04.BA250058 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250058 – JJ Investments Properties LLC Property
Hearing Date:
October 16, 2025
Supervisor District:
5
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Brenda Lozano
Property Owner: 
JJ Investments Properties LLC
Request:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
An interior (west) side yard setback of 20’ where 30’ is required per MCZO 
503.4.2
Site Location:
APN 102-31-635A @ 10223 W Sheridan St. – 103rd Ave. & Sheridan St. in 
the Avondale area
Site Size:
2.5 acres 
Current Use / Zoning:
Single-family residence / Rural-43
Open Violation:
N/A
Background:
1.
Circa 1972: Assessor records notate construction year.
2.
Circa December 1975: Historical aerial photography captures the existing primary residence in 
its current location on the property. 
3.
July 7, 2005: Subject parcel is combined to current configuration from two separate parcels.
4.
September 24, 2014: Final inspection date for electrical panel upgrade from 200 to 400 AMPs.
5.
Circa September – November 2014: Historical aerial photography shows a manufactured home 
placed at the center of the property without record of building permit.
6.
July 27, 2022: Current property owner deeded subject property.
7.
Circa September – October 2022: The manufactured home is removed from site based on 
historic aerial photography.
8.
March 21, 2025: Subject property deeded to domestic limited liability corporation managed by 
current property owner.
9.
July 15, 2025: Applicant applies for compliance inspection for 5-patient community residence.

Page 2 of 9
10.
July 16, 2025: Applicant submits Land Use permit for the subject property for a 5-person assisted 
living community residence. Application remains administratively incomplete due to the 
residence’s side yard encroachment.
11.
September 11, 2025: Variance application administratively complete.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
12.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
North:
102nd Dr. then Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / Vacant
East:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request:
13.
The applicant proposes to reduce the western interior side setback from 30’ to 20’ to 
accommodate the existing residence’s current location currently setback 20’ from the western 
property line. Historic aerial photography captures the existing residence in its current location 
as early as 1975. 
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 9
Photographs of subject site (front and rear)

Page 4 of 9
Site Analysis:
14.
The subject site is flat with minimal vegetation in an unincorporated lot split area surrounded by 
the City of Avondale. The lot appears to have been previously farmed as indicated in historical 
aerial photography. The lot is irrigated by the Roosevelt Irrigation District. The variance is required 
in order to memorialize the existing residence’s current location on the property in anticipation of 
building permits for the community residence alteration. Without the variance, zoning clearance 
will not be issued with a future building permit. The residence appears to have undergone some 
improvements, notably, the wrap around patio has been improved and completed, however, there 
is no recent permitting records for the residence.
Aerial photo of subject site

Page 5 of 9
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 6 of 9
Eagle view of subject site looking east into subject parcel (aerial image dated 10/2021). 
*Note the aerial photo above is dated 10/2021, the manufactured home at the center of the lot was 
removed in September - October 2022. 
Zoning District map

Page 7 of 9
Zoning District Standards:
15.
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 north property line) 
40-feet
n/a
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
40-feet
n/a
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to west property line)
30-feet
20-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to east property line)
30-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
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.” 
16.
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.  
“The subject property contains an existing residential structure that was constructed prior to my
ownership. Due to the configuration of the lot and prior placement of the home, part of the
structure encroaches into the required setback area under the current zoning ordinance. This
is a peculiar condition of the property, tied to its dimensions and development history, and not
something I created. Strict enforcement of the setback would require removal or major
alteration of an existing, long-standing structure, which would be an unnecessary hardship.“
17.
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 results from the location of the existing structure in relation to the setback lines.
This condition was not created by me as the current property owner. I did not construct or
place the building, and the issue arises solely from past development decisions. Because of
this, the hardship is not self-created, but instead an inherited condition tied to the property.”

