03.BA250073 BOA Staff Report REV 1_7
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17022 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250073 – Prieto Property (Lot 4) Hearing Date: January 15, 2026 Supervisor District: 4 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Sonia Prieto Property Owners: Sonia and Martin Prieto Requests: Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed lot area of 43,550 sq. ft. where 43,560 sq. ft. is the minimum required per MCZO Article 503.5.1 2) Proposed lot width of 132’ where 145’ is the minimum required per MCZO Article 503.5.2 Site Location: APN 504-12-238 – approx. 737’ north of the NEC of 351st Ave. & Buckeye Rd. in the Tonopah area Site Size: 43,550 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: No violation on property Background: 1. c. 1996 – 1997: APN 504-12-004 is split into five child parcels, including APN 504-12-004A, per Split Control ID 96719. 2. December 29, 2009: The current owners of the subject parcel take possession of its parent parcel, APN 504-12-004A, per Deed 2009-1189898. 3. September 22, 2023: The current owners further split APN 504-12-004A into five child parcels, all of which are of substandard lot width and lot area. These parcels include, from north to south, APN 504-12-241, -240, -239, -238, and -237. These parcels are denoted as lots 1 through 5, respectively, on the record of survey documenting the lot split. 4. May 15, 2025: The Board of Adjustment approves a variance (BA250001) for APN 504-12-237 to memorialize the substandard lot width and lot area on that parcel. 5. November 7, 2025: The property owner submits this variance request (BA250073) for APN 504-12- 238. The owner also submits variance requests for APN 504-12-240 (BA250074) and APN 504-12- 241 (BA250075). Page 2 of 8 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Vacant North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence (manufactured home) South: Rural-43 / Vacant East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Vacant (ASLD) Variance Requests: 7. The property owner, Sonia Prieto, is requesting variances to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) to permit a lot area of 43,550 sq. ft. and a lot width of 132’ on Parcel 504-12-238, where 43,560 sq. ft. and 145’, respectively, are the minimums required in the Rural-43 zoning district. Site Plan / Record of Survey (the property subject to BA250073 is “Lot 4” on the survey) Page 3 of 8 Site Analysis: 8. The parcels subject to variance requests BA250073, BA250074, and BA250075 were created following a series of unregulated land divisions. Prior to 1996, the sites formed portions of a much larger parcel corresponding with the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 7, Township 1 North, Range 5 West. This parent parcel, APN 504-12-004, measured approximately 40 acres with each side measuring approximately one quarter mile. In 1996 or 1997, an unregulated land division was recorded from which five child parcels were established, including APN 504-12-004A, which itself corresponded with the north half of the west half of the west half of its parent parcel’s legal description. 9. Several subsequent lot splits recorded in the following years resulted in 26 individual parcels, including five that were split from APN 504-12-004A (a parcel of approximately five acres) in 2023. However, the area of each of the five parcels that were created is slightly deficient of the minimum of 43,560 sq. ft. required in the Rural-43 zoning district in spite of the survey that identified each parcel as one acre in size. These parcels measure areas ranging from 43,546 to 43,552 sq. ft. (0.9997 to 0.9998 acres). (It’s important to note that although the survey lists specific square footage of each lot it also calls each lot out as exactly 1.00 acres, a very specific measurement to the hundredth of an acre.) Additionally, the width of each of the five parcels is deficient of the minimum required 145’ by approximately 13’. Aerial Image of Original Parent Parcel and Subsequent Child Parcels Page 4 of 8 10. As a result of the unregulated land division, each of the five child parcels of APN 504-12-004A is nonconforming to the Rural-43 lot width and lot area regulations. The ideal remedy would be to combine the parcels again, resulting in a width of 660.15’ along the west lot line (the only lot line with street frontage). If desired, the property could then be split into a maximum of four parcels measuring no less than 145’ in width. If the four parcels were to be approximately equal in width and area, each would measure a width of 165.04’ and an area of approximately 1.25 acres, meeting the Rural-43 zoning district’s requirements. 11. Complicating this remedy, however, is that the original owners of the five parcels (as of 2023) have since sold the middle parcel (APN 504-12-239) to a new owner. The original owners maintain possession of the remaining four: the northernmost two and the southernmost two. Combining the northernmost and the southernmost parcels would negate the need for variances on the land subject to these requests, but the middle parcel would remain nonconforming. Besides obtaining variances, the only alternative would be for the new owner of the middle parcel to purchase additional land corresponding with a total width of at least 145’ along 351st Avenue. Subsequent corrective action through the lot split/combination process could result in two, three, or four parcels within the survey area all conforming to Rural-43 regulations. 