Single-family residence Variance Request: 9. The applicant proposes varying the street-side yard to allow for a 0’ setback for an existing, unpermitted accessory dwelling unit. The building appears to have originally been constructed in roughly the same location at some point in the 1970s as some type of garage. It was later expanded to incorporate an accessory dwelling unit. This renovation was most likely part of the 2021-22 construction evidenced in the historic aerials. It may be possible to document a zero lot line along 114th Ave. for that portion of the building existing prior to 1/1/2000 (per MCZO, Art. 1004.1); however, there was clearly expansion of the building along the zero lot line as evidenced in the historic aerials circa 2022. The new permit associated with this variance would change the garage into an additional bedroom. 2022 aerial photograph 2023 aerial photograph Page 3 of 8 Excerpt from proposed site plan. The dashed line through the center of the structure represents the approximate location of the street side setback. The existing garage would be converted to livable space. Page 4 of 8 Earliest available photos of subject site 1976 2006 Google Street View photo of the building around 2023 Page 5 of 8 Site Analysis: 10. The site is flat and fully developed. Virtually all the developed areas are within a floodplain, although his does not appear to have hindered development on the parcel and along Hidalgo Avenue. 2025 Aerial photo of subject site and floodplain map Page 6 of 8 Aerial image & surrounding environs Zoning District map Page 7 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 11. 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. Street Side Yard Setback (ADU to west property line) 20-feet 0-feet Minimum Lot Width *112-feet 112-feet Note: Standards indicated in bold do not m eet base zoning standards *Legal Non-Conforming (LNC) per recorded subdivision plat for Haciendas Del Oeste 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.” 12. 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. “We're are requesting approval for structure on our property that's been built for about 40 years. It's right on the city line and currently used as a bedroom. Because it was built long before today's zoning rules, it doesn't meet the current setback requirements. We're asking for permission to keep it as is, with a zero-foot setback. The existing structure was built along 114th ave. this structure doesn't interfere with any public infrastructure or neighboring properties, so it won't cause any disruptions. The main challenge is that the structure's placement and the property's layout make it difficult to move or modify without significant hardship. So, granting this variance will help us keep everything functional and practical without unnecessary hardship.” 13. 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 here basically comes from the fact that this structure was built about 40 years ago, way before the current zoning rules were in place. Back then, everything was fine and compliant, but now, with updated laws, it doesn't meet the new setback requirements. The thing is, this situation isn't something we created; it's all due to the property's history and the way it was originally built. If we had to follow the current rules, we'd have to move or tear down the structure, which would be a big hassle and cost a lot. It's not something we brought upon ourselves, but rather a result of how things were originally set up” 14. 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 8 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. “If we get this variance, it won't cause any negative effects on the overall purpose of the zoning rules. The main goal of these regulations is to keep everything safe, maintain property values, and make sure the neighborhood stays nice and cohesive. In this situation, the structure's been there for decades and doesn't really cause any issues. So, letting it stay put won't disrupt the community or go against what the zoning rules aim to do.” Findings: 15. 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. 16. 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 or unnecessary hardship that would necessitate a 0’ setback. 17. 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 0’ west street-side setback line for APN 101-43-055 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 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 5 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated January 29, 2026 3:18 PM BA260001 Application Name: Legal Description Request for Zero Setback Approval and Existing Structure Applicant Case Address 1N 1E 30 Ricardo Lopez 11313 W HIDALGO AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:101-43-055 (602) 772-0318 TOLLESON, AZ 85353 Map scale 1:998 Supervisor District No. We're are requesting approval for structure on our property that's been built for about 40 years. It's right on the city line and currently used as a bedroom. Because it was built long before today's zoning rules, it 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: ______________________________ request for Varience property line setback. Existing rooom was built prior to ownership. BLDR2507431 11313 W Hidalgo Ave. Tolleson, AZ. 85353 avondale 1.17 50,989 30 1 north 1 East G & SR Mer 101-43-055 ■ ■ Jessica N Lopez 6025753012 11313 W Hidalgo ave Tolleson Az. 85353 6025753012 jenarilo@gmail.com Jessica N. Lopez 6025753012 11313 W Hidalgo ave Tolleson Az. 85353 6025753012 jenarilo@gmail.com Jessica N. Lopez Jessica N. Lopez 01/05/2026 RU-43 01/05/2026 01/05/2026 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. We're are requesting approval for structure on our property that's been built for about 40 years. It's right on the city line and currently used as a bedroom. Because it was built long before today's zoning rules, it doesn't meet the current setback requirements. We're asking for permission to keep it as is, with a zero-foot setback. The existing structure was built along 114th ave. this structure doesn't interfere with any public infrastructure or neighboring properties, so it won't cause any disruptions. The main challenge is that the structure's placement and the property's layout make it difficult to move or modify without significant hardship. So, granting this variance will help us keep everything functional and practical without unnecessary hardship. The hardship here basically comes from the fact that this structure was built about 40 years ago, way before the current zoning rules were in place. Back then, everything was fine and compliant, but now, with updated laws, it doesn't meet the new setback requirements. The thing is, this situation isn't something we created; it's all due to the property's history and the way it was originally built. If we had to follow the current rules, we'd have to move or tear down the structure, which would be a big hassle and cost a lot. It's not something we brought upon ourselves, but rather a result of how things were originally set up. 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 If we get this variance, it won't cause any negative effects on the overall purpose of the zoning rules. The main goal of these regulations is to keep everything safe, maintain property values, and make sure the neighborhood stays nice and cohesive. In this situation, the structure's been there for decades and doesn't really cause any issues. So, letting it stay put won't disrupt the community or go against what the zoning rules aim to do. ZONING COMMENTS 1. Add overall dimensions to all structures. 2. Will ADU have a driveway or parking? If so, show on plan with width and material. 3. The existing ADU has been built in the streetside setback which requires a variance by our planning dept. Please call 602-506-3301. Label all structures by use (shed, shade, garage etc.) REVISIONS REQUIRED See Zoning Comments in the attachment tab of your portal Margaret Blake 602-506-5450 margaret.blake@maricopa.gov Show floodplain on site plan. Will require a floodplain use permit. Provide surveyor letter showing all finished floor elevations (FFE). SI/SD may apply if FFE is too low. Requires a Minor plan review by Environmental services.