03. BA250015 BOA Staff Report

Maricopa County — Board of Adjustment (2025-07-17)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 16937 characters

Report to the Board of Adjustment
Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department
Case:
BA250015 – Erschen Variance
Hearing Date:
July 17, 2025 (Continued from June 19, 2025)
Supervisor District:
1
____________________________________________________________________________________________
(* denotes changes from the June 19th report.)
Applicant:
Gerald Erschen
Property Owner:
Gerald Erschen
Requests:
Variance to the development standards of the Maricopa County Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
1)
Proposed front yard setback of 10’ where 20’ is the minimum permitted
per MCZO Article 503.4.1, and;
2)
Proposed rear yard setback of 10’ where 25’ is the minimum permitted
per MCZO Article 503.4.3
Site Location:
APN 304-88-077S @ Happy Rd. and 181st Pl., in the Queen Creek area
Site Size:
16,336 sq. ft.
Current Use / Zoning:
Vacant / Rural-43 RUPD
Open Violation:
No Violation on Property
Background:
1.
July 7, 1930: The parcel is recorded as part of lot 23 of the Chandler Heights Citrus Tract Unit
3626 Subdivision via MCR# 23-07
2.
October 2005: The subject parcel is created via a lot split recorded under docket 2005-1779279.
The recordation of this lot split occurred in November of 2005.
3.
May 3, 2006: The Board of Supervisors approved case Z2005006 to voluntarily rezone properties in
the Chandler Heights area (a maximum of 1,280 acres) from R-4 and R1-35 to Rural-43 RUPD.
4.
November 15, 2022: Case LU20220067 was administratively approved for a Legal Non-
Conforming lot area and lot width due to government action of approving the Rural-43 RUPD
zoning district per Z2005006.
5.
December 31, 2024: The current owner takes possession of the subject parcel, via Warranty Deed
recorded under docket number 2024-0696878

Page 2 of 8
6.
March 14, 2025: The applicant applies for the subject variance to facilitate future development of
the site.
7.
* June 19, 2025 – The BOA continued the BA250015 due to exclusion of side yard setback from staff
report at the request of staff.
Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use:
8.
On-site:
Rural-43 RUPD / Vacant
North:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
South:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
East:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
West:
Rural-43 RUPD / Single-family residence
Variance Requests:
9.
The applicant is requesting two variances for parcel 304-88-077S in order to facilitate the future
development of the subject parcel. The variance requests are for a front yard setback of 10’ where
a minimum 20’ is required for the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district; and a rear yard setback of 10’
where a minimum 25’ is required.
10.
The applicant is not presently proposing to develop the site but would like to construct a single-
family residence in the future. The variance request would allow for the residence to be
constructed with reduced front and rear yards.
11.
Arguably this “squat lot” is shallow with greater width than depth and this results in a more
encumbered lot width than a traditional rectangular width with narrower dimension along the
frontage.
Excerpt from proposed site plan

