06. BA250029 BOA Staff Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
9662 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250029 – Front Yard Conex Casita Hearing Date: July 17, 2025 Supervisor District: 3 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant / Owner: Moise & Laura Frantz Request: Variance to the development standard of the Maricopa County Zoning Ordinance to permit: 1) Proposed front setback of 3’ where 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1 Site Location: APN 202-07-016 @ 49106 N. 3rd Ave., 3rd Ave. and West Country Rd., in the New River area Site Size: 44,693 sq. ft. Current Use / Zoning: Single-family residence / Rural-43 Open Violation: V2500197 Background: 1. November 12, 2003: Parcel was created via a minor land division. 2. November 30, 2017: Residence is constructed under permit tracking number B201703949. 3. February 8, 2025: Applicant applies for building permit for the casita with tracking number BLDR2501716. 4. February 10, 2025: Violation V2500197 is opened for unpermitted construction. 5. April 25, 2025: Application filed for variance for the casita for reduced setback in the front yard. Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 6. On-site: Rural-43 / Single-family residence North: Rural-43 / Single-family residence South: Rural-43 / Undeveloped East: 3rd Ave then Rural-43 / Single-family residence West: Rural-43 / Single-family residence Page 2 of 7 Variance Request: 7. The applicant proposes to amend the front setback requirement from 40 feet to 3 feet to allow for the placement of a 360 sq. ft. as-built Conex storage container which has been retrofitted as an accessory dwelling unit. Excerpt from proposed site plan Photographs provided by the applicant with the ADU within the front yard. Page 3 of 7 Site Analysis: 8. The parcel is 44,690 sq. ft. in size rectangular in shape and generally orientates east/west with the front coming off of 3rd Ave to the West. The 1 bedroom 1 bathroom Conex casita was placed 3’ from the western property line. The casita is hooked up to the property’s septic system. The primary home on the property is approximately 2,530 sq ft in size. The home is orientated to the west on the 40’ required setback line to accompany a wash that runs directly in the middle of the parcel running north to south. The wash effectively creates a ‘V’ shaped contour to the parcel when viewing from the south. The proposed addition would add approximately 360 sq ft to bring the lot coverage to 6.4%. 9. The casita was placed and developed without obtaining building or septic permitting. The location chosen appears to be random due to the askew nature of the placement from the existing lot lines, and location of the attached utilities. A wash does inhibit additional site development without significant earth movement and costs which the applicant is claiming as basis for the variance. Staff does note however that with any variance approval, the structure must meet building code standards that may affect the ultimate placement of the structure. Page 4 of 7 Aerial photo of subject site Aerial image & surrounding environs Page 5 of 7 Eagle view of subject site looking north into subject parcel (aerial image dated 2020). Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 10. 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 6 of 7 Standard Rural-43 Zoning District Proposed with Variance Min. Front Yard Setback (residence to east property line) 40-feet 3-feet Min. Rear Yard Setback (west property line) 40-feet n/a Min. Side Yard Setback (residence to south property line) 30-feet n/a Maximum Height 30-feet n/a Minimum Lot Area 43,560-sq. ft. 43,560-sq. ft. Minimum Lot Width 145-feet 145-feet Lot Coverage 25% 25% 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.” 11. 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 Zoning Ordinance for the Unincorporated Area of Maricopa County" It would be a hardship to move the finished Casita as everything is hooked up on the site. It is residential on a dead end road that is an easement.“ 12. 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. “It would be a hardship to move finished Casita as everything is hooked up on the site. It is residential on a dead end road that is an easement.” 13. 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. “It would not cause a negative impact on the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance as it is an accessory residential unit on a dead end road that is on an easement.” Findings: 14. 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 Page 7 of 7 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. 15. 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: • A wash runs through the middle of the parcel which limits the useable land without significant engineering. • The roadway is a 30’ wide established right-of-way that is unlikely to be upgraded, paved or connected to N. Fig Springs Rd due to an extensive wash transversing the roadway. • There does appear opportunity to relocate and reorient the accessory dwelling unit within an existing disturbed area west of the single-family residence where it could meet minimum setback requirements. 16. 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 3’ (east) setback line for APN 202-07-016. Presented by: Andrew Lorentzen, 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 3 Gross Acres: 1 approx. Generated June 25, 2025 11:10 AM BA250029 Application Name: Legal Description Casita Applicant Case Address 7N 3E 20 Laura Moise 49106 N 3RD AVE Applicant Phone/Email Parcel Primary:202-07-016 (952) 818-7651 laurajm16@yahoo.com NEW RIVER, AZ 85087 Map scale 1:757 Supervisor District No. Casita built from a storage container