02.BA250015 BOA Report
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
11058 characters
Report to the Board of Adjustment Prepared by the Maricopa County Planning and Development Department Case: BA250015 – Erschen Variance Hearing Date: June 19, 2025 Supervisor District: 1 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 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 40’ is the minimum permitted per MCZO Article 503.4.1 2) Proposed rear yard setback of 10’ where 40’ 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 6. March 14, 2025: The applicant applies for the subject variance to facilitate future development of the site. Page 2 of 7 Existing On-Site and Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: 7. 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: 8. 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 20’ is allowed for the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district; and a rear yard setback of 10’ where 25’ is allowed for the Rural-43 RUPD zoning district. 9. The applicant is not proposing to develop the site at the moment, 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. Excerpt from proposed site plan Site Analysis: 10. 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 at this time. Page 3 of 7 11. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The Chandlery Heights Citrus District consists of 1,332 acres. Prior to the to the establishment of the RU-43 zoning in May of 2006, the area was zoned with higher densities allowed by the R4 and R1-35 zoning districts ostensibly for the purpose of housing agrarian workers. 15. Many of the lots of less than one acre were created prior to the RU-43 zoning. These smaller lots were impacted by greater setbacks imposed with the rural zoning and smaller buildable areas. Aerial photo of subject site Page 4 of 7 Aerial image & surrounding environs Eagle view of subject site looking south into subject parcel (aerial image dated 03/01/2025). Page 5 of 7 Zoning District map Zoning District Standards: 16. 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 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 10-feet 10-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.” Page 6 of 7 17. 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. “ 18. 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.” 19. 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. “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: 20. 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. Page 7 of 7 In order to approve the variance the Board must make findings and articulate them in motion memorializing the above. 21. 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 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 the reasonable development of the property. 22. 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) setback line for APN 304-88-077S. b) Variance approval establishes a 10’ (south) setback line for APN 304-88-077S. 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) / 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.