Page 3 of 8
Site Analysis:
12.
The subject site is vacant, rectangular shaped lot measuring 165 feet in width and 105 feet in
depth for an overall area of 16,336 square feet. The site is level, clear of vegetation, and free of
any physical or topographical hardships. The subject property has been used for agricultural
purposes in the past with no portion of the property being actively farmed at this time. Access to
the site is from 181st Place, an unimproved local road located adjacent to the northern west
property corner of the site. No structures are proposed as a part of this current variance
application.
13.
The majority of the Chandler Heights area has been rezoned to Rural-43 RUPD under zoning case
Z2005006. The purpose of the Z2005006 was to allow the development standards of the higher
density multi-family zoning districts, while increasing the size of lots to at least ¾ of an acre in
area. Rural residential and agricultural uses were established as permitted uses, while mutli-
family uses were eliminated, effectively preserving the semi-rural, agrarian/equestrian nature of
the Chandler Heights area while accommodating the many smaller lots created by unregulated
land divisions under the previous R-4 zoning.
14.
*The request was continued from the June 19,, 2025 BOA hearing, as the applicant was requesting
a side yard setback. Upon further research a side yard setback is not needed.as the zoning district
permits a minimum 5’ side yard setback. The approved Chandler Heights Rural-43 RUPD zoning
standards per Z2005006 are shown below:
Standard
Base
Zoning
District
(Rural-43)
Z2005006
Zoning District
(Rural-43
RUPD)
Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line)
40-feet
20-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
40-feet
25-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback
30-feet
5-feet
Maximum Height
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
43,560-sq. ft.
35,000-sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width
140-feet
120-feet
Lot Coverage
25%
20%
15.
The immediate surrounding area is a mix of newer, large lot residences with and without rural
agrarian uses. Land uses surrounding the site consist of site built, single-family homes with some
remaining portions of citrus orchards, row-crops, and fallow agricultural fields to the northeast.
16.
The Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation District (CHCID) consists of 1,332 acres. Prior to the
establishment of the Rural-43 RUPD zoning in May of 2006, the area was zoned with higher
densities allowed by the R-4 and R1-35 zoning districts ostensibly for the purpose of housing
agrarian workers.
17.
Many of the lots of less than one acre were created prior to the Rural-43 RUPD zoning. These
smaller lots were impacted by greater setbacks imposed with the rural zoning and smaller
buildable areas.

Page 4 of 8
Aerial photo of subject site
Aerial image & surrounding environs

Page 5 of 8
Eagle view of subject site looking south into subject parcel (aerial image dated 03/01/2025).
Zoning District map

Page 6 of 8
Zoning District Standards:
18.
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 required standards are indicated in
bold).
Standard
Rural-43
RUPD
Zoning
District
Proposed with
Variance
Min. Front Yard Setback (north property line)
20-feet
10-feet
Min. Rear Yard Setback (south property line)
25-feet
10-feet
Min. Side Yard Setback
5-feet
5-feet
Maximum Height
30-feet
30-feet
Minimum Lot Area
35,000-sq. ft.
16,336-sq. ft.*
Minimum Lot Width
120-feet
105-feet*
Lot Coverage
20%
20%
Note: Standards indicated in bold do not meet base zoning standards
*A Legal non-confirming lot area and lot width was approved under case LU20220067

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.”
19.
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.
“Property is zoned R43, the lot is 16,336 SF use would remain the same single-family dwelling. Also
need setback variance on 3 sides see site plan – Front, back, and left side as facing the property
from the road. “
20.
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.
“Land would be useless if not buildable.”
21.
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.

Page 7 of 8
“This would remain single-family dwelling, just smaller lot. There is already 2 houses on lots small
than this (304-88-077L and 304-88-077M) adjacent to my property.”
Findings:
22.
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.
23.
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 lot is unremarkable without any identifiable peculiar conditions facing the property
such as topographical or physical constraints.
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the general intent and purpose of the MCZO
will be preserved with the variance, the site can be developed in multiple ways without a
need for a variance.
•
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the strict application of the MCZO to the
property has caused undue to physical hardship that prevents reasonable development of
the property.
24.
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 10’ north/front setback line for APN 304-88-077S.
b)
Variance approval establishes a 10’ south/rear setback line for APN 304-88-077S.

Page 8 of 8
Presented by:
Paola Jaramillo, Planner
Reviewed by:
Darren V. Gérard, AICP, Planning Manager
Attachments:
Case Map (1 page)
Application / Supplemental Questionnaire (3 pages)
Site Plan (1 page)
Z2005006 Approval (3 pages)

/
Maricopa County Planning & Development - Phoenix, AZ
1
Gross Acres: 0 approx.
Generated May 29, 2025 9:56 AM
BA250015
Application Name:
Legal Description
Erschen Variance
Applicant
Case Address
2S 6E 36
GERALD ERSCHEN
26407 S 181ST PL
Applicant Phone/Email
Parcel Primary:304-88-077S
(480) 388-5781
jay@jticonstruction.com
QUEEN CREEK, AZ 85142
Map scale 1:406
Supervisor District No.

