02.BA250047 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250047 – Horacio Property Variance 
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
4
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Kris Ontiveros, 312 Architect and Design
Property Owner:
Horacio Heredia
Request(s):
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front (east) setback of 31’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted 
per MCZO Article 503.4.1.A 
2)
Proposed rear (west) setback of 33’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted 
per MCZO Article 503.4.3 
Site Location:
APN 200-69-106 @ 14416 N 67th Ave – 67th Ave. and Gelding Dr., in the 
Peoria area
Site Size:
30,988 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
Vacant / Rural-43
Background:
1.
June 23, 1989: Parcel is created via unregulated land division resulting in an apparently 
substandard lot. The City of Peoria strip annexes the eastern boundary of the parcel along 67th 
Ave around this time.
2.
December 11, 2002: The first variance request for this parcel under case BA2002095 to address the 
substandard lot size and lesser rear setback is withdrawn by the applicant after staff recommends 
denial.
3.
August 20, 2003: A second variance request just for the lot acreage, filed under different ownership, 
is denied by the Board of Adjustment as the hardship relating to the lot acreage was self-created in 
line of title.
4.
November 10, 2004: A third variance request by the same owner is once again denied by the 
Board.
5.
November 12, 2010: The subject parcel’s lot area is granted a legal-nonconforming status due to 
governmental action, LU2010036. It was determined that the strip annexation was the cause of the 
substandard acreage and not self-created in line of title as previously thought.

Page 2 of 7
6.
April 1, 2024: The current owner takes possession of the property via warranty deed 
MCR20240195092.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
7.
On-site:
Rural-43 / Vacant
North:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
East:
67th Ave then SR-17 (City of Glendale) / Single-family residence City of Glendale
West:
Rural-43 / Single-family residence
Variance Request(s):
8.
The applicant proposes to vary the front and rear setback of the parcel to allow for the 
development of a single-family residence with a basement for a total floor area of approximately 
4,000 sq. ft. The lot is approximately 120’ in depth. The building envelope is shallow.  When the 
40’ front and rear setbacks are taken into account the envelope’s depth is only 40’. The two 
subject variances if approved would add a total of 16’ to the envelope’s depth bringing it up to 
56’.
9.
The Board may consider the lot’s legal, non-conforming substandard lot area to be a peculiar 
condition that prevents reasonable development of the property. However, development may still 
occur within the shallow building envelope.
Excerpt from conceptual drawing
Conceptual view of the home as viewed from 67th Ave.

Page 3 of 7
Site Analysis:
10.
The site is located on the border between Glendale to its east and Peoria west of 67th Ave. It is 
part of a cluster of Rural-43 parcels that remain in unincorporated Maricopa County. The lot was 
originally split from the adjacent northern parcel. Beyond the substandard lot area created by 
government action, the lot is flat and of little description. 
Aerial photo of subject site, oriented north
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 4 of 7
Eagle view of subject site looking west into subject parcel with 67th Ave in the foreground (aerial image dated 10/7/21). 
Zoning District map

Page 5 of 7
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. Front Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 
40-feet
31-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line)
40-feet
33-feet
Minimum Lot Area
30,988*.
30,988
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards
*Lot area is per LU20100036
 
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.  
“The subject property, located at 14416 N 67th Avenue in Glendale, Arizona, is uniquely impacted 
by its orientation and location along a major arterial street. This parcel runs parallel to N 67th 
Avenue, with its longest sides facing east and west. Typically, under common zoning interpretation, 
the shorter dimension of a lot is considered the front, particularly for infill lots in developed 
corridors. However, in this case, Maricopa County has designated the long side (east) as the front 
setback and the opposite long side (west) as the rear setback due to its lot orientation. This 
interpretation imposes an unusual burden on the development of this site, as it enforces a 40-foot 
front setback along the east (front) property line and a 40-foot rear setback along the west property 
line—both of which follow the long dimension of the lot. As a result, the developable building area 
is severely reduced, creating a hardship in meeting typical commercial or site planning standards. 
We are requesting a variance to reduce the east setback from 40 feet to 31 feet, and the west 
setback from 40 feet to 33 feet, which would enable a viable building footprint while still maintaining 
significant distance from adjacent properties and preserving the streetscape. The peculiar 
condition of this parcel includes:”
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.

