07.BA250054 BOA Staff Report

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case: 
BA250054 – Carrillo Residence Variance
Hearing Date:
September 18, 2025
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Applicant: 
Rosalio Mondragon, ARQM LLC
Property Owner:
Jose Angel Carrillo Pena
Request:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning 
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed street side setback of 5’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted 
per MCZO Article 601.4.1.C. 
Site Location:
APN 400-52-056L@ 13006 S Tuthill Rd – Tuthill Rd. and Arlington Rd., in 
the Rainbow Valley area
Site Size:
46,687 sq. ft. 
Current Use / Zoning:
As-built ADU / R1-35
Background:
1.
Around 2012: The original residence on the parent parcel is demolished for unknown reasons. An 
accessory building in the southwest corner of the property remains in a dilapidated state until it 
too is demolished around 2019.
2.
2021: The subject property is created via unregulated land division along with its sister parcel to 
the west, APN 400-52-056K. An ingress/egress and utilities easement, MCR-2021-0614233, is 
declared along the southern property boundary of the parcels to allow for access to the western 
parcel.
3.
Around 2024 and 2025: Construction of the subject ADU is completed without the benefit of a 
permit. No violation is opened against this unpermitted structure.
4.
October 24, 2024: The applicant files for building permit BLDR2403967 for the construction of a 
single-family residence. Intake staff notes there is no permit for the ADU. Subsequently, a second 
permit, BLDR2501561, was created to legalize the as-built ADU.
5.
April 21, 2025: The owner takes control of the subject property via warranty deed MCR2025-
0222441. Plan review staff notes the existence of the ingress/egress easement necessitates a 
variance for the ADU as it is located within a street-side setback.

Page 2 of 6
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
6.
On-site:
R1-35 / As-built ADU
North:
R1-35 / Vacant
South:
R1-35 / Single-family residence
East:
Tuthill Rd then R1-35/ Single-family residence
West:
R1-35 / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
7.
The applicant proposes to vary the street side setback on the south side of the parcel from 20’ to 
5’ to allow for the permitting of an as-built ADU. The ADU was built without benefit of a permit 
within the last few years according to site aerials.
Excerpt from proposed site plan, oriented north.
Photograph of the ADU from the front of the property at the end of the easement

Page 3 of 6
Site Analysis:
8.
The property originated as part of the Ranbow Valley Estates subdivision where it remained its 
original size and shape until the 2021 lot split created the western property. It is otherwise flat 
and non-descript like other properties within the Rainbow Valley.
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 4 of 6
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
R1-35
Zoning 
District
Proposed with 
Variance
Min. Street Side Yard Setback (ADU to south street line)
20-feet
5-feet
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.” 
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.  
“The request is to vary from the required 20-foot side setback along the south side of Parcel 400-
52-056L in order to allow the construction of a ADU (accessory dwelling unit) that will encroach into 
the setback area, adjacent to the 20-foot private easement. This property is subject to a 20-foot

Page 5 of 6
private easement along the southern boundary, designated for ingress/egress, which is being 
practically used as a private driveway by the residents of Parcel 400-52-056K to access their home. 
This easement significantly reduces the usable width of the parcel along the south side, creating a 
functional constraint for development. Despite the constraints, the proposed ADU will be located 5 
feet north of the edge of the private easement, maintaining a safe and reasonable distance from 
the area used for vehicle access. The structure will not obstruct, interfere with, or otherwise impact 
the use of the easement for ingress/egress. The irregular development limitation caused by the 
stacking of the easement and setback on the same side of the parcel constitutes a peculiar 
condition not commonly shared by other parcels in the area.”
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.
“The proposed use is to construct a ADU for personal/family use on the subject property. Strict 
enforcement of the 20-foot setback would severely limit feasible building envelope options on this 
portion of the parcel. It would either force placement of the ADU into an impractical or 
nonconforming location on the lot or render the development unbuildable altogether. Due to the 
overlapping setback and easement, the property owner faces a unique hardship, as the usable 
buildable area is disproportionately reduced compared to neighboring properties without such 
constraints. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the land while preserving existing 
access for adjacent parcels and maintaining community character.”
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.
The requested variance will not negatively impact the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County 
Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ADU maintains a 5-foot setback from the 20-foot private 
easement, ensuring that access for the neighboring property (400-52-056K) remains fully 
unobstructed. The structure does not encroach into the easement and preserves safety, access, 
and open space. Granting the variance allows reasonable use of the property without affecting 
surrounding properties or conflicting with the residential character of the area.
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 
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.

Page 6 of 6
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:
•
The substandard setback was the result of unregulated land division and unpermitted 
construction which makes the issue entirely self-created in the line of title. 
•
Staff cannot identify a peculiar condition facing the property that when faced with 
application of the ordinance standard creates an undue physical hardship that prevents 
reasonable development of the property.
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:
a)
Variance approval establishes a 5’ setback line measured from the south street line for 
APN 400-52-056L. 
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 (1 page)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
5
Gross Acres: 1 approx.
Generated September 4, 2025 2:31 PM
BA250054
Application Name:
Legal Description
CARRILLO VARIANCE
Applicant
Case Address
1S 2W 19
Rosalio Mondragon
13006 S TUTHILL RD
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:400-52-056L
(623) 853-3751
designs@arqmllc.com
BUCKEYE, AZ 85326
Map scale 1:814
Supervisor District No.
Request to encroach the 20-foot south side setback on Parcel 400-52-056L to allow an ADU within the
setback area next to a 20-foot private easement.