Page 8 of 9
18.
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.
“Granting the variance will not negatively affect the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance. The structure has existed in its present location for many years without
causing harm to neighbors, the community, or public safety. The variance would simply
recognize the existing condition and allow continued lawful use. In addition, the intended use
of the property as an assisted living home provides a valuable community benefit by serving
residents in need of care.”
Findings: 
19.
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.  
20.
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:
After reviewing the submission, Staff is unable to identify a peculiar condition of the property. 
•
The property does not suffer from any impediments to development such as washes or 
hillside slopes. 
•
The property owner has inherited a self-created condition. 
•
The residence may have qualified for legal non-conforming status if not for the 
unpermitted improvements captured on historical aerial photography negating such 
potential status. 
21.
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 20’ west setback line for APN 102-31-635A.

Page 9 of 9
Presented by:
Daniel Johnson, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager 
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (2 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
5
Gross Acres: 3 approx.
Generated September 24, 2025 8:52 AM
BA250058
Application Name:
Legal Description
JJ Investment Property
Applicant
Case Address
2N 1E 32
Brenda Lozano
10223 W SHERIDAN ST
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:102-31-635A
(480) 658-6557
lozzbrenda11@gmail.com
AVONDALE, AZ 85392
Map scale 1:835
Supervisor District No.
Requesting a residential zoning variance to allow the existing home and attached porch/patio at 10223 W
Sheridan St, Avondale, AZ, to remain as built. The structure slightly encroaches into the required setback

BA250053 RCVD 9/11/25

Residential Variance – Supplemental Questionnaire
Q1. Peculiar Conditions
The subject property contains an existing residential structure that was constructed prior to my
ownership. Due to the configuration of the lot and prior placement of the home, part of the
structure encroaches into the required setback area under the current zoning ordinance. This
is a peculiar condition of the property, tied to its dimensions and development history, and not
something I created. Strict enforcement of the setback would require removal or major
alteration of an existing, long-standing structure, which would be an unnecessary hardship.
Q2. Unnecessary Hardship / Not Self-Created
The hardship results from the location of the existing structure in relation to the setback lines.
This condition was not created by me as the current property owner. I did not construct or
place the building, and the issue arises solely from past development decisions. Because of
this, the hardship is not self-created, but instead an inherited condition tied to the property.
Q3. No Negative Impact on Zoning Ordinance
Granting the variance will not negatively affect the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County
Zoning Ordinance. The structure has existed in its present location for many years without
causing harm to neighbors, the community, or public safety. The variance would simply
recognize the existing condition and allow continued lawful use. In addition, the intended use
of the property as an assisted living home provides a valuable community benefit by serving
residents in need of care.
BA250053 RCVD 9/11/25

36'
37'
80'
37'
11'
24'
70'-5"
57'-8"
90'-4"
10'-4"
10'-4"
302'-1"
300'-9"
302'
300'-8"
EXISTING HOUSE
2,290 SQ. FT.
EXISTING PATIO
2097 SQ. FT.
EXISTING SIDE PORCH
2097 SQ. FT.
EXISTING FRONT PORCH
2097 SQ. FT.
WEST SHERIDAN ST.
NORTH 102ND DR.
40'
BSL
30'
BSL
30'
BSL
40'
BSL
20'-9"
219'
86'
188'
20'
94'
229'
199'
MAIN POWER
PANEL
A/C GROUND
UNIT
MAIN SEWER
CLEAN-OUT
ADDRESS:
10223 W. Sheridan St.
Avondale AZ 85392
APN #:
102-31-635A
ZONING:
RU-43
ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE: 
25%
SETBACKS:
FRONT:
40'
REAR:
40'
SIDES:
30'
LOT SIZE:
108,960 Sf
BUILDING AREA:
BUILDING SIZE:
EXISTING LIVABLE:
2,290 Sf
2%
EXISTING PORCH/PATIO:
2,097 Sf
2%
TOTAL UNDER ROOF: 
4,387 Sf
4%
ROYAL FAMILY CARE
SITE PLAN
08/29/2025
1/32"=1'-0"
2 OF 3
REVISED:
DRAWN BY:
SHEET NUMBER
APPROVED BY:
SCALE:
DATE:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
10223 W. SHERIDAN ST. AVONDALE, AZ 85392
SAMUEL RIOS
NOTE:
ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HVAC.
NO NEW OR PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY
BA250053 RCVD 9/11/25