Page 6 of 7
“Due to the lot's shape and orientation and the County’s interpretation of the frontage, enforcing the 
full 40-foot setbacks on both long sides (east and west) substantially limits the usable area for 
development. The hardship is not self-imposed, nor is it financial or aesthetic in nature—it is caused 
directly by the County's designation of front and rear setbacks in a way that is inconsistent with 
surrounding development and standard planning principles. Strict enforcement of these setbacks 
prevents the construction of a reasonably sized structure on the property, especially one that 
complies with modern commercial requirements, ADA accessibility, parking, and fire access. 
Without the requested variance, the property cannot be developed in a manner consistent with its 
zoning and surrounding land uses.”
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 
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 this variance would not negatively impact the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed setbacks of 31 feet (east) and 33 feet (west) still provide 
substantial buffer distances from neighboring properties and preserve light, air, privacy, and safety 
for surrounding uses. The revised setbacks maintain compatibility with the surrounding built 
environment and respect the County’s goals to promote public health, safety, and general welfare. 
Furthermore, the requested reduction is modest and proportionate to the unusual conditions of the 
site, and will allow for appropriate site planning, circulation, and visual presentation along the 
arterial roadway. It will also support infill development and responsible land use—both of which are 
consistent with County planning goals.”

Page 7 of 7
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 cannot identify a peculiar condition that would prevent reasonable development of 
the property. The legal nonconforming designation allows for the development of the 
property without needing further variance. The primary building must be contained within 
the 40’ deep building envelope.
•
The lot area is substandard and the lot is shallow thus there is a relatively smaller building 
envelope.
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 31’ east front setback line for APN 200-69-106. 
b)
Variance approval establishes a 33’ west rear setback line for APN 200-69-106. 
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 (7 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
4
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 2:52 PM
BA250047
Application Name:
Legal Description
14416 N 67th Ave
Applicant
Case Address
Kris Ontiveros
14416 N 67TH AVE
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:200-69-106
4807370064
admin@the312design.com
GLENDALE, AZ 85306
Map scale 1:635
Supervisor District No.
variance to reduce the east setback from 40 feet to 31 feet, and the west
setback from 40 feet to 33 feet, which would enable a viable building footprint while still maintaining

Planning & Development Department 
VARIANCE / APPEAL/ INTEPRETATION APPLICATION 
ALL FEES ARE DUE AT TIME OF APPLICATION AND ARE NON-REFUNDABLE 
 
 
 
501 North 44th St, Suite 200  Phoenix AZ  85008  (602) 506-3301 
Variance Application 
Internet: www.maricopa.gov/planning 
1/23/2014 
Is this Design Build?            Yes               No  
 
      Is this Residential?          Yes                No 
 
Please select the type of Board of Adjustment application from the checkboxes below. 
 
Residential variance 
 
Non-residential variance 
 
Appeal 
 
Interpretation 
   BA Blanket Variance 
 
Is this subject property within an area of 15% or greater hillside slopes?          Yes                No 
REQUEST 
Description of Request:    
Use of Property:    
Existing Zoning District:    
Related Case Number/s:  
PROPERTY INFORMATION 
Address (if known):   
General location 
(include nearest city/town):    
Size in Acres:   
Square Feet: 
Assessor’s Parcel Number:   
Legal Description   Section:   
Township: 
Range: 
Subdivision Name (if applicable):  
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 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 
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, pursuant to A.R.S.§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 
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. 
Property Owner 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:   
 
SAVE
PRINT
RESET
Docusign Envelope ID: 1222714A-0121-4A4F-AD20-0B36CD03F5D8
30,971
312 Architects
Phoenix
1100 E Washington, suite 125
85041
variance relief :dual setback reductions for 1) the east from 40' to 31' and 2) the west from 40' to 33'.
 
