05.BA250063 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
15576 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250063 – Freeman Property Hearing Date: December 11, 2025 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: Kathryn Mills, Mills Engineering LLC Property Owner: Guthrie Freeman Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed hillside disturbance of up to 1,505 sq. ft. outside the principle building envelope, where prohibited per MCZO Article 1201.6.1.1 Site Location: APN 202-11-086B @ 47512 N. 27th Ave. in the New River area Site Size: 190,889 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Vacant / Rural-43 Open Violation: V20231302 Background: 1. February 25, 2005: Under a previous owner, the subject parcel’s current legal description first appears via warranty deed MCR 2005-0262087. 2. August 13, 2019: The current property owner takes ownership via warranty deed MCR 2019- 0669191 3. January 25, 2021: Violation V202100114 is received regarding an occupied trailer and grading without permits/clearance. The violation is resolved by the property owner prior to verification or action by Maricopa County Code Enforcement. 4. June 16, 2023: Violation V202301302 is received for construction without a permit, building a pool in a wash, and draining sewage on the ground. A verification inspection confirms these items along with additional findings such as an occupied trailer and the storage of materials. 5. July 25, 2023: The property owner signs a compliance agreement to resolve V202301302 which includes the removal of items and materials from the property and obtaining a grading permit. 6. May 3, 2024: Grading permit B202404884 is received. On 5/24/2024, the applicant is informed via the results of their plan review that their proposal will require a variance. 7. October 16, 2025: BA250063, the current application for a residential variance to allow for grading outside the building envelope is received. Page 2 of 9 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 8. On-site: Rural-43 / Unpermitted structures and materials North: W. Twin Peaks Ln. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: W. Wander Ln. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence East: N. 27th Ave. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Vacant Variance Request: 9. The applicant proposes restoring previously disturbed land outside of the subject parcel’s building envelope. This will resolve one item of an open violation against the subject parcel by allowing them to continue pursuing a grading permit that was referred for a residential variance during the plan review process. The proposed restoration is located along the west end of the parcel outside of the building envelope and will comprise 1,505 sq. ft. of restored land or .08% of overall property with restoring the grade and vegetation. Excerpt from proposed site plan (oriented north) Page 3 of 9 Site Analysis: 10. The subject property is located in the New River area that is largely rural with large tracts of undeveloped land. The area is characterized by low-density residential development via unregulated lot-splits. There is a mix of county-maintained rights-of-way and private access easements. Gavilan Peak is the dominant landmark to the southwest and Daisy Mountain to the southeast. Further northeast of the property is a moderate cluster of residential homes, most notably Wrangler’s Roost Subdivision. The general topography shows significant localized elevation changes and drainage ways including designated floodplains. 11. The southwest portion of the property is high and slopes down to the northeast. It is traversed by a floodplain running from northwest to the property’s center-east. Per the engineered grading and drainage plan, 86.3% of the gross lot is subject to hillside slopes (15% or greater). These features indicate that the center-west portion of the property is feasible for development with respect to the regulations of the zoning ordinance. Restoration of the previously disturbed area outside the principle building envelope would allow for development to be redirected to within the building envelope and in the areas of the property that are not designated hillside. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 9 Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 5 of 9 Applicant provided photographs of subject site Page 6 of 9 Eagle view of subject site looking southwest into subject parcel (aerial image dated 2016). Zoning District Map Zoning District Standards: 12. 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). Page 7 of 9 Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (west property line) 30-feet n/a Min. Street Side Yard Setback (east property line) 20-feet n/a Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. n/a Minimum Lot Width 145-feet n/a Lot Coverage 25% n/a Hillside Disturbance outside the principle building envelope none 1,505 sq. ft. Hillside Area (Sq. Ft.) % of Gross Area Area of Lot that is Hillside 164,731 sq. ft. 86.3% Area of Hillside Previously Disturbed 13,886 sq. ft. 7.3% Hillside Disturbance Inside Building Envelope 854 sq. ft .04% Hillside Disturbance Outside Building Envelope 1,505 sq. ft. .08% 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.” 13. 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. “Zoning code - Chapter 12 - 1201.6.1- Hillside Regulation - no disturbance allowed outside the building setback area in the hillside area. The owner graded outside the building setback without a grading permit. This variance is required to obtain permission to restore the grade in the area that is outside the building setback. The area will also be revegetated. As shown on the grading plan, the area to be restored is approximately 46 ft x 30 ft.” 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 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. “Not applicable” Page 8 of 9 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 variance will allow the owner to restore the area that was graded, reducing the negative impact on the hillside area outside the building setback.” 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 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. 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 of the property that was not self-created and that would render hillside disturbance outside of the principle building envelope as necessary and unavoidable. • Granting the applicant and property owner a variance would allow for the restoration of previously disturbed land outside of the principle building envelope. 18. 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 1,505 sq. ft. allowance of hillside disturbance outside of the lot’s principle building envelope for APN 202-11-086B Page 9 of 9 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 (5 pages) Engineering Review (1 page) / Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ 3 Gross Acres: 4 approx. Generated November 20, 2025 1:52 PM BA250063 Application Name: Legal Description Freeman Variance Applicant Case Address 7N 2E 26 Kathryn Mills Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-11-086B (480) 235-5052 Map scale 1:1,648 Supervisor District No. Variance required for resolution of grading without a permit - restoring area outside the building setback in hillside area. Planning & Development Department 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 P: 602.506.3301 6IWMHIRXMEPVariance Application Packet 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. Zoning code - Chapter 12 - 1201.6.1- Hillside Regulation - no disturbance allowed outside the building setback area in the hillside area. The owner graded outside the building setback without a grading permit. This variance is required to obtain permission to restore the grade in the area that is outside the building setback. The area will also be revegetated. As shown on the grading plan, the area to be restored is approximately 46 ft x 30 ft. Not applicable 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 The variance will allow the owner to restore the area that was graded, reducing the negative impact on the hillside area outside the building setback. APN: 202-11-086B FREEMAN RESIDENCE PLAN FOR VARIANCE COVER SHEET, SITE PLAN, DETAILS AND NOTES APN: 202-11-086B FREEMAN GRADING PLAN OVERALL SITE PLAN, HILLSIDE ANALYSIS, DETAILS PLAN FOR VARIANCE APN: 202-11-086B FREEMAN GRADING PLAN SECTION A-A PLAN FOR VARIANCE APN: 202-11-086B FREEMAN GRADING PLAN SECTION B-B PLAN FOR VARIANCE APN: 202-11-086B FREEMAN GRADING PLAN SECTION C-C PLAN FOR VARIANCE Page 1 of 1 Revised 3/1/23 Alba L. Holloway Engineering Associate Planning & Development 301 W. Jefferson St., Suite 170 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 Phone: (602) 372-0850 Fax: (602)506-3282 www.maricopa.gov/planning Email address: alba.holloway@maricopa.gov Planning & Development Engineering Plan Review Date: November 12, 2025 Memo To: Darren Gerard, Planning Manager, Planning & Development Attn: Isaac Perez, Planner, Planning and Development From: Alba L. Holloway, Engineering Associate Planning & Development Department cc: Bob Fedorka, P.E., Engineering Manager, Planning and Development Subject: BA250063 – Residential Variance / Grading outside building envelope. Address: 47512 N 27th Avenue New River AZ 85087 APN(s): 202-11-086B PND Engineering has no comments on the variance request. PND Flood Control District has no comments on variance request. Parcel has floodway and floodplain areas associated with wash; proposed work is outside these areas - no disturbance to wash. PND MCDOT has no comments on the variance request. Other Maricopa County Agencies must review and recommend approval of this project. Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification of these comments.