12. Nevertheless, the property owners have already received Board approval for one variance case, BA250001, on May 15, 2025. This variance memorialized the nonconforming width and area for APN 504-12-237, the southernmost of the owners’ properties. The owners have since submitted three additional requests, BA250073, BA250074, and BA250075, to memorialize the nonconforming width and area for APN 504-12-238, 504-12-240, and 504-12-241, respectively. This staff report summarizes the three requests together, but staff prepared three separate staff reports, each with a title page and items for variance approval specific to one case number and its corresponding parcel. Aerial Image of the Subject Parcels Page 5 of 8 13. Typical for most Rural-43 properties, the three subject parcels are rectangular in shape, gentle in slope, and not encumbered by hillside or areas of floodplain. There is a wash that bisects APN 504-12-241 (BA250075) and APN 504-12-240 (BA250074), but it does not encumber APN 504- 12-238 (BA250073). This wash could potentially impact the location of future construction on these properties. However, no site plans have yet been submitted illustrating proposed development, and the owners have not requested setback variances for any of these properties. Without a site plan showing proposed development, staff cannot speculate an appropriate setback variance from any lot line should the Board approve any of these requests. Aside from the wash, none of the three parcels appears to possess any other conditions that may be considered peculiar. To the extent that the wash may be considered a peculiar condition on the northern two parcels, any hardship generated by said condition could be negated by combining them, thereby enlarging the building envelope. 14. The west lot lines correspond with a mid-section line. The record of survey for the five lot-split parcels shows a 20’-wide ingress/egress easement providing frontage along the west lot lines of the four southernmost parcels and terminating at the south lot line of the northernmost parcel. Normally, this would mean that the lot width for APN 504-12-241 must be measured along the south lot line, whereas the widths of the others would continue to be measured along their respective west lot lines. However, due to the required right-of-way preservation on either side of the mid-section line, the west lot lines are still considered the front for all five parcels. Furthermore, preservation setbacks of 40’ are required from the west lot lines unless MCDOT formally waives or reduces this requirement. As such, the required 40’ front yard setback for each parcel must be measured in addition to the 40’ of preservation for a de facto setback of 80’. 15. Site aerials show a shade structure (possibly a mare motel) straddling the lot line shared between APN 504-12-238 (BA250073) and APN 504-12-237 (BOA-Approved BA250001). This structure predates the land division and appears to have been built as an accessory structure to the manufactured home that is now on the middle parcel. If the parcels are all to remain as currently recorded, this structure will need to be removed or otherwise relocated and properly permitted so that it remains within the confines of a single parcel and meets setback requirements. Zoning District Map Page 6 of 8 Zoning District Standards: 16. 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 40-feet 40-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 40-feet 40-feet Min. Side Yard Setback 30-feet 30-feet Min. Street Side Yard Setback 20-feet 20-feet Maximum Height 30-feet 30-feet Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,550-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 132-feet Lot Coverage 25% N/A 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 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.” 17. 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. “This lot is 43,550 sqft shy of an acre (43,560). We need a variance on the lot width so we can build a new home on this lot. If we do not get a variance we can’t build a new home. This lot was subdivided by original lot APN 504-12-004A. We told the Surveyor we wanted 5 acre lots. It was done by Survey Arizona Allen Sadberry. He gave us the map and it said 1 acre on each lot 504-12- 237, 504-12-238, 504-12-239, 504-12-240, 504-12-241 so we did the Deeds. We went to Planning and Zoning to let them know we would like to build a home and they said we couldn’t that the lots where not one acre (43,560). They said we can do a lot split again and cutting a bit on lot 504-12- 239 with the manufactured home so that was not no longer an option. If we would of looked at the sqft of each acre since the beginning before doing the Deeds but the Surveyor didn’t tell us they were not a full acre we could of take care of it right there and then and would of not sold lot 504- 12-239.” 18. 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. Page 7 of 8 “The Surveyor divided the lot an shows 1 acre and its only 43,550 sqft not 43,560. Because of the Surveyor mistake it created all this mess. We already spent lots of money on all this. We also have a Well Guy that is suppose to do a well for the lots.” 19. 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. “If we get the variance accepted on this property it won’t affect the surrounding area. We have seen lots with a lot less than acre with a new built home.” Findings: 20. 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. 21. 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. Typical for most Rural- 43 properties, the subject parcel is rectangular in shape, gentle in slope, and not encumbered by hillside or areas of floodplain. • Staff is unable to identify an undue hardship created by the enforcement of the MCZO. The substandard lot area and lot width were created in the direct line of title because of poor lot-splitting practice with unregulated land divisions. The substandard lots were avoidable. The need for variance could have been avoided had more care been taken in the splitting of the parent parcel (or had the parcel not been split at all). One option available to the owners would be to combine their northernmost two parcels and their southernmost two parcels. Page 8 of 8 • The granting of the requested variance, the need for which could have been avoided, would fail to preserve the general intent and purpose of the MCZO. 22. 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 43,550-square-foot lot area for APN 504-12-238. b) Variance approval establishes a 132-foot lot width for APN 504-12-238. 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 (Record of Survey / Minor Land Division) (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 4 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 8:40 AM BA250073 Application Name: Legal Description Land Variance Applicant Case Address 1N 5W 7 SONIA PRIETO 985 S 351ST AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:504-12-238 (623) 205-6738 TONOPAH, AZ 85354 Map scale 1:813 Supervisor District No. I want to get a Variance on my lot it is shy of an acre. 05/25/23