Horacio Heredia
AG/Vacant Land
6/10/2025
Phoenix 
85234
200-69-106
3N
12
X
James Roche
Glendale, AZ
Elite Acquistion LLC
 
X
 
 
permits@the312design.com
X
Arizona
6/10/2025
RU-43
3/4
2030 W BASELINE RD STE 135-345, 
6/10/2025
 
N/A
480-761-6213
Horacio Heredia
312 Architects
1E
480-718-7508
X
AZ
480-229-5159
 
Horacio@a2zbuilders.org
14416 N 67th ST, Glendale, AZ 85306

Variance Narrative – 14416 N 67th Ave, Glendale, AZ 85306​
 Request to Vary Setbacks: Reduce Front (East) Setback from 40' to 31' and Rear (West) 
Setback from 40' to 33'​
 Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance (MCZO) – Setback Requirements 
 
1. Peculiar Conditions and Impact of Zoning Regulations 
The subject property, located at 14416 N 67th Avenue in Glendale, Arizona, is uniquely 
impacted by its orientation and location along a major arterial street. This parcel runs parallel to 
N 67th Avenue, with its longest sides facing east and west. Typically, under common zoning 
interpretation, the shorter dimension of a lot is considered the front, particularly for infill lots in 
developed corridors. However, in this case, Maricopa County has designated the long side 
(east) as the front setback and the opposite long side (west) as the rear setback due to its 
lot orientation. 
This interpretation imposes an unusual burden on the development of this site, as it enforces a 
40-foot front setback along the east (front) property line and a 40-foot rear setback along the 
west property line—both of which follow the long dimension of the lot. As a result, the 
developable building area is severely reduced, creating a hardship in meeting typical 
commercial or site planning standards. 
We are requesting a variance to reduce the east setback from 40 feet to 31 feet, and the west 
setback from 40 feet to 33 feet, which would enable a viable building footprint while still 
maintaining significant distance from adjacent properties and preserving the streetscape. 
The peculiar condition of this parcel includes: 
●​ An unconventional lot orientation with its longest dimension along the street frontage,​
 
●​ Location along a major arterial road (67th Avenue) which requires design sensitivity 
for access and visibility,​
 
●​ And the County’s classification of the lot’s long side as the front yard, contrary to 
typical planning standards, which creates an inflexible application of the MCZO setback 
rules.​
 
2. Unnecessary Hardship Caused by the Peculiar Conditions 
Due to the lot's shape and orientation and the County’s interpretation of the frontage, enforcing 
the full 40-foot setbacks on both long sides (east and west) substantially limits the usable area 
for development. The hardship is not self-imposed, nor is it financial or aesthetic in nature—it is

caused directly by the County's designation of front and rear setbacks in a way that is 
inconsistent with surrounding development and standard planning principles. 
Strict enforcement of these setbacks prevents the construction of a reasonably sized structure 
on the property, especially one that complies with modern commercial requirements, ADA 
accessibility, parking, and fire access. Without the requested variance, the property cannot be 
developed in a manner consistent with its zoning and surrounding land uses. 
3. Consistency with the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning 
Ordinance 
Granting this variance would not negatively impact the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed setbacks of 31 feet (east) and 33 feet (west) still provide 
substantial buffer distances from neighboring properties and preserve light, air, privacy, and 
safety for surrounding uses. The revised setbacks maintain compatibility with the surrounding 
built environment and respect the County’s goals to promote public health, safety, and general 
welfare. 
Furthermore, the requested reduction is modest and proportionate to the unusual conditions of 
the site, and will allow for appropriate site planning, circulation, and visual presentation along 
the arterial roadway. It will also support infill development and responsible land use—both of 
which are consistent with County planning goals. 
4. Evidence of Ability and Intention to Proceed Within 120 Days 
The applicant intends to proceed with construction promptly upon receiving approval of this 
variance. A building permit application is currently being prepared and will be submitted within 
30 days of the variance approval. Upon issuance of permits, construction is expected to 
commence within 90 days. The project team has all necessary consultants and contractors in 
place to move forward efficiently. We understand and accept the requirement to initiate 
substantial construction activity within 120 days of the Board’s decision. 
 
Conclusion: 
For the reasons stated above, we respectfully request approval of the variance to reduce the 
east setback from 40' to 31' and the west setback from 40' to 33' on the property at 14416 N 
67th Avenue. The peculiar lot conditions, combined with the County’s unique interpretation of 
yard designations, create a genuine and non-self-imposed hardship. Granting this variance will 
allow for productive and appropriate use of the site while maintaining the intent and spirit of the 
Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance.

14416 N 67TH AVE
Concept Design_V1 |  May 08, 2024  |  1
	 	 	 	 14416 N 67TH AVE - HORACIO
May 08, 2024
CONCEPT DESIGN_V1