501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
FAX: 602-506-8369

Planning & Development
Department

November 17, 2006 (Correction from May 5, 2006 letter)

Chandler Heights Citrus Irrigation & Water District
Attn.: Nancy Lopez
PO Box 9038
Chandler Heights, AZ 85227

SUBJ: Maricopa County Zoning Case Z2005006

On May 3, 2006, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (BOS), on behalf of the
Chandler Heights Community Organization, approved the voluntary rezoning of approx.
825 of 1,280 acres in Chandler Heights from R1-35 and R-4 to Rural-43 RUPD. This is
shown on the attached case map. A letter from this office, dated May 5, 2006,
contained incorrect dates in stipulations ‘a’ and d’ below.

Approval is subject to the following stipulations:

a.
Case Z2005006 shall rezone parcels from R1-35 and R-4 to Rural-43 RUPD as
indicated on the zoning exhibit entitled “Proposed Zoning Boundary Map (Project
Name: Chandler Heights RUPD, Case Number: Z2005006)” and dated (as of)
April 24, 2006, except as modified by the following stipulations.

b.
Only parcels for which written property owner authorization has been received
from the property owner of record shall be considered to be rezoned from R1-35
and R-4 to Rural-43 RUPD as per case Z2005006.

c.
In the event that property owners within the perimeter boundary shown on the
zoning exhibit referenced in stipulation ‘a’ (Hunt Hwy. on the south; 172nd St.,
San Tan Blvd., and Recker Rd. on the west, Riggs Rd. on the north, and
Sossaman Rd. on the east) wish to rezone their individual parcels from R1-35
and R-4 to Rural-43 RUPD with the same RUPD standards to apply, the
Commission shall initiate a rezone on their behalf.

d.
Development and use within the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district shall comply with
the site plan and narrative report entitled “Site Plan (Project Name: Chandler
Heights RUPD Case #Z-2005006)” consisting of 16 pages including exhibits and
sections under different title pages dated January 1, 2006, except that revised
exhibits are dated (as of) April 24, 2006, except as modified by the following
stipulations.

e.
The use regulations, height regulations, parking regulations and sign regulations
of the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district are the same as the Rural-43 zoning district.

501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
FAX: 602-506-8369
f.
The yard regulations of the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district are the same as the R-
4 zoning district.

Page 2
November 17, 2006
Z2005006

g.
The intensity of use regulations of the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district are the
same as the R1-35 zoning district except that:

i.
The average lot area per dwelling unit shall be 43,560 sq. ft.
ii.
The minimum lot width shall be 120’.

h.
Any parcel rezoned under case Z2005006 that is substandard or otherwise
nonconforming in regard to the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district must document
Legal Non-Conforming (LNC) status with the Planning & Development
Department. It is the responsibility of the property owner to document LNC
status.

i.
There shall be no relief granted to the development standards of the Rural-43
RUPD development standards except with Variance approval by the Board of
Adjustment.

j.
Secondary dwelling units (guest homes, casitas, etc.) shall be allowed in the
Rural-43 RUPD zoning district with demonstration of adequate liquid waste
disposal at the discretion of the Environmental Services Department.

k.
Any subdivision plat within the Rural-43 zoning district shall include the following
RUPD Chart:

Development
Standard
Z2005006
Rural-43 RUPD
Avg. Lot Area / D.U.
43,560 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Area
35,000 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width
120’
Max. Lot Coverage
20%
Min. Distance
Between Buildings
15’
Min. Front Setback
20’
Min. Rear Setback
25’
Min. Side Setback
5’
Min. Street-Side
Setback
10’
Max. Building Height
30’ (2 stories)
Off-Street Parking
2 / d.u.
Signs
Same as Rural-43
Uses
Same as Rural-43
Accessory Dwelling
Units
One (1) secondary dwelling unit allowed
with MCESD approval of liquid waste
disposal system

501 North 44th Street, Suite 100
Phoenix, AZ 85008
FAX: 602-506-8369
Page 3
November 17, 2006
Z2005006

Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at 602-506-7139.

Sincerely,