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: 
  ______________________________ 
Variance Lot doesn’t meet the minimum required side setback of 20 ft from private easement
BLDR2403967
13006 S TUTHILL RD  85326 
BUCKEYE
46,687.00
19
1S
2W
400-52-056L
RAINBOW VALLEY ESTATES LOTS 13-36
I
ARQM LLC
ROSALIO MONDRAGON
6105 N BLACK CANYON DR
PHOENIX
AZ
85015
(623) 853-3751
arqmarchitect@outlook.com
JOSE ANGEL CARRILLO PENA REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST
JOSE ANGEL CARRILLO PENA
13006 S TUTHILL RD 
BUCKEYE 
AZ 
85326 
(602) 515-2781
jacarrillo0422@gmail.com
JOSE ANGEL CARRILLO
ROSALIO MONDRAGON
07/28/2025
RESIDENTIAL
07/28/2025

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 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.
The request is to vary from the required 20-foot side setback along the south side of Parcel 400-52-056L in order to allow the construction of a ADU 
(accessory dwelling unit) that will encroach into the setback area, adjacent to the 20-foot private easement. 
This property is subject to a 20-foot private easement along the southern boundary, designated for ingress/egress, which is being practically used 
as a private driveway by the residents of Parcel 400-52-056K to access their home. This easement significantly reduces the usable width of the parcel 
along the south side, creating a functional constraint for development. 
Despite the constraints, the proposed ADU will be located 5 feet north of the edge of the private easement, maintaining a safe and reasonable 
distance from the area used for vehicle access. The structure will not obstruct, interfere with, or otherwise impact the use of the easement for 
ingress/egress. 
The irregular development limitation caused by the stacking of the easement and setback on the same side of the parcel constitutes a peculiar 
condition not commonly shared by other parcels in the area. 
 
 
The proposed use is to construct a ADU for personal/family use on the subject property. Strict enforcement of the 20-foot setback would severely 
limit feasible building envelope options on this portion of the parcel. It would either force placement of the ADU into an impractical or 
nonconforming location on the lot or render the development unbuildable altogether. 
Due to the overlapping setback and easement, the property owner faces a unique hardship, as the usable buildable area is disproportionately 
reduced compared to neighboring properties without such constraints. The variance is necessary to allow reasonable use of the land while 
preserving existing access for adjacent parcels and maintaining community character.

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 
Residential Variance Application Packet 
6/17/24 
The requested variance will not negatively impact the intent or purpose of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ADU 
maintains a 5-foot setback from the 20-foot private easement, ensuring that access for the neighboring property (400-52-056K) remains fully 
unobstructed. The structure does not encroach into the easement and preserves safety, access, and open space. Granting the variance allows 
reasonable use of the property without affecting surrounding properties or conflicting with the residential character of the area.

NEW RESIDENCE
SIDE PATIO
GARAGE
FRONT
PORCH
REAR PATIO 
FRONT PATIO
21'4"
22'
12'5"
1'
9'8"
35'9"
22'
9'5"
9'5"
22'8"
34'
33'
10'
11'5"
9'5"
34'5"
21'5"
10'
11'5"
4'
13'1"
5'5" 2'
7'5"
22'8"
33'
9'7"
1'
11'5"
8'7"
4"
18'10"
RESERVE SEPTIC FIELD
PRIMARY SEPTIC FIELD
B-B
 CASITA
610 SQ.FT
SIDE PORCH
 372 SQ.FT
REAR PATIO
 394 SQ.FT
32'0"
17'7"
12'0"
29'7"
12'
12'
17'7"
12'0"
1500
GALLONS
TANK
FRONT PORCH
48 SQ.FT
32'0"
400 AMP
ELECTRICAL PANEL
250 GALLONS
PROPANE TANK
(UNDERGROUND)
    CONCRETE  DRIVEWAY
EXISTING POWER POLE
NEW 6' TALL CMU FENCE WALL
NEW 3' TALL CMU WALL W/VIEW FENCE
NEW 6' TALL CMU FENCE WALL
NEW 3' TALL CMU WALL W/VIEW FENCE
EXISTING METER PEDESTAL
CARILLO RESIDENCE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
VICINITY MAP
SITE
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN
MARICOPA COUNTY,  ARIZONA
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 400-52-056L
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST
PROJECT INFORMATION:
OWNER/CONTRACTOR:
ARCHITECTURAL AREA
LEGEND
MARICOPA COUNTY P&D RESIDENTIAL NOTES
FEMA FLOODPLAIN CLASSIFICATION:
FINISHED FLOOR INUNDATION STATEMENT:
DECLARATION OF RESPONSIBLE CHARGE
FIELD TOPOGRAPHY NOTE:
SEPTIC PERMIT NOTE:
CARILLO RESIDENCE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
GD1
GD2
BASIS OF ELEVATION:
BUILDING OUTLINE DIMENSIONING
INTI,LLC
B2024_______
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
SHEET INDEX
A-A
NEW RESIDENCE
SIDE PATIO
GARAGE
FRONT
PORCH
REAR PATIO 
FRONT PATIO
21'4"
22'
12'5"
1'
9'8"
35'9"
22'
9'5"
9'5"
22'8"
34'
33'
10'
11'5"
9'5"
34'5"
21'5"
10'
11'5"
4'
13'1"
5'5" 2'
7'5"
22'8"
33'
9'7"
1'
11'5"
8'7"
4"
18'10"
 CASITA
SIDE PORCH
REAR PATIO
32'0"
17'7"
12'0"
29'7"
12'
12'
17'7"
12'0"
FRONT
32'0"
PORCH