08. BA250080 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
17799 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250080 – Collins Casita Variance Hearing Date: January 15, 2026 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Owner: Shandor Collins Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed rear yard coverage of 41% where 30% is the maximum allowed per MCZO Article 1106.2. Site Location: APN 211-24-032Q @ 12 E. Tumbleweed Dr.– Central Ave. and Tumbleweed St., in the Carefree area Site Size: 43,522 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: None Background: 1. November 19, 2020: Lot is created by minor land division. 2. January 14, 2021: Received application for primary residence building permit under B202100439. 3. August 16, 2022: Final Inspection approved on primary residence 4. December 11, 2025: Application received for variance for accessory dwelling unit exceeding rear yard lot coverage. 5. December 15, 2025: Application received for accessory dwelling unit under BLDR2509944. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Church Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 7. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,631 sq. ft. accessory dwelling unit in the required rear yard area of the lot. Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) article 1106.2 allows detached accessory structures to be constructed within rear and side yards up to 30% of the required yards aggregate area under roof (i.e. yard coverage). The required rear yard is measured as 160.6’ wide and 40’ in depth , or 6,424 square feet in area. Utilizing the current code, the applicant can utilize 1,920 sq. ft. which would equal 30% of the required rear and side yards. The applicant is requesting a variance to build 2,631 sq. ft. or approximately 41% of the required yard area. The proposed casita is approximately 9’ from the rear lot line, 30’ from the eastern lot line and approximately 51’ from the western parcel boundary. Excerpt from proposed site plan Site Analysis: 8. The site contains no significant physical features with no visible washes or hillside areas. The site was permitted at 43,560 sq. ft. but the lot confines do not mathematically match and the lot is currently undersized at 43,522 sq ft. The original homebuilder submitted permitting documents indicating the current correct boundary dimensions. The overall lot size was incorrectly marked as 1 full acre at 43,560 sq ft. Planning and Development did not notice the discrepancy and approved the permit at 43,560 sq ft. while the real area of the parcel is only 43,522 sq ft. Page 3 of 7 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs. Page 4 of 7 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated March 2025) Page 5 of 7 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 9. 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 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,522-sq. ft.* Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145 Lot Coverage 25% 25% Allowed accessory structure in rear yard 30% (1,920 sq. ft.) 41% (2,631 sq. ft. ) Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards * Indicates legal non-conforming (LNC or grandfathered) 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 Page 6 of 7 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.” 10. 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. “Requesting a variance from the Maximum Lot Coverage development standard applicable to the property’s zoning district (MCZO “Maximum Lot Coverage” standard varies by district; e.g., Rural-43 = 25% maximum per MCZO Article 503.5.4, and R1-35 = 30% maximum per MCZO Article 601.5.4). The proposed development results in Lot Coverage exceeding the maximum permitted by 703.8 sq ft. The variance request is specifically for +703.8 sq ft of additional lot coverage (i.e., relief from the maximum lot coverage cap), not for setback relief.” 11. 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. “While the parcel is approximately one acre, the effective buildable area is constrained by the existing primary dwelling placement, established driveway/access, septic components, and utility/easement areas, limiting where new roofed area can be placed without major reconfiguration. The hardship is driven by the site’s existing configuration and fixed infrastructure, not a self-created condition. The requested variance (703.8 sq ft) is the minimum relief necessary to allow a reasonable accessory use while preserving the intent of the ordinance.” 12. 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. “Construction of an 2631 sq ft casita (accessory dwelling unit) to house aging parents, including a mother with advanced dementia who requires close proximity and safe access for daily care. The request does not change the zoning use, and the additional lot coverage is limited to what is necessary for a code-compliant accessory living unit while remaining consistent with surrounding residential development.” Findings: 13. 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 Page 7 of 7 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. 14. 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 any requirement of the Ordinance that, when applied to the peculiar condition, has created an unnecessary hardship • The site size and design allows space to construct the accessory unit into the building envelope thus negating the need for a variance. 15. 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: 1) Variance approval establishes a rear yard coverage of 41% on APN 211-24-032Q. 2) Variance approval memorializes legal non-conforming status of a 43,522 sq. ft. lot area on APN 211-24-032Q. Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, Planner Reviewed by: Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager Attachments: Case Map (1 page) Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages) Site Plan (5 pages) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated December 24, 2025 8:45 AM BA250080 Application Name: Legal Description Collins Casita Applicant Case Address 5N 3E 8 Shandor Collins 12 E TUMBLEWEED DR Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:211-24-032Q 2067248484 PHOENIX, AZ 85085 Map scale 1:674 Supervisor District No. We would like to build a casita for my parents to live in. We are asking to build this structure with a 9' setback from the North wall. 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 to build a Casita with 703.8 sq ft of additional lot coverage (i.e., relief from the maximum lot coverage cap) 12 Tumbleweed Dr Phoenix 1.00 1,800.00 211-24-032Q I Shandor Collins Shandor Collins 12 Tumbleweed Dr Phoenix AZ 85085 (206) 724-8484 shandorcollins88@gmail.com Shandor Collins Shandor Collins 12 Tumbleweed Dr Phoenix AZ 85085 (206) 724-8484 shandorcollins88@gmail.com Shandor Collins Shandor Collins 12/12/2025 R1 12/12/2025 12/12/2025 Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 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. Requesting a variance from the Maximum Lot Coverage development standard applicable to the property’s zoning district (MCZO “Maximum Lot Coverage” standard varies by district; e.g., Rural-43 = 25% maximum per MCZO Article 503.5.4, and R1-35 = 30% maximum per MCZO Article 601.5.4). The proposed development results in Lot Coverage exceeding the maximum permitted by 703.8 sq ft. The variance request is specifically for +703.8 sq ft of additional lot coverage (i.e., relief from the maximum lot coverage cap), not for setback relief. While the parcel is approximately one acre, the effective buildable area is constrained by the existing primary dwelling placement, established driveway/access, septic components, and utility/easement areas, limiting where new roofed area can be placed without major reconfiguration. The hardship is driven by the site’s existing configuration and fixed infrastructure, not a self- created condition. The requested variance (703.8 sq ft) is the minimum relief necessary to allow a reasonable accessory use while preserving the intent of the ordinance. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 Variance Application Packet 12/1/23 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 Construction of an 2631 sq ft casita (accessory dwelling unit) to house aging parents, including a mother with advanced dementia who requires close proximity and safe access for daily care. The request does not change the zoning use, and the additional lot coverage is limited to what is necessary for a code-compliant accessory living unit while remaining consistent with surrounding residential development.